Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 28

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.

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

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 Voting? 2 Christian

Voting?

The recent edit in the Beliefs and Practices Section brings up the question of voting. Was the 1999 statement actually a change? My take on this is that these statements are public relations type of statements for countries that require voting by their citizens. Do JWs actually vote for people when they go to the polls? Does anyone know? I'm concerned we could be giving the wrong impression with the edit as it stands. Dtbrown 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

check the citations. the Questions From Readers section of the November 1, 1999 Watchtower very clearly frames voting as a personal decision. Later references to the issue are discouraging of the practice, but neither refer to nor retract the previous statements. voting has been quietly changed from a disfellowshippable offense to a conscience issue. The title of the section is Beliefs and Practices, and in this case, the two are at some variance. I'm sure the vast majority of JWs still do not vote, however, as a matter of policy and doctrine, there is really no doubt. You cannot be disfellowshipped for voting. --PopeFauveXXIII 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

“

There are clear principles set out in the Bible that enable servants of God to take a proper view of this matter. However, there appears to be no principle against the practice of voting itself . . . As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State . . . In view of the Scriptural principles outlined above, in many lands Jehovah’s Witnesses make a personal decision not to vote in political elections, and their freedom to make that decision is supported by the law of the land . . . If someone decides to go to the polling booth, that is his decision. What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator . . . There may be people who are stumbled when they observe that during an election in their country, some Witnesses of Jehovah go to the polling booth and others do not. They may say, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are not consistent.’ People should recognize, though, that in matters of individual conscience such as this, each Christian has to make his own decision before Jehovah God. —Romans 14:12

”

True, but about the same time it was decided not to disfellowship Jehovah's Witnesses who voluntarily accept blood transfusions. If, however, they do voluntarily accept blood they are viewed as voluntarily disassociating from the religion. I think the new voting policy is the same. JWs may go to the polls in countries that require them to do so, but I doubt they actually vote for political candidates. I think the new policy is framed in such a way to prevent any legal difficulties for JWs in those countries. Dtbrown 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in input from JW editors on this. Is it the position that mature JWs should refrain from voting? Dtbrown 00:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The text seems clear enough. it is worded to suggest that a person may go to a polling booth, AND vote for someone while there, AND consider themselves a witness all simultaneously. Hard to believe for those of us who left before '99, but you can read the entire article here. It is surprisingly plain. --PopeFauveXXIII 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Without anecdotal evidence to corroborate this, I remain doubtful. I think this is similar to statements by Witness officials that appear to leave decisions about whether or not one can accept blood as up to one's conscience (as in Bulgaria). The reality was that accepting blood was not viewed as morally positive. The statements were made for legal reasons. I think the same is true here with regards to voting. I'm not going to contest the edit. But, I'd be very interested in any statements by Witness editors to the effect that voting could be viewed as morally permissable. Dtbrown 04:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This commentary from a dissident discussion board expresses my concern that the 1999 statement might be misunderstood, see [1] Dtbrown 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

anecdotal evidence is tantamount to original research, im basing my edits on what their own literature says. what we're seeing here, IMHO, is a doublespeak tactic. The org has to change their policy officially in order to gain official recognition as a religion in many parts of the world, but they are keeping it quiet and pretending that there is no change in policy... we cant write that though, because its not verifiable. the sentence in question makes the only verifiable conclusion on the question of voting: witnesses are discouraged but no longer prohibited from voting in elections. --PopeFauveXXIII 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not opposing the edit. If verifiable information becomes available that might affect what is now stated in the article, I think we should include that also. As it stands, the edit looks good. Dtbrown 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I just don't know. I've never heard of any Witness being DFd for voting, however, I've never heard of a Witness that would vote (even among those that actually pay attention to current American politics). I believe (but am by no means certain) that it is as Dt has said, that it would be a willful disassociation. I believe you are incorrect Pope, but I do not have any literature that disputes your edit. Duffer 15:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Raised in the faith, my parents are practicing; most I'm familiar with believe you would not be DFed for voting, tho' the general feeling of "wrongness" still permeates the culture. Some witnesses do vote in "small" groups, like for a township council, with no qualms while I can't find any who would consider voting in a National election. Voting is allowed, but there are still lots of informal social restrictions against it. Voideater 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1999 article seems to be confusing, perhaps even potentially misleading. Yes, voting is a "personal decision". So is following every other rule of JWs, or any other religion. The fact is, the *official* rule book (the "Pay Attention" manual given to elders) clearly states that anyone that votes "has disassociated himself". Furthermore, there is no meaningful distinction between the results of "disfellowshipping" vs. "disassociating". Therefore, the following equations apply: (1) Disfellowhipping = Disassociation and (2) Voting = Disassociation. Substituting (1) into (2) yields: (3) Voting = Disfellowshipping. Every JW knows that they are not permitted to vote, any more than they are permitted to celebrate Christmas or attend a worship service at another religion's place of worship. All of these things are against the rules and would be treated/punished equally. To say that any of these thing "is a matter of personal decision" is playing a game of deliberate semantic confusion. Consider this: I could equally say that in USA, murder is "a matter of conscience" and if one chooses to commit murder, they have voluntarily "disassociated themselves from society for 25 to life". ~Anon

th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.243.173.198 (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting in secular political contests is a personal decision and that is clear in their literature. However, as with all decisions one makes in daily life, there are outcomes, both wanted and unwanted. Condoning fundamentally incongruent views is wrong in any social setting. If a member votes on secular political issues then they are acting as if they can reform the world acceptably, and that is obviously antithetic to the core JW belief that the current political system will be completely replaced by the Millennial Reign of the Christ. In doing so the voter constitutes him/herself as not believing the same thing as the rest of the JW organization. I suspect that Jehovah's Witnesses do not want anyone, within or without, thinking that they participate in secular politics and they would justifiably want formalized distance between member-dissenters in this regard to avoid any mistaken conclusions. This is consistent with the fact that the JW organization is not a doctrinal democracy but rather it is modeled after the 1st century theocratic system established in the Bible (already stated on the main page).

