Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents 1 "Traditional Christian beliefs" in the introduction 2 "is" vs "are" 3 Sect or religious denomination? 4 Publications section 5 Headquartered in Brooklyn? 6 Christianity Portal? 7 NWT in lead 8 Clean up 9 Latest Edits 10 Protestantism tag 11 Acceptance of blood 12 Secular definition of "Christian" 12.1 Self-identification as Christian 13 New discussion from scratch, concerning JWs' status as Christians 14 Cult 15 The meaninglessness of Christianity 16 Question 17 NWT reference 18 Controversy - blood 19 Questions for Martin C. on Christianity Definition 20 Messianic Jew 21 Kerry Louderback-Wood 22 Famous Witnesses section? 23 Watchtower Society 24 Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions 25 Links from reexamine.org and reexamine.info 26 Are they a sect? 27 Adventist? 28 Comments from RTinOttawa 29 Bible Students 30 identity of Jesus 31 Repeated Vandalism 32 Book "Pay Attention To Yourselves and To All The Flock" 33 Disclaimer in overview section 34 Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines 35 External links 36 Breakdown External Links? 37 Mstare88's edits 38 Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination" 39 External Links Suggestion 40 Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian 40.1 A decision 40.2 Consulting dictionaries and encyclopedias 40.3 Consulting peer-reviewed articles 40.4 JWs as a Christian sect or cult 40.5 Scholars who see JWs as not being Christian 41 The article "Jehovah" 42 People related to Jehovah's Witnesses 43 Comment 44 New footnotes in Blood section 45 Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity 46 Use of long quotations and WP:NONFREE 47 Current intro 48 Jeffro77 edit explanation please 49 Are JWs a "sect"? 50 Neo-Christian 51 L A Times reference, and John Dart 52 Dtbrown, Controversy Section, Christian / Not Christian / Sect / Non-Sect etc 53 Reverted POV edit in opening paragraph 54 Is six million worldwide "small in number"? 55 Organizational Structure Edit 56 Lead paragraph 57 Unverified content 58 Denomination, Sect or Group? 59 Christian, Christian Denomination, Christian Sect, Other 60 Yet another proposal 61 Carey Barber 62 Sect 63 Dtbrown unverified edit 64 comment from the outside 65 Another proposal for the lead in 66 Marvin Shilmer's request for verification that JWs are part of the Christian movement 67 Revert Rule Violation Allegations 68 George’s Reference Presentation, A Review 69 Primitive Christianity 70 Primitive Christianity or Early Christianity? 71 Christian or not 72 J 73 Just for the sake of comparison... 74 Legal institutions 75 use of the term "Orthodox Christianity" 76 Please explain how sited source 2 applies 77 Well done... 78 Request for help on Abaddon and Apollyon articles 79 Christian 80 General Question about Jehovas and Marriage 81 introduction section too long 82 Voting 83 Use of the name Jehovah amongst Jehovah's Witnesses 84 redundant use of the word Christian 85 archive this 86 "Ancient Witnesses"? 87 New lead? 88 Membership 89 Neo-Arianism

"Traditional Christian beliefs" in the introduction

I'm concerned about the phrase in the lead paragraph that states "Jehovah's Witnesses reject traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul." While the Trinity could be considered traditional, I'm not so sure about the last two. Who says that those doctrines are traditional? Aren't those primarily Catholic doctrines, not necessarily Protestant ones? I'm not trying to debate the truth of those doctrines, but I'm asking whether those should be considered traditional. Hottscubbard 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Protestant denominations, as far as I know, believe in an eternal hell and the immortality of the soul. BenC7 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always associated "the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul" with "traditional Christian doctrines." Dtbrown 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe most people view those as traditional Christian doctrines. There are some Christian religions that omit those beliefs, but they are a common theme in the majority. --CBrewster 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"is" vs "are"

I see we have gone back to "Jehovah's Witnesses is" in the opening sentence of the lead. Didn't we achieve some sort of compromise in the past? Can't we re-instate that? Dtbrown 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on "are". I'm amazed we're back here again. joshbuddy, talk 18:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed it out of habit as part of a broader edit. Grammatically, it is indeed now wrong, but I've lost interest. (It should be noted that JW publications almost always avoid phrases that make the collective noun issue look awkward, though it is difficult to achieve without being verbose.)--Jeffro77 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How's "JWs are members of an international religion of the same name"? BenC7 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument was previously used that Jehovah's Witnesses use 'are', so we should here. However, JW publications also consistently use phraseology that maintains grammatical correctness. Please do not continue to mangle the grammar.--Jeffro77 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro, I thought you'd lost interest on this. I think this is silly to stick to the "is." I think a more direct first sentence would be better than "is the name of". Dtbrown 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When I lose interest in something, I reserve all rights to change my mind, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason, without notice.

Further, it's been shown earlier that the standard in other encyclopedias is "Jehovah's Witnesses are..." Dtbrown 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article for Seventh Day Adventists opens: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Christian denomination..." The article for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) opens "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religious organization..." I think we should open with a direct style instead of adding "is the name of." Dtbrown 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both examples given above use the correct singular "is", so I'm not sure how this defends the current wording. The "is the name of" was inserted to work around the (seemingly) awkward reading of "is" after a plural in a proper noun (because some people are confused by correct grammar and choose to defer to other sources that also employ incorrect grammar), in keeping with JW publications' own phraseology to avoid awkward wording of the religion's name.--Jeffro77 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing for a direct style of writing. I think it's better to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian religion" instead of adding the "is the name of" to the sentence. You cite grammar but this has been ignored by other encyclopedias. There are always exceptions to rules. Can you cite a reference work that follows the style you suggest with reference to JWs? Dtbrown 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, correct grammar has indeed been ignored by other encyclopedias, hence my comment: "some people ... choose to defer to other sources that also employ incorrect grammar."

"is the name of" is correct, unawkward, but verbose; "is" is correct, but awkward (apparently, though I doubt that anyone would have trouble with analogous statements such as "Cops is a television programme" or "Wheaties is a breakfast cereal"); "are" is wrong, but apparently reads better.--Jeffro77 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Has correct grammar been ignored by other encyclopedias or is there a valid exception to the rule you are citing? Dtbrown 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no valid exception to the rule apart from ambiguity regarding Jehovah's Witnesses as people ([possessive noun] [noun]) and Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion ([multi-word proper noun])--Jeffro77 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't common usage sometimes validate an exception? Dtbrown 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

JW publications - the 'horse's mouth' so to speak - never employ the incorrect grammar as appears in the lead. So no, common usage does not in this case validate the exception.--Jeffro77 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the first chapter of the Proclaimers book: "JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES are known worldwide for their persistence in talking to people everywhere about Jehovah God and his Kingdom." I'm sure there are several other similar constructions. Dtbrown 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain this? In that sentence, "Jehovah' Witnesses are known for their persistence" refers to people in the plural form who are members of the religion. It does not refer to the religion itself. The example is therefore irrelevant.--Jeffro77 07:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct that JW publications never "employ the incorrect grammar as appears in the lead." Can you show us some examples where they follow the style of writing you are suggesting? I'll start looking for more examples in the meantime. Dtbrown 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotations found in the publications referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses" are almost always written in the context of members in the plural rather than in reference to the organization itself; it would be tedious and pointless to provide references to those quotations. A few times, "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is employed, and this is always used with "is".--Jeffro77 08:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if it can be shown that JWs do use the singular when referring to themselves as an organization that would be significant and would affect what we do here. "Is" would properly go with "Christian congregation," however. I still think we are safe grammatically to say that common usage (as has been demonstrated by other reference works) validates an exception in this case. And I believe if we searched hard enough we'd find that JW publications do the same. Dtbrown 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A simple compromise might be to also refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" or more simply "Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." There are both terms that Witnesses use to identify with, and could be used in places where the writer insists on using "is." But for cases where the term is "Jehovah's Witnesses," the correct word is definitely "are." --CBrewster 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely? Just like "COPS" are a TV show, "Ghostbusters" are a movie. For now I've lost interest on that issue, however your suggestion of what is 'definitely' correct is grammatically incorrect for proper nouns having a plural form operating in the singular.--Jeffro77 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the JW WikiProject page, there's the sentence "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christians are required ..." -- I guess that refers to what individuals believe rather than the church since the verb is plural. Billy pilgrim99 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have previously indicated the amgiguity caused by Jehovah's Witnesses by using the same term to refer to both the religion as a whole, and to groups of individual members. However, it functions as singular when it refers to the religion as an organisation.--Jeffro77 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must dissagree with the assertion of ambiguity. As you have stated Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves an orginization of like minded believers who are witnesses of Jehovah. It cannot be considered the same as "The Catholic Church is" since you are not using the incorperated name of the organization "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society". In that case the use of is would be appropriate. In this case it would be gramatically incorrect to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is", just as it would be incorrect to say "Catholics is". .--D L Means 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Jehovah's Witnesses do not regard the 'Watchtower Bible and Tract Society' to be their religious organization, but rather as a legal corporation used by the religion, 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. The ambiguity remains, invalidating your comparison with the Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay let me put it this way. They refer to the individual "churches" as congregations When they refer to themselves as a whole they refer to themselves as "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" at which point is would be appropriate. Since they consider themselves to be the sole "witnesses" of Jehovah then the term Jehovah's Witnesses becomes descriptive and validates the use of are and not is. Just as Catholics is descriptive and would warrent the use of are.D L Means 11:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this can be avoided in the future by substituting in phraseology that is similar. For example, you wouldn't say "Catholics is" or "Lutherans is". Using this method will ensure that things make sense in the future. It's also important to note that if you were asked to explain what Jehovah's Witnesses 'are' you wouldn't start the sentence out with "Jehovah's Witnesses is..." because even if it is grammatically correct (I still do not think it is) as some are arguing, it's phonetically incorrect. Instead of arguing, use substitution with other plural groups...for example, Latter Day Saints...if 'is' is used there, I say we use it. If not, I elect we use 'are'. --devnet

Sect or religious denomination?

This definition of this article describes the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious denomination, but in the sociology of religion, the term religious denomination is contrasted with the term sect and the Jehovah's Witnesses are described as a sect, at least in one reasonably reputable source i.e. in Wilson, Bryan Religion in Sociological Perspective 1982, ISBN 0-19-826664-2 Oxford University Press page 109. I do not think that this article should be written entirely from the viewpoint of sociology of religion, but I think that the definition should not contain the term religious denomination as the only term to describe the Jehovah's Witnesses because the term is at best ambiguous and at worst erroneous. Andries 09:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't look hard at the technical usage of the word denomination when I added it in. I just glanced at it, it seemed to fit (the SDA article used it) and I put it in. I believe strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect. I have no objection fixing the lead-in to reflect that, and perhaps an explanation of how they are a sect could be added to the history section. What does everyone else think? joshbuddy, talk 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "sect" would fly by the NPOV rules, however. Jehovah's Witnesses reject that label and I think it would be improper to make that determination in the article. I'm not sure why it would be important to use that label here. Dtbrown 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Further. The article sect also states: "In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices." If this were a religious encyclopedia promoting orthodox Christianity "sect" might be appropriate. "Religious denomination" fits the Witnesses as the term is generally used. I see no reason to use "sect" here. Dtbrown 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason to use among others the label sect is because it is a classification used in the sociology of religion for the JW. In the sociology of religion it is used in a neutral way. Clearly, the viewpoint of the sociology of religion is a notable viewpoint and this viewpoint excludes the label religious denomination. Of course, we can explicitly state that the JW rejects the label sect if there is a source for it. Andries

Here is another reputable source that uses the label sect. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Jehovah's.htm by Joel Elliott from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos published in 1998 by AltaMira Press, A Division of Sage Publications, Inc. Andries 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following sentence in the summary

"The Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian movement that is sometimes described as religious denomination, but in the sociology of religion they are sometimes referred to as a sect. The JW reject the latter term because of its pejorative connotations. "

Andries 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC) amended 10:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the other citations. I don't write from a sociological perspective so I can't comment on that angle. I do feel, however, that to use the word "sect" in the lead would cause an endless editing war. Many of our Evangelical editors would also have problems with using the label "Christian." I think what we have already is really the best consensus we can come up unless we wanted to change "denomination" to "organization." Dtbrown 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the term organization is wrong, because the JW are more than a organization, I believe. It more like a movement. We can omit the term Christian and describe it as a religious movement. Again, the term religious denomination is ambiguous at best and incorrect at worst. Andries 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether members of other religions believe that JWs are Christian in the sense that they agree with, it is a Christian religion because of the obvious position of Christ in its doctrines. 'Our Evangelical editors' may need to review the actual definition of the word 'Christian' rather than imposing their own. Omitting the term Christian is misleading, possibly intentionally so.--Jeffro77 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion! I've tried that in the lead. Let's see what others think. Dtbrown 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Referring to them as Christians is essential, as the label Christianity is always a self-applied one. There is no orthodoxy defining what a Christian is or isn't. joshbuddy, talk 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is its called the Nicene creed. Its just most American Churches derived from protestantism chose to ignore it.

If we have consensus on this then I edited out the "who feel themselves to be the reatoration of first century Christianity" as that was a compromise taken before to avoid calling them Christian. Dtbrown 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to revisit this? Just came across Jehovah's Witnesses listed as a Christian denomination at List of Christian Denominations Dtbrown 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem there are many different ways to refer to the JWs: denomination, religion, cult, sect, NRM. Some are more prerogative than others. I don't want to get overly technical in our usage of these words, but instead, focus on the acceptability of these terms to the general reader. We can highlight the technical usage of these terms as they are used in the article, but generally, don't want to become hemmed in by these uses. Rather, lets stick to the general uses of these words. In the case of particularly loaded terms, lets attribute them properly. joshbuddy, talk 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying Christian denomination as I think that speaks best to the average reader. I think we need some internal link in the first sentence that gives some context to the JW movement, especially for those who have no religious background and may be reading the article. Jehovah's Witnesses are mentioned both in Christian denomination and the accompanying List of Christian Denominations. Dtbrown 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term 'Christian denomination' is a bit misleading, the above arguments notwithstanding. It gives the reader the impression that JWs are just another of a long list of Christian denominations. The problem with this is that JWs consider themselves to be the only "true" religion, not one of many Christian denominations. JWs also do not call themselves Christians (at least none that I know), and their publications use phrases like "this is what true Christians do" or thereby distinguishing themselves from other people who are called Christians. Saying that they are a Christian denomination gives the reader the impression that they are just-another, when neither they nor the people who know them consider them to be just-another denomination. The JWs who were previously editing the article did not seem to have a problem with "religious group", and it has been repeatedly changed back to this, indicating that many people seem to find it inappropriate. Religious group is still accurate, given that the remainder of the sentence explains the relationship of the group to Christianity.

All religions inherently consider their own to be true; the fact is that JWs are "just another of a long list of Christian denominations", irrespective of what they or anyone else might otherwise imagine. They certainly do refer to themselves as Christians, in contrast to their use of the term 'Christendom' to refer to other Christian religions.

I think that the fact that JWs may be listed in the list of Christian denominations is not a strong enough point in and of itself; it is more a matter of convenience to list them there when speaking of Christian denominations broadly. Incidentally, four out of five dictionaries that I have looked up (Oxford, Mirriam-Webster, Your Dictionary, WordWeb) do not identify JWs as Christians or belonging to a church group. BenC7 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would again argue for not pursuing too technical an approach to naming JWs. Their lack of ecumenism does not to me signify whether they should be included among Christian denominations. There are many other Christian groups who are not ecumenical and believe they are the one true church (something like fundamentalism I guess) joshbuddy, talk 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do identify themselves as Christian. If you look back in these talk pages far enough you'll find where JW editors were arguing to have the label "Christian" applied to them. JWs are not the only such group who claim to be the only true Christians. Having an exclusivistic view of themselves does not mean that a secular encyclopedia cannot classify them as belonging to the Christian movement. Perhaps denomination is not correct but I think that for the purposes of this article the term "Christian" should be retained. Dtbrown 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As to using "Christian":

http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Article?id=ar287080

"Jehovah's, Witnesses are members of a Christian religious group that uses the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as its corporate body"

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah's+Witnesses

"Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent"

Dtbrown 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Christianity:

From Wikipedia:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth and his life, death, resurrection, and teachings as presented in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

american heritage dictionary:

Christian:

adj. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

WordNet - christian

adjective 1. relating to or characteristic of Christianity; "Christian rites" 2. following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ [ant: unchristian]

noun 1. a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Christian

A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Jehovah's Witnesses –noun a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule.

IF you notice that JW's below are referred to as Milleniarians then note also the definition of milleniarism.

Jehovah's Witnesses Crystal Reference Encyclopedia A millenarian movement organized in the USA in 1884 under Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916).

Millenarianism Crystal Reference Encyclopedia [milinaireeuhnizm] The belief held by some Christians that there will be a thousand-year (millennium) reign of the saints, either before or immediately after the return of Christ. The belief is usually based on an interpretation of Rev 20. 1–7.

I also discovered that no other group that claims christianity is regularly referred to as CHristian in definitions. So, that negates the argument that if yo only see christian in some of the defintions they are likely not Christian. Unless of course your religion is the only true CHristian religion. ;) George 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Words like "Presbyterian" and "Lutheran" are consistently defined as Christian or as a person belong to a church of that denomination, rather than a sect or millenial group. BenC7 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses always refer to themselves as Christians and, yes, as the only true Christians. However, I don't see how that at all disqualifies them as a Christian denomination! For instance, there are many sects of Hinduism, some of which believe that their chosen path of worship is the only true path... nonetheless, they are still Hindu. Exclusivity does not negate anything in these cases. Also, the "millenarianism" idea does not negate their label of Christian denomination... in fact, if anything, it supports it. - LadyBug =)

Seeing how JWs do not accept the Nicene Creed, I'm not sure how they can be called a "Christian" anything. Arianism was denounced as a heresy, and the Creed was consistently upheld at subsequent ecumenical councils. It seems ethical and correct to at least add this information in a section on the page, under "Criticism". The current "Critical Views" is somewhat strange, I think it should be changed to the more consistently used "Criticism" where such information would be appropriately placed. As to "exclusivity", to my mind this "excludes" them from being called "Christian" as per the definition here on Wikipedia. There should at least be some mention as to the connection between JWs and Arianism, or the JWs rejection of the Nicene Creed. At any rate, what are the views of others as to the change on the page from "Critical Views" to "Criticism" where information could be included as to the difference between JWs and other Christians? It seems as if both JWs and "Christians" desire the distinction to be made, correct?Supertheman 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Christian' predates the Nicene Creed, so arguing on the basis of accepting it is irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Publications section

I'm not sure what I think of this new section. Is it necessary on the main page? We mention these publications in the lead and elsewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Dtbrown 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is probably unnecessary. It can go in its own article. BenC7 05:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It already is in another article. (Or at least, there are other articles that deal with this.) The need for this sections was highlighted by our peer reviews. joshbuddy, talk 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. Do you have a reference for the info on the translators of the NWT? I'm assuming it's from the Walsh trial. I used to own a transcript but no longer have it. Dtbrown 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just copied from the NWT article, and I assume that their reference is either the Walsh trial, or CoC by Franz. I believe those are two independent lines to the authorship, but in all honesty, I merely added these sections as an attempt to get the ball rollings, and to address the peer review comments. joshbuddy, talk 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Headquartered in Brooklyn?

Is the headquarters still in Brooklyn? I think a lot of the management is done in the Patterson, NY facility. Perhaps we should just say New York and not specify the city? Anyone know? Dtbrown 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, all the printing & writing is now done in Patterson. I think the service dept is in Patterson now as well. I'm not sure how much really goes on in NY anymore. Someone more on the inside would have to comment on this. joshbuddy, talk 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the printing is done in Wallkill but the Service Dept and Writing and the Governing Body is in Patterson. I'll change it to just say "New York" instead of NYC. If it needs further adjustment someone else can change that. Dtbrown 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity Portal?

What is the view of editors here about adding a Christianity portal to the main page? Dtbrown 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate. The main objections, from different points of view, are 'JWs don't use the cross symbol which appears in the template' and 'JWs aren't Christians'. Neither objection holds any validity.--Jeffro77 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true Jeffro77. How do you figure JW's are followers of Jesus Christ? They say that Christ didn't say the things he said. How could you say that you follow Jesus and at the same time call him a liar? - JW's are not Christians. - NoSnooz

You are wrong. There is not a single statement of Jesus' words in the bible that JWs deny. The fact that their interpretation may differ from yours and mine is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 12:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I'd be interested in hearing comments from JW editors we may have among us. What do you think? Dtbrown 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If we go with this do we want the full template or the type that is on the LDS page? [1] Dtbrown 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably better to go with the mini one. At least that should stop some editors from objecting to the cross on the Christianity template. Maybe.--Jeffro77 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the mini one. Any objections? Dtbrown 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how you've kindly avoided using a template that includes the cross, I can think of no objections to keeping it. JWs are a Christian denomination insofar as secular sources are concerned, so it's appropriate to link this article in with the rest of Christianity-related WP articles. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T14:23Z

NWT in lead

I think we need to temper the line about the NWT in the lead. There have been a couple of scholars who have said favorable things about it. Suggestions? Dtbrown 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit. joshbuddy, talk 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have found more favorable reviews and critiques on the New World Translation than negative ones whereas this article implied that the overwhelming majority of scholars and critics believed it to be inaccurate and biased. I have actually only seen such a critique twice before and both were baseless and without any kind of viable evidence. According to most critics the NWT is one of - if not the MOST - accurate translation out there at the moment. The King James Bible proves to be more inaccurate and biased than the NWT by far. - LadyBug =)

i really think you should cite these favourable reviews because my (as anecdotal as yours) impression is that the NWT is almost ubiquitously reviled at as a blatantly dishonest apology for JW doctrines. The strongest piece of evidence i have seen that no reputable scholars endorse this translation is that everywhere the JWs try to cite a favourable review, they employ their standard tactic of quoting out of a context, or quoting a long refuted work, or quoting people with no authority but fudging the citation to give the impression that it carries orders of magnitude more weight than it actually does.

If there was genuine positive consensus for the NWT, why dont the JWs cite any of it? Why do the muddle around with vague misleading quotations?

Clean up

I have tried to do some clean up on the article. It seemed some parts did not flow well and I hadn't done much real editing in quite awhile and I wanted to take advantage of some free time I had. I think I'm done for the time being. Feel free to edit changes as you see fit. Dtbrown 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest Edits

I noticed the following phrase in the Publications section: "A part of their religion is chess" Surely this must be a mistake.

I changed this to a short text about the discouragement of chess as a military game. --Prorokini 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the latest edits are trying to change the page into a recruitment page. 219.109.235.241 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifics? Wikipedia does not exist to "expose" JWs. Facts are presented here both pro and con, hopefully written from a neutral point of view. Dtbrown 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things... The article presently states that JWs view beards as 'unchristian'. That is untrue; their position is "in many lands a beard or long hair on a man attracts immediate notice and may, in the minds of the majority, classify such a person undesirably with extremists or as rebels against society," however this neither indicates to be 'unchristian', nor does it preclude JWs from having beards everywhere. (I personally know of one with a beard - who retains 'privileges' - because of eczema-related problems with shaving.) Additionally, the article states that JWs are "well known" for their preaching work, but this is overstating the truth. Most people are only vaguely aware of the Witnesses, and are generally considered an occasional minor inconvenience for knocking on their doors, and are 'the people who don't celebrate holidays or take blood'. Despite the assumed view that Witnesses suppose people have of them, the sentence needs to change.--Jeffro77 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What more, beards are not internationally forbidden among JWs. There are very few truly global standards of dress and grooming among JWs. joshbuddy, talk 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence is badly worded: "Jehovah's Witnesses were intensely persecuted by the Nazi government of Germany before and during World War II, forced to wear a purple triangle in concentration camps." It implies that the 'intense persecution' was the fact that they had to wear a purple triangle. Their badge shape and colour was the least of their concerns.--Jeffro77 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Change as you please. BenC7 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edits, Dtbrown. I was busy with other stuff and was going to make some changes now, only to find it's been done for me.--Jeffro77 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to tweak as necessary. Dtbrown 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the Section, "Beliefs and Practices", 2nd sentece, "they interpret the Bible literally, though it is recognized the writers use symbolism . . ." needs to be rewritten as it currently implies that Witnesses simply believe in a literal interpretation despite what the writers intended.

Protestantism tag

Is the Protestantism box (in the history section) really necessary? I can't see how it helps the reader, or how it relates to the text. BenC7 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a part of their history whether they acknowledge it or not. They bible cannon is protestant, they come from the adventist movement which is a protestant splinter group. Most evangelical groups in the US are protestant in history, doctrine and nature whether they recognize it or not. Thank the puritans for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.109.235.241 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The fact that they might "come from" the Adventist movement doesn't make them Protestant. You could equally argue that Protestant churches ultimately "come from" the RCC, so they are therefore Roman Catholic. But obviously it is the doctrine of Protestants that sets them apart from their originating group. In the case of JWs, their doctrine certainly sets them apart from the groups from which they may have originated. BenC7 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I think the Protestantism tag is appropriate here unless one subscribes to the view that any denomination which is not Catholic or Orthodox is Protestant by default. Neither do JWs view themselves as Protestant. Dtbrown 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do JWs come from? What religion was Russel? Adventists are a sect of Protestantism, which Russel broke off and formed Bible Students because he didn't agree. The JWs have their roots, especially the second coming of Christ, in Adventism, read his history and the Advenitist page on Wikipedia. 219.109.235.241 09:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To say that the Witnesses have their roots in a certain religion is to imply that they adopted a certain brand of Christianity and then molded it into their own version. This isn't accurate. To color the Witnesses as a whole with a certain branch of Christianity just because of Russel's religious past is careless.--CBrewster 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite accurate. They did indeed base their initial beliefs on beliefs of others. Any Christian religion will inherently be 'colored' as being a "certain branch of Christianity". Not sure what the issue is here.--Jeffro77 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that JW should not be refered to as 'protestants', and neither should pentecostalism, adventism etc. I would normally use the word protestant on those who clearly call themselves so. I understand that the difinition may vary, but honestly said, I think that an encycloppedia like this should be aware of the problem of stating all types of historical groups after Luther as protestant. Summer Song 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

JW do recognize the fact that they have a historical background from various developments among chrstian environments. But they clearly don't want to be put in a category of catholic, orthodox or protestant christianity, because they are not theologically similar to those churches. That all who oppose various historical teachings of the churches are called protestants by some, is true, but I think that wikipedia should be aware of the problematic issue with this. Summer Song 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To say that Witnesses are Protestants would definitely be misleading. It would be accurate to say that they have their roots in Adventism though. Russell's numerology about 1914 was quite definitely taken from Adventists going back as far as the 1820s. Just because JWs imagine that God whispered in Russell's ear to create a brand new religion, the fact remains that in simple terms, they really did 'adopt a certain brand of Christianity and mold it into their own version'. The same is true of any form of modern Christianity.--Jeffro77 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance of blood

"There is not uniform acceptance of the current blood doctrine within the Jehovah's Witness community. Though accepted by a majority, there is evidence a significant population of Jehovah's Witnesses does not endorse it."

I find this incorrect, if one of Jehovah's witnesses do accept blood then he or her will be disfellowshipped thus not making them one of Jehovah's witness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jader7777 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

THis is true. Any who do not want to follow what is taught will be disfellowshipped if they do not dispaly sincere reptance.Vinaq 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

The statement has been referenced... BenC7 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who identify as JWs who do not accept everything the religion teaches. This is particularly true of those who may not be active members ("irregular" or "inactive" publishers) but if questioned would claim to be JWs. Dtbrown 07:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We definitely do not accept blood. We will only accept blood fractions as mentioned within the article. It's possible that there are some inactive ones who accept blood, but if they do, they should be disfellowshipped. Seth Lopez 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The original quote is inaccurate. The willing acceptance of blood is a serious sin for the Witnesses. In followup to Dtbrown's reply, there are those who are not practicing Witnesses that identify themselves as Witnesses, but this doesn't mean they are in truth one of Jehvoah's Witnesses. In the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, one has to maintain consistent works to truly be identified as a Witness. In fact, the population numbers for Jehovah's Witnesses is based on monthly service reports that each individual Witness submits. So if someone is no longer attending congregation meetings and participating in field serive, they're essentially no longer Witnesses. The actions of a non-practicing ex-Witness should not be attributed to Witnesses as a whole, even if the person claims to be one, since they would not be counted among the numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses. Hope that makes sense.

Ladybug: The original statement quoted at the top of this sub-section is entirely correct, not to mention well documented. The Watchtower organization has itself admitted there is division among Jehovah's Witnesses regarding its blood doctrine. The Wiki article Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions includes a sub-section addressing acceptance of this doctrine among Jehovah's Witnesses. Before another editor here disagrees with the veracity of the quoted statement in dispute I recommend they look up and read each and every one of the sources cited in that article. You will find plenty of primary and secondary sources verifying everything in the article's sub-section. If an editor does not have access to the referenced material or else chooses not to read it, then they have no business editing out the statement quoted above, or even to disagree with it.

It is pure myth that Jehovah's Witnesses universally accept the Watchtower organization's blood doctrine.

-- Marvin Shilmer 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there are many who study briefly with the Witnesses and then begin to call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, although they never make a formal dedication and do not follow through with regular meeting attendance and preaching. Those things are required to accurately idfentify yourself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. --CBrewster 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just as with anything else, if a Jehovah's Witness accepts a blood transfusion he/she has a chance to repent etc. and is not immediately shunned at all. Of course some more conservative congregations will take this as an immediate forfeit of congregation membership. However, in truth, unless one blasphemes or something along those lines, the individual is always given an opportunity to completely repent and chnge their ways. That was my experience with Jehocah's Witnesses and that of many of my friends and relatives. I took the liberty of changing that statement - hope you don't mind. =) - LadyBug

Secular definition of "Christian"

Periodically, the use of the word "Christian" to describe JWs becomes an issue among editors. I contend that editors here need to follow a secular definition of "Christian" and not one that they might use if they were editing for a religious or theological resource. A secular definition of "Christian" can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm

"There are probably thousands of different definitions of the word "Christian." We have chosen the same inclusive definition as is used by public opinion pollsters and government census offices: A "Christian" includes any group or individual who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian. Under this definition, Christianity includes: Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, United Church members, even a small minority of Unitarian Universalists, etc."

Wikipedia is a secular resource. One might say that to classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination" is controversial and therefore Wikipedia should not adopt a position on this. It is not controversial to identify JWs as a "Christian denomination" using a secular criteria as noted above. Government officials and pollsters accept the self-identification of these groups. So do the majority of secular reference works. (Are there even any secular reference works which state that JWs are not Christian?) To insist that Wikipedia adopt a theological basis for identifying a religious group which self-identifies as Christian before the term can be used here is actually imposing a religious perspective to the article. Such a ban of terminology actually is not an avoidance of controversy but an imposition of a preferred religious viewpoint.

I have many Evangelical Protestant friends who believe the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian Church. Should their perspective prevent a Wikipedia article from stating the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian denomination? Or do we grant Catholics that right because they are a larger Church and not Jehovah's Witnesses (or Mormons or some other group) in this secular resource? I think the only fair way of handling this is to adopt a secular meaning for "Christian" in editing these articles and not to impose our personal theological definition. Dtbrown 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be content with any secular source classifying JWs as Christian, but exclude all others. The matter is not that unambiguous in secular sources either (just ask any comparative religionist). Additionally, even with Wikipedia being a secular resource, it should use clear language - we could say that JWs are "classified as Christians by this-and-this secular definition", but we cannot just call them Christian without qualification because people don't think "ooh, they're probably using secular defition x and not secular definition y or a confessional definition" when they see the word. The difference between JWs and the RCC is that only a very small minority of self-identified Christians identify Roman Catholics as non-Christians; neither is there any controversy about the matter in secular sources or in comparative religion. If you cannot accept my wording, then make up something that doesn't hurt your feeling but that is acceptable to everyone.

Addition: That "Wikipedia adopt a theological basis for identifying a religious group" is something that should be prevented - and that is why I cannot see any reason for calling JWs Christian or non-Christian; we should just tell that they view themselves as the restoration of the original Christian church. For instance, since the sentence "the pope is the God-appointed leader of all Christians" shouldn't be on Wikipedia, neither should "the pope is not the God-appointed leader of all Christians" be there. We can just tell that this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. --82.181.220.186 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that only a "very small minority of self-identified Christians identify Roman Catholics as non-Christians." A significant number of American Evangelicals do not b elieve the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian religion. To not refer to Catholics as a Christian religion because a sizeable number of Evangelicals think otherwise would be unthinkable. Similarly, with JWs and other such groups. (BTW, I don't hold this view because of "feelings being hurt." I am not a JW.) Secular resources generally refer to them as a Christian religion. If you have any secular resources that say they are not a Christian religion, please share them with us. Dtbrown 08:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the numbers aren't even comparable. I cannot think of a major denomination claiming that the RCC is not Christian (e.g. Martin Luther thought the opposite, even when he identified the institution as the whore of babylon he still thought it was Christian because it had valid baptism). On the other side, a significant majority of self-identified Christians compose the churches that hold that valid baptism is what makes one a Christian, and that validity of baptism requires trinitarian formula and belief. Sociologists (e.g. Wilson, Beckford, Berger, Curry, though not Melton) tend to classify JWs as a cult, as opposed to a church inside Christianity. I'm sorry for thinking incorrectly about you. But even if the article bases its text on one classification attempt, it still doesn't change that people don't tend to think that way when reading the article. I may remind that the socio-historical point of view is not the only one - even though religious beliefs cannot be stated as truth, it cannot be stated as untruth either. The text must clearly state what it is talking about. Otherwise it is just as silly as a Big Bang article written in a way that implies that God didn't create the universe.

What about my current formulation, is that ok with you, or could you think of something better? --82.181.220.186 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They self-identify as Christians, and they have specific beliefs that make it foolish not to acknowledge that they are Christians in the plain sense of the word. Employing a definition of the word 'Christian' as used by other religious bodies is POV, and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But I am not arguing for using a POV definition. I only think that since there are disagreements about their status, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides on that debate. --82.181.220.186 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:82.181.220.186|82.181.220.186 1) Can you give us a definition of what a Christian is? Why are JW's not Christian? Johanneum 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Johanneum, my opinions about Christianity do not matter in this debate; what matters is how controversial the matter is among Christians in general. For instance, most Christians belong to the churches that view trinitarian baptismal regeneration as a condition of being a Christian, and that leaves JWs out. Wikipedia should not say "they are Christian" or "they are not Christian", but simply tell what each side thinks. That is NPOV by definition. --82.181.220. 186 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trinitarian baptismal regeneration" is rejected by the vast majority of Protestants. Are you going to say their status as a Christian religion is debatable also? List of Christian denominations lists Jehovah's Witnesses. There are literally tens of millions of people who believe the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Christian Churches. We cannot allow this precedent to be set. If Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be listed as a Christian denomination then someone can claim that it's POV to list Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as Christian denominations. Dtbrown 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We are mixing apples and oranges here. Rejecting the doctrine of trinitarian baptismal regeneration doesn't make one non-Christian in the eyes of those who do not reject it; rejecting the trinitarian beliefs and practices behind it does. So even though Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Baptists (who, by the way, do not constitute a majority of Protestants) do not accept the renegeration, they accept the doctrine of the Trinity and baptise in its name. In the eyes of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans etc., they still have a valid baptism and a true regeneration in it; they just don't understand properly what is happening. Hence, they are Christians in the view of those churches. But nontrinitarians are another case; their baptism isn't valid because it isn't trinitarian, and thus they aren't Christians (again, in the mentioned view, which does not reflect my own understanding of the matter).