On examining the article in question, JWs are not allowed to vote. The article endorses the (supposed) conscience matter of going to the polling booth, and then pleads to the reader's 'Watchtower-trained conscience' regarding what they actually do when they're in there, with a strongly implied sense of guilt for if they actually vote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article in question. The article presents scriptural evidence that participating in secular politics is disharmonious with Jesus' commandment to remain separate from the world. So no Christian then would want to participate, staking a claim in the outcome by casting a vote. It also makes clear that there are lands that may make going to a certain [polling] place mandatory, which is a different matter, and the article is clear on that too. It is the actual vote casting that makes the difference. Where one takes their stand is a matter of conscience and whether one votes or not is a matter of their view on being part of the world is concerned. But to misquote the article, as Jeffro77 does above, injects pejorative bias: it suggests that JW's are encouraged to do what the Watchtower says, whereas it clearly encourages the reader to do as the Bible says. Then the article makes it plain that the burden is on the reader to make that determination for himself. The article clearly quotes Bible texts to consider, then calls upon the reader to use their "Bible-trained conscience" (whereas "Watchtower-trained conscience" is misleading a misquote). There are scriptural citations given in the article and in the rest of the publication, so the plainest conclusion is that the reader is being asked to consider the Bible's viewpoint. -- cfrito 07:35 22 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, cfrito, not "pejorative bias" at all! The publishers of the Watchtower believe themselves to be, and assert themselves as, the 'faithful and discreet slave', and they instruct members to "meditate deeply on what we learn and closely heed the counsel of "the faithful and discreet slave"." (w05 1/1 p. 9 par. 11) JWs are therefore explicitly directed to do what the Watchtower says. As in the 'voting' article, Watchtower publications often draw conclusions by applying their own interpretations of scriptures to matters not explicitly discussed in the scriptures, and members are indeed required to follow those directions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro: Underscoring the validity of what you write is that the Watchtower organization has instructed Jehovah’s Witnesses to respond to what it publishes as they would to the voice of God. “Let us now unmistakably identify Jehovah’s channel of communication for our day ... It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision.” (The Watchtower journal of June 15, 1957, p. 30) -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between disassociating oneself and disfellowshiping, much as there is between quitting a job and and getting furloughed. Both quitting and furloughing result in [usually temporary] unemployment but the causes are very much different: The logic "quitting=unemployed, and furloughing=unemployed, therefore quitting=furloughing" is clearly wrong. As far as I know, congregational actions by JW elders have much to do with the desires and attitude of the one under review, especially in cases like voting where there is no direct harm or physical danger threat to another member. cfrito 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian

I noticed that the Roman Catholic Church is referred to as Christian and the word is used twice in the first paragraph. In order to decrease the appearance of bias, whether real or otherwise I have added the word "Christian" to the discription of Jehovahs Witnesses in the article. Wonderpet (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet, the opening sentence represents a consensus that has been achieved repeatedly. The archives of this talk page bear this out. Additionally, it is one thing to state the belief of a religion, and the article does this in respect to the religion believing itself Christian. On the other hand, to declare the religion "Christian" is entirely subjective. Please refrain from editing contrary to consensus without achieving a new consensus on the talk page. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that a consensus on this exists, and it is not true it has been achieved repeatedly. The logs clearly show that for several months the article referred to JWs as "Christians." I would welcome opening up the discussion again. Dtbrown (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Then open the disucssion. My response to Wonderpet is an invitation to do just that. One issue you should consider is whether an encyclopedic entry should make a declaration of religious disposition when that disposition is in dispute. Another issue you should consider is whether it is more or less encyclopedic to express a religion's self-declaration without making a subjective declaration.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Please review the following linked talk page so we can avoid repeating an already extensive discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=132123174. Several Sections of this page address the issue at hand and several information sources are discussed at length.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer (talk) there is no consensus as you have claimed, it is quite the contrary. you have been observed for months now on the Jehovahs witness article removing references as to the "Christianity" of the religion. and since you have not done this on other articles with similar statements even though you have had them pointed out to you then it really looks like you are POV editing. please stop.Wonderpet (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: If you take time to actually read what I have written on the subject you will find significant error in your attributions to me. Again, I recommend reading the archive discussion found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=132123174. Throughout this page you will find this particular issue discussed at length. In this discussion you will find several instances where I document various published works speaking of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian. But, as you will see should you actually take time to read the discussion (rather than just talk about it), you will find a plethora of information quoted from a wide range of sources, and these show the question of whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian is not settled. You will also find that a consensus of vetted resources do not declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian. I have edited out your declaration in the articles opening sentence that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. This edit makes the sentence objective and factual, and removes POV. To declare Jehovah's Witensses as Christian is rank POV. Again, read the linked material from top to bottom, if you please.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer you have indeed had a lot to say on this and if you were paying any attention to anyone else you would realize that there is no consensus, only Marvin Shilmer adamantly holding his ground. Your overbearing insistance that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, does not equal a consensus. Wonderpet (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: I recommend that you respond to the material presented rather than attacking my person. The former aids the process. The latter is nothing more than personal attack. Had you read the linked material you would see where everyone involved in the discussion at the time agreed on the language. Please cease your attack on my person and concentrate on objective source material. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

MarvinShilmer there is no consensus, only you disputing the possibility that Jehovah's Witnesses could be considered Christian, over and over again.Wonderpet (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: I'm still waiting for something substantive from you on the subject, that is beyond your ad hominem. You apparently discount the rather extensive list of vetted authors (including authors recognized and cited by the Watchtower organization) who do not declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian. If you read the link I provided above (twice!) you will find these. But, you have to actually read the page, if you please.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin I know 6 million ministers who say Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, the handfull of authors are outnumbered Wonderpet (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: There are serious problems with that statement of yours. First the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a POV, and Wikipedia editing is to avoid POV. That is, Wikipedia articles should offer a neutral point of view (NPOV). Additionally, if we accept preponderance based on number of adherents then the 6 million adherents are far outweighed by the over 5 billion non-adherents on planet earth. Furthermore, the weight of human knowledge is not determined by any single point of view, such as whatever is held by Jehovah’s Witnesses, including myself. Rather the weight of human knowledge is measured by a thorough review of many points of view. The latter is found by examining multiple authors in multiple disciplines. It is certainly not found by examining a preferential point of view held by a single population. The page I linked above shows I took the time to examine and present findings from multiple authors in multiple disciplines, including authors cited and used by the Watchtower organization. You will also find my meticulous examination and presentation on sources and views offered by other editors. Here I have done the same thing again in this reply to your immediate statement above. I am still waiting for you to offer something substantive in return. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, the bulk of that discussion page against the idea that we should refer to JWs as Christian is predominately posts from you. Let's let some others state their views and see what the actual consensus is here. Dtbrown (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: A careful reading of my participation in those discussions will reveal I avoided sharing any inappropriate personal bias and, instead, relayed an overwhelming consensus among vetted articles. This included taking time to share methodology and references for other editors to test veracity.

If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedic resource it cannot offer original research by inventing a consensus contrary to whatever existing consensus, particularly in presentations found in rigorously vetted articles. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, why?

Have you even bothered to check the veracity of methodology and references offered in the linked discussion? This is what I did, and I took the time to spell out the findings. If you have made a similar check of the information I shared, please share whatever your finding and precisely how you achieve it. If you have not performed a similar check of the information presented, then I am forced to ask, What are you talking about?

I have not offered my opinion. I have offered information in the form of extra-Wikipedia secondary source material, and vetted on top of that. Please refrain from characterizing a thorough presentation of information as “bulk”. If you do not want to read the volume of information impinging this discussion then you should avoid disparaging/minimizing the presentation of those who do, and who are willing to share it. Wikipedia is not about presenting an original consensus on a subject. It is about presenting existing consensus on a subject. You should know this.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument. The only case for not calling them a Christian religion is the POV belief that Christians must be Trinitarians. Not only do they self-identify as Christians, but their fundamental beliefs indicate them as such, and they are legally recognized worldwide as such. By the actual definition of Christian, the term fits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, Jeffro. Marvin is trying to use "Wikipedia speech" to make his argument look persuasive. Fact is, there are plenty of sources that refer to JWs as Christian and these have been cited before in these discussions. The majority of regular editors have stated their feelings. Dtbrown (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Sure there are plenty of sources referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I have pointed this out myself, more than a few times. But because plenty of sources refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christians does not mean a majority or even a strong minority of sources declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I can find “plenty of sources” saying the holocaust never happened. So what? This does not mean these "plenty of sources" are objective or that they represent a consensus of world knowledge. If we use what you write as a benchmark then the whole basis for encyclopedic presentation has just had its foundation rocked. Your edit will not stand the test of time because it flies in the face of a supermajority of vetted sources, which sources do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. If I do not correct this, someone else will down the road. Writing contrary to the world of knowledge always fails. What is clear is that you have no interest in considering and addressing the large body of vetted material on this subject. This reveals an unpleasant bias. Why would any objective editor working on an encyclopedic entry fail to make such a consideration and discuss it in the face of dispute? What you have done is help construct an artificial consensus. Why are you doing this? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Your remarks are considered, dissected and refuted on the very link provided above. If we apply the simple definition to “Christian” of belief that Jesus was/is the Christ then we would have to declare Muslims as Christians because Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ. In the end whether a religion (any religion) is “Christian” is an entirely subjective determination. What is Christian to one is non-Christian to another. On the other hand, we do find a general consensus in the world knowledge base that certain historical religions are Christian. Though there are detractors in each case, these are a minority view. Then we have religions like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormon et al. In these cases we do not find a consensus in the world knowledge base that either is Christian, though we will find plenty (though a minority) who do declare each as Christian. This is precisely why vetted material, on a relative basis, only rarely declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. As does Dtbrown and others here, you apparently have no interest in considering and addressing the large body of vetted material on this subject that has already been presented (as linked above). Instead, you appear to have a preconceived notion and are unwilling to examine hard evidence. This is telling. You are pressing a POV rather and an objective determination. Why are you doing this? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments, though not new in this discussion, are badly flawed. Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet but not the Messiah. Aside from the various POV views of Christianity, which are the center of the case you are pleading, the actual definition refers to those who believe they are following the teachings of Jesus and that he was the Messiah. Based on that actual measurable definition, rather than the indistinct and subjective definitions you would apply, JWs are a Christian group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro: Other than sharing your personal opinion, what have you done in your remarks above?

What you write is an oversimplification. If what you write were valid for an encyclopedic presentation then learned academics around the world would apply usage you suggest. But this is not what the literature shows. The literature shows a supermajority of academic writers do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. This consensus in the world’s knowledge is what you consistently deny, and without any substantive reason other than your own opinion of how the world should spin. Why do you consistently fail to address the volume of vetted resources on this point of contention? Why?

As for the question of What is a Christian in relation to Islam, the following quotation sends a dagger through the heart of your preferential definition of Christian, and it manifests why the apprehension among learned scholars of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian:

“Thus, the Christianity that the Qur'an extols is not the official Christianity of Rome and Byzantium with its elaborate theology, but the popular piety of desert monks who carried on the work of healing and purification that Christ began during his earthly sojourn.” (Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Goals and Obstacles. By: Ayoub, Mahmoud, Muslim World, 00274909, Jul2004, Vol. 94, Issue 3)

There is a great deal of academic literature discussing and comparing Muslims with Christians and Islam with Christianity. One of the finest is published in the April 2005 issue of Islam and Christian—Muslim Relations. (Differences in Paradox between Islam and Christianity: a Statistical Comparison, Schumm et al, Vol. 16, No. 2, 167-185, April 2005) This vetted article compares 69 doctrines and/or beliefs. I recommend you read it. I could quote from it, but so far what I quote and reference seems to garner little if any good faith consideration by a select few editors here, you among them. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You cite a publication that is slanted toward drawing people towards Islam by contrasting it with a subjective view of what Christianity 'should be'. This is not a well-rounded view of the facts, and therefore lends no weight to your argument. The fact that you seem to be the only one who has an issue with calling the JWs 'Christian' is noteworthy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Your reply reeks of self-serving POV. You now assert a mercurial “what Christianity should be” as though the thought is supposed to mean something. As for the rest of your response to the source quoted above, I have but one question for you: Have you actually read the article with your own eyes?

As for your remark that I “seem to be the only one who has an issue with calling the JWs ‘Christian,’” you conveniently fail to account for the supermajority of vetted articles where writers in different disciplines have refrained from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Why do you do this? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jeffro77’s preferred definition of “Christian”

Jeffro77: Let’s take a closer look at the definition you advance of Christian, and that you say is actually measurable rather than subjective. You write, “the actual definition refers to those who believe they are following the teachings of Jesus and that he was the Messiah.”

By your applied definition the opening sentence for the Wiki article on Peoples Temple should read, “Peoples Temple was a Christian religion founded in 1955 by Reverend James Warren Jones”. I assert this for sake of our discussion here because Peoples Temple was comprised of individuals who believed they were following the teachings of Jesus and that Jesus was the Messiah. Of course, as Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own interpretation of Jesus and his teachings so too Peoples Temple had its own interpretation of Jesus, his teachings and how to follow. My question to you is this: If your definition as measurable, as you claim it is, then on what basis can anyone decline to declare a religion as Christian if its asserts it is Christian based on its own theology, however peculiar that might be?

If JWs believed that Jesus was a pink cat that gorged itself on pig entrails and told people to only communicate through interpretive dance, then you might have a point. In exactly what manner do you regard JW theology to be "peculiar" with regard to its being defined as a Christian religion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your poor attempt at refuting the definition I gave of 'Christian' is clutching at straws, at best. The cult you cite became loosely affiliated with a Christian group only when it's numbers were dwindling, and is completely dissimilar to the JWs, which have always been specifically a Christian group from their inception.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection, Wings of Deliverance, was the original name of the Peoples Temple, and it is indeed identified as "a Christian Organization".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You are skirting the issue in your response. My remarks present a test of the veracity of your definition of Christian, as well as your willingness to research what you are so adamant about. I did not cite the case of Peoples Temple in comparison with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I cited the case of Peoples Temple in comparison with your definition of Christian. This you avoid. Why?