Concerning the List of Christian denominations article, you can see that the last opening paragraph says: "For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination. Explanations about different opinions concerning their status as Christian denominations can be found at their respective articles."

Could you document your view that "there are literally tens of millions people who do not believe the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Christian Churches"? Even if that were true, the difference in numbers would be immense: even with Catholics and Orthodox alone we still have some 65-70 % (or 1,4 billion people) of self-identified Christians belonging to churches that believe in trinitarian baptismal regeneration and thus rejecting JWs as Christian; add Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestants who agree with them on baptismal regeneration. To that you can add those Protestants who reject the belief in baptismal regeneration but maintain that trinitarian beliefs are necessary for being a Christian. I'm just trying to illustrate how apples and oranges cannot be compared. If you're talking about precedence, I think the LDS article already has it settled. --82.181.220.186 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These issues are not settled until they become official WIkipedia policy. The problem of allowing a theologically motivated definition of "Christian" still stands even if you feel you can ignore the view of many American Evangelicals on Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What I believe on the Trinity and baptismal regeneration (both of which I accept) is irrelevent here in this secular resource. Dtbrown 16:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What about for instance "leader of all Christians"? That's controversial (about fifty-fifty inside Christianity) if anything; that's also something that people have theological opinions about, but that doesn't make Wikipedia say that the Pope is the leader of all Christians. It just says that the RCC teaches so. Is that case different from this one, in your opinion?

I don't feel I have "ignored" the views of "many" (previously "tens of millions of", and "vast majority of" before that) Protestants that hold that Catholics and Orthodox aren't Christians. I just feel that the matter is not comparable to this; we're talking about 6,5 million JWs versus an overwhelming majority of self-identified Christians (some 1,7 billion out of 2,1, or 81 %, when counting only RCs, EOs, OOs, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists; many others could be added), not 1,4 billion Catholics and Orthodox versus "many American Evangelicals". --82.181.220.186 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to get side-tracked on how many Evangelical Protestants believe the RCC and Orthodoxy are not Christian Churches. (I will settle for "many". When I said "vast majority of Protestants" it was in reference to the issue of baptismal regeneration and in America I believe that is true.) There are enough of them who so believe. The article now clarifies it is using a socio-historical definition of the word and elsewhere mentions the controversy. As to the analogy of "leader of all Christians." I don't think that is comparable because we are talking self-identification and not a theological concept.Dtbrown 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept is theological, too; of course you can qualify that out by telling that you are using a certain socio-historical definition, but two points: 1) why does it have to be downplayed by placing it in a footnote (which mostly have to do with citations and not clarifications) and having the main text be unqualified? and 2) I think you would need an "a" before the "socio-historial" part too. That is, you're using "a definition", not "the definition" or even more bluntly, just "definition" (i.e. "a definition so authorative that it has become a proper name without an article preceding it"). A better counterexample could be "the church founded by Jesus". That's what the Roman Catholic Church identifies itself, and historians agree (far more than on JWs' status as Christians) that it has a continuity from what was the first generation of Christians. But does the article say so? No, it only says that that's what it teaches. The concept is, like "Christian", both theological and socio-historical, and it has to do with self-identification, too. --82.181.220.186 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section mentions how JWs are viewed by others. I think that is sufficient. As far as "Christian denomination" goes, I think Wikipedia cannot be dragged into theological disputes as to the meaning. Self-identification and common secular usage should prevail. Dtbrown 18:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia been "dragged into theological disputes as to the meaning" of the RCC's status as "the church founded by Jesus" because it simply says "this is what the RCC teaches", instead of stating it as a fact? I would say quite the opposite. --82.181.220.186 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow your argument. At any rate, the solution could be to remove the label "Christian" from all other articles because it could be perceived as POV. I don't think that is a viable solution and in all fairness we can't just pick on JWs, Mormons and other such groups because they're a minority. Dtbrown 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the reductio ad absurdum it is possible to make if we don't let the majority-minority situation affect what we write here. But at least Wikipedia:NPOV finds the popularity of viewpoints important. See also [2] - how do you think excluding the majority opinion from the opening paragraph fits in with that?

My argument is simply that we can make a reductio ad absurdum to the other direction as well, even if the majority-minority situation counts: the RCC identifies as "the church that Jesus founded". Most scientists would agree that it has a socio-historial continuity from the first generation of Christians; their view is not theological, but the self-identification is both socio-historical and theological. That is, disagreements surrounding it are theological (at least when voiced by Protestants). Should the Roman Catholic Church article therefore say that the RCC is the church Jesus founded? No, it should just say that this is what the RCC teaches.

Now change a few words: the WT identifies as "a Christian church". At least many historians would agree that it has a socio-historical features that are commonly associated with Christianity; their view is not theological, but the self-identification is both socio-historical and theological. That is, most disagreements surrounding it are theological. Should the Jehovah's Witnesses article therefore say that the WT is a Christian church? No, it should just say that this is what the WT teaches.

The ultimate point of this all is that "theological" isn't equivalent to "confessional" - the latter excludes "secular", the first one doesn't. Things can be perceived theologically, and the text can take into account and even present confessional stances, without itself supporting a confessional stance. --82.181.220.186 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And I argue that Wikipedia articles should not adopt a religious test of what a Christian denomination is but go with what other standard encyclopedias (cited in an earlier talk article) have decided: use a secular meaning of the word "Christian."

http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Article?id=ar287080

"Jehovah's, Witnesses are members of a Christian religious group that uses the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as its corporate body"

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah's+Witnesses

"Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent"

Dtbrown 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, thank you for your comment, but it features little reply to what I have actually argued. Could you have a look at my previous replique and engage with what I have said? Once more, "the church that Jesus founded" (or perhaps more critically "the church that was founded in the 1st century") can be viewed as a "secular" (i'd prefer "non-theological") description too. Should the RCC article use that as a factual description of the RCC (and then qualify it as a non-theological matter in a footnote) or should it just tell that this is what the RCC professes? Many other encyclopedias (a prominent example being Encyclopaedia Britannica) refrain from using the word "Christian" about JWs. --82.181.220.186 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured the reductio ad absurdum statement meant dialogue was over. Dtbrown 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, it was a handy illustration tool; I didn't mean anything degorative. --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, your example fails as many Catholics would argue that other Apostolic Churches (Eastern Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.) are Churches by virtue of Apostolic Succession. So, the statement might not be considered factual from a Catholic point of view. Even if it were, I fail to see it as parallel. What secular encyclopedias make that statement? The example I gave of those American Evangelicals who do not believe the RCC is a Christian Church can not be rejected out of hand. It is a sizeable group and I would still maintain it's in the tens of millions. No matter the exact count, it's a sizeable group. Perhaps Wikipedia has not had to deal with this before but maybe it's time for a policy to be adopted. Should we allow a theological definition to prevail in this secular source? I say no. Dtbrown 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are comparing apples and oranges again. Even though it is a Catholic belief that other churches with valid Episcopacy and Eucharist are true particular churches, the RCC also teaches that it is the global ("catholic") church founded in the 1st century in a way these particular churches are not. So the statement is true from a Catholic theological point of view and from a neutral non-theological (that is socio-historical) point of view (at least in regard to Protestant objections). The matter is much more controversial than the RCC's status as a Christian church - but why isn't it presented in the RCC article? Because others object to it theologically.

Do you opine that the numbers (concerning the Christianity of RCC and the Christianity of JW's, presented above) are comparable? One of them is at least 1,7 billion versus 6,5 million (or 261,54 by division, at least). The other is "a sizeable group" the you maintain makes tens of millions - which means that the numbers are at most 90 million versus 1,4 billion (or 0,06 by division, at most). So the difference between the numbers is enormous: we are comparing two disagreements where the other group is opposed at least four thousand times more than the other.

I don't want any "theological definition to prevail". I just want that all of them, as well as other definitions pertaining to other fields of study, are taken into account and presented, without stating any of them as a fact. Do you think that Wikipedia should leave theological matters out altogether, or tell that the views that differ from (one possible) socio-historical view are simply incorrect and therefore not worth mentioning? --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition: as you can see, if you try to qualify the statement as socio-historical in a footnote, it doesn't take long until someone removes both the reference and the qualification. The opening clause is now what it was for a long time ("religious group"). It doesn't present any opposing view to the JW opinion, but it does present the JW opinion at the same clause ("Restoration of 1st-century Christianity"). Neither view is declared to be the correct one. Isn't this NPOV by definition. --82.181.220.186 07:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey number boy do you have a name? :-) Though you said your definition is not important, your actions indicate otherwise. You seem to have defined what "Christian" means with a biased definition, of having to do with believing in the trinity. It is of interest to note what the 1942 Encyclopedia Britannica says on p.634 under "Christianity." "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God, which is emphasized in the Scriptures. They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine." While the online Britannica states they are a "a millennialist sect", did you take the time to define what it means to be a millennialist? [3] Once again it is clear that millenarianism has to do with "Belief in the millennium of Christian prophecy (Revelation 20)" And Jehovah's Witnesses a "Protestant denomination" are used as an example. To change the main article, in order to please you, would be to use a bias definition and to leave the realm of semantics and enters the realm of theology. emphasis added Johanneum 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can make an account if you want, though it will certainly not be "number boy". I think you have misunderstood me: I haven't defined "Christian" as something dependent on the Trinity. But significantly many others have (as already has been noticed, the number could be almost three hundred times greater than the number of JWs). Their opinion shouldn't be overridden, neither should the JW view. Both should be presented, neither should be stated as truth. The EB quote isn't actually in conflict with what I have written; from the point of view of most Christians, these people really were Christians as they had already received trinitarian baptism. Yes, millenniarism has to do with Christian prophecy - and even that hasn't made the EB call JWs Christians. They refrain from commenting on a controversial issue, so should we. So once again: I don't want to use a biased definition, I want to present all points of view without declaring any as truth. --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IT seems you miss the point. EB has referred to them as Christians in more ways than one. But by definition they are Christians, and that really is the end of the matter. Jeff has laid down the issue in simple terms. To debate theology is not in this realm. To show that other members of mainstream Christianity may not view them as "Christians" is already in the article. (Thus once again the discussion should be over since the other view is presented) It clearly shows that some view them as part of a heresy or cult. The issue is not that difficult. Look up Christianity in a dictionary and ask yourself if JW's believe that Jesus is the Christ and that they should follow him. And besides that the controversy that you discuss is in the article.Johanneum 11:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The current EB does not refer to them as Christians, though they do notice that their beliefs have a Christian context. As I have said, it is meaningless to repeat that they are Christians by definition ("followers of Christ"), because people see differently what that definition means. If you consider the other view presented, then the first paragraph says at the moment that the other view is wrong, right? Is that neutral? --82.181.220.186 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And, the upshot is, that by declaring the issue as "controversial" your view would prevail. Were you really serious in your edit to imply that because JWs do not believe in the standard form of crucifixion (a view of theirs that I disagree with) that makes them not Christian? That has been a minority view in Christianity and I've never heard anyone ever suggest that disqualifies someone from being a Christian. Dtbrown 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are accusing me of being biased. I am not seeking my own view to prevail (I actually have no personal definition of Christianity, and I'm not personally into declaring JWs as being outside Christianity); but would the view that excludes JWs from Christianity prevail if the article simply didn't declare it outright wrong? Saying "JWs testify x" doesn't mean "X is incorrect"; saying "X is true" means "non-x views are incorrect". It's that simple: even in the current formulation, the JW view is the only one presented, but it is not presented as an uncontroversial fact. My point in the crucifixion clause was that although a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, people have different opinions about what this means. --82.181.220.186 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a personal view about JWs and Christianity which is based upon my theological view. I do not bring that to this article. Instead, I adopt a secular meaning for the word "Christian" in my editing here. I suppose I could try to use Wikipedia to further my theological opinion but I think that would violate the spirit of NPOV. Dtbrown 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, I sense that we are not really communicating here. Perhaps I could ask you a question: should or should not the Roman Catholic Church article state that the RCC is the same Christian church founded in the 1st century in a way in which Protestant churches are not? Why? --82.181.220.186 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate is stupid and should have stopped a long time ago. Saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians on the basis that other religions go by a different definition for their own theology is rediculous. It is like saying that Shia Muslims are not really Muslims because Sunni Muslims disagree with them. The single determining factor of whether someone is a 'Christian' - the very definition of the actual word - is if they believe that Jesus was the 'Christ'. Anything else is POV. Deal with it.--Jeffro77 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for adding a comment here after more than 5 months... This is just to point out that Jeffro77's tentative definition of Christian above is to be rejected because also Muslims do "believe that Jesus was the 'Christ'" (Christ being Misyah, i.e. Messia, in Arabic), but no one would say that Muslim are Christians!

As for a NPOV, cross-confessional definition of "Christians", how about taking Jesus's resurrection as the discriminant between Christians and non Christians? IMHO, stating that "Christians are those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ" rules in all sorts of faiths that are commonly defined (or define themselves) Christianism, while rules out all religions (such as Islam) which do worship Jesus in some form (as a prophet, a saint, etc.) but are not normally considered to be Christinism.

Just a $0.02-worth hint from an atheist passer by... 194.176.201.27 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:NPOV simply says that in the case of truly controversial issues, all opinions should be presented without declaring any view as the correct one. You can't just override that by saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have a confessional definition. It isn't confessional if it only says what everyone can agree on: that JWs testify that they are the restoration of 1st-century Christianity. Presenting both sides of the debate isn't participating or taking sides in the debate. (It could be added that many Hindus and New Age believers believe in the Jesus as the Christ.) --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A 'Christian' is one who believes in Jesus as the 'Christ'. JWs believe in Jesus as the Christ, and are therefore Christian. There is nothing more to it. If members of other religions apply some more specific definition to the word 'Christian' and therefore exclude JWs (or any other group) from their definition of Christianity, then such a view should properly be listed in the Controversy section. The strawman argument about Hindus is irrelevant as there is no organization involved.--Jeffro77 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But people see differently what is "believing in Jesus as the Christ" - you cannot just declare self-identification as the objective and neutral definition and then ignore all other views or call them wrong. It is not a straw man to say there are members of other religions too who have incorporated the belief about Jesus as the Christ into their own religion - it doesn't matter if there is an organization or not (and I can assure you that there are new age organizations recognizing Jesus as the Christ but which nobody would call Christian churches). --82.181.220.186 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, anonymous IP person, I agree with you, as you may see from an earlier posting where I indicated that 4 out of 5 dictionaries that I looked at did not define JWs as Christians, or defined them differently than other denominations. I also pointed out that JWs make a distinction between themselves and other Chrisitans, labeling themselves as the "true church" or "true Christians", thereby distinguishing themselves from other forms of Christianity (I don't know of any other mainstream church that does this).

It used to be the case that the opening sentence said, "JWs are an international religious group whose members believe that they are the restoration of first-century Christianity". No-one seemed to have any problem with this, until it got changed to "religious sect", which eventually led to the current revision. (You can see the train of thought from the "Sect or religious denomination?" discussion above.) Since it has been changed to the current version, there has been a considerable number of edits to change it. I do not push for a theological definition of Christian either, but I am pretty sure that if a wide enough net was cast to see how others defined JWs, that there would be a significant portion (perhaps a majority) who do not define them as Christians. Perhaps you could do some research and find out? BenC7 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben, if you don't push for a theological definition of "Christian" here, how would you define it? No one argues that JWs are mainstream. But, if we are not using a theological definition for "Christian," then on what basis do we not use the word?

An aside. I was reading the Catholic periodicial _Our Sunday Visitor_ (issue of January 7, 2007) and it contains an article by Monsignor M. Francis Mannion on the Mormons. (Many similarly consider Mormons not a Christian Church and the Catholic position on Mormons is the same as JWs...their baptism is not recognized because it is a non-trinitarian baptism.) And yet, Monsignor Mannion makes this statement after making some telling criticisms: "In Mormonism, there is much about the understanding of the life and mission of Christ that is quite conventional and to which other Christians would not take exception." (page 14) I was surprised to see a Catholic writer in a Catholic paper say "other Christians" when discussing the Mormons. Dtbrown 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"other Christians..." Interesting that the Catholic Church is more liberal in its definition of 'Christian' than Mr 82.181.220.186. Perhaps logic will eventually prevail though...--Jeffro77 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification as Christian

I have tried to make a compromising solution ("Using Christian self-identification as the definition of Christianity" in footnote), see and tell what you think. And please please please do not revert it, discuss instead so that we can make something that suits everyone. --82.181.220.186 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference is redundant and quite lame. The definition of a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as the Christ. JWs as organization teach that Jesus is Christ. No other definition is relevant and no other reference is necessary. However, this is becoming tiresome, so I will leave the reference in place for now.--Jeffro77 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, people have different opinions about what it means to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Do you disagree with that? I hope the last part doesn't mean that you will just remove the reference after the discussion is over. Tell me what you think, but engage with what I say, please. --82.181.220.186 14:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is always nice to see someone willing to adjust. However, I find it strange that you do not want to have anyone revert your edition, but you have now problem reverting the edition that has been accepted. Why don't you try to get a consensus first then you can do your changes and not the other way around. IF someones personal philosiphy or beliefs do not accord with reality then they need help. The reality, like it or not, is that JW are a Christian religion. That not all accept them as such is highlighted in the article, what more do you want? Before you change it can you please get an agreement here. Thank you.Johanneum 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment contains the same thing that is wrong in the way the article is still written. Two groups of people have different views on a subject, but all you're ready to admit is that the other party is delusional. No presenting both views as what they are (that is, views); the only option you accept is to present your view as a fact and the other as an view contrary to that fact (that is, a false view). That's not NPOV, that's POV by definition. Please tell me why this understanding is false.

I don't find it strange that people tend to define "following Christ" in different ways, depending on their understanding of who Jesus was etc. We can't say those views don't matter; they just operate on a different field of study (theology) than sociology and history. And I would argue that the average reader doesn't distinguish between those fields, so "Christian" without qualification means Christian by all measures, not just by the non-theological ones.

As for the first part of your message, if remember correctly, I put my own edit back only once or twice; in my other changes (that WERE reverted by you and others), I was looking for new solutions, not re-presenting old ones. --82.181.220.186 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition: and now, you reverted my nth suggestion. I concur that you should show some willingness to accept at least some other solution than the one you've been putting back for many times - at least I have many times come up with something new, but in vain. Constructive dialogue often contains something else than just dismissing everything. --82.181.220.186 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd addition: It doesn't encourage one to dialogue to see edit summaries such as "not really debatable" and "bury that dead cat". I'm certainly willing to dialogue and debate the matter. Actually, it would be better to start the conversation from scratch, so let's do that. Since you said I should be trying to get agreement here before making any more edits, I'll be expecting you to answer the mentioned questions. --82.181.220.186 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the compromise of a footnote stating "using self-identification." I think that would help prevent future edit wars. I am concerned that we do not set a precedent of allowing a theological judgment ("JWs are not Christian") from entering the article. That would be the result if we refrain from using the term. Perhaps a sentence could be added in the controversy section explicitly stating the theological difference in view. Dtbrown 18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply to this down there. --82.181.220.186 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New discussion from scratch, concerning JWs' status as Christians

I feel that the situation was getting too hot, so perhaps it's time to start from scratch - sorry if my tone or behaviour was inappropriate. What I propose is that we find together a solution to something that seems to be an NPOV problem: the opening sentence calls JWs "a Christian church" without qualification. I find this a problem because "Christian" is "a follower of Christ", which has many different meanings. The definition can be different in comparative religion, in theology and in other fields of study. The matter is controversial on both fields mentioned. Comparative religionists sometimes classify Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, sometimes as a separate religion. Theologically, there is much disagreement on the matter as well (most Christians belong to churches that don't accept JW baptism and think baptism is the gate to being a Christian). Since articles should be easy to understand, we should take into account that the average reader probably doesn't make these distinctions: if we don't qualify that we're discussing the matter in a socio-historical viewpoint, the reader doesn't automatically understand it and thinks that the description is equally true in all measures. So there are actually two matters: 1) Should the opening paragraph only report the views of comparative religionists, or should it also take into account what theological views there are? 2) If yes to 1, how could the qualification be best expressed? 3) If yes to 1, how could the disagreements among comparative religionists be best expressed? 3) If no to 1, how could the disagreements between groups defining "Christian" by their theology be best expressed? Cheers, --82.181.220.186 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggested compromise of a footnote stating "using self-identification" is the best solution. Then in the controversy section a sentence or two could be added explaining the theological difference. Dtbrown 18:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the opening sentence calls them a Christian denomination, not a Church. Dtbrown 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps the problem has been all along that "JWs are Christian" without qualification is very easily read as a theological statement, too. What about this: "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international denomination, self-identified as a Christian church and as [having been founded by Jesus in the 1st century." Or something like that. I'm most certainly not advocating that the article should say "JWs are not Christian". On the other hand, why is the matter such that a footnote is the best option? --82.181.220.186 18:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you withdrawing your offer of a compromise? Dtbrown 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. --82.181.220.186 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to dialogue endlessly on this. You offered a compromise. I think it's a good one. Will you go with your original compromise? Dtbrown 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will, otherwise I wouldn't have offered it. It just needs to be said that all solutions can always be improved; however, I find the difference between a footnote and the main text something that is more of a stylistic than a neutrality matter. --82.181.220.186 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the page as it stands until other editors can chime in and see what they think of your offered compromise. Dtbrown 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They should express their views; I know the solution has been under some critique previously, but less than the other attempts to resolve the question. So I'll wait and see if any opposing views come up. --82.181.220.186 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents, well maybe three- The page presents the fact that some Christians may not accept JW's as Christian. It states, “Thus a number of the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses differ from those of mainstream Christianity and are considered heresy or cultic” What more do you want? Should Witnesses change the above to say in harmony with their teachings, ““Because a number of the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses differ from those of false Christianity and thus ironically these so called “Christians” consider the real true Christians to be heretics.” That my dear friend is a POV! Going by Noah Webster is not. There are enough authoritative sources to clearly show that JW's are Christians. Again a POV would be to present the JW's feelings as fact- that they are indeed the only real Christians and others are not. To say the are Christians is not a POV, it is an established fact by Webster, EB, Almanacs, etc. To go behind this is to go into theology. Whether it is a Dalmatian, Great Dane, Chihuahua , Lab, Irish Wolfhound, Chow Chow, Pug, Jack Russel, or Saint Bernard, or a Tibetan Mastiff it is a Dog. IF the Dogs want to fight among themselves about who they are or who is better let them! However we as humans clearly now they are dogs. Why? Because of set standards. To use set standards to determine whether a creature is a dog is not POV regardless of how the dog might think. We are going in circles here. I get dizzy chasing my tail. And by the way JW's DO baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit. However, I know Christians who feel that all Catholics/ Lutherans are not going to be saved since they sprinkle and not dip. But again let the dogs have at it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johanneum (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC). Johanneum 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Johanneum. I realize the discussion may be offensive to you. But, are you saying you will not accept the compromise of a footnote saying "using self-identification..." and even putting in the Almanac reference? You removed it earlier and said to have others discuss it. What is your feeling about the compromise? Dtbrown 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I will try to answer it in detail. 1) "What more do you want?" My already mentioned questions are basicly: are these disagreements too unimportant to affect what the opening paragraph says, and if yes or no, how could the disagreements (also among comparative religionists) be best expressed? 2) "To say the are Christians is not a POV, it is an established fact by Webster, EB, Almanacs, etc." As has been noticed, the EB refrains from calling JWs Christian, and so do many more encyclopedias and scientists. So the matter is just as established as any controversial scientific fact. 3) "To go behind this is to go into theology." I think it is worth noting that the term "Christian" has also a theological dimension, and my opinion is that using the word in a non-theological sense without qualification is expecting without reason that people understand that the opening paragraphs uses the word only in a non-theological meaning. Another question is whether the opening paragraph should use it in such a narrow sense, but even if it does, a qualification is needed in my humble opinion. 4) "And by the way JW's DO baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit." I haven't questioned that, at least that wasn't my intention. Their understanding of those words is what is different, and that is why theological definitions of "Christian" usually exclude JWs. I didn't quite get what your stance is regarding the qualification I suggested ("Using self-identification", in a footnote); at least I feel it is in line with what you think, even if you don't find it needed in the article. --82.181.220.186 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading this comment from Jeffro [4] indicates he's willing to accept the reference as this was posted after the compromise was offered. Dtbrown 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment referenced by Dtbrown suggests that I will tolerate the unnecessary and childish reference (subject to change), not that I accept it. Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian relgion, because they conform to the condition of such a name - they believe in Jesus as the Christ. It's textbook, and there is nothing more to it. The reasoning from Mr 82.181.220.186 is that we shouldn't say that JWs are Christian because definitions set by other religions preclude them. However, JWs state that other religions are not really Christian either. So, by Mr 82.181.220.186's logic, we must trawl through every single article about 'Christian' religions and add a reference stating that they're Christians only by self-identification. Yes... it is just as stupid as it sounds. Calling this a 'new discussion from scratch' is interesting piece of word play. It really is still the same discussion, and it hasn't really gotten any further.--Jeffro77 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't gone any further because I haven't been answered in spite of constant requests - "new discussion" means an appeal that former harsh tone shouldn't be an obstacle in order to reach consensus (I'd say "childish" and "word play" are examples of that tone). I brought to attention that not everyone views identically what "believing in Jesus as the Christ" means. Just repeating that they do that isn't helping anyone. The fact that JWs don't consider other people Christians - well, the difference in number is enormous (as I stated above, over four thousand times greater) in regards to disagreement about the status of JWs as Christians. --82.181.220.186 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Jeffro and I should have put it differently. I'm anxious to put this to rest and if you're willing to tolerate this as a possible way of so doing, I would agree to it. Dtbrown 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] once again EB calls them a "Protestant denominations" If Protestants are Christians then the Britannica does indeed call them Christians. How many references do you need to accept that they are Christian? As Jeffro indicates it is childish to debate that a Great Dane is not a dog. Johanneum 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference from the Brittanica. The article also moves from Protestantism to "non-Christian" groups like Buddhism, etc. So, besides lumping JWs with Protestants it implies they are a Christian group. So, we have the World Book, Columbia Encyclopedia and the Brittanica identifying JWs as "Christian." I say let's put this to rest. Too many electrons have been wasted on this. Dtbrown 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Protestantism has become so diverse that the only common feature they all have is that they aren't Catholics, Orthodox or members of other old churches, the description is more socio-historical than theological with regards to e.g. JWs. The JW article itself refrains from using "Protestant" and the whole book refrains from using "Christian". We also have Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Your Dictionary and WordWeb not identifying JWs as Christian. What else is needed to maintain that the matter is controversial even among encyclopedias? --82.181.220.186 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are arguments from silence unless they state JWs are not Christian. It is very clear that secular sources identify JWs as Christian. Dtbrown 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, since even during this conversation I have referred to four dictionaries and four comparative religionists. --82.181.220.186 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do any of those four dictionaries plainly state JWs are "not Christian"? Dtbrown 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr 82.181.220.186, unless you are as adamant about Wikipedia articles of other religions, such as Mormonism et al, eschewing the word 'Christian', then it may appear that you have a specific agenda regarding the Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian in the plain sense of the word; moreover, the article clarifies in the Controversy section that some religious groups dispute this. No referencing beyond that is necessary. I will leave the poorly worded and unnecessary reference in place for now, pending the thoughts of other editors. However, I will change the link Christian denomination in the article to [[Christian]] [[Christian denomination|denomination]] to allow easier access for readers to see the principal definition of 'Christian' if they so desire.--Jeffro77 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Jeffro77, I can assure you that I have no agenda against JWs. I have no personal opinion about their theological status as Christians, and I accept that comparative religionists can and do classify them either inside or outside Christianity. However, simply saying 1) that comparative religion is the only field of study that should be taken into account and 2) that only those comparative religionists that classify JWs as Christians should be taken into account is not neutral. --82.181.220.186 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On inspection, someone else had removed the redundant reference and put the word 'sect' in. I got rid of 'sect', but have no desire or reason to reinstate the reference.--Jeffro77 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can put it back, I don't wish to bother you. --82.181.220.186 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

POV = JW's are true Christians. NPOV Jw's are Christian. It is that simple.Johanneum 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case the idea was POV = We can't say JWs are Christians because some other Christian groups would disagree. NPOV = any group which self-identifies as Christian is Christian. Dtbrown 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I've been saying, it really is that simple. And it seems that only one editor, and an anonymous one at that, has a problem with it.--Jeffro77 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've said previously, the term Christian is always a self-applied one. joshbuddy, talk 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the stupid reference has made it's way back. Not only is it redundant, but it is also not really correct. They are Christian, not merely by self-identification (i.e. 'we are Christian because we say we are'), but by the plain English definition of the word, being that they believe that Jesus was the Christ. The reference should not be there.--Jeffro77 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we're even discussing this gives evidence that the "plain English definition of the word" isn't something that can without qualification be used non-theologically. Make a better formulation but don't remove it altogether. --82.181.220.186 08:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now the reference basically says 'Yes, it means what most people think it means'. At crunch time, there is no 'non-theological' definition of Christian at all. And the primary theological definition of the word Christian is a person who believes in Jesus as the Christ. Even the Catholic Church (whose members' viewpoint 82.181.220.186 is supposedly upholding) acknowledges - as quoted earlier in this discussion - that non-Trinitarian (supposedly 'self-identifying') 'Christian' religions are indeed Christian. Is there anyone who even agrees with 82.181.220.186??--Jeffro77 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it says "it means what it means in these fields of study". Most people see the word as something that contains also the theological meaning, which - according to Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and others forming a significant majority of Christendom - maintains that belief in Jesus as the Christ is inseparable from valid trinitarian baptism. The quote in Our Sunday Visitor - come on, it was just a newspaper published by a private institution and not an official church document. --82.181.220.186 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly. There is only one person involved in this 'discussion' arguing for a redundant reference (with the alternative of complete exclusion) for stating that JWs are Christians. 82.181.220.186 previously stated: "I am not seeking my own view to prevail (I actually have no personal definition of Christianity, and I'm not personally into declaring JWs as being outside Christianity)". However, despite that, the user's contributions under this anonymous IP begain on 3 February, and since that time the user has made nearly 100 edits - all on this article... not one single edit on any other articles. No edits, comments, or suggestions made on any other article, such as those of Mormons, Christadelphians, or any other 'non-mainstream' religions that claim to be Christian. For someone who is "not seeking [his] own view to prevail", he seems to be trying to keep this issue until everyone agrees with him, him being the only one who is acquiescing with his position. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.--Jeffro77 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jeffro. Except I think this has gone past silly and is starting to become disruptive. Dtbrown 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that I do make edits on Wikipedia, but I wish to keep them in an IP separate from this and unknown to others (the reason being quite obvious). Concerning Mormons - what would you expect me to edit on the LDS article? It already states (to my understanding perfectly neutrally) that the organization testifies itself to be the Christian church. Why should I be discontent on that? Christadelphians are so small group that I haven't had a thought about them. I think you could show some trust to other wikipedians, at least to the extent of believing what they honestly say. I do not consider myself able to define Christianity theologically; thus, I do not believe JWs are non-Christians, but everyone doesn't agree on that. --82.181.220.186 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to recognize any valid reason for why someone who has "no personal definition of Christianity, and ... not personally into declaring JWs as being outside Christianity" would have any "reason being quite obvious" for making their edits anonymously. Maybe it's just me.--Jeffro77 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you could perhaps just trust me. Even if I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I'm dishonest or with an agenda. --82.181.220.186 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify here that it's not that you disagree with me that bothers me, but that all of the editors who have commented on this issue disagree with you.--Jeffro77 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Even that should not bother you - not at least to the extent of calling me dishonest. It doesn't bother me either, we disagree and that's life. Of course I think I'm right and you're wrong, otherwise I wouldn't have the opinion I have. --82.181.220.186 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The general position of someone who doesn't have a strong personal view about the issue, but thinks that others might not agree with the statement would be to raise it in discussion, and then accept it the way it is once it is established that every other editor says it doesn't need the reference. But that is not what you have done. Your opinion is counter to the facts. See below. If you have some kind of factual justification for your disagreement, feel free to comment.--Jeffro77 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think neither of us is in a position to weigh each others' behaviour this deeply - it only creates an impression that you cannot think why anyone would disagree with you except for their confessional opinions. I have a very strong opinion about what Wikipedia should say about this matter, and the factual justification for that is that the matter is highly controversial. Disagreement with others doesn't automatically make me stop arguing my view, even if I have no confessional opinion about the status of JWs. --82.181.220.186 06:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire debate hinges on an invalid assumption regarding the relationship between facts and beliefs (a glorified synonym for opinions). Beliefs are important and valuable. But facts do not need to be qualified by beliefs. (On the other hand beliefs should be, but quite often are not, justified by facts.) It is a fact, by simple definition of the word, that a Christian is ‘a person who believes that Jesus was the Christ.’ That is a fact - they exist, and are real, tangible people who hold a belief, and it requires no other reference other than familiarity with the word.

Whether Jesus actually was (or is) the Christ is a belief (one that is unproven, and thus far unprovable), but the fact remains that actual people really do believe it. There are also people who believe that being a Christian means more… Catholics believe that it means accepting the Trinity (another unproven and probably unprovable belief). JWs believe that it means not accepting blood transfusions. (These are non-exhaustive arbitrary examples.) They are beliefs because, unless I’m grossly misinformed, God (whose existence is also unproven) has not actually verifiably confirmed that being a Christian requires any of these things.

These beliefs do not alter facts, and encyclopaedically, beliefs should be discussed and qualified within the context of facts, not the other way around. Of course, there may be some people who believe that I am not really a person editing Wikipedia, but actually a celestial rabbit creating nebulae by cross-stitch. But, this does not mean that I should qualify my edits on Wikipedia with a reference stating that I self-identify as an editor on Wikipedia, whether it’s one person who believes I’m a celestial rabbit, or a billion. If it is proven that I actually am the sub-conscious manifestation of a celestial rabbit, I will recant and say no more about the redundant reference. Otherwise, I suggest that no reference be given for saying that JWs are Christian. If the majority of editors are in agreement (though it seems that there is only 1 who thinks it should stay), I will remove it...--Jeffro77 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the general justification for excluding JWs from Christianity is not that believing in Jesus as the Christ (a belief of many Hindus and New Age believers, by the way) is enough, but that belief in Jesus as the Christ necessarily includes belief in his divinity. Therefore, the mentioned groups don't disagree with how dictionaries define "Christian", but they have a larger criteria for meeting the definition than just self-identification. At the moment, Wikipedia says that 1) JWs are Christians and that 2) there are people who disagree on this? Do you also opine that this doesn't make it say that the mentioned people are wrong? And are the mentioned encyclopedias that refrain from calling JWs Christian also non-neutral? --82.181.220.186 06:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, JWs do believe that Jesus is a god, and therefore divine, so that comment added no weight to your argument. Your comments on having a larger criteria for being "Christian" indicate a failure to recognize the distinction between fact and belief outlined above. As for your next point, consider an analogy: 1) People who buy every episode of Star Trek are Star Trek fans. 2) Others don't believe that those people are really fans because they don't go to the nerd conventions. The assignment of non-factual criteria (a belief) does not invalidate the fact they're still fans of the show, nor does it diminish the import of why the second group disagrees. You will need to take up your questions about the unspecified encyclopaedias with their editors.--Jeffro77 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We both know the difference between the general Christian belief and the JW belief about Jesus' divinity; the rest is just semantics. Your argument fails because "a Star Trek fan" isn't a theological term. Even the hardline fans you referred to don't claim their definition to be somehow objective; "a Christian" is however claimed to have an objective theological meaning. Two points: 1) We should not let the article say what it now says: "These people believe that JWs are not Christian but they're wrong", and 2) The expressions "Christian", "follower of Christ" or "believer in Jesus as the Christ" carry with them all sorts of interpretations every time we use it; there is no default interpretation - it should be specified whether the criteria is sociology, comparative religion (which school of this science?), theology (which school of theology?) or simply self-identification. And no, the mentioned encyclopedias were not "unspecified", they're listed on this very talk page you're reading right now. --82.181.220.186 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You've had your moment. The majority of editors do not agree with you.--Jeffro77 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you are quite wrong about your claim that encyclopaedias do not generally acknowledge that they are a Christian religion. There are several quotes in the earlier Talk section, "Sect or religious denomination" from various encyclopaedia and dictionaries that concur that JWs are Christians. Furthermore, George indicated that many other Christian groups are not explicitly indicated as being Christian in some encyclopaedias either. Notably, none of the publications mentioned go as far as to say that JWs are not Christian. And the EB does explictly classify as Christians those groups that do not believe in the Trinity. It seems that you still have not grasped the distinction between fact and belief.--Jeffro77 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that; I have claimed that the matter is controversial even among purely secular sources such as encyclopedias. I have shown that several of them do not refer to them as Christians; they don't refer to them as non-Christians either, but that's not relevant because that's not what I think this article should say. In addition, I have named several comparative religionists who do not classify JWs as Christians. I have demonstrated the matter to be controversial even in the secular usage of the word. What else could you demand? Are the mentioned encyclopedias and scientists non-neutral, in your opinion (I'd really wish that you would answer these questions)? Or should they just be ignored because of their refusal to take sides (which is what the article should do, in my opinion)? --82.181.220.186 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication at all that the issue is controversial in secular encyclopaedias. There's too much guff to wade through in this unnecessarily lengthy discussion to identify the encyclopaedias that you claim don't call JWs Christian, however it has been established that the Encyclopaedia Britannica does identify them as Christian by the definition it employs. Again, the reason that some do not consider them Christians is because of an extended definition of Christianity (belief) that goes beyond the plain meaning of the word (fact). The controversy belongs in the relevant sub-section of the article. The neutral point of view is to point out the fact, and then expand on that by noting thoelogical objections in the relevant subsection, properly indicating both sides of this issue that isn't really quite as controversial as you are making it appear.--Jeffro77 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can identify them for you: Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Your Dictionary and WordWeb. Do you opine that even when these secular encyclopedias don't identify JWs as Christians, it's again simply because their editors have certain beliefs? Doesn't this simply demonstrate that your understanding of "the plain meaning of the word" is something too simple to be even agreed upon in secular and scientific sources? (Note that EB calls historic (first-generation) nontrinitarians Christians, or JWs Protestant, but refrains from calling JWs Christian; even then, it's only one book besides the four I mentioned.) If it isn't enough that the controversy is seen even in encyclopedias and comparative religion, what is? What could persuade you if this cannot? --82.181.220.186 06:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The four publications you have named are dictionaries, not encyclopaedias. Dictionaries generally do not go into much depth describing organizations. dictionary.com does not explicitly call Anglicans Christians either, and it only explicitly mentions the word 'Christian' under the Catholic entry (as distinct from the generic entry, 'catholic') for Anglo-Catholics but not Roman Catholics. Merriam-Webster does not explicitly state that Anglicans are Christian. The Oxford dictionary does not mention the word Christian in its definition of Roman Catholic. There is no need to continue.--Jeffro77 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit my error in calling dictionaries encyclopedias. I would however say that if neutral language required a dictionary to recognize JWs as Christian, it would do that when defining the organization (dictionary.com actually calls Anglicans Christians in the third entry; it calls them a "church" in all three entries). I have only one dictionary (Gummerus) in my bookshelf, and it doesn't describe JWs as a Christian organization. I can make further research, but can I justify my view in your eyes even by showing the disagreement among encyclopedias? --82.181.220.186 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that now you're just being plain dishonest. dictionary.com's entry for 'Anglican' shows results from 5 different works (dictionary.com, American Heritage, Online Etymology, WordNet, Kernerman English Multilingual). None of the definitions from any of those 5 works mentions the word 'Christian'. It is well established that a dictionary's exclusion of the word Christian adds no support to your view. You ask whether you can 'justify my view in your eyes', however this isn't about me, it's about facts. Your opinion is counter to the facts for the purposes of a secular encyclopaedia. Argue about your theological opinions in a more relevant forum.--Jeffro77 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're making accusations of dishonesty too easily. The entry I had a look on wasn't "Anglican" but "Anglican communion" (the name of the organization, which is what is at stake here), which was evident because I talked about three entries, not five. If I wanted to be dishonest, I'd do that with a source less easily checked. I'm not arguing about my theological opinions (again something about which your accusations are too easily made), but simply about the disagreement about the matter in secular sources. You could perhaps answer the question: if I showed you that many encyclopedias do not call JWs Christian, would you agree that to be neutral language? --Martin C. 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my confusion that came about as a result of your vagueness. The point remains that you have not demonstrated that there is any disagreement among secular sources at all. All you have demonstrated is that some dictionaries do not explicitly mention the word 'Christian' in their definitions of various Christian religions. That seems to be a pretty weak basis for someone who is not arguing on the basis of their own theological opinions. If you showed me secular encylopaedias that say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, that might have some weight. Otherwise, no, your point is still unproven.--Jeffro77 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, let's not have bad feeling about that. If omitting word "Christian" when defining JWs is not disapprovable in dictionaries, why should it be in encyclopedias either? Actually I have mentioned an encyclopedia or two that do not explicitly mention "Christian" when defining JWs (Gummerus and EB), and I can dig up more. How many examples would satisfy you? I don't need to show encyclopedias that call JWs non-Christian, because that is not what I'm arguing for in Wikipedia either. BTW, do you opine that members of the Druze religion should be called Muslims? --Martin C. 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Druze at all (and your overuse of the word 'opine' is getting a little irritating). As has been previously stated, no number of encyclopaedias that don't explicitly mention that JW's are Christian will add any weight to your contention that the encyclopaedias intend that they are not Christian.--Jeffro77 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not arguing for that. I argue that they leave the matter unspecified because of its controversial nature. Because they do that, it would be neutral for Wikipedia to do that too (I don't want Wikipedia to state that JWs are not Christian, but it would not imply that by simply refraining from saying the opposite). Concerning the word 'opine': English is not my first language, so my vocabulary is naturally smaller than e.g. yours. But what prevents you from saying that the Druze should be called Muslim? --Martin C. 11:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I already informed you, I have no opinion about the Druze, so nothing prevents me from saying that they either are or are not Muslim, but that isn't relevant. Aside from your speculation, it has not been established that there is any controversy among secular sources regarding this issue.--Jeffro77 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant - if you think that self-identification should prevail over others' opinions, you should think that Wikipedia should call them Muslims. I think I have demonstrated that refraining from calling JWs Christian is not non-neutral, because I have shown that many dictionaries and encyclopedias refrain from doing so. What could assure you? Do you want examples of comparative religionists who refrain from calling them Christian, or even call them non-Christian? --Martin C. 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that "self-identification should prevail over others' opinions". 'Self-identification' and 'others' opinions' should both be compared against factual non-theological definitions. I will not become embroiled in an irrelevant discussion about the Druze. I note your opinion that you think you have demonstrated your point. You haven't, borne out by the fact that the majority of editors do not agree with you. You are going in circles asking what will assure me. I will not continue to answer questions that I have already answered. See previous comments.--Jeffro77 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I will assume that demonstrating the matter even further will suffice for you. I can't help it, but I keep thinking that if everything I say is so irrelevant, is there really something that would suffice? Ability to be falsified is a feature of meaningful arguments. I will however read the talk page again through and try to search for what you mean. --Martin C. 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussing whether Druze are Muslims is like discussing whether a person is really related to their father-in-law - it comes down to semantics (since they don't follow the Koran, it probably leans towards 'no', but it's more complicated than the issue at hand). Discussing whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians is like discussing whether Hawaii is one of the United States even though it's not on the mainland.--Jeffro77 14:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? The meaning of "Muslim" is "one who submits to God", not "follower of the Koran". I've seen even Christians calling themselves Muslims (in ecumenical context) in that meaning. --Martin C. 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew that you would attempt some irrelevant tangential semantic ploy. As I have already explained to you, I will not become embroiled in an irrelevant discussion about the Druze. You have only demonstrated the import of the analogy I gave in my last response.--Jeffro77 08:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Harsh words, I would say. You have stated that "Christian" includes everyone who professes to believe in Jesus as the Christ, regardsless of what others think, because of the lexical meaning of the word. When I point out that "Muslim" therefore includes everyone who professes to follow God, regardless of what others think, you call that "irrelevant". --Martin C. 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two possibilities at this point. 1) Because English is not your first language, you do not properly understand the different nuances of the two concepts you are comparing. If that is the case, see the analogies previously presented. 2) You are a 'troll'. In either situation, it has been thoroughly evinced that the majority of editors disagree with you, and your desired change is not going to be accepted.--Jeffro77 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure that I'm not a troll, and I acknowledge possibility 1 to be possible. I also think each of us should recognise one's own errancy and be ready to constantly weight all arguments, even noting that the other party could, after all, be right at least in some regards. How I see your analogy is that the you parallel Christianity and the USA by saying that the lexical definition of "Christian" (i.e. "one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ") is just as objective criteria as national borders. On the other hand, you feel that the lexical definition of "Muslim" (i.e. "one who professes to follow God") is somehow more subjective, just like the question about whether you are related to your father-in-law. Did I understand the nuances correctly? --Martin C. 10:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The default English definition of the word 'Christian' is 'a person who accepts Jesus as the Christ'. The default English definition of the word 'Muslim' is 'a member of Islam'. You are attempting to compare a secondary definition of 'Muslim' with the primary definition of 'Christian'. Your application of the word 'Muslim' in the sense of 'a follower of God' is akin to the generic sense of the word 'catholic' (no capital), which does not identify a religious group.--Jeffro77 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By default English definition you mean the one that is mentioned first in dictionaries, or something else? In fact, also Muslims believe in Jesus as the Christ (i.e. the Messiah; see Islamic views of Jesus). Actually Islam was initially regarded as a Christian heresy. --Martin C. 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By 'default', I mean the definition that the word implies on its own to an unbiased native speaker of English. Typically this would be the first definition given in a basic English dictionary, as would be used by students; the order of definitions in more technical works may vary depending on whether they favour current usage or etymological history as the determining factor. By the way, the word 'Muslim' literally means 'one who surrenders', not 'follower of God'. Incidentally, my comprehensive Collins English Dictionary says that a Jehovah's Witnesses is "a member of a Christian Church of American origin...".--Jeffro77 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would agree that self-identification plays some role in defining "Christian" (since you would include JWs but exclude Muslims), right? --Martin C. 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No! You are splitting hairs and clutching at straws. I have been very very patient with you, but you are becoming annoying. Within the context being discussed, your contention that Muslims are as much Christian as Jehovah's Witnesses is plainly absurd, and is characteristically troll-like. You admit that English is not your first language, but when a native speaker tries to explain that your assertion is not correct, you keep persisting. It is obvious from the fact that no other editors are supporting your position (and most of them tired of this pointless debate a long time ago) that your argumentation is flawed. Stop or an administrator will be asked to determine whether your actions are considered disruptive.--Jeffro77 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly sorry if you had that kind of impression. My intention wasn't to split hairs or even contend that Muslims are as much Christian as JWs. I just wanted to ask you a question about how you define "Christian" since my impression is that you don't define it as simply someone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by Jewish prophets (that is what Muslims believe, at least it seems so; it's not splitting hairs to say that). --Martin C. 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you know the difference between a Christian and a Muslim. I believe that you know that Jehovah's Witnesses fit into a non-theological definition of Christian. Even if you don't know these things, the consensus among the majority of editors is that your position is incorrect, so the issue is immaterial. You are welcome to look up the word Christian in any dictionary you please, and you can discuss your opinion in a more relevant forum.--Jeffro77 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem for me to accept consensus; during this discussion I have mentioned many new aspects that, in my view, are a good basis for rethinking the matter. This could be a place for each of us to re-weigh our arguments and especially the foundations we give to them. As you said, we both know the difference between a Christian and a Muslim; to me the mentioned difference seems to be a good counter-example to the argument that professing belief in Jesus as the Christ should be the only criteria in a non-confessional definition of a Christian. What I'm saying is that this is a chance to think about the definition of "Christian" again: what should it be like in order to get results that are obvious for both of us (i.e. Muslims are not Christians), and what results does it imply concerning our disagreements? Just saying "I disagree so go home" isn't replying to the issue itself (nobody else has commented on my new argument). I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but usually conversation gives something new to think for both sides; that is why I couldn't present everything in the beginning. --Martin C. 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been folloing this line of discussion for the last week or so and i have to say. Why are you carrying this torture stake? (pun intended) It is obvious that your position is considered weak by the majority and unless you can come up with an argument based on solid academics it will remain that way. BTW what is exactly the reason for your wanting to remain an IP address? You will still be anonymous to everyone here. George 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. George, isn't it an argument based on solid academics that there is large disagreements even among dictionaries, encyclopedias and comparative religionists about the status of JWs? You're right about the IP, I could make an account and still remain anonymous. Per Wikipedia rules, I could even make two accounts and use both, provided that I marked the other with text that said that the account is a second account (thus invalidating the possibility to vote twice). Perhaps I will. --82.181.220.186 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you replied to me directly I will respond just this once.

There is no large or even small disagreement among dictionaries and encyclopedias. Period. A number of "Christian scholars" (see I do it too) say that JW's are not Christian. This is based on their interpretation of what it means to be Christian, their personal or communal theology. Their opinions are not useful to the definition of JW's from a secular point of view. THere is an Orthodox Wiki where you can forward your position and it would have a better chance of acceptance there. ( because it is a theology based site) Please don't harrass these people trying to move ahead any longer. George 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. George, I have mentioned four dictionaries and one or two (depending on interpretation) encyclopedias that do not call JWs Christian. --82.181.220.186 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, the Nicene Creed should stand alone as the litmus test for whether something or someone is "Christian" or not. This statement of belief has been repeatedly upheld and used as the accurate statement of belief by numerous ecumenical councils over the years. It has stood for almost 1700 years as the de facto doctrinal statement for Christianity. Most Christian churches either recite the Creed during service or utilize the Creed in doctrinal statements. I think this issue highlights the problem with Wikipedia, which is that it is currently being strangled by political correctness and a very fluid standard of "terms" - that being the guide that is used for how someone or something is defined. There needs to be some kind of standards or guide to determine how things are labeled. Is it appropriate for anyone or anything to determine it's own label? Might Al-Qaeda be allowed to call itself a "democratic organization", or a Christian organization on Wikipedia (and I am not suggesting any correlation between JW and Al-Qaeda)? There needs to be some guide to determine how things should be labeled, or we wallow in a sea of subjectivity, completely at the mercy of any sophistry presented. The overwhelming majority of Christians around the world accept the Nicene Creed (as first proposed in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea and later ratified at the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus) as the true statement of belief for Christians. I don't see why this should not be used as the standard for any organization referring to itself as "Christian". There should at least be some statement that says, this or that organization aligns or does not align itself with the tenets of the faith as stated in the Nicene Creed. JWs make a point of specifically not accepting the Nicene Creed as representative of their doctrinal statement, and it seems scrupulous to include this on the page. Is there any cogent argument against using the Creed as such? Supertheman 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult

Johanneum has restored a comment that some members of other religions consider JWs a cult because they do not conform to certain mainstream Christian doctrines. The comment is erroneous, as it is does not properly define what a cult is. Some view JWs as a cult because of their their separationist attitude to society - disfellowshipping practices, limiting contact with non-believers, not celebrating worldly holidays and so forth. It is those things that are viewed as 'cultic'. While refusing to believe the Trinity may be viewed by some as heresy, it does not identify a 'cult'.--Jeffro77 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Walter Martin, Author of the Kingdom of the Cults stated "By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith." However, I am not going to make an issue out of it. Johanneum 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cults are not determined from how far from Christianity. If it were so, Islam, any form of polytheism, Hindusm would all be cults. Some sources, mostly from those who are evangelistic consider religions such as this, Mormonism, and Iglesia ni Cristo as a Cult of Christianity, which is what the above comment states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

The trouble with what has been presented above introduces ambiguity between cult and cult (religious practice). Most readers will assume that the common use of the word is intended (the former), rather than the latter to which Kindom of the Cults refers in the quote above. Because of this distinction, it would be best to avoid the word 'cult' in the paragraph in question.--Jeffro77 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness is not a christian organisation by their own admission. Christ has no deity to them and throughout the new testament (in their New World Translation bible) they have removed the word "worship" in relation to Jesus and changed it to "obeisance". From Isaiah 42 they have named themselves after Yahweh and not Jesus Christ. They are Jehovists and not Christians. Many denominations are part of the "body of Christ", the JW's however are not. BMurray 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any self-admission at all by Jehovah's Witnesses to say that they are not Christian. Your belief that they are not Christian is based on an extended definition of the word 'Christian'. See talk in the section above.--Jeffro77 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an offence to Jehovah's Witness to term it as 'Christian'. As per Isaiah 42 they are called God's (Jehovah's) people and not 'Christ's' people. They constantly disparage 'Christians' for taking on that term, but the rebuttal from Christians to Jehovah's Witness is from Act 11:26

Your comment is bombastic and plainly stupid. It is one thing to claim that others don't recognize them as Christian, but your claim that they do not even 'self-identify' as Christian, and that they are offended by the term is grossly ignorant of the facts.--Jeffro77 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

BMurray 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

BMurray you comments show a gross lack of understanding of JW's. Just one quick quote. “YOU will be witnesses of me . . . to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) With those parting words, Jesus commissioned his disciples to be witnesses. But witnesses of whom? “Witnesses of me,” said Jesus.... Jesus’ disciples were given an unprecedented privilege—that of being witnesses of both Jehovah and Jesus. As faithful Jews, Jesus’ early disciples were already witnesses of Jehovah. (Isa. 43:10-12) But now they were to witness also concerning Jesus’ vital role in sanctifying Jehovah’s name by means of His Messianic Kingdom. Note the Chapter name too! (Proclaimers Of God's Kingdom chap. 3 p. 26 Christian Witnesses of Jehovah in the First Century)Go to [watchtower.org] for more info.Johanneum 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"YOU will be witnessess of me" BRILLIANT point... who is making that statement? Because in Jehovah's Witness Jehovah and Christ are not the same person, so they are either witnessess of one or the other and it is the former. Given this additional point, Christ falls even further from their religion.

Watchtower states that it's name (Jehovah's Witness) is based on Isaiah 43:12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God." and Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

They ommit Isaiah 62:2 "And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name."

Furthermore, throughout watchtower.org they constantly disparage Christendom and distance themselves from it. Bastian BMurray 10:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The key fault in your illogical claim is your implication that they must be 'witnesses' for one or the other, as if the two aren't on the same side. Of course they very much believe that God and Christ are certainly on the same team even if they aren't the same entity. Their disparaging of Christendom, as much of an ad hominem attack as it is, makes them no less Christian by simple definition. Furthermore, the fact that they refer to themselves at times as the "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" (and have a legal entity of the same name though they do not limit that expression to the name of that corporation, eg w99, 15 May, p25), your contention is completely dissolved, and your bias is evident. It is fine for you to be biased. But not here.--Jeffro77 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Jeffro, but sometimes its like saying the terms 'Jew' and 'Christian' are interchangeable, maybe they are. For instance; I am comfortable with using the term 'Judeo-Christian'. Many Jews believe that Christ was a prophet; however they don't believe he was the Lord (sometimes translated as Jehovah in the New World Translation eg. Luke 4:12). BMurray 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jews do not believe "that Christ was a prophet". They believe that Jesus was a prophet. They do not believe that Jesus was Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand fulfil the requirements for being Christians in the only factual sense: they believe that Jesus was the Christ and that they are doing stuff he likes. Whether the NWT is accurate is not relevant to this topic.--Jeffro77 11:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, sorry I got the semantics wrong between 'Jesus' and 'Christos', not unlike the NWT in Luke 4:12. Jesus said to the multitude their reward in heaven will be great, unfortunately the quota for heaven is now full. It is hard to comfortably say "they are doing stuff he likes", they confuse him with the Anti-christos in Revelation 6. BMurray 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ("And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering." Genesis 22:8)

It has been well established that interpretations of specific scriptures regarding the Trinity have no bearing as to whether JWs are Christians, so there is no need to respond to your comments. However, I was quite amused by the liberty you take in your misapplication of Genesis 22:8. Implying the word "as" rather than the contextually valid "with" after the word "Himself" really is quite funny. Unless you actually imagine that the lamb supposedly provided by god that Abraham used for his grotesque primitive blood-letting ritual was also actually God Himself... Funny stuff. According to BMurray, the bible indicates at Genesis 22:13 that Abraham actually killed God.--Jeffro77 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you for some part, it is a "grotesque... blood-letting" act, many secualr people were digusted with the gore in "The Passion", but that was the role that Jesus was apparently taking on, and the idiom used for Jesus, the Lamb, is constantly used throughout Revelation. The bible contains over 300 figurative uses of speech, among them are puns and allegories. In Genesis 5 the tetragammatons aren't translated, also in Revelation 2, once again the tetragammatons aren't translated. Imagine making a statement like "imagine that the bread provided at church communion was actually Jesus Himself... Funny stuff. According to so and so Christians actually eat Jesus." That doesn't sound like an intelligent statement. Maybe now you understand what an 'allegory' is, but since I'm on the topic lets look at some other parallels - The ritual was performed on Mt Moriah, probably near Golgotha, God said "take thine only son, whom thou lovest" that's a familiar phrase and Abraham had more than one son, so thats interesting too. The "law of first mention" dictates that where a word is used for the first time in the bible it is significant, this is where the word "love" is used for the first time. Abraham also prophetically named the spot "Jehovahjireh". It's possible that all these parrallels that fit the allegorical model could be coincidental. Coincidentally, the word "coincidence" is not a Kosher word. BMurray

You have gone even further off topic. (And it is very bad form to modify other editors' comments on Talk pages.) Don't patronize me about allegories. A glaring error - substituting an implied adverb, "as", in place of a preposition, "with", can't be validly explained away as an 'allegory'. However, getting back on track, the point is that it has been established that JWs are Christian for the purposes of a secular encyclopaedia. Period.--Jeffro77 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That was an honest mistake Jeffro that I just noticed, I apologise, I meant to 'copy' and 'paste' your quote but I must have 'cut' and 'paste', I didn't mean to do that because it makes my comment out of context. Except for that very first edit I haven't touched the actual article but kept everything to the discussion page, so I do respect the general consensus. Its not so much an allegory as it is living out prophecy in advance, the model actually carries on further into the next chapters, which I won't get into and further off the topic. I don't have to imply anything, Hebrew lends itself to read the way it does, aswell as contain the Equidistant Letter Sequence, the heptatic structure, acrostics and various other codes. BMurray

Apology accepted. Those word games - particularly the spurious 'Equidistant Letter Sequence' - can be played with almost any piece of literature.--Jeffro77 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can say that we do identify ourselves as Christians. We do not identify ourselves as part of Christendom however, since we use that term to refer to all other Christian religions. Witnesses are certainly not offended to be referred to as Christians - quite the opposite actually. We're offended when people try to claim we are not Christians, since this implies that we don't recognize Jesus' works, his sacrifice for mankind or his current kingship in heaven. Hope that clears up any confusion... --CBrewster 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written this elsewhere on the page, but it does bear repeating here. There is a very great need on Wikipedia for some standard as it pertains to a definition of terms. Certainly no one here would support Al Qaeda calling itself a Christian organization. Surely the JWs would not like it if Al Qaeda decided to say on it's Wikipedia page that it was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses church, correct? I use the extreme of Al Qaeda because it is something we can all agree on, not to compare them with anyone or any organization mentioned here. I'm simply saying that there needs to be *some kind of standard* by which things are named. Personally I think the Nicene Creed is a *pretty good* standard for determining if something is "Christian" or not. It has stood for almost 1700 years as the de facto statement of belief for Christians around the world. I understand that JWs don't accept the Creed as doctrinal, which seems to me to at least merit mention on the JW page. Since JWs zealously make distinctions between their beliefs and the beliefs of so-called "Trinitarians", it would seem to me that they would embrace a mention of the Creed on the page to distinguish themselves. After all, don't both mainstream Christians and JWs desire everyone to understand the difference between the two? Certainly JWs want people to understand the difference, so what better way than to begin using the Creed as a point of association or departure?

I propose that every religion that associates itself with "Christianity" have the Creed appear in totality on their page, with a statement of association or points of contention. Can anyone offer a better standard by which we all could clearly identify our beliefs (as Christians)? Supertheman 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaninglessness of Christianity

This article has managed to render Christianity as nothing but a large body of contradictions, absurdities, and illogicalities by describing Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christian". Christians believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or Christians don't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Christians believe in the Trinity or Christians don't believe in the Trinity. Christians believe in Heaven and Hell or Christians don't believe in Heaven and Hell, or perhaps, they believe in one but not the other.

Let's apply this standard to Islam, shall we? Islam teaches that there's no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet. Therefore, Muslims believe that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet or Muslims don't believe there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet. Islam teaches that Jesus (Isa) is not the Son of God. Therefore, Muslims believe Jesus is not the son of God or Muslims do believe Jesus is the son of God. Islam teaches that God is not a Trinity. Therefore, Muslims don't believe God is a Trinity or Muslims do believe God is a Trinity.

Let's also apply this standard to Geography class, shall we? The U.S.A. is a nation located on the continent of North America or the U.S.A. is not a nation located on the continent of North America. France is a nation located on the EurAsian continent or France is not a nation located on the EurAsian continent. German, English, and Chinese are languages or German, English, and Chinese are not languages.

Now, is Chinese both a language and not a language? Is France both located and not located on the EurAsian continent? Does Islam teach that God is both Allah and not Allah or that Muhammed is both his prophet and not his prophet? If you can reasonably conclude in the affirmative the above, then go ahead and describe anybody as Christian, regardless of belief. If not, however, then it's time to take a good look at the effect of including all groups as Christian on what it means to be a Christian. IOW, if anybody can be called a Christian, then Christianity fails to be a distinct religion.Jlujan69 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To further illustrate my point, it would be proper to say that Rota is a town in Spain and an island in the Western Pacific Ocean. It would not be proper to say that Rota is an island and is not an island or that Rota is a town in Spain and is not a town in Spain. Such a statement would be contradictory and absurd. The same goes with this article's characterization of Christianity by whom it includes as such.Jlujan69 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following are differences in theology among the religions who consider themselves Christian and are not JW's.

The pope receives/does not recieve his position through apostolic succession.

People go to purgatory/do not go to purgatory.

The Bible is/is not the inerrant word of God.

If we apply the above reasoning to all of 'Christianity' then no one is a Christian because they all claim that only their theology is correct and the others cannot be Christian. (of course they say the opposite in interfaith agreements). Obviously there is no 'Christianity' and therefore we need to take our reasoning to all the other articles about religions that self identify as Christian and fix them. There are no Christians.

Jesus said that his followers would be known because they showed love among themselves. Also "by their fruits (actions)..." also 'make disciples'.

A few other things Jesus said to do:

Love your enemies, put away your sword.

This is how JW's live.

What Jesus did not say was required of those who were his disciples:

Beleive that He and the father were both God. - You may believe he "meant" that but he never said it.

George 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular resource. The article follows a secular meaning for "Christian" and does not endorse a theological definition. Dtbrown 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The above drivel from Jlujan69 scarcely deserves a response. The childish and ill-contrived analogies attempt to compare simple facts with a belief held by a subset of Christians, and they do so on the flawed premise that all Christians believe in the Trinity. Back in reality, what Christians have in common is that they believe that Jesus was the Christ. The flawed examples are like saying "Californians are American therefore New Yorkers are not American because they're not Californians."--Jeffro77 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the use of the term 'christian' and 'christianity' should follow that of encyclopedias. Christianity will be used about all who clearly state themselves as following christianity as a religious belief, not dependent on what some would classify as 'genuine' christianity from their own theological point of view. Summer Song 11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get contentious, and I won't comment on what I think about the statement that started all this, but I do think that we need some kind of standard for what is called "Christianity". Also, Jesus said other things beside what you wrote George. He also said, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matt 7:15 So, I don't think you can sit there and say that Jesus was "ok" with accepting every idea as to what "Christianity" is.

He also said, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Matthew 23:33 So, He wasn't against calling a spade a spade and dealing with people who were leading others astray, which is not to say that JWs are, it is simply a rebuttal to associating the "put away your sword" comment with accepting any old doctrine as "Christian". Clearly Jesus wanted us to remain pure, to maintain our witness as pure, to keep or doctrine correct and pure, and to zealously *reject* any false teaching - "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 3:10 (and) "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time." Mark 13:21-23

"Be on your guard", those were words spoken by our Lord, so I think it is prudent to separate the false teaching from the true, don't you George?Supertheman 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

This is a very informative article for someone who does not know much about Jehova's Witnesses. One question I have though is: are Jehova's Witnesses allowed to marry people of other religious beliefs and is it frowned upon? If the answer is no it would be worth adding, unless it is already there and I have missed it. 153.18.17.22 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is frowned upon. Members who marry non-believers are usually viewed negatively in the congregation. They are 'encouraged' to 'marry in the Lord', which they consider to mean only JWs. If a JW marries a non-JW, they may not be married in a 'Kingdom Hall' or by a JW 'Elder' (the same applies if one of them is an 'interested one', a 'study', or an 'unbaptized publisher'). See also w04 7/1 p.30--Jeffro77 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 153.18.17.22 that this point could be worth mentioning. It would be right if this point of view was told and explained for those outside the congregation. But it must be treated in a way free of biases and criticism. It should be explained from the theology of JW and should be followed with references to JW litarature. Summer Song 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NWT reference

The Duthie reference:

• Alan S. Duthie stated that the "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines' ...even though a few aberrations can be found. ...Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses...because they must be full of heresies...It is true that there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT (eg. the incoherent polytheism in Jn.1:1,... but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'. How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Alan S. Duthie. pp. 30, 216. Jason BeDuhn stated "While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004 p.163

The quality of the reference is questionable. Changing particular verses (such as John 1:1 [about which I have no opinion], or Jeremiah 29:10 [about which the context invalidates the JW translation]) may only be a small impact on the complete work if considering the changes simply on the basis of the percentage of the entire bible that is 'altered', but it is the significance of those portions that are altered that is important. Jason BeDuhn's comment is of limited value if it is unknown which translations were compared. If such a long reference in support of the NWT is included in the article, why no references against it?--Jeffro77 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it isn't really that much of an endorsement. Its value is still questionable.--Jeffro77 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The NWT's interpretation of John 1:1 is just that and fully defendable from their point of view. (I have other issues with the NWT that I will remain silent on at this time). I do feel that this cannot be considered an "alteration" as much as a re-interpretation from a completely secular point of view. As far as the reference to poly-theism, does this then mean that all Christians are poly-theists because the same greek word is used elsewear in the OT to refer to other heavenly creatures/spirits? D L Means 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy - blood

From the article:

Critics have challenged the Witnesses' policies on blood transfusions, stating that their requirements are inconsistent and contradictory.[127] However, to Witnesses blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience for God’s personal property- blood.[128][129] That the matter blood is not at stake, is seen in the fact that members are allowed to eat meat which may still have some blood left in it. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat even though it will contain a small amount of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood thus is different than the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove any little trace of blood.[130]

The part in italics does not address the issue raised. It was the WBTS that imposed certain policies on blood; to then turn around and say that the WBTS does not see it as the issue is to deliberately ignore the point that the critic is trying to make. If it is not a response, as Johanneum even states in the edit summary, then it shouldn't be presented here where a response or counter-point should be. BenC7 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I recall reading a point out of a book by a former Witness. He made the point that Witnesses are inconsistent since they say, "no blood" but they do accept some blood. However he missed the issue as do many today. It is an issue of respect. Witnesses can and do eat some blood when they eat meat that is not KOSHER. The Jews go to great lengths to avoid any blood. Jw's do not because they feel the real issue is not so much the "blood" as it is respect and obedience for God's property. Failing to understand what Witnesses mean when they say "no blood" and then to highlight "inconsistencies" can be a strawman. They do not interpret "no Blood" to mean an absence of anything having to do with blood. Breastfeeding is a good example, white blood cells will travel between mother and baby and Witnesses will breast feed. Why? Because once again it is not totally absolutely "NO blood" but according to what God allows with his property. IF he allows white blood cells to leave then they do not question that since it is HIS PROPERTY and he can do with it as he pleases. So while it might not address all the issues that some raise it does fit in to help clarify their position.Johanneum 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Johanneum, that's an interesting interpretation. Can it be sourced to JW publications? I'm concerned that if it cannot be sourced it would be original research. Dtbrown 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

DTBrown The 1961 Watchtower (p.669) Questions From Readers states this:

"There may remain in the meat some very small amounts of blood even after proper bleeding has been done. Then, too, the fluid that runs out of the meat may simply be interstitial fluid. The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God’s law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it." Awake! stated this 1973 May 8 p. 27 Is It Right to Eat Blood? "Disrespect for the sanctity of blood is just as serious. Why? Because men really do not have the right to deprive any creature of life, for they are unable to restore that life. Accordingly, for them to take life without acting in harmony with God’s command respecting blood means taking God’s property, that is, the life represented by the blood. It means making themselves responsible for taking the life of the creature in defiance of God." So while this may be expressed in different terms, it seems that what is stated is the same thought. Johanneum 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Martin C. on Christianity Definition

What's your opinion on whether Wikipedia should use the term "Christian" to describe groups like Oneness Pentecostals (who deny the Trinty) and the classic Unitarians (not to be confused with the Unitarian-Universalists)?