Your definition of Christian states: “the actual definition refers to those who believe they are following the teachings of Jesus and that he was the Messiah.” You further assert this definition is not subjective and is measurable.

The undisputed founder of Peoples Temple taught, “I have come to make God real in the lives of people. My only desire is to establish the great work of Jesus Christ on our troubled globe.” (Jim Jones, The Letter Killeth, undated) In addition, report after report stipulates a majority of Peoples Temple members considered their belief as Christian. (E.g., http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/FAQ/q_beliefpt.htm) Based on your applied definition we would, then, have to declare Peoples Temple a Christian religion. Do you agree or disagree with this, and why? Right now the Wikipedia entry for Peoples Temple declares the religion a cult. Should we instead declare it Christian?

If your definition of Christian is measurable as you claim, and it is objective, then it should also provide a means of refuting a religion as Christian. On this point you failed to respond to the question asked earlier, which is: If your definition as measurable, as you claim it is, then on what basis can anyone decline to declare a religion as Christian if its asserts it is Christian based on its own theology, however peculiar that might be? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your definition of “Christian” as immeasurable, riddled with subjectivity and completely lacking in objectivity because it is entirely up to groups (and even individuals) to determine what is “the teachings of Jesus” and what it means for Jesus to be “the Messiah”. If you see this differently please explain. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Adapted from the link cited above:

The scope of this article is specifically on one religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a theological issue to determine what it means to “believe in Jesus as Christ”. An encyclopedic entry is to inform not to form theological conclusions.

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 or declarations.

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

- Dr. Christine King applies 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 personal heartburn over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, or over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as professed Christian. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and beleive myself a Christian. On the other hand, as an academic, I am forced to again point out 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.

The is much, much more informaiton on this subject at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=132123174. The above material is just a small sample.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, each time this comes up you type endless posts with your view. I see no need to argue the points each time. We've done this over and over. I say, let's go with what the majority of regular editors have to say on this. Dtbrown (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have to add that you are the only JW I have ever met that would argue against identifying JWs as Christian. I personally do not believe you are an active JW in association with the Watchtower Society. You are perhaps one of the most vocal critics of the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses and you also recently argued that Greg Stafford could still be considred one of Jehovah's Witnesses despite no longer being affiliated with the Watchtower Society. I think this needs to be made clear when you say here that you are "forced" to argue against the JWs being identified as Christian. Dtbrown (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: If you are unable or unwilling to examine the body of world knowledge on this point of contention then why are you contending? If you want to do a decent job presenting an encyclopedic entry then it is unavoidable that you have to examine the issue to an extent where the existing consensus of knowledge is understood and accommodated. Furthermore, as editors here we are obligated to consider information presented in good faith. You have repeatedly avoided discussing the finer points of this issue in relation to the plethora of peer reviewed sources provided. Why is this?

As for my personal conviction, I have not argued that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. That you think I have only demonstrates you have not considered what I have written in good faith. Otherwise you would not misrepresent my position as you have. What I have argued here as an Wikipedia editor is that declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian runs contrary to an existing consensus in the world’s database of knowledge. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I am happy to declare myself a Christian. As an academic I have to admit that the world does not share my declaration to an extent remotely close to a consensus. In the future I would ask that if you assert a position as mine that you take time to do an accurate job of it.

As for a majority, a majority preference does not create a consensus. A consensus requires that each participant deal with other views in good faith. This requires taking the time to consider and discuss those views, why they are held and how pervasive and established they are. I have repeatedly requested editors here to do this, and have even invited it. Unfortunately, this request is routinely ignored.

As for Greg Stafford, you have again misrepresented my remarks. But this is purely a digression from the point. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Contrary to your assertions here yet consistent with my presentation, even the Watchtower organization expresses that the experience of Jehovah’s Witnesses is such that they are not acknowledged as Christian, particularly by orthodox religionists. (See Watchtower journal of June 1, 1960 p. 325) -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, "declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian runs contrary to an existing consensus in the world’s database of knowledge"??? The world "knows" that Jehovahs witnesses are not Christian, is that what you are saying? because if that is what you have to back up your opinion you have nothing. The worlds knowledge is not limited to whatever references you have. Wonderpet (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: You have misrepresented my remarks. I have not said the world knows Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. I have said the world (knowledge base) has not declared Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Please note these are relevantly dissimilar perspectives. Also, I have not suggested the world’s knowledge base is limited to my references. I have said the world’s knowledge base does not present a consensus declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. On this point, please note the world’s knowledge base is not limited to my personal library, and neither is this what I have asked editors to consider. Databases I have expressed contain virtually every peer reviewed resource in the developed world. Not only that, but I have access to extremely powerful engines for methodical searches of these databases. What I have presented here is not my opinion. I have presented the finding of this vast database of knowledge. Apparently this is something you fail to comprehend. You are probably unaware of this, but in most developed nations you can access much if not all of this material by visiting a publicly funded major research university. If you don’t know how to use this powerful tool just do to the help desk. They’ll help you.

As for majority, a majority preference does not represent a consensus. A consensus requires each participant to examine alternate views in good faith. Not only have you failed to examine alternate views, you have not even engaged the discussion with anything beyond personal opinion. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer, I do have an opinion I would like to share with you. Having googled "marvin shilmer" and coming up with a plethora of hits, almost entirely on anti Jehovahs witness sites, I see that a person calling his or her self "marvin Shilmer" is strongly biased against Jehovahs Witnesses. In my opinion judging by their high level of intelligence and skill, that person and you are the same. Food for thought. and since there is a consensus supporting the christianity of the religion the Jehovahs witness article will undoubtedly be a headache for you for a long time.Wonderpet (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: There is no consensus achieved as you assert. Wiki guidelines require editors to examine alternate views in good faith. As pointed out to Dtbrown, this requires taking the time to consider and discuss those views, why they are held and how pervasive and established they are. I have repeatedly requested for editors here to do this, and have even invited it. Unfortunately, this request is routinely ignored, including by you. Why is this?