Also, there are denominations which do not require a belief in the Trinity. Many Quakers are not trinitarian. The Advent Christian Church has both trinitarian and non-trinitarian congregations. Some mainstream denominations tolerate non-trinitarian belief, even among denominational scholars. Should "Christian" be used in Wikipedia articles when discussing these groups? Dtbrown 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised and disappointed to find so much subtle and not-so-subtle bias in the original version of this article. As I have many members of my family that are witnesses as well as witness friends and colleages I was able to pinpoint many of the manipulated "facts" presented by the original writers of this article as well as the underlying bias they wove in there. I took the liberty to change a few small words and phrases here and there and incorporate soe extra articles giving a broader and better-rounded point of view essentially eliminating a good portion of the bias that was in there and (hopefully!!!! lol) giving it a much more neutral point of view for the reader.

(The unsigned paragraph immediately above this one isn't mine.) From the viewpoint of mainstream churches, they are non-Christian for the same reason as JWs (nontrinitarianism). I'm not sure how split dictionaries, encyclopedias and comparative religionists are in calling them Christian or refraining from doing that, because they might have additional reasons in the case of JWs (strictly speaking, so do the mainstream churches, but it still has to do with theology). I would go with the common usage in secular sources, whatever it is (if there is one) - though I would mention the disagreements between different groups and qualify them to be theological, socio-historical, in the field of comparative religion etc. --Martin C. 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this illustrates why a theological difference cannot be the basis of determining the usage of "Christian" in a secular resource. Quakerism, for example, is generally thought to be a Christian denomination but many Quakers do not believe in the Trinity, though some do. I can't imagine an edit war over in that article trying to remove the word "Christian" from the first sentence. I think the way the JW article now reads reflects common secular usage while noting immediately that JWs are not mainstream. The Controversy section touches on the controversy though I think it could use some further editing. Dtbrown 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would still maintain that a theological difference can be a basis, but a confessional opinion on the matter cannot. For instance, comparative religionists do let the theology of each denomination to affect its description and classification, they just don't let their own possible confession affect it. But I think this disagreement between us is semantical. More important is your view concerning "common secular usage". I think I have demonstrated that some secular sources call JWs Christian, some refrain from calling them either Christian or non-Christian. The overall percentage should perhaps decide which option Wikipedia should take. However, even at this point, it should be recognised that both wordings (calling them Christian or refraining from calling them Christian or non-Christian) are acceptable and neutral tongue. --Martin C. 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've established that some secular sources "refrain from calling them either Christian or non-Christian" unless one believes an argument from silence has any validity. As has been pointed out, even the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to JWs as Protestants and refers to Arians (non-trinitarians) as Christians. Martin, if you and I were called upon to edit a Catholic article on JWs we would approach this differently. But, this is not a Catholic resource. Dtbrown 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call it "refraining from calling" or simply "not calling"; the fact still remains that those sources do not use those words ("Christian" or "non-Christian") when defining JWs. It's not an argument from silence, since I'm not deducing anything about the intention of the writers; nothing that radical. I simply present it as evidence that a wording is neutral even if it does not use a word like that. Do you disagree with that? (I have pointed out that the EB's use of "Protestant" is different from most sources, and that at least first-generation Arians were Christians by all standards; nevertheless, the EB is just one of my examples, and I can find more if you wish.) I wish to underline that I don't let my personal confession (which is neutral on the status of JWs) affect this. --Martin C. 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the EB. I think we should let it speak for itself (it calls Arians Christians and uses "Protestant" to describe JWs) without reading something into it. Please cite some specific examples of secular sources which state the JWs are not Christian. Dtbrown 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's let it speak for itself: it uses "Protestant" for JWs (which at least in everyday language means belonging to a certain subset of Christianity; a rare classification for JWs) and "Christian" for Arians, though not "Christian" for JWs.

I have not claimed that secular sources "state the JWs are not Christian". What I have claimed is that when describing JWs, many secular sources do not use the word "Christian" (or even "Protestant" or any word implicitly meaning "Christian" in everyday language). This is why my thesis is that not using the word is completely neutral from a secular point of view. One can disagree with that, but it's still the factual usage of many secular sources, and WP should be following the common usage instead of trying to form it. Some of these sources have been mentioned above (I can surely find more), should I repeat them here? --Martin C. 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have actually not at all demonstrated that "many secular sources" do not call JWs Christians. You listed several dictionaries that don't make explicit mention, and one encyclopaedia (the EB), which calls them protestants, which it in turn calls Christians. It has also been demonstrated that dictionaries frequently do not explicitly state that (other) religious groups are Christian in their definitions, so omission of the word Christian in dictionaries adds no weight to your argument. That being the case, you are yet to provide reference to any secular encyclopaedias that decline to call JWs Christian.--Jeffro77 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have mentioned two encyclopedias (EB and Gummerus) that do not call JWs Christian. Calling them Protestant (a rare classification) implicitly says the same, but explicitly not; the current discussion is about the explicit use of "Christian", and nobody wants to use "Protestant" here, so the word won't add any weight to anyone's argument. This may look like a You forgot Poland argument, but I can present more. I'm not sure if that's necessarily today or in the following days, but I will do it.

"Gummerus" is the name of a publisher, not a specific publication. Gummerus publishes encylopaedias and dictionaries. Previously, you stated that you "only have one dictionary (Gummerus)". Being a dictionary, it is not relevant to the discussion of whether encyclopaedias call JWs Christians. (Refer to Dtbrown's comments below regarding your reasoning about the EB.)--Jeffro77 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I blundered with terms (again) and I'm sorry for that. I was referring to the Gummerus concise encyclopedia, not dictionary. --Martin C. 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very late at night, so I'm not now fully sure of this, but as far as I can remember at the moment, the only mentioned example of dictionaries omitting "Christian" when defining groups that are Christian by all standards was in an article titled "Anglican", which isn't actually a name of an organisation ("Anglican Communion" is; in the same dictionary, that article mentioned "Christian"). Additionally, a book's omission of "Christian" should be deemed irrelevant only if it is found that the specific book itself often omits the word when defining Christian groups, not if merely some other dictionaries are doing it. Even if you find that unimportant, you need to recognise that a wording can be neutral even without containing the word "Christian". --Martin C. 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglican happened to be the very first term I looked up. It was by no means an exhaustive list. Fact: No secular source has been demonstrated to explicitly state that JWs are not Christian. Fact: No secular source has been demonstrated to implicitly state that JWs are not Christian. Fact: There are secular encyclopaedias and dictionaries that do explicitly refer to JWs as Christian. Fact: A Christian is a person who believe in Jesus as the Christ. Fact: JWs believe in Jesus as the Christ. Ergo, fact: JWs are Christian. Discussion over.--Jeffro77 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, if we're not willing to deal with other people's arguments, we are unable to discuss with anyone at all. Being ready to admit at most that the other party is sincere but delusional is not putting much effort to understand him. It doesn't matter if secular sources don't call JWs non-Christians (I'm not sure if they call any group non-Christian); they still often refrain from calling them Christians, and since I want Wikipedia to call them neither, that is the only thing that matters. --Martin C. 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that at least users Wesley, BenC7, Jlujan69 and Knocking have been symphatetic to this view. --Martin C. 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments made by Wesley and Jlujan69 regarding this issue were irrational and illogical, and of no benefit to the discussion. BenC7 made valid (though ambivalent) comments, but in view of other discussion matter on this issue, does not present a strong case for saying they are not 'Christians' (and he does not seem to have any strong opinion on the matter).--Jeffro77 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates well how we should not approach other people's comments. If we dismiss anyone disagreeing with us as "irrational", "illogical" or otherwise irrelevant, how could we ever come to a common conclusion? With that kind of approach the only acceptable option is to have our own opinion prevailing, regardless of what anyone else has to say. --Martin C. 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not merely dismiss their irrational ideas without explaining; I gave specific reasons in response to them that demonstrated their views to be irrational. Moreover, they gave no valid counterargument to back up whatever logic they supposed supported their views. Additionally, your entire argument is based on an assumption you have made that (some) secular encyclopaedia's do not regard JWs as Christian becasue of an argument from silence. At best, your suggestion is original research. At worst, it is invalid.--Jeffro77 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not your demonstration showed their views to be irrational is a matter of opinion; it is common to think like that about opposing views, but even if we do that, it does not suffice for rendering their views irrelevant.

Concerning my argument: I'm not willing to believe that you purposefully misrepresent it, so I will contend that I just haven't explained it well enough. My claim is that since omitting "Christian" when talking about JWs is seen in encyclopedias, it is neutral language to omit the word. I don't need to deduct anything about the motives behind the omission in order to establish that. And if the omission occurred in Wikipedia, neither then would it mean that JWs are non-Christian. --Martin C. 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is neutral not to mention something. We could just omit the entire article altogether, then we're being really really neutral. It has not been established that other secular encyclopaedias generally do not call JWs Christians. Added to that, they are Christian by plain definition. There is absolutely no reason whatsover not to call them Christian.--Jeffro77 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is absolutely no reason, then the editors of the encyclopedias that have made that choice have not known it. Don't worry, I will (in time) present more sources; it is up to the editorial community to decide which option should prevail, and in my opinion it should depend on the general usage, which seems to be your opinion too. --Martin C. 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the 'editorial community' here seems to have decided a long time ago that there is no problem calling them Christian in a secular sense. It is only you that is insisting that it change (apart from some biased and unreasonable comments from 'Wesley' and 'Jlujan69').--Jeffro77 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, at least four (it seems that five, counting BMurray) users and myself have lately argued for a change or tried to proceed with it. Calling them biased and unreasonable doesn't invalidate their opinion. In addition, much new information has risen during this dialogue, and more will be coming. --Martin C. 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been 5 editors who have lended support to your view, including you and BMurray. The opinions of BMurray and Jlujan69 are plainly biased, and were demonstrated to be irrational, and are therefore of no value to this discussion. The reasoning of BenC7 - that some dictionaries don't call them Christian - is immaterial as many dictionaries do not call other christian religions either. Martin C.'s argument is based on an alleged controversy that exists among secular sources, based on the flimsy assertion that one or two encyclopaedias (and irrelevantly, some dictionaries) don't call them Christian.--Jeffro77 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling them biased does not invalidate their opinions. Their opinions are invalidated on their own merits (or lack thereof). Okay then, speak up people, who thinks that Jehovah's Witnesses should not be called Christian in the lead? Give unbiased non-theological reasons.--Jeffro77 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if so then perhaps they will join in the discussion here. Dtbrown 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Three of those four have stated their opinion on this talk page. --Martin C. 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you are the only one that has said your objection is not theologically based and your first arguments on this seemed to be theologically based. In my opinion, if the argument is theologically based it can be mentioned in the controversy section. As far as I can see you have not demonstrated that secular resources classify JWs as non-Christian. Your dismissal of the usage of "Protestant" in EB is puzzling. While many of the editors refrain from using it here because it's not a designation that JWs use, the usage by EB clearly shows your thesis is faulty. If there are some secular sources which explicitly state JWs are not Christian I would like to see this. Please cite the entire section in which this occurs.Dtbrown 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, I find it really frustrating that I need to repeat this over and over again (my communication is not perfect so the fault can certainly be mine): I'm not saying that secular sources identify JWs as non-Christian, and I don't need to, because that's not what I want the article to say. I haven't "dismissed" EB's usage of Protestant; on the contrary, I have stated that it implicitly means belonging to Christianity, though the word is rarely used of JWs. My point however was only that many secular sources do not explicitly mention "Christian" when discussing JWs - and that is the most relevant point when the question is should the article explicitly mention it either. I am willing to present more secular sources than these two encyclopedias and four (?) dictionaries. --Martin C. 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a secular encyclopedic source of the size and scope of this article that does not mention their connection to the Christian movement? Dtbrown 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but I think this article should mention their connection to the Christian movement. --Martin C. 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest to mention their connection to the Christian movement? Dtbrown 15:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The current article tells about the origins of the organisation, its theological views that are shared with many others, and other cultural matters that connect them to the Christian movement. It can certainly be improved, but there already is a great deal of information that doesn't leave the matter blank. --Martin C. 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My first lines of argumentation were not confessional (depends on point of view whether they can be called theological). At least my intention was to argue that the article shouldn't call JWs Christians because so many people would disagree, not because they're nontrinitarians. And I think it doesn't make an editorial opinion seconded by several users less weighty if they give different reasons for it. Saying "nobody agrees with you so shut up" for one person holding that view at a time is something that should be avoided, in my opinion (not that you've done it, but in some instances in Wikipedia, it's been very close at least). --Martin C. 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the JW's deny any connection or affiliation with non-JW's, and the fact that most if not all Christian denominations deny affiliation or common heritage with the JW's where they allow for such shared belief with most other denominations, is why the Jehovah's Witnesses are better described as a 'religious organization' than a 'Christian denomination'. They don't consider themselves to be one denomination among many acceptable ones, the way most Protestant denominations do. And they think that most of historical Christianity was wrong. They're a different group that happens to use (mostly) the same Bible as Christians, but even here they insist on a unique translation as well as interpretation of it. Wesley 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that JWs use their own translation, they do use entirely "the same Bible as Christians" (minus the Apocrypha, but many Christian religions don't use that, so it is irrelevant to the argument). Your contention ignores the actual definition of 'Christian'; it's like saying that if a particular 'animal rights' group were to deny affiliation with other 'animal rights' groups, then it isn't really an 'animal rights' group.--Jeffro77 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Wesley, say I'm reading this article and I have no religious background. Do I put the JWs in with the Buddhists? Or Islam? Are you saying the JWs are just an independent religion and have no connection to Christianity? If you go to the library and grab a large volume on Christianity you'll find JWs listed in the index in the back. Now, many of us may have problems with JW beliefs but we can't allow our theological views to make us pretend JWs are not connected to the Christian movement from a secular standpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtbrown (talk • contribs) 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I would agree that JWs do not view themselves as a "Christian denomination" as if they were one among many. The article is written from a secular standpoint and not from the JW viewpoint. Dtbrown 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin C If you were asking for a truely nutral designation by omission you would be asking that of all "Christian" entries. The fact that you are focusing on JW's implies bias in itself. As a secularist I accept the definition of Christian as one who believes that Jesus is Christ. Any other definition (or lack of) to me would be biased unless you removed all references of Christianity from all entries.D L Means 11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Jew

This article says "All major Jewish denominations, as well as national Jewish organizations, reject that Messianic Judaism is a form of Judaism." And the beginning of the article begins with saying that they are a "religous sect". Religous sect would be a more correct term for JWs. BMurray 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. "Group A claims that B is false. Therefore C is false." If the discussion was about whether we should call 'Messianic Jews' Christians, you might have a point. We're not.--Jeffro77 07:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point - Messianic Jews are more Christian than JWs, so why is there no consistency in articles, especially parallel articles? BMurray 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you allege that "Messianic Jews are more Christian than JWs"? JWs hold the entire 'Christian' bible as their holy book; Messianic Jews do not. JWs believe that Jesus was God's son; Messianic Jews do not. The teachings of JWs are quite plainly those of a Christian religion, though they do not hold to some of the beliefs of many (but by no means all) other Christian religions. None of those beliefs that they don't have in common define them as non-Christian. Your comparison with Messianic Jews is invalid, and the only validity to your argument is that we might be able to say that 'Messianic Jews' are 'Christians', which is a long shot at best, and completely irrelevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 23:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Messianic Jews do believe in Jesus, or as they'd prefer to say "Yeshua." "Religious sect" usually refers to a small group as the link in the article shows. Some Messianics apparently do not prefer the label "Christian" [6]. Dtbrown 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"they worship both the Abrahamic God and Jesus." Something which the JWs have re-written their bible to not do. BMurray 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any justification for saying that JWs are not 'Christian'. If you want to start a discussion on the Talk page of 'Messianic Jews' to say that they are Christian, feel free (though I don't like your chances).--Jeffro77 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kerry Louderback-Wood

"Former" was added in light of recent news that called her such. While it is true that the news is freqently not accurate, and the secular definition of a Witness is different from the JW view, It would seem that the new agency got their information directly from her. Anyway here are a few links. [7] [8] Quote follows-

"A former Jehovah's Witness said the blood ban isn't always as strict as it appears. "The word is symantics," said Kerry Louderback-Wood, of Fort Myers, Florida." I think see meant semantics. Johanneum 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Johanneum, for the links. I have mixed feelings on whether to add this or not. As you said, it may not be accurate by the JW definition. If a reader goes to her linked article they will see immediately that she was raised in a JW home and I think that would be sufficient. Dtbrown 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous Witnesses section?

Do we need a "Famous Witnesses" section on the main page? I don't think I've seen other religion's main pages contain this. Thoughts? Dtbrown 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it unnecessary, but it may also be misleading. The list is incomplete, and there is no distinction between current members, former members, and those who view themselves as members but who aren't officially. There is a separate category for JW people, and that seems reasonable, but they don't need to be mentioned here, in accordance with other 'religion' articles.--Jeffro77 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:TRIVIA. I would see any such list as nothing but trivial information, which really adds nothing (IMO) to the quality of an article. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T01:02Z

Watchtower Society

I think this article should be merged with Legal Instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is just very short and includes information that would do well in that article.Summer Song 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to a different page? Or do you mean this main JW page should be merged with something else? Dtbrown 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I talk about the article Watchtower Society. I am not talking about this main article. Summer Song 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I have put it into action. See Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

Please read this article. I would like an reply from everyone whether this article is neutral. In my opinion, it is clearly not.

It is stated: There is not uniform acceptance of the current blood doctrine within the Jehovah's Witness community. Though accepted by a majority, there is evidence a significant population of Jehovah's Witnesses does not wholly endorse it. Facets of the doctrine have drawn praise and criticism from both members of the medical community and Jehovah's Witnesses alike.

For any further explaination, see what the participants have debated in the discussion page of the article. Summer Song 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a problem with this when it was started, I just don't have the time to take on the issue so I dropped it.George 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Links from reexamine.org and reexamine.info

Links from www.reexamine.org and www.reexamine.info are being removed per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=537555#reexamine.info. Personally, I think that many of the links were not copyright issues, but some were, and apparently Wikipedia has decided to blacklist the site. I tried to replace some of the links with other acceptable links when I was able to. You can help by checking other articles and perhaps replacing them with other suitable links. Dtbrown 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if pertinent links to documents, etc... were linked to the official Pastor Russell website, pastor-russell.com. It is the only officially sanctioned website on the life, ministry, and legacy of CT Russell supported by Bible Students worldwide and his only remaining descendants. Many of the links are to websites that do not accurately portray his life and viewpoints. Pastorrussell 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if the hosting site is sanctioned, supportive or otherwise. I would look for longevity and stability. joshbuddy, talk 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an important difference between 'accurately' and 'favourably'. Sites other than the official one may be able to take a more balanced approach, so it is appropriate that other sites be referenced unless they are actually non-factual. (I have no opinion on any specific sites related to 'Pastor' Russell.)--Jeffro77 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they a sect?

Vinaq 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)They are not a sect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vinaq 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

Strictly speaking, they are a sect because of the nature of the religion's origins (regardless of how many exclamation marks one cares to use). However, the term 'sect' as used colloquially carries implications that are not appropriate for defining the group, so any use of the word should be used very carefully to avoid implied bias.--Jeffro77 07:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A sect isn't really negative depending on where you live in the English speaking world. A sect simply means a division in religion. There are the Sunni and Shiite sects in Islam and the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform sects of Judaism. Sects are simply divisions in a main religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses are simply a sect of Christianity, much like the Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church. Only in some circles, the term "church" replaces "sect".

ColdRedRain 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, JW's are not simply a "division of Christianity". They deny Jesus' plain statements, making him a liar. You can't be a follower of Jesus Christ and call him a liar at the same time. - NoSnooz

Just which 'plain statements' of Jesus do you believe they "deny"??--Jeffro77 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Adventist?

I see that the article has been put i nthe category Adventist. That is, as I see it, completely wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses do not indentify themselves with the adventist movement, and the vast part of their beliefs are different from particular adventist beliefs. Even though The Bible Students originally were inspired by some of the theology of the movement, it will not be correct to state Jehovash's Witnesses as an adventist group today. Summer Song 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be just something from your POV. Assuming that you're a Jehovah's Witness, you may think your religion is unique and has no other religion that's even quite like it. However, looking from a historical perspective, Charles Russell shared many Adventist beliefs and many beliefs that modern day Adventists have, JW's have too. For example, soul sleep, Christ's invisible return in a specific year and literal interpretation of many verses in Revelation. The religion is clearly Adventist in its beliefs. However, it doesn't make your religion less unique. If it did, there wouldn't be separate Adventist churches and a Jehovah's Witness church, the movements in time would have merged to create one superchurch.

ColdRedRain 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this. The Bible Student movement was influenced by William Miller and this is acknowleged in many of the older publications which point to him as being used by God. (See [9] as an example from The Finished Mystery.) So, there is a strong link to the original Adventist movement. It is true that nowadays there are many differences between various Adventist groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and JWs but there is a connection between the various groups and William Miller. Most of Russell's early associates were from what is now called the Advent Christian Church. What do other editors say? Dtbrown 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a clear opinion. Jehovah's Witnesses should not be classified as belonging to the adventist 'church family'. They do not identify themselves that way, neither do they share any of the given characters that identify the adventist churches. They are not regarding Miller and his movement as a direct background (at least no longer), and they have clear theological breaks with the adventist churches. I think that if they are regarded as 'millenialists' or something together with the adventist movement, that would be closer to the truth.Summer Song 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Russell and his companions said that they were in some ways influenced by various preachers and religious movements before them. Nevertheless, the theological views they developed were in many aspecs unique. The Bible Students through many years still did call other christians 'their brothers'. The early Bible Students interacted with the adventist movement, but they did become something on their own. Anyway, I think that it would be completely wrong to call Jehovah's Witnesses today some part of the adventists. Jehovah's Witnesses have a faith that is clearly different from what adventist denominations have.Summer Song 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True, Jehovah's Witnesses do not identify as Adventist. Yet, Russell's group did develop directly from the Adventist movement. George Storrs, who heavily influenced Russell, was one of William Miller's closest associates. Nelson Barbour was also a Millerite and an Adventist. When Barbour and Russell started saying that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874 is when the other Adventists started looking at them as heretical. So, while the faith today is different their origins are clearly tied to Adventism.Dtbrown 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of their origin have ties to Adventism. However, in their present form, they do not, and inclusion of the Adventism category is misleading.--Jeffro77 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do not belong to the adventist 'church family'. Such a classification would be wrong. Their faith is clearly different from that of the adventists.Summer Song 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's stronger than "aspects of their origin have ties to Adventism." Their origin was directly from the Millerite/Adventist movement. We also have the category "Restorationism" listed at the bottom of the main page. I would say one could make a stronger case for Adventist than Restorationism. I'm not necessarily arguing for retaining it. But, I think we owe it to the readers to find a way to categorize the origin. Dtbrown 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, JW and Adventist beliefs aren't all that dissimilar. There's a reason some people still link these guys together. Just a comment, not making a case for one way for the other. Fcsuper 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And cow's milk is made from grass. Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Adventists. It can be stated as being part of their historical development, but not the category.--Jeffro77 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are Adventists and I'm not necessarily opposed to your edit removing the category Adventist. I think, however, some category should be developed (just like Restorationism) that connects the various movements that can tie their origin to William Miller and the Adventist movement. Dtbrown 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from RTinOttawa

Hi, This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia so I apologize if I inadvertently perform a faux-pas.

For background I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realize that that brings with it some biases but I like the exercise of looking at my beliefs from a third party view. I feel that this article presents our beliefs fairly and is in general a good article so what is to follow is not an attempt to gripe or find fault but rather to work towards the goals of a more acurate article.

Part of the intro reads: "The survivors of this event [Armageddon], along with individuals deemed worthy of resurrection, will form a new society ruled by a heavenly government and have the possibility of living forever in an earthly paradise." I feel that the phrase 'along with individuals deemed worthy of resurrection' is biased in that people would likely infer that we belive only past witnesses would be ressurected or something to that effect. In truth we believe that the vast majority of deceased humans will be resurrected (an interpretation of John 5:28,29) and have the opportunity to live on earth in a paradise (though the 'those who have done evil' group would have to show that they would submit to God's rule. If you choose to keep the term 'deemed worthy' it may be more appropriate to add something to indicate that it is not the witnesses doing such judging.

I know that the blood transfusion issue can be a touchy subject so I won't delve into it too much but I feel that the statement "In her article in the Journal of Church and State, Kerry Louderback-Wood alleges that labeling the currently acceptable blood fractions as "minute" in relation to whole blood causes followers to misunderstand the scope and extent of allowed fractions." presents an argument that is missleading as we are encouraged to do research into each fraction for ourselves and some detailed (relatively) information on common fractions are provided. I'm not saying that the statement should be removed but in the interest of being non-biased I feel that both sides should be presented. There are many "Awake!" articles that could be quoted on the subject.

RTinOttawa

Hi. I just put your comment into its own headline. Summer Song 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the resurrection comment, I don't agree that the quoted text is at all biased. The issue of who will be resurrected according to JW doctrine is expanded a bit in a later section (remember, the lead needs to be concise as well as correct). I think the only ambiguity in that sentence is the issue of exactly whom deems persons worthy, which could be fixed with the addition of two words ("by God"), but I still don't think that the omission of this clarification constitutes bias. Disclaimer: I'm also a JW and used to edit this article actively under the pseudonym uberpenguin. I stopped around the time that the Tommstein/Central debacle was taking place, but lately I've decided to watch it again since there is a much fairer crowd of regular editors here these days. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T00:47Z

I have clarified the statement. For the benefit of non-JW's, those resurrected after Armageddon will consist of both deceased JW's and deceased non-JW's, but I think this extra information would be too much information to place in the lead-in IMO.  Joseph C  Talk  23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible Students

I'm in Australia. A few days ago, a couple of JWs came to the door and introduced themselves as bible students, which threw me as I've never heard them use this term before, and this article says it's an obsolete term. Is it back in favour, even in certain countries? Naysie 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I think that it is not totally obsolete to call oneself Bible Students. JW are not alone in doing that. So actually, I think that they did call themselves that because of the fact that they would like to say that JW truly are someone who study the Bible thoroughly. Note also that one of the legal instruments is still called the Bible Students Association. But as an official term to identify JW especially, I think that it is obsolete.Summer Song 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They might have said they were 'bible students', in a generic sense as being students of the bible, but they would not have used 'Bible Students' as a title.--Jeffro77 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I myself sometimes introduce myself that way to avoid quickly bringing up any negative connotations that "Jehovah's Witness" may bring up in a person's mind (here in the "Bible belt", a lot of churchgoers are told to reject JWs without hearing us out). You're right that it is no longer used as an actual title, though. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T00:56Z

Another reason JW sometimes say "Bible Students" is to differentiate themselves from "religion"/"Christians" (which may have negative connotations as shown in the news because of hypocrisy of pastors/churches, lawsuits against pastors for touching children, a focus on donations). A true Christian or bible student will not perform such acts because those behaviors are against Biblical principles - and thus Witnesses want to show that they are different than the "religious fanactics/Christians" in the news in that they actually follow the Bible.

identity of Jesus

The lead section totally needs a statement about the JWs view of Jesus. It's way more definitive to them than the "name of God" business, or even that they don't believe in Hell. OK, it says they reject the trinity and see Jesus Christ as King, but does that make them binitarians, modalists, quadrinitarians, or what? It never says. The JWs see Jesus as the Logos, God's only begotten Son, Jehovah's appointed sacrifice, Savior, King, and Judge. They don't see him or the holy spirit as God. That's meaty stuff, and it belongs up front. Jonathan Tweet 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is "meaty stuff". Which is exactly why it does not belong in the lead.--Jeffro77 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that, on reading this lead again I'm really impressed how good it is. Jonathan Tweet 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

The repeated vandalism is getting old. Solutions? Should the article be semi-protected? Dtbrown 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for some time now. I'm seeing several reverts per day (many from you, Kudos!). Frankly, I think a semi-protect would be a great idea. Bruce 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to go about requesting semi-protection? Could someone do that for us? Dtbrown 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP. It's a pretty simple process. It should be noted that a lot of these edits are coming from registered accounts, which will not be excluded from editing unless they have only been registered within the last few days (four, if memory serves). You'd need full protection for that, and except in cases of extreme vandalism, that's not a great solution. It would probably be best to write a brief note to these registered users thanking them for their contribution, explaining why their edits were reverted, and nicely requesting that they participate on this talk page before making edits that could be controversial. If they don't wish to participate in discussion and simply continue to push their edits, then you can warn them that they may be blocked for vandalism (yes, refusal to discuss contested edits does constitute vandalism) and eventually have them blocked if it has to come to that.

Note that none of the above precludes requesting semi-protection (I think it would be a good idea anyway), but it's something to consider. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T00:39Z

Okay, I've requested semi-protection for this article. You can make any additional comments you like here, though it probably won't be necessary since semi-protection is generally a quick and straightforward process. Protection will be removed (if applied) after a few weeks, at which point you can again request protection if the problems persist (try not to go overboard, though). -- mattb @ 2007-03-28T06:09Z

I hope the protection happens soon, particularly after reviewing the brilliant scholastic efforts of 24.57.55.15. Not funny. Not clever. Not even controversial. Just... dumb. At least some vandals' changes elicit a small laugh before I revert them, but this last one gave rise to nothing more than a look of concern and a disappointed shake of the head.--Jeffro77 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not going to happen. My request was declined because I made too big a point of saying that a lot of the edits are probably not done with vandalistic intent, but merely out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or dislike of the subject matter. WP is always very touchy about suspending ANYONE'S rights to edit unless they are obvious vandals. If you were to request semi-protection again, you'd probably need to make the case for doing so due to high levels of total-vandalism edits from IPs. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T03:01Z

Even if semi-protection had been granted, it would only have been for a short period of time. It is a central principle of Wikipedia that editing by anonymous IPs is to be encouraged and that semi-protection is to be used only to combat short, intense bursts of vandalism (more than 10-15 in 24 hours is one guideline that I've seen). Semi-protection should be lifted after a few days except for the most heavily vandalized articles. --Richard 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thus my statements earlier. It is this same grand central principle that leads to a lot of the annoyances we have to deal with, but I digress... -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T18:02Z

Book "Pay Attention To Yourselves and To All The Flock"

Recent edits here and on other pages have suggested it's wrong to cite this book. One edit summary said listing it was violating copyrighted material. The book is a matter of public record. Occasionally copies are sold on ebay. To merely cite a page from the book is not a violation of copyright.Dtbrown 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Citing the 'secret' book is not a violation of copyright at all. And the suggestion that even listing the publication is a copyright violation is plainly stupid.--Jeffro77 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer in overview section

Is the disclaimer that begins the overview section really necessary? The section is fairly carefully written and dispersed with phrases like "JWs teach/believe/consider" which should make this disclaimer unnecessary. I think it's jarring and should be removed or better integrated with the text if it's absolutely necessary. Thoughts?

Also, I'm slowly editing this article to fix issues as I see them. Most will be clarifications, stylistic, grammar, and readability related. The article's content and structure is, I believe, very good, so I won't be changing anything major. Any edits that I think might cause any controversy I'll clearly mark with an edit summary, and I'm happy to discuss them (don't want to step on anybody's toes). I think we could make a strong shot for another FA nomination with a little bit of prose tweaking and cleanup work. This article has all the makings of an FA, and I believe the only thing fundamentally going against it is the inevitable collection of editors who believe that some topics should receive more attention (like criticism). This is a problem with a lot of broad-topic and controversial FAs, so it can hardly be avoided. We should, however, polish the style as much as possible before trying again. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T01:54Z

We could try removing it or re-writing it. That section used to get a lot of editing by well meaning people who thought it was not NPOV. Thus the current formulation of the disclaimer. Dtbrown 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's a pretty weak claim to say that expounding JW beliefs from a third party encyclopedic tone implies endorsement of those beliefs. Let's try removing the disclaimer and see what happens. I don't see any precedent for this sort of message on any of the major religion articles. If we need to add a few more words to explicitly clarify that a view expressed is a JW belief, so be it, but it doesn't have to be littered in every other sentence or presented as a disclaimer. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T15:58Z

Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines

I would like to ask why the Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines should exist. It includes no more than two articles. I think it should be deleted and that the two magazines should be in the categories Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature and Category:Christian magazines. They do in no way need their own category.Summer Song 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree--Jeffro77 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave it a try, and it was very quickly pointed out that the category is relevant to a broader hierarchy of religious magazines. So it should stay.--Jeffro77 10:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When can JWdom.org be added back?

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

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

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

JWdom.org.

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

Breakdown External Links?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mstare88's edits

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

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

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

Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Links Suggestion

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

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

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

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another one

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

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

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

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

And try this one also.

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

Finally something to actually talk about

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

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

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

The second source you listed says:

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

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

It also says:

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

So it is just he said she said. Also, there are other catholic references which refer to JW’s as “sect.” (sect of what?) [10] [11] so until they get their story straight how can we use catholic references?

”The Witnesses contradict almost every basic Christian teaching.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.J.A:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consulting dictionaries and encyclopedias

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

Christianity:

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

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

2b. with pl. A Christian religious system.

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

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

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

(outdenting)

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

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

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

Richard:

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

Consulting peer-reviewed articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, all these are vetted sources.

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

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

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

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

JWs as a Christian sect or cult

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

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

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

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

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

George M:

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholars who see JWs as not being Christian

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fcsuper:

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

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

The article "Jehovah"

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

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

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

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

People related to Jehovah's Witnesses

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

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

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

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

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

Who are Jehovahs and former members?

THINGS TO REMEMBER WHO IS CHRISTIAN, WHO IS NOT:

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

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

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

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

All:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, all these are vetted sources.

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

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

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

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

Dtbrown:

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

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

New footnotes in Blood section

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

Dtbrown:

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

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

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

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

Dtbrown and mattb:

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

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

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

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

Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity

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

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

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

Richard:

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

A.J.A:

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

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

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

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

(ed. conlict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this rather powerful comment on yahoo answers:

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

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

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

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

"declaring the good news"

'teaching quite a crowd'

'open eyes, turn from dark to light'

"uttering sayings of truth"

"persuade"

"keep on glorifying"

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

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

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

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

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

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

George M:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard:

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

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

George M:

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

Marvin,

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

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

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

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

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

Richard:

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

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

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

Use of long quotations and WP:NONFREE

According to WP:NONFREE

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

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

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

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

Current intro

Marvin's current edit^[1] is a good compromise and we need to agree on something. I find it acceptable, nothing can be perfect, can we agree on it? George 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Jeffro77 edit explanation please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are JWs a "sect"?

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

Let's cut to the chase...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the problem here?

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

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

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

Richard and George M:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neo-Christian

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

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

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

Richard and Jeffro77:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L A Times reference, and John Dart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverted POV edit in opening paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is six million worldwide "small in number"?

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

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

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

Organizational Structure Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead paragraph

Marvin, when you ask "Who can possibly object to this?" are you saying you don't want input? Dtbrown 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: If someone, anyone, can offer a studied objection to the presentation of course I welcome the input. Who wouldn't? But I see no need to seek input from an editor who takes it upon him or herself to edit what they have not read themselves in terms of supporting references.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I would ask you be more civil to other editors here. Dtbrown 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article text must also reflect a consensus, even if you feel that nobody else's arguments have any leg to stand on. -- mattb 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the quotation marks from the opening sentences is also problematic. For example, the phrasing now borrows from Chu's "As a religious body they “arose in response to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity." The lead should not consist of quotes from others, nor should it borrow others phrasing. Dtbrown 05:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, verifiability and neutrality don't mean copying others' phrasing. In fact, that's precisely the wrong thing to do. In any case, I think the current lead wording is awkward and I don't see much reason for the complete rephrase. -- mattb 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: What argument? Editors preferential to the Watchtower perspectives want to assert Watchtower perspective, which perspective is understandable and should be included as information. Editors with an opposing preference keep kicking around problems they perceive in relation to "sect" and who is and is not "Christian". Well as it turns out there is a handy solution right from the mouth of the Watchtower organization from its own representatives writing in their official capacity. And it turns out that both their presentations alleviate every related objection I've observed on this page. I guess we can be glad the Watchtower organization has had some of its representatives write in academic journals so we can see how they present themselves purely from an informational point of view.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Please do not confuse directness with incivility.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: I'll rephrase the sentence to express what the reference material states without using exact words. In part I've already done this.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: What you write regarding problematic removal of quotation marks and borrowing phrases leaves me wondering what you mean. Can you be more specific? -- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin's first version that consisted of quotes:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of the world’s fastest growing religious groups. They are well known for their distinctive beliefs, door-to-door proselytism, political neutrality, and legal battles for religions freedom.”[1] They adopted their current name in 1931 under the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[2] As a religious body they “arose in response to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity,” and though small in numbers “attacked such common doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism as the Trinity and the deity of Christ, hellfire, the inherent immortality of the human soul, predestination, and clergy-laity divisions, claiming that these had no Biblical basis.”

The current version:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of the world’s fastest growing religious groups professing Christianity. They are known for their door-to-door proselytism, political neutrality, and legal victories for religions freedom.[1] They adopted their current name in 1931 under the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[2] As a religious body they developed in response to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity. [3] They dispute common doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ, hellfire, the inherent immortality of the human soul, predestination, and clergy-laity divisions, claiming these have no Biblical basis.

The phrasing is still borrowed from the sources. This is not appropriate. Dtbrown 06:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Would you please do me the favor of evidencing your claim that "borrowed" phrasing is somehow inappropriate when the source is properly and thoroughly credited by reference? Where do you get these objections from? Please explain. -- Marvin Shilmer 06:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there the need to borrow phrasing from others in the lead? Dtbrown 06:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: The need for optimal accuracy is one reason to use similar, even near identical, language. This becomes an even greater need when phrasing becomes hotly disputed, which it has in this case. An even greater accuracy is achievable by use of direct quotation. But you objected to that. Authors (no academic known to me, in fact!) have no problem with using their terms so long as it accurately reflects their sentiments and they get due credit. In fact they are usually grateful what they write is given legs by authors repeating them, with credit of course.

Now would you please provide some evidence for your claim that "borrowed" phrasing is somehow inappropriate when the source is properly and thoroughly credited by reference.-- Marvin Shilmer 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could just gather a bunch of quotes from other sources for the whole article and then change a few words here and there. Why the need to write an article when we can borrow the phrasing from others? Even if proper credit is given it's not what the lead or the article should be about. Dtbrown 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I asked a question. Why are you not providing an answer?

Please provide some evidence for your claim that "borrowed" phrasing is somehow inappropriate when the source is properly and thoroughly credited by reference. Otherwise what you have voiced is nothing more than your own POV.

If you have sufficient time to keyboard a complaint about the actions of another you should have sufficient time to keyboard some evidence that your complaint of that action has validity.-- Marvin Shilmer 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Borrowing phrasing without quotation marks (even though cited) is inappropriate according to this source: "Using another person’s phrases or sentences without putting quotation marks around them is considered plagiarism EVEN IF THE WRITER CITES IN HER OWN TEXT THE SOURCE OF THE PHRASES OR SENTENCES SHE HAS QUOTED." [13] Dtbrown 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Thanks for finally providing an answer to the question asked. The authority you cite is speaking about original ideas (i.e., “other people’s ideas"), not recitation of common phrases and thoughts. The phrases I used are not original to the two authors cited. The phrases are common vernacular used all the time among Jehovah's Witnesses, which I am one of. Nevertheless, I have rephrased the opening paragraph by synthesizing additional source material, which is also now cited.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have another life besides editing here. Thank you for removing the plagiarism. Dtbrown 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Plagiarism? Coming from someone who demonstrably misunderstands his own material referenced, how am I to take your backhanded compliment seriously?

Everyone should avoid taking credit for ideas originating from someone else. But it is equally important not to loosely suggest such dishonesty. You know perfectly well what happened in this instance, and that at no time had I in any way whatsoever asserted anyone else's ideas as though my own, and that at all times I was pointing readers and fellow editors to the source of the information I was sharing for this work in process.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was entirely unintentional but it was inappropriate. Dtbrown 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: My editing is never unintentional, and neither does it plagiarize. You have already demonstrated you do not know the meaning of the word. You need to read your own source again, and read the whole thing this time and not just the words you want to parrot in desperation. -- Marvin Shilmer 21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is plagiarism. If something is stated with a reference but is not quoted, the implication is that the reference supports what is stated, but not that the text is lifted from it. And the lead now reads like a summary from a poorly written TV documentary. 'Extraordinarily' is subjective and misleading as the religion is in decline in most developed nations (comparison of rates of membership growth with national population growths).--Jeffro77 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What you and Dtbrown are suggesting of me is ridiculous. Plagirism is to pass off someone else's work as your own. Readers can review the logs of this circumstance as see immediately I have done no such thing.

If you don't think the term extraordinary is appropriate as applied then take it up with sociologists Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaconne and the peers who reviewed their article for Journal of Contemporary Religion. We are supposed to use vetted secondary sources in verification, aren’t we?

What is it about objective and verifiable presentation that you and Dtbrown dislike? Our presentations are supposed to be objective, aren’t they? -- Marvin Shilmer 23:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the lead now read like a sales pitch? "Join this extraordinarily fast growing religion now and receive your free mug! (offer limited to the first 1440,000)" BMurray 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

BMurry: Presentation reflects the referenced peer reviewed material. -- Marvin Shilmer 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In comparison to say the Australian Roman Catholic Church, whose attendance figures are declining, yes it is growing. The adverb 'fast' is a relative term, let alone the completely POV 'extraordinarily'. BMurray 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

BMurry: Vetted journal articles verify the presentation. These are peer reviewed secondary sources. Editors are not to express personal opinion. Editors are to provide information that is relevant, verifiable and then provide a reference for the source. This is what the current presentation provides. What more do you require? -- Marvin Shilmer 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, please refrain from making changes in direct opposition to consensus. Also, sourcing opinion statements with opinion sources dosz not make those statements verifiable. As I stated in another replay above, your method of arguement would make it ok to say the Earth is flat as long as someone is found saying it in a published work. Guess what, there are published works that say the Earth is flat. Are you going to go the wikipedia earth sciences articles and change those to support the flat-earth POV? Fcsuper 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: Consensus of whom? The veracity of encyclopedic content and presentation depends on the veracity of its sources and academic rigor of its editors.

The sources I have applied to the lead paragraph are not, as you say, “opinion sources” with “opinion statements”. These sources are vetted journals with good academic reputation.

In response to your attempted analogy, no reputable academic journal with peer review protocol would present flat-earth assertions as legitimate presentation of astrophysical reality. Hence your attempt to give your opinion legs turns out to have no analogous value.

I recommend you learn more about reputable vetted journal content, including the consensus inherent to the content.

I have made no changes at variance with reputable and verifiable vetted sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin: The consensus prior to you popping up here, and the current consensus here. Your changes where obvious unilateral, as there is no agreement on talk regarding your suggestions. Therefore they are against consensus.

Marvin: You well know that the word "extraordinary" and many of the other changes you made are not verifiable in any context, vetted or otherwise Please stop and discuss the points here first. At this point, you are teetering on vandalism. Fcsuper 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: Regarding consensus among local editors (Wiki editors) there is no consensus on this talk page. None whatsoever. The only reason I ever involved myself with this subject page is because of the editorial debacle and bickering going on here. This is not my opinion. If subject page is in a constant state of flux precisely because of lack of consensus.

My efforts are not to assert my own opinion or biases. Rather at each entry point I offered high quality secondary sources for verifying every single thing included in the presentation. By the way, this in includes the term you mention specifically in relation to the growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely the term “extraordinary”.

Your efforts, on the other hand, have been contrary to Wiki policy by removing verified presentation with a presentation with no verification whatsoever! Consensus for encyclopedic content is worthless if the community building the consensus does not have respect for verified presentation properly referenced. I doubt you have even read the referenced material that you have deleted along with it presentation! Have you read this material? If not, then on what editorial academic basis do you delete it?

Now I am on the talk page. I have expressed a position that is strong. Now what position are you going to take? One that disregards verified presentation, or one that stomps on verified presentation as though it is somehow an affront as though vandalism? Please explain yourself.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: One more thing. I do not take being called a liar very well. I have said the presentation I offered is verified. You have said that "I know" that several aspects of the presentation are not verifiable. Personal attack is the final gasp of a person who has no other way to explain themselves. In the future please refrain from personal attack. You should also take time to read verification material before asserting what it does or does not say and support. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin: It seems you are getting heated about this matter. No one said you where a liar, no has anyone hinted at it. Everyone here as assumed good faith. You are no longer assuming good faith, and since there is no cause for that accusation, that does put you in violation of the principles behind of wikipedia policies. It's ironic that by your accustsion, you are the one making the first personal attack here. Please be mindful of this from this point forward.

Also, stating you have a strong case doesn't mean you have a strong case. This strikes at the heart of why this has gotten to this point. Honestly, when one goes through and makes whole sale radical changes to an article, then argues EVERY SINGLE POINT WITHOUT END, it is impossible to consider that person's contributions point by point, as you have just requested. Please limit your edit suggestions to piecemeal activities if you wish them to be considered point by point.

So at this point, I'm going to point out the flawed logic being employed using the primarily obvious example. You keep arguing that the used of the word "extraordinary" is verifiable because you have some source that uses that word in its content. This is not a valid point. Why? .............................. Example:iIf you describe a particular firetruck as Red, this is a statement of fact. The term red is objective since it is well defined based on several principles, such as in science where it is defined as a particular set of light wave lengths. Someone may be picky about whether it is dark red or brick red, but the fact that it is red is veriable based on scientific guidelines. However, the word "extraordinary" has no guidelines for its use. It is completely subjective and comparative. Extraordinatory compared to what? JW's certainly are not the fastest growing religious group in the world. They have been at one time, but they are not so now. And in fact, they've had declines in membership over certain periods of time. How is a decline in membership over some periods called "extraordinary growth"? It's not, unless there is some measure for "extraordinary" that goes beyond simply emphasizing the fact they have grown rapidly at times. There is no way to vet the term "extraordinary" without some formal system of measurement being applied. Is there a % of growth that has been officially called "extraordinary" on some scale that ranges from dismal to phenomenal? I'm guessing not.

Ok, final point for now. You haven't done your own research on this matter. The stuff you keep siting as unveriable is verified in works which are already referenced by this and other wikipedia articles. I invite you to go through the currently sited references. Furthermore, I also recommend going through the JW wikipedia article archives and review discussions to see how consensus was reached on this article. Change is not out of the question, but it cannot be done unilaterally when so much discussion has already occured. Fcsuper 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: What you write demonstrates why the need for consulting and using peer reviewed presentations published by reputable organizations. Your commentary regarding use of the term “extraordinary” is probably without having ever read the source material it comes from. So I am asking you now; have you read it? Do you even know which of the two cited (not “sited”) journal articles applied that very term, and what related expression was applied by the second journal article? Have you read both these so you know what you are talking about, and whether you have properly critiqued this usage, which is verified? If you are going to make these pronouncements of my editing as you have, then you owe your readership (not to mention me) an answer to these questions.

Reply: No matter how many articles you site, an unverifiable statement is unverifiable. "Extraordinary" is a comparative adjective. As such, it is not useful outside of its initial context. Your arguing and arguing and arging about this one little (big) word is pointless unless you can establish the context for its use. However, doing so requires a statement of the comparison. The comparison is unnotable because what it is being compared against is arbitrary. JW's growth is not extraordinary compared to many other particular religious group. Also, things like growth change at the turn of a hat, and is not a reliable "fact" over time. It certainly isn't a desciption of JW's specifically, only a JW of someone's perspective (POV). With all do respect, the arguments you presented on this particular issue are not benefiting your overall arguements. Fcsuper 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: I asked whether you have read the vetted reference material you are commenting on here. Have you? If not, and given the material is/was thoroughly referenced for readers to consider it in its original full blown presentation, then on what basis am I to take your retort seriously. It is absurd for any editor to make commentary on something they have not read with their own eyes. I ask you again, have you read the vetted sources? If not then discussing them with you is pointless in terms of critique.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't contradicted my point. You've simply deflected. But seeing as this is no longer an issue in the article, I will simple ask that you make your point directly on these matters. Fcsuper 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, and contrary to your assertion addressed to me, I have not made wholesale (not “whole sale”) changes to this article. Frankly, the editing really only changed a single sentence, and that change was only make a subjective statement into an objective statement.

You go on and on about an alleged subjective usage of the term extraordinary, yet you are quite content to stipulate a quite subjective assertion stating, essentially, that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian”. This is entirely subjective since what a Christian IS happens to be so disputed, particularly in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses as demonstrated by this talk page. Yet the quite objective (not to mention verified) statement, essentially, that “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” you balk at. You do this despite the preponderance of literature in secondary sources specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses that do not assert the subjective but rather the objective. Why do you readily dismiss the objective for the subjective? Why to you so readily dismiss secondary vetted presentations that specifically address Jehovah’s Witnesses, including some from official Watchtower representatives? Please explain.

You say a consensus is achieved on this article. What is this supposed to me when it blatantly presents spin as unbiased information?

Again, to these three paragraphs, I invite you to read the archives. It is simply untrue that this article is spinning information, at least in the introduction. This statement is rather unfair (disrespectful) to all the others who have contributed to this article in good faith over its history. Additionally, what JW's belief about their believes is no more admissible than other anyone else's opinions. The statement is a description of their beliefs, and does not taking in to consideration what they believe about their beliefs. Again, please look at the archives and to the other responders here. 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If when you said I asserted something as true that I knew was false you were not intended to suggest me as dishonest, then you have my apology for thinking that a person knowingly asserting a falsehood as true is a liar. I apologize. -- Marvin Shilmer 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, no worries. Ultimately, we are all on the same side here.  :) Fcsuper 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unverified content

Any Wiki editor is free to remove attributions that are not verified. Right now the lead paragraph for this article has such an assertion. There is no verification for the assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses ARE a "Christian organization". Until this is verified and referenced it remains subject to removal by any editor. Given the constant bickering and nonsensical pleading among editors on this subject, whatever verification is provided need also make sure it represents a preponderance of knowledge on this subject. Otherwise the ridiculous disputing here will continue and, worst of all, Wiki will lose yet more respect as an informational source. Wiki is not about propagating spin. Wiki is about sharing verified information.

Unfortunately editors here have disregarded verified presentation on this matter by deleting it, despite its thorough and rigorous documentation. Wiki editors are not free to delete verified content with impunity.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no more need to verify that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian organization than there is need to verify that the Roman Catholic Church or some other similar Church is a Christian organization. Dtbrown 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Encyclopedic content must verify everything. End of story. If it’s not verifiable and not verified then what is it but spin at best, or misinformation at worst? Or, are you content to let readers decide what is legitimate attribution based on mere assertion?

Hence if it is asserted that “the Roman Catholic Church IS Christian” then this needs verification, which in the case of the Roman Catholic Church is not hard to find verification from a preponderance of secondary sources.

Likewise if it is asserted that “Jehovah’s Witnesses ARE Christian” then this needs verification, which it appears is rather difficult to verify in this case with a preponderance of secondary sources. As a Jehovah's Witness myself I have no problem asserting Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. But from an academic perspective the attribution is unverified by a preponderance of secondary sources.

Wiki policy gives every editor permission to delete unverified attribution. This is for good reason. If you disagree with this policy then take it up with Wiki administrators. I happen to agree with it.--

I have known hundreds of Jehovah's Witnesses myself over a period of nearly 40 years. I have never known a Witness to be reticent about the Witnesses being a Christian group. Witness authors I have read (Alfs, Penton, Cole, Herle and some others) have not made this an issue. Can you cite some other Witness authors who feel Jehovah's Witnesses can not be classified as "Christian" without qualification? When the name "Marvin Shilmer" is googled the articles that appear are strongly critical of the current Watchtower organization leadership, particularly on the subject of blood. Is that you? Dtbrown 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I am not reticent about Jehovah’s Witnesses being Christian. I have said this repeatedly. But this is my opinion; my belief; my bias. It is a wholly different matter whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are acknowledged AS Christian by a preponderance of knowledge addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically. Hence it is the academic side of me speaking to this subject. When I engage in objective editing my biases are checked at the door.

What Witness (or ex Witensses) have to say regarding their own religion is information. When Jehovah’s Witnesses assert they are Christian, as I do, this is a profession of belief. But this is all it is as information. We should respect this by acknowledging the professed status, but from an academic NPOV perspective we have to acknowledge it for what is is objectively, which is a profession. One simple reason this is true is to recall that professing something does not make that something true; it only makes it a profession.

As far as I know all Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they belong to a Christian religion; hence I know of no Jehovah’s Witnesses who would, as you say, feel Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be classified as Christian. But this is a POV held by a group of individuals with an understandable, not to mention strong, bias to a certain POV.

I have no trouble talking about my critical views of the Watchtower organization, or my own religious sphere of Jehovah’s Witnesses when I see something deserving criticism. Do you find this objectionable? When it comes to blood I happen to have some atypical experience compared to most of the population, and compared to most Jehovah’s Witnesses. As with any other subject, if I see where criticism is needed then I do not refrain, even when it touches as close to home as my own religious affiliation. Do you find this particularly objectionable?

As for whatever you found googling Marvin Shilmer, I have no idea if everything attributed to this name is authentically my own. If there is something you have in mind specifically you can ask and I will express whether I am the author or not.-- Marvin Shilmer 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across this posting by a Marvin Shilmer on the Jehovah's Witness Discussion Board [14] (which is primarily a board critical of JWs) regarding seeking scans of an article in the 1913 Bible Student Convention Report connecting Clayton Woodworth (first editor of the Golden Age magazine) with evil spirits. Is that you?

It's my observation that those who claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian are usually strident critics of the organization. There are strident critics of the Roman Catholic Church which claim it is not a Christian denomination. Personally, I think that the views of such critics (be it of the Roman Catholic Church or Jehovah's Witnesses or other self professed Christian groups) do not deserve a hearing here on that subject. In my opinion, they are simply pushing a POV. Dtbrown 22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Since you mentioned Penton, and recalling that Penton had contributed to encyclopedic content specifically on Jehovah's Witnesses, I looked up the Canadian Encyclopedia article he authored. Nowhere does it stipulate anything remotely like "Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian". I don't have the Encyclopedia Americana handy at the moment, but Penton also authored some material on the same subject for this highly regarded work.

I do have the entire Encyclopedia Britannica handy, though. So I looked up its entry. Nowhere does it assert the attribution "Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian". Nowhere.

I also did a search of Marley Cole’s Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Society. I found not a single instance were he expressed “Jehovah’s Witnesses ARE Christian”. On the other hand, over and over again he expressed biblical argumentation on what Christians should do and be, and he more than intimated that Jehovah’s Witnesses do these things. He did, however, point out that Jehovah’s Witness profess Christianity by writing, “Wycliffe belongs in the Christian tradition claimed by Jehovah’s witnesses”. Please note Cole’s objective presentation by expressing the claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Regarding the request for the 1913 document scans, the message is mine.

Regarding your observation of those who claim Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian, I fail to make the connection. I do not claim Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. So what’s the point you are making?

In your commentary you commit a fallacy of making a sweeping generalization. Please explain why you did this?

Do you equate veracious criticism with strident criticism because it is reiterated? If any criticism I’ve offered is inaccurate I want to know about it. This is how we grow, as individuals and as a society.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: For my views on affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses you can read my views expressed at [15] and the second page of the discussion, if my views you consider pertinent enough to bring up here.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, I believe Penton does classify JWs as "Christian" in the Americana article. He certainly does in Apocalypse Delayed.

Thanks for the clarifications of your position. While we cannot verify your actual membership as a Jehovah's Witness we can verify your activity as a critic of the Watchtower organization. Many of your edits here make points that are embarrassing to JWs (such as the recent one on the first Board of Directors and the Witnesses' Governing Body and your many edits regarding the non-acceptance of the Watchtower's blood doctrine among JWs). I think your campaign to not have JWs classified as "Christian" in this article is borne out of your critical perspective and evidences a strong POV on your part.

I think this subject has been talked to death and I think we have enough consensus. Consensus does not mean everyone agrees just as there are critics of the Roman Catholic Church who do not they they are a Christian body. Dtbrown 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: My religious affiliation is irrelevant to whether my contributions here or elsewhere have veracity. This is because I have asserted neither my status as a Jehovah’s Witness nor my personal opinions as a basis for any editing I’ve offered here. As I said before, if any criticism I offer (whether of the Watchtower organization or anything else) is inaccurate I want to know. You appear to suggest that a willingness to share criticism somehow taints participation here despite that I have not asserted my religious status or my own opinions as a basis for any editing. Do you understand how stifled human knowledge would become were it not for active researchers willing to critique and publicly share criticism?

Whether knowledge embarrasses or does not embarrass is no reason to avoid sharing it. Were encyclopedic content to run presentation and content through an embarrassment sieve in order to determine acceptability it would impede knowledge. Because some Americans are embarrassed by historical civil rights happenings is this a reason to avoid sharing the bald facts for everyone to have, learn from and grow? I think the mere concern over whether a historical event/fact embarrasses anyone is patently absurd and wholly out of order for an editor intent on encyclopedic presentation.

Speaking of “embarrassment,” why on earth would any Jehovah’s Witnesses find embarrassing the history of female presence on the body it identifies as is initial Governing Body? You seem extremely sensitive on the whole topic of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the point of fault finding for me including this historical fact. Please explain this.

I have no campaign to classify Jehovah’s Witnesses at all. You and a few other editors are the ones campaigning to label Jehovah’s Witnesses. My bias is checked at the door. From the beginning of my participation on this one issue I have insisted on solid sourcing and objective presentation. You, on the other hand, are bent on labeling rather than objective presentation. Please explain this.

Consensus building is an excellent tool. But consensus for encyclopedic content is not a democracy of editorial opinion. Rather the editors must allow themselves to be moved by solid research and objectivity. That is, here it is our job to determine what is the existing consensus among verifiable sources as to attributing anything to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or job is not to invent how a majority of editors here want to label Jehovah’s Witnesses. Encyclopedic entries are not invented; they are developed from source material.

If you want to read my declaration as a Jehovah’s Witness and that I believe they are Christian, you can read some of my commentary archived by the British Medical Journal here: [16] In my presentation titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood vs. Justification and Responsibility you will find my statement, “I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses…. Jehovah’s Witnesses desire to be loyal to God. Like most other people we are willing to die in defense of or loyalty to certain issues. As Christians we are willing to lay down our life in order to remain faithful to our Creator, Jehovah.”

I see no form of consensus on our subject matter here. All I see is a lot of opinion throwing and, here and there, some narrow conclusions drawn from works mentioning Jehovah’s Witnesses as part of a broad review. I have sat in my office and tediously word searched huge and very powerful databases of vetted material on the narrow subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Editors here appear to be disinterested in what is found there. It’s a sight to behold!

Regarding Penton, you write “I believe Penton does classify JWs as "Christian" in the Americana article. He certainly does in Apocalypse Delayed.” I have Apocolpse Delayed. Do you? In Apocolypse Delayed Penton refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “major Christian sectarian movement”.(Introduction, p. 3) Please provide the reference where Penton "certainly does" as you allege .-- Marvin Shilmer 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Penton refers to them as "Christian" in the quote you give.

Having only limited time I will wait to see what others write on this subject before any further replies to you. Thanks again for sharing your views. Dtbrown 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Your reply explains a flaw in analysis. To assert “Penton refers to them as ‘Christian’ in the quote” is like someone asserting “Your mother refers to my friends as wise” when my mother actually states, “Your friends are wise convicts”. For the record, in the quote I supplied Penton did not characterize Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. He characterized them as a “major Christian sectarian movement”. Hence Penton attributed Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect, or, if you prefer, a sect of Christianity.

Now, you stated that Penton “certainly does” classify Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I asked for your reference, not mine. Again, please share the reference. I want to read with my own eyes what you allege of Penton.

Other editors will chime if when and if they want, which is as it should be. But we need not wait for feedback that may or may not come for you to share the reference of what you allege of Penton. I am just as interested in additional research as the other editors, assuming good faith as always, of course.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Denomination, Sect or Group?

I propose we change the first sentence to "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian denomination or sect" to simply "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian group" which I think is more NPOV. Thoughts? Dtbrown 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I have no problem with this attribution, if editors here can show it represents a consensus among verifiable secondary sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Group" has to be verified? Dtbrown 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: “Group” is not the attribution of your proposal. Your proposal represents an assertion of fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a “Christian group”. I have no problem whatsoever with this attribution, if editors here can show it represents a consensus among verifiable secondary sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your views, Marvin. I misread you. My apologies. What do others think? Dtbrown 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we go around in circles if we debate whether JWs are "Christian" or not. I worry about "denomination" because JWs may not agree that they are a denomination. Hmmm... it just occurred to me that we should see what Wikipedia has to say about what a denomination is...

A denomination, in the Christian sense of the word, is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.

Christianity is composed of five major divisions of Churches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant. Each of these five divisions has important subdivisions. Because the Protestant subdivisions do not maintain a common theology or earthly leadership, they are far more distinct than the subdivisions of the other four groupings. Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian groupings including each of the multitude of Protestant subdivisions.

Denominationalism is an ideology which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all churches teach this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term as its implication of interchangeability does not agree with their theological teachings.

Messianic movements

Other faith traditions claim not to be descended from any of these groups directly. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for instance, is often grouped with the Protestant churches, but does not characterize itself as Protestant. Its origination during the Second Great Awakening parallels the founding of numerous other indigenous American religions, especially in the Burned-over district of western New York state, and in the western territories of the United States, including the Adventist movement, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science (which had roots in Congregationalism but regarded itself as restorative), and the Restoration Movement (sometimes called "Campbellites" or "Stone-Campbell churches", which include the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Church of Christ). Each of these groups, founded within fifty years of one another, originally claimed to be an unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church.

Thus, although I have been kind of pushing towards "Christian denomination" recently, I also see that this could be problematic because JWs don't really see themselves as being "just another brand of Christianity" in the sense that Presbyterians and Methodists could be argued to (i.e. Presbyterians and Methodists accept each other as Christians)

--Richard 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian, Christian Denomination, Christian Sect, Other

These attributions appear the sticking point in this discussion. Though editors have offered opinions rather freely, what I see missing is an attempt by editors to examine what, if any, is the consensus of religious attribution of Jehovah’s Witnesses among secondary sources, particularly vetted presentations.

Here is my own finding (so far anyway):

1. Within survey works and broad religious reviews I see Jehovah’s Witnesses often lumped in with Christian affiliation. But as sources these tend to lump religious tendency towards one of a few major religious philosophies or else a multitude of relatively obscure religious affiliations. Hence if a religion professes itself one of the major religious philosophies they get lumped in without regard for how the greater population of that major religious philosophy regards the group, or for that matter how other religious philosophies regard them. But even among these generalized works I do not see a consensus of willingness to attribute Christianity to Jehovah’s Witnesses. However I do see an overwhelming consensus within this source stipulating that Christianity is the professed faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So you're saying that there is a much greater willingness to label Presbyterians as Christian but only a grudging acceptance that JWs profess Christianity without actually conceding them that label? This is a strong statement and worth making if it can be backed up with sources.

I suspect that it will be difficult to back up this assertion with specific quotes as I'm guessing that what you wrote is an inference rather than based on explicit statements. NB: I'm not challenging your integrity here. I'm just commenting that sometimes it's necessary to "read between the lines" and it's hard to prove things with short quotations that explicitly make a point that the author assumes. I would be happy if you could prove me wrong. --Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: When academic works address the religion of Presbyterian they do not have a tendency I’ve noticed to attribute as simply as you suggest. These tend to speak with narrow descriptive language, such as stating it is representative if classical Protestantism and then offering comment on unique developmental roots. In terms of begrudging behavior (or not), this is not what I speak of. Authors of works attempting to cover a wide spectrum of religious bodies have to apply some basis to associate them with their work. With works offering broad overviews it is not unusual for an author to place Jehovah’s Witnesses in the category of Christian for purposes of comparison with a wide range of other religions professing Christianity. I am not asserting a majority or a minority does this, but it is nevertheless not unusual. But when it comes to an academic work focusing on Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to the historical and traditional body known as Christian, authors are very stingy with the label Christian.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Within works specifically addressing the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses it is a rare thing to find one willing to attribute Christianity to Jehovah’s Witnesses beyond stating things such as “Christian sect”. This was rare enough that when providing a vetted source attributing Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “Christian denomination” I had to rely on a work by Stark et al where it applied the phrase as part of a larger survey conducted. But the very same authors refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “Christian sect” when focusing on this religion in particular.

This is interesting and useful. I would be happy with "Christian sect" or "Christian denomination".

BTW, does Watchtower ever refer to itself as a "Christian denomination"? What is the most common phrase that they seem to use? --Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The Watchtower professes that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian and it rejects the attributions "Christian sect" and Christian denomination".-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in the findings of other editors here as they survey the extensive secondary source material addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching strictly peer reviewed works in the EBSCO Host Research Database I found an attribution of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a ‘communion of heterodox Christology’. (Ref. Missiometrics 2007: Creating Your Own Analysis of Global Data, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, published by Overseas Ministry Study Center, January 2007, Vol. 31 No. 1. pp 25-32)

For editors unfamiliar with this particular EBSCO research database, it is a repository of literally millions of peer reviewed documents made available in digital format. It also provides reference data on millions of additional documents that are not yet digitized from decades ago. In addition to peer reviewed articles this database also searches God knows how many news and purely journalistic article presentations not subject to veteran review. You can apply search parameters to target your research. The search mentioned above applied three search terms (Jehovah, religion, Christian) and was restrained to peer reviewed publications only. The result found 1326 documents. After reviewing the first 50 I have not found one attributing “Christian” or “Christianity” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I have found many presenting Jehovah’s Witnesses in various other ways, such as sect, sectarian, professed Christians, etc.

But a Christian sect is still Christian, right? After all, Christianity started as a Jewish sect and only stopped being one when they stopped asserting that they were Jews but something else entirely different (i.e. "Christians as opposed to Jews" rather than "Jews who were also Christian".) --Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The phrase "Christian sect" is a depiction in comparison with the historical and traditional body known as Christians. Hence it is a comparative term and not a declarative term. Whether any "Christian sect" is in fact Christian is something readers have to determine for themselves. The two terms ("Christian sect" and “Christian”) are neither mutually exclusive nor opposed by necessity. That is, a Christian sect may in fact be Christian or it may in fact not be Christian or it may in fact be somewhat Christian. Determining this is purely a subjective affair, which is why academic works tend to leave it for individuals to make their own determination whilst the work itself focuses on providing as accurate and objective attribution as it can for this very purpose. There are special exceptions to this associated with the historical and traditional community of Christians known colloquially as Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox. -- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several other research databases available for this sort of research, and I have applied searches to these as well with similar findings. Relevant to our discussion, I am still looking for input from other editors on what existing consensus you find in the database of world knowledge.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Opinion Request

What do editors think of this for an opening sentence:

“Jehovah's Witnesses are an international religion with a heterodox Christology headquartered in the United States with roots in the 19th century Millerite and Bible Student movements.” (provide reference) -- Marvin Shilmer 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Christology the only objection that mainstream Christianity has to calling JWs Christian? (Could be. I'm just asking the question to check our assumptions) And why can we not call them a "Christian denomination"?

How about "Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect with a heterodox theology headquartered in the United States. Its roots come from the 19th century Millerite and Bible Student movements.” (I don't like overly long sentences.) I would consider adding a footnote on "heterodox theology" which explains Non-Trinitarianism and the fact that some/many "mainstream Christians" do not consider JWs to be Christians.

Another alternative would be "JWs are a non-Trinitarian Christian sect headquartered in the United States." Then we can defend that text against Christians who argue that "non-Trinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron. I assume that we can find sources who assert that not all Christians are Trinitarians.

--Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: I do not think Christology is the only point of objection held by mainstream Christianity regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it may be a commanding point of objection. Though focusing on the main objection (rather than a singular objection) has merit for introductory presentation of a religion, the latter point of commanding objection is hard to elicit with certainty from the body of literature addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other hand, there is amply evidence associated with Jesus’ deity (hence Christology) suggesting this is a primary objection if not the primary objection.

Your suggested wording (i.e., "Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect with a heterodox theology headquartered in the United States” et al) is objective and verifiable. I have no problem with it. It is better than your latter suggestion (i.e., "JWs are a non-Trinitarian Christian sect headquartered in the United States” et al) though the latter presentation is also verifiable. But the sentence that includes Jehovah’s Witnesses professed status of being the restoration of early Christianity must be retained because that too is objective and verifiable information.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggested compromise: "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian faith [1] headquartered in the United States" and then in a footnote note the "heterodoxy". I think instead of using "heterodoxy" we could note their non-trinitarian stance as that seems to be the main reason given by those who dispute the JW status as Christian. Dtbrown 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Will not work. It’s not objective and it’s not verifiable by a consensus of knowledge on the subject.

Why are you so intent on making a declaration rather than a simple objective and verifiable statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity? Why?

I ask your response to the follwing:

1. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.”(Or equivalent) Mainstream Christianity will balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

2. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.”(Or equivalent) Jehovah’s Witnesses will tend to balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

3. “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity.”(Or equivalent) I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this as an objective presentation. Not a single soul.

The last (3rd) presentation has the best chance of stability and defensibility because it is verifiable and not a declaration. Your comment?-- Marvin Shilmer 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because saying that the Witnesses only profess Christianity is POV pushing. That is exactly what most Watchtower critics want to see here. It is grossly unfair. Why do you require the word "wect"? You were willing to accept Christian sect. Why can we not use a neutral phrase and note that potential conflict in a footnote? Dtbrown 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: You write, “saying that the Witnesses only profess Christianity is POV pushing.” Why do you say this? It is verifiable. It is objective. It is true. What is POV pushing about this?

Can you provide evidence demonstrating a consensus exists in the present world knowledge base declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? If you can, then I’m all for making this declaration part of this encyclopedic entry, and to encourage it in all other’s too. But I do not see this when I examine the body of knowledge available to us. It is not our prerogative as editors to invent an artificial consensus. We have to verify what we write here; hence we have to find the existing consensus.

Why do you and other editors worry about Watchtower critics? What they say is either true or it is false. So what? Whether an edit has merit has nothing whatsoever to do with anything or anybody, other than what can be verified. Fairness has to be determined by what is fair for readers of an encyclopedic entry. Fairness to this readership demands that we concentrate on what can be verified. If we assert an artificial consensus this subject will never achieve any degree of stability, and it will never be fair to readers.