Rather than addressing the subject at issue, instead you persist with your ad hominem. Why do you do this? This Wiki article is not about me, or you. It is about building an encyclopedic entry on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Encyclopedic entries do not achieve success by bending to the whim of opinionated editors, though these will create noise along the way. Successful encyclopedic entries are those that present and accommodate the world of knowledge on the subject. It is sad that you somehow think my person has anything whatsoever to do with this discussion. I can share what I know of the world of knowledge. But I am not responsible for the world of knowledge; hence any bias I have is inconsequential. Editing that runs contrary to the world of knowledge will fail, sooner or later. This is as it should be. It gives me no headaches whatsoever. Fortunately for Wikipedia, every part of these discussions is recorded so learned editors can make of it whatever they will, which is as it should be. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, your request has not been ignored and the previous logs contain responses to your interpretation. Still, you write voluminous posts claiming people are not dealing with your arguments. I, as well as others, have replied to these in the past and you are not presenting new evidence. I don't see the need to repeat what I've said in the past. If others want to they can, but we're going in circles. Your bias is a matter of public record as Wonderpet has pointed out. Dtbrown (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Fortunately the archives preserve the data. Previous editors who were exposed to the material and responded ended the discussion with a consensus that, in effect, determined not to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Contrary to what you write here, you did not respond to very much of this material. True to form, you remain consistent in your lack of substantive response. It is telling.

Since the editors who, in good faith, engaged the whole discussion had settled on a consensus then it is up to any newly engage editor(s) to also respond to the previous evidence that led to a consensus to show why the same evidence (and perhaps additional evidence) requires a different presentation. This is behaving in good faith. I am willing to engage this discussion; not with personal opinion but with third-part vetted resources, and as time allows am willing to research at the request of other editors who lack resources. Why are you so resistant to engage the body of evidence presented that runs contrary to your preferential presentation?

I see you have also jumped on the ad hominem bandwagon with Wonderpet. This is a pity, and it serves no useful purpose. My personal views are irrelevant to this subject, and you know it. That you fling this around as though relevant is audacious, not to mention disrespectful and uneducated. We all have bias. I have not requested anyone to respond to or discuss my personal opinions on this subject. I have asked editors to discuss evidence brought to the table, including internal statements from the Watchtower organization itself. Your ongoing refusal to engage this information is appalling. It speaks for itself. As I said before, the only editing that will stand the test of time is that which conforms to the world knowledge base on the subject. To defy this is as futile as an attempt to can with wind. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As you said, Marvin, the archives preserve the data. What it shows when this was discussed last time is that several editors left the last time we had this debate. That included me. You posted extremely long posts with "you know it" and "appaling," and "it is telling," and "why are you doing this?" type of comments. I was gone for about two months. Others left and have returned now also. I think the views have been expressed and we need to go with the consensus of the regular editors. You can claim that your research has been ignored. I think the editors here are intelligent and have operated in good faith. The only reason I've pointed out your anti-Watchtower stance is because you've claimed you were unbiased in arriving at your conclusion that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a Christian denomination. Dtbrown (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: As I have pointed out earlier in this discussion, Wiki guideline requires editors to consider alternate views in good faith. This requires examining those alternate views and interacting in relation to whatever evidence is brought forth. You (Dtbrown) have not done this with the evidence mentioned above. Jeffro77 has not done this with the evidence mentioned above. Certainly Wonderpet has not done this with the evidence mentioned above. Hence, on this occasion, though you three represent a majority compared to what I have expressed, your majority does not represent a consensus. A consensus has to be constructed. A consensus is not a simple vote. Consensus is something that has to be built, and in this case built on third-party secondary sources for purposes of verification. This is an encyclopedia where academic standards should prevail. It is not a pulpit where a peculiar group’s mentality rules. Do you think it an accident that vetted sources overwhelming decline to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian? (Which is not to say vetted sources have declared Jehovah’s Witnesses as non-Christian)

As for my conclusion, I have not really shared a conclusion in the form of opinion or as a result of an argument I have advanced. What I have shared is information. To avoid reading or inappropriately asserting my own bias into this information I meticulously informed editors of the resource material and method of collection for purposes of academic rigor. You have treated this rigor with disdain by failing to interact on this body of information. Such treatment is not typically viewed as good faith. Good faith would have editors thoroughly interact on the basis of the actual evidence rather than the messenger.

Previous editors such as Richard and George (and a few others I forget off the top of my head) did actually interact on the evidence. This is why the language left from those discussions represented a consensus. What is orchestrated now is nothing short of majority bullying. There is nothing scholarly about it. If you are going to beat me up then please have the decency to do it academically and not as a mob. This is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedic endeavor. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Marvin, for your comments. I disagree with you that I have not considered the evidence. I believe the logs show otherwise. Again, thank you for your comments. Dtbrown (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Consensus requires good faith effort on the part of each participant in the effort. You have included yourself in a majority that you apparently claim represents a consensus. Yet you have failed to directly interact on the evidence provided from multiple vetted sources I have spent enormous time researching for this particular issue (i.e., does the world knowledge base declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian). Until you correct this failure then you have not participated in consensus building with good faith. You have only expressed a POV. I invite and welcome you to a discussion of evidence. But I am done discussing my or your personal opinions. Neither one matters. What matters is what the world knowledge base demonstrates as a consensus. I am disinterested in editorial views that are no more than preferential beliefs propped on selective evidence. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I just have to check out dictionary dot com to see how they have defined a word. Christian at dictionary dot com has 11 definitions, the first 8 of which can apply to the Jehovahs Witnesses but not necessarily to all persons calling them selves christian --Wonderpet (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: Would you please do us the favor of citing the specific sources (i.e., give us the titles of the dictionaries) you feel have a definition for Christian that applies to Jehovah's Witnesses? Also, would you please quote these definitions so editors can read what you are talking about? This is essential to examining your statement and how objective is your assertion, and whether these definitions offer an objective means to determine Christianity. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin claims to be a JW, yet also claims that "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" are not actually Christians. He vehemently rejects the claim that they are Christian, though they are legally recognized as such the world over, and though their fundamental beliefs clearly identify them as such (when not applying subjective definitions applied by Trinitarians). The fact remains that the 'evidence' presented does not indicate that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a Christian group. The fact also remains that 'Christianity' is not a belief system based entirely on established fact. Loosely, all Christians are only "professed Christians", since it is unprovable that Jesus was the Messiah. However, a group that both "professes" to be Christian and has beliefs that demonstrate such professing to be consistent with the basic definition of Christianity are properly a Christian group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You misrepresent my position. I do not reject Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Indeed I have said just the opposite so far as my personal conviction goes. My relevant contention on this Talk subject is whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedic entry to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. The answer to this discussion depends on whatever is the existing consensus in the world’s knowledge base. To find this all you have to do is research usage and assertions in the world’s knowledge base. To tighten the objectivity of this search it is good to restrict it to peer reviewed presentations. I have strived to do just this. No one else in this immediate discussion has demonstrated willingness or capability of performing this research, though it is as near the any decent library.

Something else you carefully avoid is this: Because the world knowledge base does not demonstrate a consensus that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian does not mean the world knowledge base has a consensus declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. This finer point of academic presentation you either do not understand or do not want to discuss it in public view.