As for your question ‘Why do I require the word ‘sect’?’ I am not sure what you mean. Editing I have offered does not include this term. My first preference would be to stipulate that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity without speaking to where they fit on the technical grid of religion.

I have no problem with footnotes. But the main text has to be objective and verified, and not an artificial consensus invented by us.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

How about

"Jehovah's Witnessess is/are a Christian faith that claims to be an unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church. Its roots are in the 19th century Millerite and Bible Student movements. A distinctive element of their theology is a non-Trinitarian view of Christology. The Jehovah's Witnesses movement is governed by the Watchtower Society, a worldwide religious organization headquartered in the United States."

Add a footnote to "non-Trinitarian view of Christology" that says "Some/many Christian groups consider JWs to be outside of Christianity because of their non-Trinitarianism."

I think we can tinker with "unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church" but I'm hoping that my wording comes closest to nailing the truth without getting into too much trouble with NPOV. Yes, there are still going to be people that object to "JW is a Christian faith" but, per Marvin's research, the fact is that they do get lumped in with Christians all the time (they're certainly not Buddhists!).

At some point, we have to come to a compromise that we can defend against all comers (both JWs and anti-JW mainstream Christians).

What do you think of this proposal?

--Richard 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Your proposed opening sentence presents subjectivity right out of the box. It declares, "Jehovah's Witnesses are/is a Christian faith..." when this is a subjective conclusion. Borrowing from your language, an objective opening sentence would read:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious faith that claims to be the unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church."

We can verify this statement without making any subjective declaration.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I can accept your proposal but I am probably more amenable than some of the other editors of this article. My primary criterion is: stability and defensibility of the text against "all comers". Regarding your charge of "subjectivity", do you see the same subjectivity in the leads of the following articles: Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Protestantism? Why or why not?

If you do see subjectivity in those leads, why do we not enforce "objectivity" across the board?

Which is the greater sin - a uniform application of subjectivity (based on self-identification and profession) across the board or an inconsistent application of objectivity?

--Richard 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: We share primary concern.

The three articles you inquire of happen to be the three special cases I speak of at some length in previous entries to this talk page. For reasons already expressed and explained, from a historical and traditional, and consensual theological perspective it is accepted to declare these three as Christian. But beyond that you will find very few vetted resources that declare religions as “Christian”. Instead you will see them expressed in terms of their historical association with wherever they come from, and whatever comes with that. What I express here is strictly my observation of current and historical presentations. My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian, but I am unable to find a consensus for this among reputable and arguably unbiased sources, particularly vetted sources. If we are to achieve the primary goal we share then we have to avoid inventing an artificial consensus and make sure we are presenting what we can verify.

Regarding other articles addressing other religions, though it is best for a single reference work to apply a standard approach in related topics/appellations it is more important to make sure whatever presentation is under consideration is made objective and verified. If work need be done on other articles that is a subject for those articles. Editing a reference work is not about fair treatment. It is about objective treatment. Poor form in one reference article should not reduce other articles. The reverse should be true. An academic standard that has works reduced to the lower denominator are no better than gossip from the streets.

The bifurcation you present is a false one because no matter how objective is one presentation, from one presentation (subject) to the next we will never have consistent objectivity because of the human element. What we do as a result is examine whatever the subject presentation for veracity to identify the subjective from the objective. Researchers and editors have a higher obligation here, knowing that he average reader is often too apt to accept declarations as fact without bothering to test its veracity or perhaps not having the skill to do so. But researchers and editors must know better. Otherwise they have no business editing in the first place.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Your revised introductory sentence equates denomination and sect with faith. For our purposes here I see no problem with this. However I am compelled to point out the logical flaw of equating “faith” with “Christian faith”, which is how you extended your initial equivalency proposal. To put it another way, all denominations and all sects are some kind of a faith, but no all faiths are Christian. Hence your sentence is illogical on the basis you assert it. Declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian remains an assertion of the subjective, and still do not see any verification of this from whatever existing consensus of world knowledge. -- Marvin Shilmer 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment about "faith". I think "faith" is preferable to

1. denomination - because JWs understandably object to being labeled "just another denomination"
2. sect - well, I don't think JWs should object to this but some editors do object
3. religion - if Christianity is a religion, is JW another religion different from Christianity?
4. organization - um, is the Roman Catholic Church a Christian organization or a Christian church?

I don't know what other word will mollify all of us except "faith"

So, the remaining problem is the adjective "Christian" which you would object to in most formulations except perhaps "Christian sect" which I would be content with as well. I think the two front-runners are "Christian sect" and "Christian faith". I could go with either but I think "Christian faith" will garner more support because of the pejorative connotations of "sect".

--Richard 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: I do not disagree that, for Jehovah’s Witnesses, “faith” is a better noun to apply than denomination or sect.

Regarding you question “If Christianity is a religion, is JW another religion different from Christianity,” this is at the heart of the issue. If we take the position that this Wiki article should declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian (or Christianity) then we have to verify this as representing world knowledge rather than representing an artificial consensus of us puny editors here. Objectivity is a must, and verification is key.

Regarding “organization”, it is a poor term applied to a body from a socioreligious perspective. Typical vernacular would be either “church” or “religion”. Between these Jehovah’s Witnesses would probably tend to prefer “religion”.

As for mollification, objective editors are appeased by an objective and verifiable presentation of facts. I can verify with sources that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity. I cannot verify with sources that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. This is why an earlier edit I offered eliminated terms such as denomination and sect and, instead, presented the undisputed and verifiable declaration that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religion professing Christianity. I am still bumfuzzled why anyone would argue with this presentation. Editors here seem more interested in spinning and/or using Wiki as some kind of declaratory tool, when it is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--Marvin Shilmer 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Your latest edit is objective and verifiable (i.e., ““Jehovah's Witnesses are an international faith that claims to be an unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church.”) It needs referencing, though.

Further on our mutual primary goal:

1. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.”(Or equivalent) Mainstream Christianity will balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

2. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.”(Or equivalent) Jehovah’s Witnesses will tend to balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

3. “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity.”(Or equivalent) I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this as an objective presentation. Not a single soul.

The last (3rd) presentation has the best chance of, as you say and I agree, having “stability and defensibility of the text against ‘all comers’.”-- Marvin Shilmer 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your wording on the lead in, you forgot to mention that they are Christian. I will change it back later if there are few objections.Thanks--Ice9Tea 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: What you raise is what is under discussion. To state Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian is to make a declaration. The question is, is there a consensus among the existing knowledge base to verify such a declaration? Please review what has already been presented on this question and participate in this discussion prior to editing. Thanks.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion. it seems there is a question over whether Jehovahs witnesses are or should rightly be referred to as Christians.Lack of support from the world on the side of those saying they are is no great surprise. the knowledge base? of course we would refer to the Bible as the supreme authoritative source. As for the definition of a Christian, what does the Bible say? Must I believe that Christ is God? He didn't.[17] Must I believe that Christ is equal to His father. He didn't.[18]. Seriously why would anyone object to the millions of people who are well known for their going right up to people in their homes to tell them about Jesus Christ the Reigning King of Gods Kingdom actually being called Christian? does this objection make sense to anyone?--Ice9Tea 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: You have expressed a POV, and that is fine. We all have one and we should express ourselves.

Do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic entry should reflect the existing consensus on whatever the subject? If not then what?

If we accept your biblical interpretation (which I probably agree with on this subject) then from an academic perspective we are also bound to accept the next person’s biblical interpretation, which would leave us at a stalemate.

If you accept that an encyclopedic entry must present an existing consensus in world knowledge then help editors, such as both of us, seek this consensus for an objective and verifiable presentation here. It is not our prerogative to assert our POV. It is our responsibility to provide what we can verify, particularly from secondary sources with high academic standards.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin how about this "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious movement professing Jesus Christ as their King. They actively share with others information about their God, whose name is Jehovah, and about his Son, Jesus Christ.Their beliefs are based entirely on the principles found in the Holy Bible and they look to first-century Christianity as their model.--Ice9Tea 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: What you write is, for the most part, objective and verifiable. The exception is the statement “Their beliefs are based entirely on the principles found in the Holy Bible”. You could easily remove the subjectivity with this edit:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious movement professing Jesus Christ as their King. They actively share with others information about their God, whose name is Jehovah, and about his Son, Jesus Christ. They assert biblical bases for all their beliefs, pointing to the Bible as the Holy word of God. They look to first-century Christianity as their model.”

Though I have no issues with the objectivity and verifiability of this presentation, I must confess it reads more like a sermon than an encyclopedic entry. Nevertheless, in the edited version I do see objectivity and verifiability. You might want to hear what other editors have to say on this, too.

Comment? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Carey Barber

I have started the article about Carey W. Barber and I hope for participation in developing that article. Would be interesting if there have been any mentioning of him in newspapers etc. That is a question where ordinary internet research still may give scarce info, so mentioning of that would be a great addition to the theme. Summer Song 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have access to archival documents that may provide you with good reference material. I look around for you and see what I find.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sect

Dictionary.com gives these meanings for "sect":

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. 2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination. 3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

Can we not use "religious body" instead of "sect"? Dtbrown 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: The current edit does not employ the term sect.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you has said earlier to Richard:

"Your suggested wording (i.e., "Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect with a heterodox theology headquartered in the United States” et al) is objective and verifiable. I have no problem with it."

If you have no problem with calling the JWs a "Christian sect" then why can't we use "Christian religious body" and then note the reason some other Christians have in distancing themselves from the JWs? Dtbrown 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Because the two statements are relevantly dissimilar. Because I can verify one but not the other.

Stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect is something we can demonstrate carries substantial support in the world knowledge base. I do not find a remotely similar level of support for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian religious body. And, let me be clear here. I dismiss the sources applying “sect” pejoratively right out of hand. I am talking about academic use of the term where it is applied to indicate religious order.

To state Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian religious body is to declare the Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. I am unable to verify this from the body of world knowledge. I have looked for this. But I cannot find it. We cannot declare what we cannot verify. It is not our prerogative to invent consensus that is not found in the knowledge base of literature. We are supposed to present what we can verify.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Religious body" is another meaning of "sect."

At this point, I think your bias as a vocal critic of the Watchtower Society is quite clear. I think this needs to go to mediation. You will only accept the word "sect" and not another meaning of that word: "religious body." Dtbrown 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I agree that “religious body” is another meaning of “sect”. This is not disputed by me. The problem I have is an encyclopedic presentation making a declaration that we cannot verify holds a consensus in the world knowledge base.

Do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic presentation must represent a consensus of knowledge, and that it has to have verification accordingly?

I do not think you know the extent that I have researched this issue. If I personally considered Jehovah’s Witnesses something other than Christian then how do you explain my open statement to that effect in the reference of my work archived by the British Medical Journal that I cited earlier, specifically for you? I have spent a lot of time researching this in vast databases, such as the one I cite above. Does this mean nothing to you? If I am wrong, show me. All I’m asking for is an entry that reflects the existing consensus in the world knowledge base, whatever that is. Why not research to provide this rather than attacking my motives? This is the unbiased, objective and academic thing to do. Don’t you agree? -- Marvin Shilmer 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. You state I will only accept the word sect. This is false. I have expressed a preference not to use the term sect at all. I have recommended a statement that Jehovah's Witnesses profess Christianity, without mention of sectarianism. Also, the current edit, which is objective, makes no mention of the word sect. Again your assertion of me is patently false! I hope you share the falseness of your assertions with whomever you ask for mediation.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you not state to Richard:

"Your suggested wording (i.e., "Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect with a heterodox theology headquartered in the United States” et al) is objective and verifiable. I have no problem with it."

But when asked if you'd accept the equivalent "Christian religious body" you say you will not accept that. Why? Dtbrown 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Have you read a word I’ve written?

Let’s start with this lesson in sociological usage (not being sarcastic):

Though “sect” can mean “religious body” it does not mean that “sect” and “religious body” are equivalents in usage.

This is why earlier I wrote that the two propositions you proffered are relevantly dissimilar. Did you miss this? You respond as though this was never said. You never even inquired of it as though it were misunderstood.

When non-biased third party researchers apply the term “sect” in their literature they are not simply speaking of a “religious body”. They are speaking of sectarianism. This is their usage. Sectarianism is not a dirty word in this context. It is a reference to religious order. I have expressed this to you too, yet you respond as though it was never said. Why? If you do not understand something why not ask rather than accusing my motivation? Why? I do not understand this.

Getting back to what we can verify, the reason I said Richard’s statement was objective and verifiable was not because his presentation is my preferential one. I expressed his statement was objective and verifiable because his usage of “sect” can be verified with an infinite extent of third party vetted sources. Also, and this is important, Richard’s sentence made no declarations that are unverifiable. -- Marvin Shilmer 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide documentation that "religious body" is not equivalent of sect. Dtbrown 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Do you want usage or a lexical reference? -- Marvin Shilmer 01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide whichever you think best. Dtbrown 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexical (OED):

Religious body is a compound term. Hence we have:

religious: Imbued with religion

body: The main portion of a collection or company; the majority; the larger part, the bulk of anything

Religious body is a collection of individuals similarly imbued with religion, a collection of individuals of the same religious preference.

Sect. We have:

sect: A system of belief or observance distinctive of one of the parties or schools into which the adherents of a religion are divided; sometimes spec. a system differing from what is deemed the orthodox tradition; a heresy. (b) A body of persons who unite in holding certain views differing from those of others who are accounted to be of the same religion; a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical, or at least as deviating from the general tradition.

Lexical finding: Though members of a religious body may be of the same sect, a religious body is not necessarily a sect because its traditions may not sufficiently differ from what is deemed “the orthodox tradition” for whatever religion is in question.

Note: If you read the entire entry for these terms you will see immediately they are not equivalents because of the enormously different range of meanings, not to mention etymologies.

Usage:

Rodney Stark et al apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses the term “Christian sect” in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “new religious movement”. A new religious movement is “new” precisely because it significantly differs from traditional orthodoxy, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are very different from traditional orthodox Christianity. Hence Stark et al use the term “sect” not merely as a religious body but rather as a sectarian religion differing from traditional orthodoxy. (Stark, R. et al, Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow So Rapidly: A Theoretical Application, Contemporary Journal of Religion, Vol. 12 No.2 1997) -- Marvin Shilmer 02:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So sect can mean: "A system of belief or observance distinctive of one of the parties or schools into which the adherents of a religion are divided" I think the American Heritage Dictionary is not far off when it gives "religious body" as a meaning for "sect." A footnote showing that JWs differ from traditional orthodoxy should take care of any misconceptions that JWs hold to traditional Christian beliefs. I think this is the only fair way of handling the situation. Otherwise, all other non-traditional Christian groups can fall victim to the designs of their critics. Can you imagine someone suggesting that the Quaker article should not refer to them as a Christian religious group despite that many (if not most) Quakers do not hold to trinitarian belief? Dtbrown 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Who’s pushing a point of view?

The usage you are trying to assert is not supported in the literature addressing our topic because the literature applies a usage other than the one you would assert. This is equivocation. It is patent fallacy.

An objective and verifiable presentation has to agree with usage as it exists in a consensus of source material. It is blatant equivocation to pretend these source apply the term “sect” as a “religious body” when they are actually applying the term to mean a sectarian deviation from traditional orthodoxy. In effect, you are suggesting we use a work to mean something the literature does not support. This is contrary to every academic standard I am aware of. Why do you insist on a usage that is not supported in the consensus of literature addressing the subject?

Do you disagree with me that whatever we present here must be objective and must be verifiable from the consensus of literature addressing the subject? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I said we could footnote the deviation. Even though you reject the negative connotation of sect there are many others who do not. Can we not find a way to compromise? Why do you insist that the word sect be used when we can use an alternate phrasing that is more neutral and footnote to clarify? Dtbrown 02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I have no problems whatsoever with any presentation that is objective and verifiable with an existing consensus in the world knowledge base.

You repeatedly avoid the problem of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. If this can be verified from an existing consensus in the literature then I have no problem with this. But you have not worked this problem at all. Where is your research verifying that such a declaration is verifiable from a consensus in the body of literature? If it’s there no one will be happier to see it than me! Footnotes or not, the main text still has to be verified as an existing consensus in world knowledge.

As for alternate and more neutral phrasing, I have done just this and got my backside chew by an administrator as though I had disrupted paradise. My suggestion was, and still is:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an extraordinarily fast growing religious group professing Christianity.[1][2] They are known for their doorstep ministry, neutrality in politics and war, and legal victories for civil rights.[3][4] They adopted their current name in 1931 under the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[5] As a religion they developed in response “to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity.”[6] They dispute doctrines such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, and clergy-laity divisions, ‘claiming these have no Biblical basis.’[7] Their most widely-known publications are the religious magazines The Watchtower and Awake!.”

My recommended language is neutral, objective, verified and makes no subjective or unverified declarations. Comment? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with only saying that Witnesses profess Christianity without noting they are part of the Christian movement. I think footnoting their divergence from traditional Christian orthodoxy is fair to both sides. Dtbrown 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: We should not concern ourselves with “sides”. We must concern ourselves with objectivity and verification found in a consensus of world knowledge. You are pushing a POV, and you are doing it contrary to what secondary sources assert. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown unverified edit

Dtbrown has edited the introduction using language contrary to the consensus found in literature. His language declares that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, and he offers not verification of this by any consensus of literature. When I offered a neutral introduction fortified with stellar references and verification it was deletes and I was warned for editing without consensus. I see nothing justifying Dtbrown's edit. He has left unanswered questions in his wake throughout this talk page. He is asserting a POV that is not verified by any consensus of secondary sources. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown has now removed a request for verification of his declarative language. Wiki guideline permits any editor to remove unverified language. Administrators? -- Marvin Shilmer 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can not spend as much time as Mr Shilmer on this talk page. I admire his gift for writing but do not agree with or have time to respond to his every point. I think a neutral phrasing is possible using "religious body" and noting that there are other Christian groups that do not recognize the JWs as Christian. Marvin Shilmer has admitted that he writes anti-Watchtower articles on this talk page though he says he checks his biases at the door when he edits. I fail to see why this article cannot accept the JWs self-profession at face value and then note their departure from traditional orthodoxy. If we permit critics of Jehovah's Witnesses to make this article reflect the views of religious orthodoxy then how can we prevent similar critics from neutering articles on Quakers, Roman Catholics and other groups? Mr Shilmer also says that the language "Christian religious body" goes against consensus found in literature. I think that is disputable. Most major reference works on the Christian movement consider Jehovah's Witnesses as part of their work. Many use "sect" but that has various meanings and I think "religious body" is a neutral term that can mirror the meaning of sect. Dtbrown 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No one is suggesting you need to spend more time on this forum. Rather, it is recommended that you verify what you assert by providing secondary sources in support and establishing that these sources represent a consensus of knowledge given the disputed nature of your declarative assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian as opposed to asserting that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity.

If Dtbrown is correct when he asserts that it is disputable whether his usage of terms is inconsistent with a consensus of literature on the subject, then all he needs to do is demonstrate this just like anyone else making an assertion.

Now Dtbrown makes an assertion based on weasel words of “Most major references works” but he fails to reference these and he also fails to demonstrate his sources (whatever they are) represent a consensus view, particularly given the substantial vetted articles I have taken the time to share on this talk page and in the main text.

Shockingly, Dtbrown continues to assert a fallacious equivocation between “religious body” and “sect” knowing perfectly well these are not equivalents.

Dtbrown continues trying to suggest impure motives of my contributions here based on articles of mine critical of specific teachings and policies of the Watchtower Society. But not one time has he bothered to show me where a single one of these criticisms are in error. Not even once. So what is the point? It is contrary to good academics to think solid criticism is somehow a bad or impure thing. I have expressed to him over and over that if wrong I want to know. But he offers not rebuttal, yet persists to insinuate impure motives. I do not understand this. I have worked hard trying to help this subject to find solid ground to make it indisputable. Unlike Dtbrown, every question he has asked of me I answered. I even did research for him! Yet above is a record where he has consistently failed to answer specific questions of him, including assertions he’s made of authors and failed to provide references when challenged.

Here I am not attributing impure motives to Dtbrown. We all have our own background, experience and training, and these effect how our methods, perspectives and projection. I am sure Drbrown is honest in his efforts here. But I am befuddled by his willingness to edit an encyclopedic content in contrast to his manifest refusal to sustain a solid academic dialogue by responding to academic presentation and questions. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shockingly, DTBrown...." Is that necessary? Dtbrown 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: When a person asserts an identified equivocation it is shocking to observe. I am convinced of your sincerity. But you have failed over and over again to demonstrate the declaration you want to assert. This is all I ask for good academic presentation. An assertion needs to be verified as representing a consensus of world knowledge, and do so in the main text. Debatable assertions have a place in research presentations, but not in the main text of an encyclopedic reference. Children use Wikipedia for goodness sakes. We must think objectively and make sure we verify what we write as representing the knowledge base out there rather than representing petty views among a few editors here, including myself. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the rules of civlity here. Please do not describe other editors opinions as "shocking." Dtbrown 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not contrary to Wiki policy to express dismay. Hence refrain from asserting known equivocations so readers will not be shocked by what they read. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you bring up civility, the first order of civil dialogue is to answer questions asked in an exchange. Above there is not a single request of me I have failed to respond to. You, on the other hand, have left a wake of unanswered questions despite having the time to spend mulling over my motivations.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, this topic is covered in the archives. Fcsuper 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: The archives show a conspicuous absence of vetted resources bearing on this subject. --

I am sorry Marvin but you really are a thorn. Dtbrown and Jeff neither one subscribe to JW beliefs yet they realize that it is incorrect to not categorize JW's as Christian by the definition of Christian and also by the multitude of references which categorize them as christian or a Christian sect or with terms like chialist or millenialist which generall refer to Christian sects. Sect contains a perjorative meaning outside of academic circles and most WP readers are not going to be academic. I respect your desire for perfection but you are taking things way too far as the recent interjection by Lisa brought out. You are the only person here pushing this POV. (don't request references I am tired of re-referencing things) Please even once just yeild to the consensus of other editors. Editors on both ends of the scale are finding your style tiresome. Don't you have a job? George 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: A person’s religious, social or personal preferences have nothing whatsoever to do with whether any given assertion can be verified by a consensus of literature on whatever the subject assertion. All I have asked of anyone here, including Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and others, is to verify whatever they assert in their editing. What about this is misunderstood? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic work, isn’t it? We are supposed to verify based on a consensus of information, aren’t we?

And, please, suggesting I am looking for perfection is absurd. If you read above you will see several instances where I agreed with various editing proposals. Just this evening user Ice9Tea proposed an edit with considerable objectivity and verifiability, and I commented accordingly. Notwithstanding any agreeableness, my concern is really one thing: verification of the consensus of knowledge. We are not here to invent information. We are here to express information we can verify from the world base of knowledge.

Do I have a job? Yes. I am a research scientist. Do you have a job? -- Marvin Shilmer 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, numerous references have been provided to show that the most academic way to refere to JW's is as Christian. any and all qualifications of that statement bleong in the body of the article as per WP:LEAD. So when you say: All I have asked of anyone here, including Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and others, is to verify whatever they assert in their editing. You've gotten it in spades! you are holding the page hostage with your astounding amount of free time and tenacious style. You are not always right, even if you are the most academic. It is you who are trying to force the consensus of academia into your mold instead of following procedure. the lead must be simple. Discussion of the particulars of the relationship JW's have with mainstream CHristianinty belong later inthe article as you have been reminded many times. Please stop saying verify, objective, etc; that point has been dealt with. Yeild a little once in a while if you care to avoid resentment and actually want to build consensus.George 07:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin wrote: "All I have asked of anyone here, including Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and others, is to verify whatever they assert in their editing. What about this is misunderstood? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic work, isn’t it? We are supposed to verify based on a consensus of information, aren’t we?" We are also called to interpret the information. The article represents how the editors interpret the information and how we weigh the sources. Dtbrown 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George m: Where are all these references demonstrating an existing consensus of world knowledge declares Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? All I see are a few broad references, and even these do not amount to a consensus of the literature. So where is all the referenced you allege?

I have no problem with simplicity. In fact I encourage it. So why don’t we just keep this simple and you show me where all these references are you allege. Then we can compare notes. This is what talk is for, isn’t it?

As for consensus, it would be an artificial consensus were we to assert a presentation of a subject based on a majority of views held by editors on this forum. As editors we must find the existing consensus in the world knowledge base (found in the literature) and express this. This is the consensus capable of passing the laugh test, and beyond.

Resentment? Who here is worried about resentment? I am not here to pander to emotional needs, including my own. I am here to help form a solid presentation on subject that represents the consensus of world knowledge on the subject. Emotional needs are better served somewhere else.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Any “interpretation,” to use your vernacular, must conform to whatever is the existing consensus of world knowledge on the subject addressed. You avoid this consensus at every turn. Where is your research? Where are your sources? Why don’t you just provide what you say is there so editors can examine it for veracity? Are we supposed on depend on your interpretation of references you fail to even share for review? I’ve already had experience with you alluding to things source say (e.g., Penton) only to have you fail to actually provide any reference for your allegation! Then, worse, you seriously misconstrue a quotation from the same source so that it wholly and demonstrably says something inconsistent with what the author actually stated. It’s all in the record above. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, it is unproductive to argue every single point out to infinity. Please try to be more understanding and respectful of others here. Constantly refering to others statements in perjortive terms (direct or indirect) when they do not agree with you is ultimately hurting this article and the wikipedia enviroment, despite your best intentions. You are not doing as good of a job discrediting others as you seem to believe, based on your comments. Nor are you making your case as well as you seem to believe. This is not an attack, but a plea for cooperation on this article. Fcsuper 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

comment from the outside

I happened to come here yesterday seeing the activity at Recent Changes, & since the discussion is still ongoing, I will step in--perhaps out of foolish optimism--and offer some advice, based on my experience in some other subjects: It is very difficult to get the nuances exactly right in a first paragraph. On one set of articles about whether X invented something or just improved it, it went back and forth for months, until people agreed to have the first paragraph just state the basic facts needed for background, without trying to summarize the question in a single sentence. Similarly with wording: I've seen pages get stuck over whether something is or is not a diploma mill. Let the reader decide that. its his opinion that matters, and he will get that from the facts, not from your opinions and not even from the published opinions of other people. I've done some work with "pseudoscience", and here too it doesn't matter whether or not you call something pseudoscience. It's enough to describe what different people say happened, and the reader should know how rational it is.

Look: it is obvious to anyone who has heard about the Christian religion, that the doctrines of JW when described at the most basic level are somewhat different from those of Catholic and Protestant churches. Whether that falls within or without the limits of Christianity is not something you will settle at WP. Just explain the doctrines first, and then compare them, and people who care about it will judge. There's an analogy I've used: it is not necessary in the lead paragraph --or anywhere else in the article--to say that Stalin was an evil man. It's clear from the facts.

I don't want to say that matters are quite that sharp here--but the way the actual truth of the doctrines will become clear is not through argument, here or elsewhere. Best wishes for the article. DGG 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sage advice. State the facts and let readers decide. It really is that simple. -- Marvin Shilmer 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DDG is right. Let the facts speak for themselves. Using references to make unveriable statements is the same as making unveriable statements without references, just more work. Unveriable means just that. No matter how much data one collects or has a source peer reviewed, there is not way to make certain statements veriable. That's the English language for you. This is not to say those statements are false, but simply that they need to reworded in a way that is veriable within the context of the article. I would like to work with everyone in this regard, but some just are not listening, at least not yet. My hope is that some will soften their position and be open to the fact that others have this article's integrity in mind. There are ways for those persons to say the facts they've presented in neutral language. They are just having trouble seeing that their edits are not neutrally worded. Siting a fact from a source, and wording something neutrally are two complete different things that must be taken into account when making edits, particularly to a controversial article such as this one. Fcsuper 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal for the lead in

What about this language for the lead. I think everything is verifiable and objective, and it makes no subjective declarations:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international religious body that rejects orthodoxy in favor of a restored primitive Christianity.(+ref) As a religion they developed in response “to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity.”(+ref) They dispute doctrines such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, and clergy-laity divisions, ‘claiming these have no Biblical basis.’(+ref) Their most widely-known publications are the religious magazines The Watchtower and Awake!. The name Jehovah’s Witnesses was adopted in 1931.(+ref) The Witnesses are governed by the Watchtower Society, a worldwide organization headquartered in the United States.”

--Marvin Shilmer 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I like most of it except for the part where they aren't described as "professing" or "claiming" to be Christian. Also, the word "orthodoxy" is just slightly ambiguous. Can we develop "orthodoxy" into something that more clearly indicates "mainstream Christianity"? I thought about "orthodox Christianity" but that could be interpreted to mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. Another possibility is "the orthodoxy of Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches".

I'm not sure about the phrase "restored primitive Christianity". Does this mean the same thing as "a restoration of the primitive Christian church"? I assume that you intend it to mean the same thing. I'm not sure that it does.

Also, I'm not fond of the phrase "religious body". What is a "religious body"? I will comment that the Eastern Orthodox Church is described as a "Christian body" and I don't like that phrasing much either. (I know this phrasing does not necessarily originate with Marvin.)

Otherwise, I like the rest of it.

--Richard 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do most leads consist of a series of referenced statements? This doesn't seem to be the pattern in other articles. Dtbrown 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Declarations by necessity must be referenced so readers (and editors!) can verify the assertion’s validity, or lack of validity. This is as true for introductory language as it is for any other portion of a presentation. Every vetted article requires this as a must. Yet you are content to avoid this like the plague. It makes no sense. It will not stand up. It is too vulnerable. Why not discuss the consensus of knowledge found in literature and express this? This is what encyclopedic content is supposed to be. This is not a research paper examining a theory. It is a reference work. Again, a reference work. That is what an encyclopedia is.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent

Richard: Yes, I would rather state it as a profession of faith, too. This is the most objective presentation, and it is readily verifiable. Other editors here have yet to articulate anything remotely akin to a refutation of this presentation, as to why it should not be applied.

“Restored primitive Christianity” is one thing. “A restored primitive Christianity” is something else. I applied the latter phrase. The indefinite article suffices to state this is a brand of Christianity rather than declaring it is Christianity. It’s close. I’ll give you that. But it does, however so barely, get past the academic lens. The problem I have with the term is that, from an academic perspective, it is not always enough to construct a valid statement. It is also important to construct a valid statement that is as straightforward as possible. Circumspect language can be valid, but it is easier to misconstrue. Nevertheless, the presentation I throw on the table I can verify, and it makes no subjective declarations. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer's request for verification that JWs are part of the Christian movement

Marvin has asked that the statement that JWs are a Christian religious body be verified. There are several sources that state that which have been addressed on this talk page already. I don't think we have to rehash all that right now. As editors we are called to weigh the sources and yes, there are many sources which put the JWs outside of Christian orthodoxy. Most sources which are not theologically based place the JWs as part of the Christian movement. Some refer to them as a sect of Christianity. Since this is not a theological resource I have favored following a secular meaning for Christian in this article. "Sect" can have a negative connotation so I recommend we use a neutral phrase instead. If we have to demonstrate that the JWs are part of the Christian movement then we will have to do the same elsewhere. Are the Quakers Christian? There are many Protestants who do not believe the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church. What if someone with the same determination as Marvin started a similar tactic on the Roman Catholic page? Would we be forced to also remove a declarative phrase from that article that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church?

In short, is Wikipedia unable to state that the JWs are part of the Christian movement because they have some critics among other Christian Churches? I think this is a matter of fairness. A footnote can explain that there is some controversy and that the JWs are not in the mainstream part of the Christian movement. Dtbrown 07:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To follow Dtbrown, I want to say that at the Christianity talk page you will find also the same consensus being forwarded by the majority of edtiors here, namely that inclusiveness is preferable when dealing with groups claiming to be Christain. WP has official and unofficial policies. This would rank as an unofficial one within the Christianity category. I would encourage Marvin to visit the discussion there and make his arguments. I also encourage marvin to try his tactics and reasoning on the Mormonism, Quaker, Unitarian anrticles etc. For that matter why not the cahtolicism article? There are a great many verifiable protestant references which would label Catholicism as not Christian. That should probably be in the lead of that article too. George 11:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: You write: “Most sources which are not theologically based place the JWs as part of the Christian movement. Some refer to them as a sect of Christianity.” Prove this claim. My extensive research in, to use your term, “not theologically based” literature runs contrary to your assertion. Over the past few days I have examined over two hundred vetted articles addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is relatively rare to find one making a declaratory statement such as you have asserted, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. So please prove your assertion.

Regarding other subject religions, have you heard the term super majority? I suggest you look it up. It has to do with the consensus of world knowledge. There are editors just as interested in those other religions. You can bet your bottom dollar that if they spot something contrary to existing consensus (particular a super majority) then they will address it. Editors should stick to subjects they are either trained or experienced to examine.

You ask: “Is Wikipedia unable to state that the JWs are part of the Christian movement because they have some critics among other Christian Churches?”

Please note your strawman tactic. If only “some critics” held a view contrary to your own then we would not be having this discussion. So please refrain from misrepresenting. If my research is an indicator, if anything there is a super majority of world knowledge contrary to your view.

Fairness: Fairness for a reference work is one thing: verifiability. So where is your verification that your view represents a consensus of world knowledge? Where is it? This is what I have asked you and other editors for, repeatedly.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: Please just show us the beef on this topic. Demonstrate a consensus of world knowledge favoring a declarative statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian and this discussion will end there. Otherwise the test of time will ultimately prevail. Future readers and editors will recognize, ultimately, any biased presentation and remove it. Why not get the job done now by presenting what represents a consensus of the literature. This is, after all, what a reference work is supposed to do.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not have the same amount of time to spend on this article as Marvin Shilmer does. I have provided a source for the statement that Jehovah's Witnesses can be said to be a Christian group from another secular encyclopedia. They have weighed the sources and this is their verdict. Let us see what other editors say. Dtbrown 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I appreciate you citing World Book Encyclopedia (WBE). At the very least this demonstrates your declarative assertion (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian…) is not unprecedented for an encyclopedic reference (though a ‘CliffsNotes’ version). This is an interesting choice you cite, from my perspective. WBE is written for adolescents. As such it is not readily available to my remote access research database, which is why I have not already reviewed the primary work presentation (rather than the ‘CliffsNotes’ version). WBE tends to round off presentations whereas more methodical reference works tend towards narrower presentations with more definition aimed at incisiveness on whatever the subject. I have commented on this several times earlier on this talk page (i.e., a broad overview/presentation compared to a specific presentation). It is noteworthy that reference works such as Britannica do not support this declarative language. It is more noteworthy that vetted journal articles are decidedly more conservative in attributing Christianity to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Hence the question left for editors is whether a minority view expressed in secondary sources should be in the main text or in footnote, and vice versa whether a majority view expressed in secondary sources should be in the main text or in footnote. You argue a minority position should find the main text and the majority position should find the footnote.

If you do not have the necessary time to thoroughly review and address this subject matter then you should at least work with those who do, including responding to their questions. Speaking for myself, I ask questions to move things along with some logical expediency. When fellow editors fail to respond it results in a disadvantage for the subject material. It is also inconsiderate. If time can be expended to question motivation then there is certain sufficient time to respond to questions.

I ask that you review my proposed opening paragraph above, and comment.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin I do not need to demonstrate a consensus of world knowledge, let me restate myself for your benefit: I want to say that at the Christianity talk page you will find also the same consensus being forwarded by the majority of edtiors here, namely that inclusiveness is preferable when dealing with groups claiming to be Christain. WP has official and unofficial policies. This would rank as an unofficial one within the Christianity category. Please dont argue oranges when I talk apples. We don't need to invent a new way of dealing with just this page because one person isn't satisfied woth current way. For crying out loud Marvin lookat how many edits on just the lead in the last week. Mosr of them by you. You haven't even come close to working out a consensus here you just rewrite what you don't agree with immediately. Not that it matters, you think you're right about everything. You may even technically be right. That doesn't make it good form or NPOV. Wen 9 out of 10 encyclopedias refer to JW's as Christians(no I am not going to relist these sources you will just have to reread through this huge discussion and find them again) without footnotes or qualifying statements enough precendent has been set for WP to do so. We don't need your permmission. George 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George m: I am not concerned with the predilection of a handful of Christian apologists and/or antagonists. None of us should be. For an encyclopedic reference work we should be concerned with verifiability. If that verifiability is contrary to the consensus of world knowledge then what is it worth? What is it about researching this consensus that you are so adamantly opposed to, and presenting whatever that is? To oppose such a consensus presentation is blatant POV.

You assert that nine out of ten encyclopedias “refer to JWs as Christians,” and you state you will not “relist” these. The problem is I don’t see any such list presented on this talk page or its archive. So where is this alleged list? Above I see several sources (including the prestigious Encyclopedia Britannica) misrepresented in terms of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. In another instance above one of your favored editors, Dtbrown, demonstrates a willingness to misrepresent how an author presents Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g., Penton). So what confidence are editors supposed to have in an alleged list of ten encyclopedic references you say exists but are unwilling to produce along with your assertion of what they represent? If you want editors to accept what you assert then you have a burden to prove it, particularly when it is disputed. If you have time to keyboard these paragraphs then you have time to keyboard these alleged references so editors can examine the veracity of your assertion.

One of my favored editors? Dtbrown and I have had numerous disagreements in the past. He does not agree with me on many subjects, he does however understand the need for consensus here. I am reproducing the list again for your benefit, again.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Jehovah's Witnesses

A millenarian movement organized in the USA in 1884 (def of millenarian is a christian with specific beliefs about 1000 years mentioned in REV)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

Jehovah's Witnesses

–noun a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule.

wordsmyth http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=Jehovah's+Witnesses&matchtype=exact

a Christian sect that opposes war and governments, believes in the imminent end of the world, and actively seeks new converts.

Infoplease

Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent.,

Microsoft encarta

Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian religious group, founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, first published by InterVarsity Press, Carol Stream, USA, 1994, second edition, Regent College Press, Vancouver, 1999

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: a highly RATIONALIST ADVENTIST type SECT founded by Charles Taze RUSSELL in the late nineteenth century. It originally mixed a blend of interpretation of Biblical PROPHECY with PYRAMIDOLOGY and various other ESOTERICS to foretell the end of the world. As the THEOLOGY developed such orthodox CHRISTIAN BELIEFS as the TRINITY and INCARNATION of CHRIST were rejected and a unique DEISTIC theology similar to ARIANISM developed. EVOLUTION is totally rejected as are blood transfusions. (emphasis from source, SECT is obviously referring to a sect of Christianity)

Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia

Jehovah's Witnesses

A popular millenarian Christian religious group

From Wiktionary

A monotheistic and nontrinitarian Restoration Christian denomination founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1879 as a small Bible study group. Originally known as International Bible Students or Bible Students.

history.com encyclopedia

Christian sect, founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh, Pa., by the American clergyman Charles Taze Russell

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah's+Witnesses

Thesaurus1. Jehovah's Witnesses - Protestant denomination founded in the United States by Charles Taze Russell in 1884 I assume you agree that a pretestant is a Christian or do I need to provide a verifiable reference for that?

Now this does not represent all views but the majority of encyclopedias make no bones about calling JW's Christian. It is up to the individual encyclopedia to determine the best course of action (Sect, etc) You Marvin are not the end all of academic opinion and the rest of us have a right to say we think it is improper to use a term that has a perjoritive color (sect). We also have the right to disagree with you about needing to reference statements in the lead paragraph which is not done in any other WP article. When searching for the identity Marvin SHimler on the internet, it is associated with 'apostate' JW's. This does not make your contributions bad, but it does in the light of your tenacious opposition to referring to JW's as Christian make one suspicious that perhaps your agenda is beyond the academic. George 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See "George’s Reference Presentation, A Review" below.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is dumbfounding to observe editors so bent on not providing references for what they assert is supported by references. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert Rule Violation Allegations

I have become the object of a complaint alleging me as a regular violator of Wiki’s 3 revert rule.(Wiki policy prohibits use of my name in the complaint, but there is no doubt I am the subject, and the complaint was made according to Wiki policy and every editor has this prerogative) This talk page is pointed to for administrative review of this allegation; hence I address it here for whomever.

I categorically deny having violated Wiki’s 3RR. I certainly am not a regular violator of this Wiki policy, or any other I am aware of.

Most recently (May 13, 2007) I made three reverts during a 24 hour period. But no more than this.

Earlier there were editing changes to this document, but these were not reverts; they were edits discussed by participants on this talk page, and my editing was an attempt to follow the discussion. On this talk page in the section “Lead paragraph” is the transcript of editors working through my editing. A main point of contention was over presentation form. I had introduced quoted material from primary and secondary sources in an attempt to let Jehovah’s Witness representatives speak for themselves. I did this because rival editors preferred to let Jehovah’s Witnesses represent themselves as they prefer whereas other editors desired to take more of an anti approach. This was an attempt to alleviate bickering, and to verify the presentation. But my use of quoted material was objected to, so I removed the quotation marks and left the thorough references as I continued working with editorial views. The discussion then proceeded to how much paraphrase was needed in the absence of quotation marks. Unfortunately accusations of plagiarism were leveled, and addressed. This discussion too is documented in the same section (Lead paragraph). The end of this bit of editing (not reverting) was when rival editor (in the academic sense) Dtbrown replied, “Thank you for removing the plagiarism.”

The 3 reverts I performed were done after this discussion was over, and not before. However, I do not think even these reverts should accumulate under Wiki policy because Wiki guidelines expressly states that any editor is permitted to remove any language that is not verified in the article. The only thing my reverts did was remove unverified declarations, and nothing more. Hence my impression is these reverts were done entirely within Wiki policy. Nevertheless, I was careful to avoid even a semblance of violating Wiki policy by resisting any urge to delete the same unverified information when it was again reverted back to, by the same editor. Only today has this vying editor finally installed a reference for the offending language (academic sense). And, at this point it remains debatable whether this reference represents a consensus of knowledge on the subject it addresses.

In defense of my participation here, even a cursory review of my comments demonstrates a desire to talk about editing prior to making changes. I doubt any editor here will deny the thoroughness I have applied to this discussion, whether they agree with my conclusions or not. I have offered proposals, responded to proposals, offered references pro and con for the subject of dispute. I have even done research at the request of and for rival editors. Hence it leaves me confused and amazed that any editor would allege what they have of me. -- Marvin Shilmer 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get bent out of shape. As far as I can tell, you weren't accused of violating 3RR, you were warned that you were on the verge of doing so. The 3RR violation report page always has erroneous reports where people think that reverting 3 times constitutes a violation. It doesn't. The administrators know this, so don't worry about it.

I suggest you refactor (i.e. delete) this section from this talk page, as it has little to do with improving the article. These comments really belong on your talk page. -Amatulic 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic: I do not appreciate having my section from the Jehovah’s Witness talk page move here. Wiki stipulates that “Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article.” Since my behavior is in dispute then I opt to address on the talk page where the alleged misconduct occurred. This is according to Wiki policy.

And, you are dead wrong about the allegation. George M has accused that I am a regular violator of the 3RR. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. You can verify this is his accusation based on his contribution log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/George_m.

I did say that an editor was consistently violating the 3RR at the request for comment page. Regardless of whether I was referring to you, I did not say who that editor was, so if you feel I was talking about you then apparently you have something to feel guilty about. George 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: Coy, are we? Editors here can see this for what it is. It’s not tealeaf reading.

Now I suggest putting energy into the constructive task of the actual subject by researching for and demonstrating whatever is the consensus of world knowledge regarding the current sticking point on this talk page. This is best done by studious methods, including responding academically to academic questions.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I respectfully request you return this material from whence it came. The Jehovah’s Witnesses talk page. Regards, Marvin Shilmer 17:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation is ridiculous. I haven't touched your comments or your talk page. All I did was respond here. You seem sensitive about false accusations against you, yet here you are doing the same thing. I'm done here. -Amatulic 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic: Please accept my apology as well. I made a classic mistake of assumption based on Richard’s stated reason for moving my entry. My false impression was you had issued an administrative direction, which Richard acted at the behest of. Assumption is poison. Forgive me. -- Marvin Shilmer 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm done. I apologize for the tone in my previous response. -Amatulic 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic: Your response is perfectly understandable.

Regarding my reason for this section entry, I do not want you to misread me. On this talk page I have worked hard. I have not worked hard for myself. I have worked hard for the subject; for other editors; for pros; for cons. I have proposed. I have responded to proposals. I have researched; I have shared that research; I have answered every question sent my way. Yet despite this hard work there are contributing editors here who spend more time trying to torpedo my participation with innuendo of my motives than they do trying to verify what they assert. On top of this one of them has the audacity of falsely alleging misconduct on my part. This conduct is so egregious that it deserves to be put in the light of day.

All I have sought from day one on this subject is that editors 1) seek and find whatever is the consensus in the world of knowledge in relation to the sticking point, 2) express this consensus view as information and 3) use a source representing this consensus view in verification of the presentation. But no matter how hard I try to jump start an academic ‘man hunt’ on the subject, from vying editors I get weasel words, misrepresentation of source quotations and nearly outright refusal to provide references for assertions. I wonder what they think they are vying against—me or the consensus in the literature? -- Marvin Shilmer 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, it was me who moved it to Marvin's Talk Page. I was acting boldly on Amatulic's suggestion. I moved it back at Marvin's request. --Richard 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George’s Reference Presentation, A Review

George M: To start with, I want to share my appreciation for reproducing the listing you indicated as your resources on the question of whether to use declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.

George has indicated 11 sources. However one of these sources (Infoplease) is not a single source; it has three presentations of almanac, encyclopedia and dictionary. Though George quoted from Infoplease he failed to express this multiple presentation. It turns out that George was quoting from the encyclopedic presentation only. Since elsewhere in these references George cited dictionaries and encyclopedias, but no almanacs, then I am including the Infoplease dictionary entry as a 12th source whereas I am excluding the almanac entry.(See end note 1)

Analysis

Of the 12 sources:

6 of the 12 sources declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. (Assuming Encarta here, see note below with Encarta)

6 of the 12 do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian

Of the 6 that do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian:

5 of the 6 declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect.

1 of the 6 declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as millenarian, without further clarification.

The raw data from my review of each resource (except Encarta)

Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia

Improperly represented. CRE does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

CRE has no entry for millenarian. George has transposed an extraneous meaning onto CRE’s entry.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary millenarism does not necessarily refer to a Christian. It could just as well refer to what OED states as “relating to any of numerous religious or ideological movements based on the belief in a millennium marking or foreshadowing an era of radical change or an end to the existing world order; esp. (a) believing in the imminence or inevitability of a golden age of social or spiritual renewal; utopian; (b) believing in the imminence or inevitability of the end of the world; apocalyptic.”

CRE presents Jehovah’s Witnesses as millenarian without further appellation.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a Christian sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Wordsmyth

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a Christian sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Infoplease Encycylopedia (see note above re. Infoplease resource)

Properly presented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Infoplease Dictionary (see note above re. Infoplease resource)

Omitted by George: This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Microsoft Encarta

Have to take George’s word on this one. I threw away this worthless thing without unwrapping it. So did everybody else I know.

Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Improper assertion by George regarding an aspect of this entry (see explanation in conclusion)

Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

From Wiktionary

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

history.com encyclopedia

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a Christian sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Thefreedictionary.com

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Discussion

By themselves these resources suggest a blasé presentation of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. If true this would suggest editors have no cause for concern with this issue. For practical purposes, it would be a non-issue.

However, this list represents only a few works that are marginally reliable as rigorous development, and not a single prestigious source is included in these works.

The preeminent dictionary for the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. This work is conspicuously absent from a source pool that includes dictionary references. The OED entry for Jehovah’s Witnesses is:

“a member of a fundamentalist millenary sect, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, founded c1879 (under the name ‘International Bible Students’) by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), which rejects institutional religion and refuses to acknowledge the claims of the State when these are in conflict with the principles of the sect.”

The preeminent English language dictionary does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Rather, it declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a sect of fundamentalism.

The finest English encyclopedic work is Encyclopedia Britannica. Its entry for Jehovah’s Witness is:

“an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world…”

This very prestigious encyclopedia does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Rather, it declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a sect of millennialism.

The consistency of these two fine works (lexical and encyclopedic) cannot be ignored. Neither applies declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, and both declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as a sect.

It is incredible to me that an editor would rely on resources George presents for an encyclopedic entry. Most of these are ignored in academic circles as unreliable. The protocol for several is about as thorough as “How fast can we copy and dump some information into this thing so we can put it online.”

There is also a troubling aspect of George’s presentation of references. George has asserted inferences based on these references, which suggests to the reader he has thoroughly examined his presentation for accuracy. But we find the following:

1. The Infoplease reference omits the dictionary entry despite other lexical entries inclusion in the set of references. This is either sloppy research or else selective omission. I believe it was only and oversight, but sloppy nevertheless. Another of George’s statements demonstrates a bad assumption.

2. When presenting his finding from Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, George states, “def of millenarian is a christian with specific beliefs about 1000 years”. This statement is false in relation to the work George cites. The CRE has no entry for millenarian, so George had to look elsewhere for a definition, which he did. From this extra-CRE definition the assertion is made that “def of millenarian is a christian…” But George fails to express that the term millenarian does no necessarily mean Christian. The entry from Oxford English shows this is the case. Hence in this instance George improperly represents one of his resources.

3. In his presentation of Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, George parenthetically states “emphasis from source, SECT is obviously referring to a sect of Christianity”. (Emphasis by George from source) This is a false assertion. The same source defines sect as:

SECT: an important term which is often loosely used to mean a religious GROUP that has broken away from an older TRADITION. Confusion is created by the fact that it is sometimes used theologically to refer to groups of questionable ORTHODOXY or outright HERESY. Sociologically the term has been contrasted with CHURCH and used of groups which live in tension with the surrounding SOCIETY. To facilitate operationalizing the term Rodney STARK defines a sect as "a religious group which lives in a state of relatively high tension with the surrounding society that has a prior tie with another religious organization and was founded by someone who left that organization."

3. cont’d From this entry we see George’s assertion and presentation of this resource is false. By capital delineation this source does not suggest anything regarding religious affiliation (i.e., Christian or otherwise). It turns out this resource delineates is internal entries by applying all upper case letters within any given entry. The upper case has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian.

Mistakes such as these three demonstrate a novice attempt at research. It questions whether George has drawn appropriate conclusions from whatever research he’s done, on this issue or any other. This is because these type mistakes are systemic ones. That is, each of these mistakes could have been prevented by following a few basic protocols of good research. That this proportion of error in research is presented indicates an untrained research effort.

Concluding

Over the past few days I have examined over 200 peer reviewed article presentations specifically addressing Jehovah’s witnesses. It is rare for one to express declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Most of these simply depict Jehovah’s Witnesses based on their developmental roots (i.e., Russell is their founder…, etc) Of those offering a depiction in relation to religious order, by far the majority declare Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect of some sort (i.e., Christian sect, fundamentalist sect, millenarian sect, etc). Of these articles I have already shared several here by reference for readers to have an idea of the finding. Though I have no intention of keyboarding all these resources (by reference or otherwise), I am willing to share a few more if a reader has one or two they know of but do not have access to (if I have access to the document myself).

If editors here want to depend on marginal resources as solid secondary sourcing then what to do is inconsequential in terms of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. But if editors here give due weight to esteemed sources with highly reputable vetting protocol, then there is no question but it is inappropriate for this article to use declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.

End note 1: The almanac reference declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

-- Marvin Shilmer 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Marvin for your review. I want to be sure I undestand your position. Are you saying that a "Christian sect" cannot be classed as Christian? Also, could you please write more concise replies to my questions. I am unable to devote as much time to this as you are able to. Thank you. Dtbrown 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: First of all, I have already found some egregious typos and am trying to correct them. As you can imagine, for a review such as this no one is between me and the entry; hence the inevitable gaffs.

To declare X is a Christian is different than declaring X is a Christian sect. The difference relates to historical and traditional usage of the term Christian.

Usage is what determines what words mean/convey, not a dictionary. A dictionary is only to relay usage in order to enable sufficient commonality essential for efficient language and communication.

To explain (briefly), the term Christian has over centuries taken on a usage applied to a range of belief. The closer to the center of this range the more orthodox. The farther away from the center of this range the less orthodox (left or right). The term sect, though, tends to be applied/used toward beliefs that are, at best, marginal to the range of belief associated with Christian, but that are probably outside the range of meaning of Christian from a majority perspective. Hence the compound phrase “Christian sect” informs (conveys to) readers a religion is at best on the margin of “Christian” and probably outside the normal range of meaning associated with the term. Hence to declare a “Christian sect” as “Christian” is to make a declaration that is probably contrary to a majority perspective of what Christian means; hence the usage would present a false impression.

Remember that we are talking about an English term; Christian. Accordingly English usage comes heavily to bear on how this term is understood and used.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of your view of the significance of "sect." I think "sect" has a wider meaning. For example, while the Brittanica (a well respected work) refers to JWs as a "millenialist sect" it also classifies them as a "Protestant denomination." That would place JWs inside the Christian camp. Dtbrown 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Undoubtedly you are referring to the Britannica entry from the Uganda article. If so, please note that this article is about Uganda and not specifically about the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence the vetting protocol is not aimed at precision regarding the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses so much as a general religious demographic of Uganda that happens to include Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other hand, protocol for the Britannica article specifically addressing the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is aimed at a precise depiction of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the world view. Research demands that we properly apply weight were it belongs, which is inherent to the subject of address for vetted material. The closer to the subject the more intense is the vetting. A researcher can find references in support of whatever he desires to support if he is willing to assert equal weight no matter the target subject. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I see now you are referring the Britannica Concise entry for millenarianism. This entry in Concise is lifted from the Encyclopedia Britannica’s eschatology article. You should not reference this material as Encyclopedia Britannica but rather as Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. This represents a significant difference for researchers because of the vetting/protocol weight we apply, and how it should be applied. In this case you are applying a compound term (Protestant denomination) to a specific religion based on an entry that is not about that specific religion. Worse, because you are probably unaware that your reference is actually a subset of an original article on an entirely different subject (eschatology) then the vetting is once removed within the article it is in, not to mention the main article is not to address Jehovah’s Witnesses. You should take care how resources such as this are applied, and what weight you assign.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin What is a Christian sect if not Christian? The Oxford and brittanica require subscriptions so I was unab le to include them in my list. Aside form the main discussion Marvin, I have questions for you. Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? (you previously stated you are) Are you a Christian? What is a Christian? If you are a Christian but JW's are not then... Why do you thnk JW's are not Christians? If you think JW's are Christians then why do you fight so strenuously to have them labeled otherwise? George 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: I have already answered your first question to Dtbrown just a few lines above this in the same section. Please consult.

I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I consider myself Christian. I have not said Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. I have said I cannot justify making this declaration in an encyclopedic reference work verified by a consensus of world knowledge. Furthermore, from a purely logical perspective, to refrain from asserting Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian is not to say Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian.

My foray into this discussion has only to do with an academic presentation. Wikipedia is neither a theological platform to assert religious preference nor is it an instrument to declare status. Wikipedia is presented as a reference work, and encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are for academic presentation of a consensus of world knowledge. Our focus should be on these things, here. Aside from this venue there are plenty of opportunities to express and even impress our theological views collectively and individually. But this is not the place. Here we must check our bias at the door, except the important bias of academic rigor.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think these entries from the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia illustrate that "sect" can have a wider meaning that you apply to it. For many people today sect means a religious group that is not mainstream. Dtbrown 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: What you have written will not stand up. Whether at my hand or some future editor, eventually whatever is the consensus of literature will move this subject to that consensus. This is how the world works, and it is what academic presentations for reference works must do.

Your current presentation declares a status that is unsupported by a consensus of world knowledge. Easily it bucks the consensus. And, based on my review of the last few days, I would also have to surmise it is probably bucking a supermajority. I still see no reason whatsoever for the declaratory assertion you make. What is the point? Are you trying to assign a status? A status is only worthwhile if it is earned. We cannot assign status from a social perspective. Trying to assign a status contrary to a consensus of world knowledge is to assert something artificial. I am not expressing this as an attack, or to minimize or criticize your earnest efforts. But what I see in your use of references and language is someone who has an end in mind and he is going to wrap his research around that end rather than letting the research speak for itself. The former is not useful. The latter is very beneficial.

If you know Jehovah’s Witnesses then I wager you have more respect for those who are/were willing to stand up and speak plainly even when that was maybe not the religiously flattering thing to do. Such behavior earns respect. When readers examine this Wiki page they will know Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witness partisans played a role. The presentation will speak for itself. It will either help earn a status or it will turn people off as more of the same ole religious rhetoric and mumbo jumbo they get every day of the week.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you are a gifted writer. Nonetheless, I disagree for reasons already given that "sect" has such a narrow focus. Obviously, there are academians (including writers at the Brittanica and the World Book) who disagree with the analysis you are suggesting. Dtbrown 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No. Contributors to Britannica do not disagree with me. If you properly weighted what you found you would realize this. Your use of Britannica seriously misrepresents what the work presents on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a vetted source. I explained it above, already. There is no need to reiterate here. I respect that you disagree. I also know your estimations are flawed, and way wrong.

By the way, another thing that is simply astonishing is that neither you nor George nor Jeffro77 et al have even remotely weighed the mountain of peer reviewed secondary sources addressing this subject. You don’t even inquire about it. Your opinion is sitting squarely under a mountain the size of Everest. I don’t know your library affiliation. But I can see you have no idea of the magnitude of this vetted material as it impinges our subject. All this represents a consensus of world knowledge. Did we look at the same list that George offered to me as his initial offering of references? It is a pathetic mix of unstable online rags, and it was offered as a frontline of references.-- Marvin Shilmer 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, just because you can write long eloquent prose does not mean we have to disregard the World Book or Brittanica statements. I put both "millennial sect" and "Protestant denomination" in the footnote. It is not a misuse of the Brittannica to note it does refer to the JWs as a "Protestant denomination." You fix on only one meaning of the word "sect" as implying that JWs are possibly outside of Christianity. A Christian sect can also mean a religious group not in the mainstream of Christianity. That is what JWs are and that the Brittanica places them as a Protestant denomination clearly shows that. You are the one who is misusing sources here. Dtbrown 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I do not suggest ignoring any knowledge. You are the one ignoring knowledge, particularly the weight of consensus. The main text should reflect the consensus of knowledge.

You keep talking about the term sect. I have no particular affinity for this term. You do. I have not even suggested using it in the main text; or even as a footnote for that matter; or even making it a subject for discussion in the article.

What I have recommended is using descriptive language to express the consensus of knowledge, and to do it in a neutral way. It is not keeping with the consensus of knowledge to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian in the main text because this is not the weight of consensus shown in the literature. And, by literature, I am not talking about dime store rags. I am talking about peer reviewed and well regarded secondary sources. And, we also have to include primary source material. The way you use Britannica Concise is inconsistent with the weight it projects. I’m sorry. I realize you disagree, either because of lack of training or stubborn disregard. If you want to express how Britannica presents specifically to Jehovah’s Witnesses you have to examine Britannica where the subject is primarily about Jehovah’s Witnesses (vetting protocol et al), because this is your usage (i.e., specifically). The difference between our uses of sources is one of us analyzes and presents (articulates) these in terms of academic value (weight) and the other is either unable or unwilling to do so. If an editor uses an academic source as an authority then they must use that source based on its academic standard of presentation.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How can it be astonishing to you? You told me:"Wikipedia is neither a theological platform to assert religious preference nor is it an instrument to declare status." Yet the 'mountain of peer reviewed secondary sources' you refer to are just that and you would use WP to further their ends. George 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: You forget to mention and accommodate what Wikipedia is, or at least supposed to be. This lack is laced throughout all your analyses I’ve read on this talk page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work; an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not research initiatives where departures from consensus is precisely what everyone is looking for in order to consider lesser accepted views, or entirely new views. Encyclopedias are also not a pulpit for making declarations inconsistent with a consensus of world knowledge.

An encyclopedia is supposed to be a reservoir of world knowledge, and present that knowledge with the weight of the existing consensus. They do not ascribe weight. They present existing weight. This is why past usages of whatever language cannot be measured by contemporary isms or usages. For a reference work to make a declaration of language usage inconsistent with or contrary to an existing consensus is academic fraud. To watch someone do this in full view of contemporary consensus is, as I said, astonishing. To do this is to improperly exert bias. Based on your presentation of references reviewed above, my guess is you either will not even consider the merit of I just wrote, or else you are unable to for lack of training (evidenced by your reference presentation). You certainly missed the point in this immediate reply. It could be poor training or it could be intentional. I think it is poor training.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin How would referring to Jw's as Christian in the lead be a departure from consensus? What bias is being exerted other than your own antiJW one? I said before that it is up to the reference work to decide if they will use the term as the references you and I presented show. (Oh right my references are invalid in your opinion) Further as each reference work makes its decision it employs a policy; WP articles already have a policy of inclusion therefore it is you who is working against consensus. Even if only half of the available works listed JW's as Christian or even less than half, guess what - WP editors would still be able to come up with a consensus internally, which they have and you disagree with. Have you looked at the WP articles I have mentioned more than once? We are able to make our own decision because There is no academic consensus the varied results we have found nail that fact down tight.George 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: I fully realize you disagree there is a consensus of knowledge on the subject of dispute here. The frontline set of references you offer, along with your interspersed commentary, explains why you have this disagreement. You lack training in research and analysis. This is stamped all over your presentation of these references. You have not even inquired about the many journal articles available on this subject, which is telling in its own right.

I am aware of Wiki policy. When I chose to participate in the Wiki initiative I thoroughly familiarize myself. I also consult it regularly when thorny issues arise.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to employ a plural YOU when speaking because you are arguing agains WP consensus. SInce you are aware of the consensus here you really need to change the consensus on WP not this talk page only, so... better get to work. I know how much you love debate and typing so I am sure you will jump right in at the mormonism, christianity and other pages dealing with marginalized christian groups. 75.23.76.76 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:75.23.76.76 Whomever: One man can move Mount Fuji, but only one grain at the time. The key to the dilemma of bickering on this talk page is to employ description rather than declaration. This is what researchers are looking for in a reference work because this is what a reference work should do as it presents the world of knowledge. Declarations are for editorials and propaganda, not reference articles in an encyclopedic entry. This is true no matter the choice of poison.

The current article gives editors opportunity to review such a presentation, at least in the introduction. Given the extremism and exclusionary language found particularly in religious literature regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, vying editors have valid concern that Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be presented or suggested as non-Christian. As it turns out, vetted literature addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses provides ample verification that the religion sprang from various theologies arguably having Christian heritages; hence we can attribute Jehovah’s Witnesses to Christianity. However it is one thing to attribute X to Y and quite another thing to declare X is Y. Here we find another consensus in the literature that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not declared Christian.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin I can accept your most recent version of the lead. George 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Primitive Christianity

I request the modification that some link is used to show what "primitive christianity" is. Is there a wikipedia article already covering this? Can one be created? Or show we reference Restorationism more specifically to bring this to a more neutral context? Fcsuper 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I support a link to Restorationism. Linking to Primitive Christianity is a bit more problematic because it redirects to Primitive Apostolic Christianity which does not mention JWs. Instead it discusses Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. Let's discuss how to resolve this. Why doesn't Primitive Apostolic Christianity mention JWs? Is this an omission or is there a substantive reason? --Richard 04:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't mentioned on that article's talk page then it is likely just an oversight and needs to be researched.George 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Primitive Christianity,

The term primitive Christianity is used to distinguish a practice of Christianity aside from any development of the Christian community beyond the contemporary apostolic period of Christian writing known as the New Testament. This practice of Christianity tends to be a fundamentalist approach. By contrast, orthodox Christianity is a practice of Christianity developed among the community of professed Christians from the religion’s inception until today. Accordingly, theologian Thomas Campbell argued primitive Christianity should “take up things just as the apostles left them” and “disentangled from the accruing embarrassment of intervening ages”. (Kalscheur, G., Journal of Law and Religion, 2006, Vol. 21)

The theory of primitive Christianity contains several common attributes, some of which are inherent to any new religious movement, some of which are formative and others that are ideological.

An inherent tendency of any new group is to distinguish itself from surrounding groups. This is unavoidable. Otherwise whatever the group, it would not be new. Accordingly, regarding primitive Christians, Dr. Carl Clemen (PH.D. University of Bonn, Germany) remarked that “the primitive Christian church was much less open to direct influence from pagan sources than Judaism had been in its long history.” (Clemen, C., The Princeton Theological Review, 1914, Vol. 12 pp 305-310)

A formative and ideological observation is expressed by John Gillon who writes, “They went back to the fellowship, to the ideas, to the practices, and to the form of organization of the primitive church.” (Gillin, J., The American Journal of Sociology, Sept. 1910, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 236-252) Professed primitive Christian religions tend to reject orthodoxy associated with the social development of the mainstream Christian community. (Kalscheur, 2006)

Though not common to all primitive Christian movements, there is a tendency among them toward a messianic theological schema, which in turn influences many of these groups toward some form of millenarianism. (Mathews, S., The American Journal of Sociology, Nov. 1912, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 289-317; Brown, I., The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Dec. 1952, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 441-458) Several religious groups identified with primitive Christianity have also developed theologies of non-violence. (Chu, C., Journal of Genocide Research, Sept. 2004, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 319-342)

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the reader not confuse what various Restorationist groups claim is "primitive apostolic Christianity" with what "primitive apostolic Christianity" actually was. This is my own personal opinion but I would guess that we cannot know clearly what "primitive apostolic Christianity" much more than we can know who the "historical Jesus" was. Do we consider "primitive apostolic Christianity" to be Christianity before Paul or after Paul but before the Christian Fathers?

And, as an aside, how do the Mormons get to claim that they are restoring "primitive apostolic Christianity"?

I would guess that there are many variations on what different groups think "primitive apostolic Christianity" really is (or else the JWs, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists would be much more similar religions). Thus, I am really tempted to have the lead text say "what they claim to be a restoration of primitive Christianity" but this sounds a bit awkward and would no doubt start up another long round of debate.

--Richard 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: During the apostolic period there was no primitive Christianity. That community only knew Christianity. It is only looking back that we can theorize what was/is primitive Christianity. To strip away the emotive baggage and religious bias from the term “Christianity,” think of this in alpha terms. Then let me repeat this way: During the Y period there was no primitive X. The Y community only knew X. It is only looking back that we can theorize what was/is “primitive X”.

The usage of “primitive Christianity” is then, unavoidably, a theory in term. This means that any group declaring itself a restoration of primitive Christianity is supposedly practicing what is, to them, the earliest form of Christianity. Hence, based on usage, to say a religion is a reformed primitive Christianity is to say it professes its religion is modeled strictly by Christians of the apostolic period (not “early Christians”) according to its understanding. This usage provides an interesting solution to the bickering here because in academic terms it asserts “professed Christianity” whilst the average reader will have communicated that Jehovah’s Witnesses are attributable to Christianity, and both are true. Jehovah’s Witnesses do profess Christianity, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are attributable to Christianity.

A similar thing is true of the term “orthodox Christianity”. This, too, is a post period usage applied to the most common form of religion practiced by professed Christians at any given point since the apostolic period.

If Mormons claim themselves as “primitive Christian” then the religion does so because a religion (or anyone else) has freedom to claim whatever it wants. However, based on usage of this term in the literature, Mormons would have a harder time convincing readers to accept them as such because historically “primitive Christian” is applied to 1) groups attributable to Christianity who 2) assert they strictly abide by the New Testament as it presents the apostolic period. Though one may (or may not) be able to 1) argue Mormonism is attributable to Christianity, I see no bases upon which one could 2) argue the religion asserts it holds strictly to the New Testament for this theology.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I made my request above because I don't really believe the statement "form of primitive Christianity" is accurate in the opening sentense. JW's may believe they are applying a form of primitive Christianity, but this is an opinion they have about their beliefs, more so an actual accurate statement that describes them. No one knows what form primitive Christianity took in the 1st Century. We can add a reference to Restortionism to being the comment into context, but otherwise this is unverifable, as there is no consensus on what form first century christianity took. Fcsuper 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Primitive Christianity or Early Christianity?

These are two terms with different meanings in usage.

“Primitive Christianity” is used in the literature in reference to religions professing a strict (or rather strict) dependence on the apostolic period as rendered in the New Testament.

“Early Christianity” (or “Early Christians”) is used in the literature in reference to religions professing dependence on the Christian community from the apostolic period until near or at the First Council of Nicaea. We can reduce this by calling it orthodox Christianity as of the First Council of Nicaea.

Hence these two terms are not equivalents and should not be so misunderstood. (Not that anyone has expressed this construal)

My interpretation is that there are at least two stages of "early Christianity" - Christianity in the apostolic period which is documented in the New Testament and perhaps some non-canonical gospels and epistles and Christianity in the period of the Church fathers which is documented in the letters of Church fathers who were not apostles. I think we are equating "primitive Christianity" to the apostolic period. --Richard 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: First of all, let me just express that by no means am I considering other Wiki presentations as in influence here. This is purely because of time constraints for me. Since the vetted literature carries the bona fide weight of consensus then, for time sake, I am restraining myself to such secondary sources. Whatever my presentation here, it is directly influenced by and verified from this vetted resource of knowledge. As I have time and things move along I am more than willing to assist with Wiki material impinging our work on this subject.

Based on usage in vetted sources the expression “primitive Christianity” refers to the apostolic period, specifically and exclusively as it is documented in the New Testament. Hence the term is associated to something that is very well defined. The expression “earliest Christians” is fairly close to “primitive Christian” but 1) its usage in the literature is not as well defined and 2) as a result it may or may not include extra-New Testament influence, and, conservatively it could even be referring to the very narrow period of the period attributed to the time the Biblical Jesus personally spent in his ministry (literally “the” earliest Christians).

The phrase “early Christianity” is a usage associated with a well defined but much longer period, but whose developmental influence is not so well defined. The “primitive Christianity” is said to be influenced by the New Testament as it represents Christianity. Whereas “early Christianity” is arguably influenced by a much wider range of influences aside from the New Testament.