You have further asserted, now, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are “legally recognized” as Christian the world over. Your remark on this point is pure baloney. Though it is probably true that a majority of nation States recognize Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion, it is not true that a majority of nation States take it upon themselves to recognize what branch of religion Jehovah’s Witnesses belong to. This is just another one of your unsubstantiated claims.

As for your further remarks about declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, see my remarks further up that take a closer look at your definition of Christian. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian, http://www.scripturaldiscussion.com/viewtopic.php?p=4080&sid=3ec98adc6c41d076c454eec386cb8723 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderpet (talk • contribs) 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: When you are finished attacking my person it would be most appreciated were you to actually get around to adding something substantive to this discussion you started. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: You have reverted an edit stating, “Marvin, the majority of the other editors disagree with your interpretation of the evidence and this has been discussed at length.” This is a categorically false statement because I have not offered an interpretation. I have offered information. The editors disagreeing with this information are three; namely you, Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and Wonderpet.

Wonderpet has demonstrated no skills of analysis beyond asserting a personal opinion. When asked to provide references to material she asserts she fails to do so. When asked to interact with sources contrary to her own s/he responds with ad hominem.

Jeffro77’s contribution has been nearly entirely based on his self-styled word definition for the term Christian. He claims his definition is measurable and he claims it is objective. Yet when his definition is tested he fails to step up and discuss the test. This he has done multiple times both recently and in past discussions on the subject.

As for you, Dtbrown, when my participation began in this issue (i.e, whether Wikipedia should declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian) you admittedly left the discussion early. Hence you failed at that time to interact on the body of evidence brought to the table. Given your absence at the time, and that you are now availing yourself to the issue, I have asked for your good faith consideration of the evidence already provided, including arguments and tests resulting from the latest round of this subject consideration. I have presented specific evidence. A good faith consideration requires interaction on the evidence itself. Rather than interacting with this evidence you keep asserting a majority rule, as though consensus is a simple matter of voting rather than construction. Additionally, you have misrepresented my personal views on several levels, and have apparently used this as a basis to dismiss evidence I have brought to the discussion. When this mistaken view is pointed out you again failed to interact by seeking clarification; hence the question arises of whether you even understand the evidence I have presented. Worst of all, you have jumped on Wonderpet’s bandwagon of ad hominem.

None of the actions named above are remotely consistent with the good faith required for building a consensus. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, the drama is not necessary. "As for you," "Worst of all," "you again failed," "the question arises whether you even understand." I think it is apparent you do not work with other editors. Dtbrown (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I appreciate you sharing your opinion of my person, and am glad you feel comfortable telling me what you think of me. Now if you would digress to a discussion of the actual evidence it would be appreciated. If the enormity of material on the subject overwhelms you then why are you contending with an editor who is willing to expend time offering relevant information and discussion on the subject matter? This is not about me. It is about what is verifiable, and what existing consensus is out there in the world’s knowledge base. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more neutral not to say "Christian" in the intro? Not saying "Christian" doesn't say that they are NOT Christian, and doesn't get us involved in a controversial statement. Later on we can explain the details. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It would please certain religious opponents of the Roman Catholic Church to say they are not a Christian Church also. Why should we cater to those folks? The top of this talk page says that this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity. Dtbrown (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Your response to 199.71.183.2 is a red herring. No one has suggested catering to anything other than what is verifiable. In this case the question arises of whether it is verifiable to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, and in this case, what is the weight of the verifiable evidence. You avoid this aspect of the discussion like the plague. Why? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to accept your latest edit to the page. I commend you for trying to seek some sort of compromise. I think, perhaps, the footnote you put in to "Christian" could be shortened and the tone softened a bit. Perhaps something like "Jehovah's Witnesses believe theirs is the only true Christian religion"? What do other editors think? Dtbrown (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Your commendation is misplaced. My recent editing does not represent a compromise of whether an encyclopedic article should declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I have no intention of letting a mob mentality determine what appropriate encyclopedic content. Evidence will flow (pro and/or con) depending on what the evidence is. This is what should prevail. Eventually other editors who are actually interested in interacting with the information will chime in. In the end whatever is supported by the body of knowledge in the world will prevail, no matter what either of us personally believes.

As for “softening” the footnote, why are you perfectly willing to accept Jehovah’s Witnesses boldness declaring themselves as Christian but want to soften their own bold language as they express the Christianity they attribute to themselves? It is, after all, the Watchtower organization declaring “There is only one religious organization on this earth that has all these marks of true Christianity—Jehovah’s Witnesses!”, not me. This boldness is so profound in Watchtower literature and prevailing belief among Jehovah’s Witnesses that it stands out like a solitary lush tree in the desert. Please explain yourself.

Below I have taken an even closer look at the viability and testability of determining appropriate attribution of Christianity. If you are serious about this discussion, and want to act in good faith then I recommend you participate in an examination of the evidence presented there, not to mention the evidence already expressed that you have kicked to the side in terms of interaction. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

On Accepted Declaration of Who or What is “Christian” or “Christianity”:

Declaration of a religion as Christian for an encyclopedic work requires consideration of historical usage of the term. Because usage changes and adapts (e.g., Americanism) it is perhaps even more important to consider and weigh contemporary usage of the term.

Because recent editors here are holding a position purported to be based on reference works such as dictionaries and other encyclopedias, a closer look at such sources is in order. A consistent feature of these sources indicates Christianity as a religion has Jesus at the center. For example,

- “At the very least, Christianity is the faith tradition that focuses on the figure of Jesus Christ.” (Christianity, Britannica Online Academic Edition)

- “Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically, but such a description does yield some insights into its continuing elements and essential characteristics. One such element is the centrality of the person of JESUS CHRIST (q.v.). That centrality is, in one way or another, a feature of all the historical varieties of Christian belief and practice.” (Christianity, Funk and Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia)

- Wikipedia’s current entry for Christianity agrees with Britannica and Funk and Wagnall’s when it states, “Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament.”

The question arises of whether the consistency noted above provides a testable measure of whether a religion is Christian according to contemporary use of the term. The test is a question: Does a religion have Jesus at the center of its belief system?

Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, indisputably Jesus plays a major role in its published teaching. Also, were one of Jehovah’s Witnesses asked “Are you Christian” undoubtedly the answer would be, “Yes”. But does the major role Jesus plays in the life and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses constitute the focus of their faith; the center? In other words, is Jesus at the center of their religion (form of worship)? Here are some quotations from primary Watchtower sources on this subject:

- “Their thoughts were centered on Jehovah and the ways in which he was blessing them.” (The Watchtower journal of May 1, 2001 page 14)

- “From my earliest memories, everything my parents did centered on their worship of Jehovah God.” (The Watchtower journal of October 1, 1993 page 5)

- “It is a liberation involving “the truth” that can set humans free from “the law of sin and of death.” This truth is centered on “the Son,” Jesus Christ.” (The Watchtower journal of April 15, 1987 page 30)

- “Paul was working hard as a minister of this good news centered on Christ, the preeminent one in God’s arrangement.” (The Watchtower journal of January 1, 1983 page 29)

- “In any event, this ‘chosen lady and her children’ were truly loved by John and all other witnesses of Jehovah who had come to know “the truth.” That “truth” was the whole body of teaching that centered on Jesus Christ.” (The Watchtower journal of April 1, 1983 page 21)

- “our life should be centered on our precious relationship with Jehovah.” (The Watchtower journal of October 15, 1983 page 21)

- “Christ Jesus had a mind that was perfect and holy and guileless. He always had it in complete control and centered on doing the Father’s will.” (The Watchtower journal of February 1, 1958 page 78)

- “His work, like that of God’s modern-day witnesses, centered on declaring Jehovah’s supremacy and purposes.” (The Watchtower journal of May 15, 1952 page 303)

This primary source material demonstrates an important aspect of theology held among Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to Jesus Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ hold Jesus in high esteem but Jesus’ Father, Jehovah, is the focal point and not Jesus himself. In each case Jesus is positioned off center as an agent of Jehovah. As it is with any other religion, the focus (center) of Jehovah’s Witnesses theology (their self-declaration) is found in who they say they worship. If you ask a Jehovah’s Witness this question the answer is practically 100 percent as, “Jehovah”. On the other hand, were one to ask this question of the prototypical “Christian” the typical answer is, “Jesus”.

I have observed several editors in the past address the question of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses should be declared as Christian. A large proportion of those disagreeing that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be declared Christian base their opinion on Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal of the Trinity doctrine. I think this basis is a symptom of the reason for their opinion, but not the actual reason. The Trinity doctrine has the effect of placing Jesus at the very center of a form of worship (a religion). I believe it possible for a religion to reject the Trinity and remain Christian, if the religion were to otherwise maintain Jesus as the central focus. But Jehovah’s Witnesses have placed Jesus off center as a focal point. Jehovah is the center, not Jesus.

If true that placing Jesus as the center (religion) is an essential factor of whether a religion meets accepted usage for “Christian” then, at the very least, it is questionable whether Jehovah’s Witnesses should be declared Christian in an encyclopedic work, and it is probably inappropriate based on the above information. I invite other editors to this analysis. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, based on all available evidence, I regard you to be a troll and will not correspond with you further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I am glad you have an opinion, and I am glad you felt free to share it with me. When you decide to actually interact with the information provided from third-party vetted sources feel free to chime in. In the meantime, your ad hominem serves no purpose. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, based on these definitions you supplied Jehovah's Witnesses could be classified as Christian:

“At the very least, Christianity is the faith tradition that focuses on the figure of Jesus Christ.” (Christianity, Britannica Online Academic Edition)

“Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically, but such a description does yield some insights into its continuing elements and essential characteristics. One such element is the centrality of the person of JESUS CHRIST (q.v.). That centrality is, in one way or another, a feature of all the historical varieties of Christian belief and practice.” (Christianity, Funk and Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia)

Wikipedia’s current entry for Christianity agrees with Britannica and Funk and Wagnall’s when it states, “Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament.”

Witnesses view Jesus as their King and believe they are his subjects. They believe Christ is Head of the Christian Congregation. True, they believe he is subject to the Father, and thus they believe the Father is more important, but there are other Christian groups that believe similarly or that do not consider the relationship between the Father and the Son to be that important. There are Christian groups (like some Quaker Meetings) which minimize the idea of the historical Jesus. Personally, I disagree with Witness theology, but they definitely fit the definitions above. Dtbrown (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: The proposition above is to look for an essential factor of Christianity that is consistently acknowledged. Once a consistent essential factor is found (there could be multiple essential factors but in this case I have isolated just one) then the question is whether the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses meets this essential factor.

In this case the essential factor is the centrality of Jesus. Do you disagree that Jehovah is at the center of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses? If you agree Jehovah is at the center then you have displaced Jesus from the center, which means the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses fails the Christianity test. If you disagree that Jehovah is at the center of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses then please explain how Jehovah’s Witnesses can worship Jehovah but not worship Jesus yet have Jesus at the center of their religion rather than Jehovah.

For the benefit of other readers... Marvin's poor rationale here is akin to claiming that someone saying "The red ball is really big", doesn't believe the ball is red because they place more attention on the fact that's big.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: This complaint of yours is nothing more than at school-yard attempt at distraction because it avoids essentialness. The proposition above is to ask whether an item asserted as “X” has an essential element to what is actually “X” (in the world base of knowledge). Why do you steer readers from this test (based on a consistently held essential) with your red herring? We have already tried to test your definition of Christian, and you walked away from the discussion calling me names, yet conveniently failed to answer the tough questions arising from your test. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Readers, please note Marvin's further red herring. His alleged determinant for establishing whether a religion is Christian ("centrality of Jesus") is false. Christians are those who seek to follow (their interpretation of) the teachings of Jesus. No unitarian Christian group places Jesus above or equal to god, but they remain within the definition of Christian.--Jeffro77 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Any phenomenon as complex and as vital as Christianity is easier to describe historically than to define logically, but such a description does yield some insights into its continuing elements and essential characteristics. One such element is the centrality of the person of JESUS CHRIST (q.v.). That centrality is, in one way or another, a feature of all the historical varieties of Christian belief and practice.” (Christianity, Funk and Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia)There is much more above. Read. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What you have depicted is the major role Jesus plays in Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. But playing a major role in doctrine does not put the person of Jesus at the central point of the religion.

Can you name a single religion whose Christianity is recognized by a supermajority that does not teach its adherents to worship Jesus? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The classical Unitarians don't and many Quakers don't. The definitions above do not require we understand them to mean "worship." Dtbrown (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Yes. I am aware the above academic presentations do not apply the term worship. The reason my questions to you uses the term worship was, I thought, self-explanatory. That is, if Christian religion is to facilitate/advance worship then we can expect two things. 1) What (who) we worship is at the center of our religion, and 2) what we do not worship is not at the center of our religion.

You assert that “the classical Unitarians” are recognized by a supermajority as Christian and that “the classical Unitarians” do not worship Jesus. The problem with this example is that Unitarians (including “classic Unitarians”) represent a population where the individuals’ relish in defining their own personal beliefs. As one Canadian Unitarian article states, “Very often the radicals of one generation have come to be regarded as classic Unitarians by their successors.” (Craig Beam Ph. D., 6 Sources of Unitarianism, published by Canadian Unitarian Council) What is “classic Unitarianism” (or perhaps orthodox Unitarianism) is ill-defined and accordingly not useful in response to the issue at hand.