As I tried to express in my initial talk presentation on this, the literature’s presentation/usage of “primitive Christianity” appears to parallel how Jehovah’s Witnesses profess themselves.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In terms of our article, based on 1) Jehovah’s Witnesses theology and profession of faith, and based on 2) secondary literature, are Jehovah’s Witnesses expressing a primitive Christianity or an early Christianity?

My research and firsthand knowledge of Jehovah’s Witnesses theology and my reading of secondary vetted sources leaves me with a strong conclusion that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be presented as “in favor of a restored primitive Christianity” rather than depicting them as “in favor of a restored Early Christianity”.

Ice9Tea has edited the lead sentence to read, “in favor of a restored Early Christianity”. Based the above remarks, I think this should be reverted. Before I change the edit made by Ice9Tea back to “in favor of primitive Christianity” I wanted first to discuss this revert to consider other perspectives.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the underlying problem is that the average reader will not know what "primitive Christianity" means, let alone understand the difference between "primitive Christianity" and "early Christianity". To the average reader, "primitive" means pre-civilization like "primitive man" or "primitive tribes".

To further muddle the picture, primitive Christianity redirects to Primitive Apostolic Christianity which is a disambig page that refers the reader to Early Christianity or Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian). Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) mentions Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists but not Jehovah's Witnesses. George m thinks that we should add Jehovah's Witnesses to that article but I would like to hear more opinions first. Is it reasonable to consider Jws Sabbatarian? I think not. So, I think we need to do more than just add Jws to Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian). Perhaps, we need to work with other editors to resolve this issue about [[Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) and Sabbatarianism. There is currently a proposal to merge those two articles.

Richard: Though I understand what you have articulated, readers unable to add two plus two and consistently arrive at four should begin their reading somewhere other than this article. We have to apply some baseline of assumption to write an encyclopedic entry. I think it an entirely well defined baseline when we assign “primitive” to “Christianity” because Christianity is not older than itself. Hence there is no basis I see that a reader literate enough to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses as a distinct religion would not also understand the inference of “primitive” to “Christian”. In other words, these readers cannot be treated as though we are talking about prehistoric Christianity, which is impossible. Also, in order to maintain a consensus with the literature we have to apply a usage based on the same consensus.

Regarding the Wiki article on sabbatarianism, I understand why it has not a single reference. Editors will have a hard time demonstrating assertions of the current presentation align with a consensus of usage in vetted sources. At the moment I would not like “primitive Christian” in our article to any other within Wiki content, until those other articles get some substantive editing.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the term we might all agree on being used here is "first century Christianity" --Ice9Tea 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ice9Tea's comment above.

Marvin, I have expressed myself badly. Of course, no halfway intelligent reader would construe "primitive Christianity" to mean Christianity among the Cro-Magnon men. However, the point that I was making is that most average readers would not immediately recognize the phrase and know its meaning. Well, at least I wouldn't have and, while not an expert, I like to think I know something about Christianity.

Worse yet, Wikipedia does not provide any help in this regard. If Primitive Christianity would link to something useful, I would have no problem in using the term here. I am perfectly happy for us to engage in fixing the issue from that end. Until it's fixed, however, I think we are better off to use "first century Christianity" or "early Christianity" depending on what you think is supportable by the sources.

--Richard 05:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JW beliefs are in no way "First Century Christianity" or "Primitive Christianity". Consideration of any faith that developed in modern times as these is hella POV. How can a group that developed in modern times be refered to in terms that suggest they are some how ancient in their beliefs. We have no way of knowing what form Christianity took during those times. This is unvettable in light of what is currently understood (and what is currently unknown). If one wishes to use these terms to describe JW beliefs, then they have to be brought into context as an opinion held by JW's, or with vettable references that brings those terms into context (such as ones that compare JW's beliefes to how those terms are normally used). Again, it doesn't matter what opinions JW's have about themselves unless it is clear we are talking about their opinions and those opinions are somehow noteable. Fcsuper 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian or not

Somebody mentioned something similar above, on topic or off, who cares, but yea, they are not christians, nor are christian sciences, as the above statement says, three criterias are needed: 1. Jesus is God, 2. He is part of Trinity (here's the problem, Orthodox and all christians believe that, but Orthodox says he comes from holy father first and some say from Father first, but who cares), 3. Mary mother of God is virgin and virgin birth, immaculate conception as declared by Pope in 1854 and affirmed by John Paul at Lordes in 2004. I am not the only one to say this. For catholics Mary died at 72 and after being dead for about 2 hours, she was taken to heaven, she also had a choice 22 years before to go to heaven but rejected, for 22 years served people and St. John took care of her, hope you appricate this rare info, it's not around, but it's true!@

(The following is a response to the unsigned paragraph above)

I have to completely disagree with you. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed., a Christian is "a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus." By this source, I would consider JW as a Christian group, being that they believe Jesus as the Christ. Whether or not they are a sect, denomination, etc. seems to be a point of great contention. According to the same dictionary, a denomination is "a particular religious body with a specific name, organization, etc. By that standard, then, one could consider JW as a denomination as well. Further, the dictionary goes on to describe a sect as "a religious body or denomination, ESP.(emphasis added) a small group that has broken away from an established church." Arguably then, could not Catholics be considered a sect, since the description of a sect being a splinter group not necessary by definition? My apologies if these issues have been resolved. Please point me in the direction of the resolution if they have; I really didn't want to read every single post here. I welcome any mature, intelligent feedback!Dannery4 07:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the immense amount of discussion on this page, I missed this until I saw Dannery4's comments. The commentator of the first paragraph should at least cite his/her source(s) of information. Having said that, how on earth can any free-thinking human being possibly read the holy bible and come up with that load of - dare I say - piffle. "Jesus is God" is a trinitarian teaching, nowhere in the bible is the word Trinity mentioned (although most false religious teachings from Babylonian times down has some form of trinitarian docrine), and Mary was the mother of Jesus - again, nowhere in the holy scriptures is there any claim of her being the mother of God. Neither did she remain a virgin, as the bible account shows Jesus had siblings. And the rest of what is written above is simply not worth my time in replying to. Suffice to say, it just shows what happens when someone listens to what is said by someone else instead of examining the bible for themselves... Excuse me if you think I'm ranting (I'm not) but it's unbelievable what I hear sometimes! Back on-topic, JW's class themselves as Christian, as they view Christ as their leader. And Webster's has a good definition to back that claim up as mentioned above. Thank you for that, Dannery4. Oh, and the resolution is near the foot of this page! LOL  Joseph C  Talk  15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Scipture is rife with proof of the Trinitarian concept, even if the word itself appears nowhere in scripture. [Mt 28:19], [Mk 1:9-11], [Jn 1:1-18], [2Co 13:14], etc. In addition, it appears that "Witnesses...contradict this line of argument when they use, for example, the term 'theocracy', a word that is also not in the Bible though the concept is." (source: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions, Zondervan publishing.)

I would agree that Mary did not remain a virgin, as scripture clearly teaches that Jesus had brothers (cf [Jn 7:3]).

IMO, whether or not the opening line requires the term 'Christian' has less to do with whether or not JW's are Christian and more to do with the fact that the word in that sentence is simply redundant. If the sentence is changed to "Red Marbles are an international blue organization that rejects much of modern mainstream blueness in favor of what they believe is a more traditional shade of blue", you might get a better sense for the redundancy. 66.177.5.252 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

J

There is no "j" or "w" sound in ancient Hebrew so it can't be Jehovah of Yaweh!Meson man 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant "or not "of". Meson man 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for this point. However, to respond, the letters J and I were at one time interchangeable in the English Language. This is point of the Bible developing in English as the language changed, not a statement that elimenates authenticity of the use of J in YWHW. Many bibilical names have J in their name within the English bible (and other languages too), not just in Jehovah. Fcsuper 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of comparison...

Here's part of the lead of the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, is the largest and most well-known denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement (a group of churches and adherents who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.). The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established churches and temples worldwide, counting nearly 13 million members on its rolls.[1]

Adherents to the church (usually called Mormons or Latter-day Saints) believe that Jesus leads their church via revelation given to the President of the Church, whom they consider to be a prophet. They count themselves as Christians, but do not consider themselves part of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions. Instead, they believe that the church is a restoration of 1st century Christianity. They believe in the Old Testament and New Testament, but have added three books to their scriptural canon: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

So... Mormons are not labeled Christians but are described as "counting themselves as Christians".

Here's part of the lead of the article Seventh Day Adventist Church

The Seventh-day Adventist (abbreviated "Adventist") Church is a Christian denomination with a worldwide membership of over 14 million and an active presence in most countries of the world.[1] The title refers to the Church's belief in the imminent second coming (or "Advent") of Jesus, and the observance of the "seventh day" of the week (Saturday) as the Sabbath. The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the middle part of the 19th century, and was formally established in 1863.[2] It is one of the few truly indigenous religions of North America. Among its founders was Ellen G. White, whose extensive writings are still held in high regard by the church today.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is closely aligned to Protestantism, although some critics regard it as a sectarian movement. Its theology corresponds to key evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Distinctive teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. The church is also known for its emphasis on diet and health, for its promotion of religious liberty, and for its culturally conservative principles.

So... Seventh-day Adventists are labeled as a "Christian denomination" but "some critics regard it as a sectarian movement".

--Richard 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The problem I see with this comparison is neither the LDS nor the SDA article has a single vetted secondary source in verification, not to mention whether any editor has undertaken to find whatever consensus is held by the peer reviewed literature.

Each religion is different; hence the need to present each religion according to a consensus of knowledge on each individual religion. If a consensus of world knowledge presents religion X as A and religion Y as B then this is how an encyclopedic entry should present these religions, as A and B respectively. This is true regardless of the comparative difference between the two in terms of A or not A, or B or not B.-- Marvin Shilmer 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, your approach to Wikipedia standards is too decentralized for my liking. While it is true that LDS, JW and 7th Day Adventists are three different religions, they share the worship of Jesus in common. I believe we should rise above the parochial focus on this article and establish a common standard for all articles related to Christ-related religions. Despite the lack of sources, it is worthwhile to note that the article on the LDS church does not call them a Christian denomination. Once again, despite the lack of sources, it is worthwhile to note that the article on the 7th Day Adventists does call them a Christian denomination. It would be good if someone were to research these other religions to the same level of thoroughness that you have done with JWs in order to establish that these characterizations reflect the "consensus of world knowledge".

It may turn out that there is a "line" which delineates religions which are called "Christian" from those that are more likely to be described as "professing or counting themselves as Christian". In this particular set of comparisons (LDS and 7th Day Adventist), the line would seem to be drawn around Trinitarianism and canonical scriptures. Understanding this issue in greater detail would be useful in the Christian article.

--Richard 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Too decentralized? You are recommending an approach that, to a great degree, amounts to original research. If we are not here to present a consensus of existing knowledge on whatever the subject, then we are inventing a consensus, which is original research.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, "consensus" and "original research" are difficult concepts. Even your research, looking at approx. 50 sources and drawing a conclusion as to what the consensus in the field is, amounts to original research. Why? Because, to be rigorous, we would have to cite a peer-reviewed source which says "I did this research on X number of articles; this is why X is a sufficient number to draw a academically sound conclusion; and this is the conclusion based on my research". To be really "bullet proof", we would have to see that the publication was cited favorably by a number of other scholars. Presumably, you have not run across any such publication in your research.

Note here that I am not attacking your conclusion. I'm just pointing out that it is still arguably original research and so we really would need to look further before being able to make a solid verifiable conclusion. Look at it this way, I cannot verify your conclusion without doing the same research myself. That makes it OR. Now if you cited a person that had done the research and published it, I could verify your research by reading the cited work and deciding for myself whether to accept the credibility of that person's research. I could also use the publication in which the work was published as a point of reference to determine how credible the work was.

I/we accept the results of your original research because we trust that the access that you claim to have to sources gives us a good measure of confidence that your conclusion is what the hypothetical researcher would have concluded had he done the work and published it. A bit tenuous but that's the way Wikipedia works. Hopefully, your claims to research are more credible than Essjay's. No insult intended here but we really don't know you any better than we knew Essjay.

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: This is why each editor must cite a resource for purposes of authentication/verification. I have not simply advanced a view. I have advanced a view supported by quite a few and quite prestigious sources. Also, just to clarify, by the time I offered my last serious edit, my review had included over 250 vetted sources that I personally reviewed. But I also was able to do a sort of statistical analysis based on search capabilities of the various databases available, which are extensive. I have not included any comment of this statistical analysis because this is original research. On the other hand, it is not considered original research to present the findings of prestigious secondary sources, particularly vetted.

Please understand that I am in no way challenging the validity of your research or your conclusions. I personally believe that you executed this review and that your conclusion has integrity. However, I do not believe the conclusion meets Wikipedia's highest standards for verifiabiity. NB: Neither do many assertions in this and other Christ-related articles. In fact, your conclusions probably set the bar for sourcing a notch higher.

So, why doesn't your work meet the "highest standards of Wikipedia"? Because we don't know how you selected your 250 sources and we don't know if they are representative of the scholarly consensus or not. You haven't cited all 250 sources and even if you did we wouldn't be qualified to pass judgment on whether they are representative or not. Neither for that matter, are you. That's why even conclusions about the scholarly consensus should be cited to a reliable source. It's one thing to say "Some scholars say X while other scholars say Y ." To support such a statement, we only need one citation of a scholar saying X and one of another scholar saying Y. Once sourced, the only real challenge would be either NPOV-based due to omission of POV Z or undue weight claiming that either X or Y was being over-emphasized or under-emphasized.

Richard: A hallmark of legitimate research and presentation is to disclose methodology in addition to citing references in support of whatever your findings. This allows research to be duplicated, which allows the work’s veracity to be either confirmed or refuted, or improved upon. To share the methodology is to sound the death Nell if a person is not sharing bona fide research. Above I shared my methodology. Anyone with access to the tools I employed can duplicate my research. Hence readers here do know how I selected the indicated sourcesl, because I told them.

Since I performed the research I assert then I have no concern of being found out should anyone take on the task of duplicating my work. But there remains the possibility I have misunderstood what I found, and accordingly formed a bad finding from the research. But this, too, is a reason to share both method and finding. Honest researchers know it is enhanced knowledge that moves society forward. Accordingly any honest research wants to know if findings are incorrect, whether their own or of someone else. By sharing methods and findings it increases the likelihood a work will have its veracity tested. I am not interested in being right. I am interested in learning, and sharing whatever I learn.

I am compelled to add that your observations I find incisive and objective. Your work here is appreciated.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if we wish to say "The majority of scholars say X" or "The overwhelming consensus of scholars is X", then this is a higher level of assertion. Even if you reviewed 500 or 1000 sources, we could not be assured that your review had covered a representative set of sources and that your analytical methods were valid. This is why even the conclusion would have to be cited to a source. Fortunately, we are not attempting to insert a sentence like "The scholarly consensus does not characterize JWs as Christian." for this would surely demand a citation to support it.

As for publications citing usage, this is precisely why I cited the Oxford English Dictionary. On this point the etymology section and the usage sections are invaluable. Panels of experts have reviewed literature specifically to identify accepted usage, for whatever the term or, I some cases, the terminology.

I realize you are not attacking anything, or anyone. You are doing what we all should; testing the edges looking for soft spots in need of support, or greater support. Again, this is the reason for providing and examining cited sources. This is precisely why I took the time to look up and review each of the sources provided by George m. I wanted to examine the veracity of that material, which I did. I also spelled out the findings for review by whomever cared.

I have no idea who or what Essjay was/is. But I do know the nature of this Wiki project is precisely why I have at no time advanced my own credentials as authoritative. As you said, you don’t know me. Hence the need to provide solid secondary sources and let those sources speak.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As for centralization, I disagree with your assessment. The centralization is the consensus of world knowledge. We find this by looking for a consensus of usage, if there is one for whatever the specific issue.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine for a minute that we worked for Wikipedia, Inc., a hypothetical encyclopedia publishing company. Wouldn't you expect that there would be departments which would set up standards for articles in a particular domain? You would expect standards for articles on religion and, in particular, articles on Christianity. It would make no sense for one article to assert that JWs are Christian and another article to assert that they are not. It would also make no sense to one article to assert that JWs are not Christian (or fail to assert it) and another article to assert that Mormons are Christians unless there was a standard "yardstick" definition against which the editors of each article could make their determinations. In the decentralized world of Wikipedia, that is what WikiProjects are for. I think we should surface these discussions at WikiProject Christianity and build a wider consensus for your approach and have it applied across all Christ-related articles.

Note here that I am not arguing that your approach of relying on sources would be discarded as we moved this discussion to wider forums. I don't see it as "Marvin's sources as discussed on Talk:JW vs. random, unsourced assertions in the wider forums". Why can't it be "a sourced discussion of standard criteria discussed in the wider forum of editors interested in Christ-related articles"?

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: My reading of Wiki policy and guidelines leads me to conclude there is a standard in place. I see this standard deviated from here by editors, seemingly, equating a majority view among fellow editors with a consensus. This is a problem because some editors are trained analysts and researchers and others are neither. Some editors have access to vast information that is unavailable to other editors. And, of course, everyone’s experience is different.

I think more than anything else what you are trying to propose is a template for presentation of religions. That would be an excellent idea. This template would present basic information in a given order, and it could also provide a systemic means of arriving at style of presentation. (Style: attribution or not, declaration or not, descriptive or not, etc)-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

“Christ-related” is highly ambiguous and it finds no significant extent of usage in secondary sources. We must stick to usage as it exists. Otherwise we lose the benefit of examining presentation with usage in existing source material.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah. You take yourself too seriously. I'm not proposing to use the phrase "Christ-related" in any article. I'm just using it here on this Talk Page to avoid calling JWs a Christian religion and thereby making an assertion that is disputed by some editors. It's clear that LDS and JW are Christ-related religions even if we can't use that phrase in the Wikipedia articles. --Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no universally held standard of what is Christian. There is only history and tradition, both of which are found in usage of language. The consensus of this usage applied from one religion to the next is the only viable resource to settle the question of what a reference work should assert.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What? You think there is a consensus on the LDS church, a separate consensus on JWs but no common consensus on the two churches? This sounds wrong to me. I would argue that there probably is a consensus that focuses on Trinitarianism and scriptural canon. If you went through your 50+ sources and built a table trying to determine the characteristics of who they considered Christian and who they did not, I would bet you would discover that they focused primarily on these two issues. (NB: I recognize that the search terms that you used to search for your sources might not have yielded sources that are amenable to this kind of analysis. Nonetheless, I believe my argument would be valid for sources that are amenable.)

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: No. That is not what I said. I said there is “no universally held standard” of what is Christian. I did not say there is “no consensus” of what is Christian. There is a consensus I identify of what is Christian. As I explained earlier up this talk page, this consensus is seen in terms such as orthodox, unorthodox, sect, cult, etc. This is a window of usage with the term “Christian” as to how it is understood. This window represents the consensus of what is “Christian”. The problem comes with transferring this understanding to a particular religion when that religion is most often presented in the literature as a fringe group. When society sees a group as fringe from a particular perspective (in this case Christian) then which side of the line this group falls is a subject of debate, which is what we both see going on here. In this circumstance it is even more important to let solid secondary sources do the talking. Be descriptive rather than dogmatic. Make attribution rather than making declarations. Suggest rather than assert. This is the realm of fringe.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If editors are to work on establishing a common standard for presenting religions, then it seems to me the only standard worth discussing is what I have already presented. That is, present the world’s knowledge as verified by primary and solid secondary sources. It seems to me this is already Wiki policy. Perhaps the problem is too many editors are winking at this policy because no one has called their hand by demonstrating otherwise.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your research focused on JWs using "Jehovah" as one of your search terms. Perhaps this is as far as your scope of interest goes. But, the debate that we've had here applies to all other Christian sects, especially Restorationist ones such as LDS and 7th day Adventist. The question that faces us is... "Does the consensus as reflected in these Wikipedia articles reflect the consensus of scholarly opinion?" At the moment, we can only say that we think the JW article reflects the consensus of scholarly opinion based on the research of Marvin Shilmer as presented here on this Talk Page. A better assertion than on the LDS and 7th Day Adventist articles but still a bit tenuous as explained above.

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Yes. I did apply Jehovah as a search term in many of my search efforts, but not all of them. I intentionally extracted this term (and others) to locate and review a wider range of usage just in case this is found in the literature. Nevertheless, our specific subject is about Jehovah’s Witnesses; hence the need to find and present whatever the literature presents on this particular subject.

Though I have confidence in the research I have done and presented on the subject page, and in analyses I have discussed on this talk page, the very reason I also provided citations is so editors can test veracity if they feel the need. I encourage this, in fact. Anyone who takes Marvin Shilmer’s word for something just because Marvin Shilmer said it, is it a fool. The same is true of everyone. It is fine to trust people. But this has nothing to do with whether a presentation is sound. Whether a presentation is sound has nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with evidence, methodology and logical analysis.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal institutions

• Before I get to changing the last sentence of the introductory paragraph too much, it would prolly be best to discuss it here.

• It seems to me that some mention of the JW's legal institutions is fitting, but I would rather see reference to their ministry work in the introduction, and move legal institutional references to the next paragraph, where it is discussed. Opinions? Sources?

• Also, I cannot find any current statements regarding an actual "Headquarters". Does someone have such information?

Fcsuper 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

use of the term "Orthodox Christianity"

from the wikipedia article Orthodox Christianity "Any particular Christian faith believed by its followers to be correct by comparison to other faiths. In this sense every Church considers its own faith orthodox".this removes the term from the realm of NPOV as it is being used in the lead in for this article. Ice9Tea 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the usefulness of that definition, especially in the context of this article. By that definition, JWs are also "Orthodox Christians" and thus comparing JWs to Orthodox Christianity is meaningless.

--Richard 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how sited source 2 applies

Please explain how sited source 2 applies. Please graciously explain it here, as the sited source is not common enough for the average person to check it readily (i.e., this is wikipedia, not a Ph. D. thesis). Does the source detail JW's rejection orthodoxy and/or does it explain how they consider their beliefs as being representitive of First Century Christianity? Given the title of the article, the original conversation about this matter, the original wording, and the quote given, it currently seems to be a stretch to use this as a source for those comments. Fcsuper 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: It's cited. Not sited.

The associated sentence asserts Jehovah’s Witnesses favor a restored form of first century Christianity. The citation demonstrates this by asserting a reassurance among Jehovah’s Witnesses that “theirs is the original community of true Christians.” There is a direct and unmistakable corollary between Jehovah’s Witnesses viewing themselves as “original community of true Christians” and Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘favoring a restored form of first century Christianity’.

The reference material is available at any public library in the developed world.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Graciously, I asked. Condescension is not graciousness. Either way, your quote says nothing about First Century Christianity or primitive Christianity. Interpreting the phrase "original community of true Christians" is open without the context of the article. This is why I am asking for clarification based on the evidence within article itself, and not solely the quote [c]ited (remember that request for grace?). Please expand your explanation to clarify how the article makes this assertion. The reason I'm asking for this is because the beginning sentence is now a weak and rather defensive statement about JW's beliefs. The fact that a qualifier is used suggests that the POV of JW beliefs may be inferior to mainstream Christianity. I wish to strengthen the statement to be factually stated without suggestion of POV, inferred or direct. This is what I meant by my earlier comments about the integrity of this article. My problem is the current need for the statement "what they believe" to qualify the overall statement to make it factual. I believe there is a much better way of saying the exact same information in the opening sentence without such overt qualifiers, and yet still be factual. I would like to state what their beliefs are, not what their beliefs are not. In other words, the comparitive between maintstream Christianity and JW's beliefs (as currently stated) makes JW's beliefs appear inferior. I want JW's beliefs to neither appear inferior or superior to anything, in order to achieve a NPOV position. Your efforts, though well intentioned, may have played into the hands of those who may have wished to demean JW's beliefs. Fcsuper 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No response? Again, I iterate my request for an expansion of your explanation to clarify how the reference article makes the assertion regarding a restoration of first century Christianity. What data does the article collect that allows it to make that assertion? If none, then the use of the Watchtower article and the published reference article represents a use that was not intended by their writers and constitutes original research. (i.e., you did the gathering of information to make the statement, as opposed to someone else that you are referencing.) So, please explain. Fcsuper 15:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: The source is presented as an extra-Watchtower authority. In this case the author of the article asserts the conclusion quoted in the citation. The use is not original research because the conclusion belongs to the article's author. It looks to me as though you do not comprehend what the quoted material in the reference means. I cannot help this. Do your research. Marvin Shilmer 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem know what the word gracious means, with all of your resources at your disposal even. You continue to dodge the issue by pretending you know more than anyone else and pretending you are actually making your point. Please address the issue and then we can talk on equal terms. This has nothing to do with helping each other. Fcsuper 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done...

Despite all the fussing, as a former J Dub, I believe this article was very well done.

Honestly, what does it matter whether they're Christians or a sect or a cult? The fact is, they're a religious organization. Why must we always fuss over the details? The basic facts about what they believe are conveyed quite clearly.

Again, thank you for this article. 24.107.8.250 08:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, actually the comment about them being a "religious organization" could be argued against as well...and here's the irony...by using JW literature. Yes, there are several references in JW literature that express their believe that JW's are not a relgion. Wrap you mind around that one.  :) Fcsuper 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper:I have to disagree with your point about JW not considering themselves a religion. I was raised a JW and I can remember JW literature where they refer to themselves as "the one true religion." I'll try to find those references if this matter persists. Perhaps you could do the same?Dannery4 06:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You can easily find references writen their works about them not being a religion. It's in older works, but it is in no uncertain terms. They switched to calling themselves "the one true religion" when the IRS used their own words against them in challenging their status as a religion for tax-exemption. Fcsuper 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on Abaddon and Apollyon articles

Hi. I have been trying to keep libelous web sites from being linked to what Jehovahs Witnesses believe about the identity of Abaddon on that page, but an IP address user continually reinserts them. If anyone is interested I hope you can help. thanks. Wonderpet 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) thanks anywayWonderpet 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian

Hi, I inserted the word Christian into the Lead-in of the article. Wonderpet 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with it's use, as the article starts by giving the impression that JW's seem to reject Christianity for their own views giving the impression that JW's are not Christian, which is incorrect. However an anonymous editor seems bent on removing that word if you see the edit history.  Joseph C  Talk  10:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

General Question about Jehovas and Marriage

Hi - I know three JW's from my workplace, and all of them were married before the age of 19. I know three barely represents the majority, but I was wondering if there is some sort of docterine that states JW's should marry younger than is traditional. I feel it's a bit rude to go ahead and ask my coworkers. Thanks 146.186.118.78 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no, there is no marry young doctrine. However please feel free to ask Jehovah's Witnesses about their religion, they love to talk about it. Wonderpet 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

introduction section too long

The introduction section is too long and meanders through discussion points with no flow. It sounds more like of laundry list rather than a concise overview of the article. The introduction should mirror the article itself. It should be no more than 2 or 3 short paragraphs that briefly cover what the article is about. Right now, it's kinda it's own article slapped on top of the JW article. It needs brevity. Also, it shouldn't be heavily referenced since it should be talking about points covered in the article that are referenced within the context of each section. Fcsuper 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, it is almost it's own article and needs rewritten. Wonderpet 17:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the first two paragraphs should remain as the lead-in and the rest should be incorporated into the body where ever it is not already duplicated. Wonderpet 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting

This line is bizarre. I was so disturbed by it, that i felt compelled to remove it from the article and place it here for discussion.

They believe voting or elections in themselves are harmless, for example, although they would not vote to elect a political leader, they would not object to voting on a non-political issue such as what color balloons to buy for a party.^[1] They do not stand for any political office.^[2]

I'm not quite sure why this struck me as so curious... it almost seems legalistic, but engineered to appear casual. I heard recently that Jehovah's Witnesses had to rescind the policy of disfellowshipping for voting in governmental elections worldwide in order to avoid having their activities banned in some countries.Watchtower, November 1, 1999 Questions from readers any thoughts? has this been discussed before? --PopeFauveXXIII 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

in the main paragraph dealing with neutrality, i reworded the line "Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged, but not prohibited under all circumstances, from voting in elections." Based on this analysis of witness literature (particularly the last two articles), there has clearly been a policy change. voting in elections, mandatory or otherwise, has been downgraded from an essentially disfellowshippable offense to a conscience issue as of 1999. --PopeFauveXXIII 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of the name Jehovah amongst Jehovah's Witnesses

Regarding this statement:

Other Witness teachings include the use of God's personal name, Jehovah which appears more than 7,000 times in the original Bible manuscripts and is usually translated as YHWH–also Yahweh in English–and the belief that such use is vital for acceptable worship

This is incorrect

Although Jehovah's Witnesses usually use the name Jehovah in place of God, it is certainly not vital for acceptable worship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.135.56.27 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 July 2007 UTC.

Sorted and clarified now I hope...  Joseph C  Talk  22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph: you are wrong, see the citation. Regularly using the personal name of God is an essential part of worship in the Witness view. This does not mean using the name EXCLUSIVELY.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122/article_03.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.13.48.17 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 July 2007 UTC.

Sorry, you misread. All I wrote was "Sorted and clarified now I hope..." -- The sentances before that were from someone who did not sign their name, It's usual wiki etiquette to start a reply indented. (which is what I did) Personally I think the word "Vital" gives off a life-or-death implication, so I reworded the article as you can see. We certainly do not substitute at every opportunity the word God in our everyday speech for Jehovah.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the way you can edit to get the (The preceeding unsigned statement was left by xxxxx on this date and time) statement or I would have done.

Thanks --  Joseph C  Talk  11:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Have added the first comment sig above now using unsigned template -  Joseph C  Talk  13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up. An additional point: Because the majority of Witnesses are not Anglophones, the article should include the information that use of the NAME in the vernacular is what is required and that for the majority of Witnesses this is a form other than the English form Jehovah. I have in the distant past provided representative examples in the article, but apparently the Anglophone majority here considers this information trivial. Some examples: Geova in Italian, Yawe in Ateso, Yekoba in Dinka, Iehova in Gaelic. Ben - July 14th 2007

redundant use of the word Christian

Marvin Shilmer. I have returned the word Christian to the first sentence of the article. Having read it several times over I do not believe it is a redundancy, it is needed to point out that Jehovah's Witnesses are considered to be a Christian religion and not merely a group that rejects mainstream christianity. There is no harm in having the word there in the first sentence. Wonderpet 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

personally, i think this infighting over the word "christian" is silly. a christian is a follower of christ, whether they believe christ to be god himself or even of divine origin. i agree that the use of the term "christian" three times in the opening statement is, in fact, redundant, and the first instance which was removed was the best choice. the rest of the line says very plainly that JWs consider themselves christian, which is a statement of fact irrespective of anybody else's definition of what constitutes a christian. --PopeFauveXXIII 09:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Aimed at no-one in particular) Many so-called "Christians" who are non-JW simply hate to see JW's called Christian, hence all the arguing. Of course everyone has their own definition of what classifies someone as Christian, so perhaps they should consult the bible to see what Jesus said about his followers..? Too many people like to have their ears tickled... and I could go on and on (and on and on) but it is a waste of time especially on this site. Invariably when I speak to householders in the door-to-door ministry and use the term Christian, it surprises many too.  Joseph C  Talk  10:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: When I wrote "See Talk page" the hope was you would read the extensive discussion on this matter already present on the talk page. A consensus is achieved. If you do not like this consensus then please use the talk pages to argue your case prior to undoing a present consensus. Marvin Shilmer 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer, would you mind please showing me where on this overgrown talk page there was any consensus? Wonderpet 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, there is no nonsense regarding your edits. There is a consensues against many versions of your edits. The current poorly written introduction only remains because several of us have taken a break from this article for awhile. This stay will not last however. Fcsuper 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of these issues could be settled if everyone would just open a dictionary and read the definitions of the terms in question.

(1) Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian because they believe Jesus is Christ. The definition says nothing about rejection of mainstream Christian beliefs including that of the Trinity. (2) Jehovah's Witnesses COULD BE considered a sect, but so could every other religion on the planet. Again, check the definition of the term sect. (3) Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT a cult. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. a cult is "a system of religious worship or ritual or a quasireligious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs. " By the first part, I would consider Catholics more of a cult because of the somewhat ritualistic things they do during worship. Dannery4 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dannery4, Yup. It is just that simple. One individual has been trying to argue that JW's are not Christain because some sources happen to call them a "Christain Sect" (however, even sources that say this tend to use the two terms interchangeably). As illogical as this sounds, you can plainly read that there are tons of comments to that effect in this discussion page. The point hasn't been made, but its supportor does not concede. It's a red-herring issue however, because the agenda is to keep from calling JW's any sort of Christain in the introduction (knowing that the term "Christain Sect" is to often perjoritive and cannot be used in the introduction without proper context). Fcsuper 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

archive this

this page is very overwhelming, would someone please archive it Wonderpet 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone, please! Dtbrown 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ancient Witnesses"?

Are we editing an encyclopedia article or a theological interpretation of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses? The idea that the Jehovah's Witness movement existed before the days of Barbour and Russell is a theological interpretation and could be placed in the Beliefs and Practices section. It has no place in the main article discussing Witness history. Dtbrown 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit as it currently stands says this: "But in about C.E.56, the apostasy occurred among them, their mind started to be divided.(Acts 20:29, 30) After the death of John, the last apostle, the apostasy had spread.(2 Timothy 2:17)" Isn't this POV? DtbrownDtbrown 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New lead?

I think it's time to come up with a more stream-lined lead. The current has way too much info in it. Thoughts? Dtbrown 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For now lets keep the first paragraph, then let the zealous editors find places to incorporate the remainder. But as it is now it is a mess. Wonderpet 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Membership

I think this paragraph, which has been recently edited, is a bit redundant. Any suggestions? Abbott75 ☺ 10:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jehovah’s Witnesses count as adherents the number of baptized publishers who actively preach the kingdom good news which as of 2006 is some 6.5 million.^[3][4] Of these adherents it counts as publishers those who report time preaching each month. As of August 2006 this membership is about 6.5 million.^[5] "

That does seem rather redundant, would you drop the first, or the second portion? Wonderpet 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Abbot and Wonderpet:

Referenced sources clear this up, and I wish editors would take care to consult referenced material prior to making changes. (Not that either of you have done otherwise)

The religion draws a distinction between adherents and members. The number of “adherents” is the statistical sum of meeting attendance, which number includes “members” but is not exclusively “members”. “Members” is the statistical number reporting public ministerial activity. Hence, as of 2006, the number of adherents is about 16.5 million and the number of members is about 6.5 million. I have corrected this countless times after editors have, incorrectly, stated the number of adherents and the number of members is the same, as if the two groups are one and the same.

Writing in her capacity as associate general counsel for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Incorporated, attorney Carolyn Wah states, “Based on annual statistics, meetings are attended by some 14 million adherents, including approximately 5.8 million members.” (Wah, C., Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Responsibility of Religious Freedom: The European Experience, Journal of Church and State, June 2001, p. 582, Carolyn Wah is Associate General Counsel for the Watch Tower Society) The numbers have increased since Wah’s 2001 statement. --Marvin Shilmer 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Arianism

Minus any remote link to ancient Christianity -75.46.3.182 (Unsigned comment added to archive by Duffer1. Signature added by Duffer1. Link to original comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJehovahs_Witnesses&diff=149173183&oldid=149172464)