As for Quakers, because as a religion it has no creed of record then saying “many Quakers” do not worship Jesus is useless for this discussion. Furthermore, “many Quakers” is weasel language.

Can you think of a religion where a supermajority recognizes as Christian yet doctrinally it teaches its adherents not to worship Jesus? – Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You think the examples are useless, but they are considered Christian religions. To require "worship" as part of these definitions stretches beyond their intent.

You can continue this discussion. I will wait to see if any other editors care to engage you or not. I doubt I will continue the discussion. If our difference of opinion on editing causes problems we can perhaps find a mediator. Dtbrown (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: My question to you requested a single example of a religion that teaches its adherents not to worship Jesus yet it is nevertheless recognized by a supermajority as Christian.

There is not a supermajority of people who know what a “classic Unitarian” is. Additionally, the term “classic Unitarian” is not well defined as though we can know for sure whether “classic Unitarianism” teaches adherents/members not to worship Jesus. Hence this example fails to comply with the test.

As for Quakers (Religious Society of Friends), it does not teach its adherents/members not to worship Jesus. Hence this example, too, fails to comply with the test.

Any editing done by me you can bet will have weight of verification, including whatever consensus exists in the vetted literature. This is a hallmark of good encyclopedic content. Asserting personal opinion that runs contrary to such material is a disservice to casual readers and researchers alike. When this is done by a majority of editors who fail (and refuse in some cases) to purpose relevant aspects of whatever is the issue, yet assert opinion nevertheless, it is not an academic exercise; it is mob rule. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Shilmer, your reference is about how Jehovahs witnesses view other christian religions, not about how they self identify. It has no place in the lead paragraph and will be removed soon. And by the way, I have not attacked your person as you say I have. You are obviously a well educated person and clever, but it is tiresome reading your over inflated monologues can you simplify them for people like me who aren't as intellectual. thank you Wonderpet (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: The reference material demonstrates the extent of the self-declared Christian status. Not only do Jehovah’s Witnesses 1) believe themselves Christian, they further 2) are taught that only they are Christian and are 3) further taught in express terms that no other religion in Christendom (Catholics, Protestants, et al) are Christian. If the article is to prop itself on the self-declared status of Jehovah’s Witnesses then it might as well tell the whole self-declared position it claims. As is true of any editor, so long as Wiki administrators allow you to edit you can edit at leisure. But you should exercise caution not to lose your editing privileges because of abusive editing. Perhaps one day you get around to answering for all the information above.

I recommend you read the Wiki article on ad hominem. Perhaps then you will learn why I say you have attacked my person. I am not talking about physical assault, or even abusive language. I am talking about ad hominem. Read about it.

You brought up this whole discussion. So please do not complain about the amount of information relayed. If you are unable or unwilling to put in the time needed to flesh out this subject then take your leave. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet, don't leave. I'm not leaving and I plan to continue editing here. If someone tells you to leave, just ignore him. Dtbrown (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Any group of people that hold to various interpretations of the bible are "Christian". Be they a Christian sect, offshoot, cult, etc.. The uncountable amount of protestant denominations that are generally considered "Christian" is proof enough. I am not impressed by any literature that is too timid or cowardly to affirm that Witnesses are a Christian sect, or Christian NRM, or Restorationist Christian NRM, etc.. if they deny this they are wrong. Of course none of this proves anything, but really it shouldn't have to in light of what is already generally accepted, regardless if that general acceptance is being widened to legitimately include the controversial new kid on the block. Duffer (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer: Are you prepared to declare the Peoples Temple under Jim Jones as Christian? If not, then your statement is false that “Any group of people that hold to various interpretations of the bible are Christian”. What about Muslims? Muslims hold an interpretation of the Bible. Are we Wiki editors to declare Muslims as Christian? If not, then again your assertion fails. Not that it matters to me, but with such an opinion you stand directly at odds with the Watchtower organization. Do you realize this?

Editors here have objected to terms such as “Christian New Religious Movement” (NRM), “Christian offshoot,” “Christian sect” et al. Terms such as these convey a more specific religious attribution than does the single term “Christian”. More importantly, such conveyance is supported by a consensus of vetted sources. These expressions avoid furthering a preferential theological disposition and instead focuses the reader on how the religion is understood by a supermajority of peoples on this earth who are aware of the religion. In short, one is education and the other is an infomercial. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Peoples Temple wasn't Christian, they were a violent cult, far removed of any semblance of orthodox and unorthodox Christian behavior. Being on the fringe of the generally accepted 'norm', with non-violent interpretations of the bible cannot be legitimately compared to a suicide cult. And a suicide cult, regardless of their holy texts, by default cannot be generally accepted as Christian. Muslims believe Jesus wasn't the final prophet, like Mormons. Perhaps we should declare Muslims: "Mormons." It's a wholly different belief system, and a red herring. I am not at odds with what the WT has to say on the matter at all. I'm speaking to what the mainstream would consider "generally acceptable" beliefs/behavior (Adam & Eve, bible based, theocratic, prayer, proselytizing), I am not mainstream and do not consider other organizations "Christian," that is my subjective/objective personal belief. Duffer 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer: If you reject the notion of declaring Peoples Temple under Jim Jones as Christian then your statement is false that “Any group of people that hold to various interpretations of the bible are Christian”. This is because Peoples Temple under Jim Jones fit the profile you offered. Hence your definition fails.

Since you raise the specter of suicide (i.e., a self-inflicted choice to die prematurely), do you feel it within the bounds of Christian for a Jehovah’s Witness to choose premature death rather than accept a blood transfusion? Do you feel it within the bounds of Christian for a Jehovah’s Witness parent to choose premature death for their child rather than let it accept a blood transfusion? These incidents are real, and premature deaths have resulted. --Marvin Shilmer 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the context of the statement: what is generally acceptable as a "denomination", "sect", "branch", etc.. of Christianity. The Peoples Temple, in behavior and belief, in no way resembles any of the generally accepted western Christian denominations. Therefore it does not fit into the profile I offered. -- A choice to serve in the military at the behest of laity, or a spiritual advisor, of a generally accepted Christian denomination is hardly different than refraining from a specific medical procedure. Refusing a blood transfusion could result in premature death, and it has, but if that is to be regarded as religiously motivated suicide then we would have to say the same about those who would go to war at the behest of laity. I would personally not call either of those choices "suicide", but very risky indeed. Duffer 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Duffer: I am not ignoring anything presented in your stated determination of "Christian". The profile you offered is simple and straightforward, and based on your response demonstrably fails as a definition of Christian since you admit a religion that meets the profile is not Christian.

I appreciate your remarks in relation to the Watchtower organization’s teaching on blood transfusion. The difference between this doctrine and men and women serving in military organizations is that one is mandated by a religion under penalty of extreme organized shunning whereas the other is neither her nor there in terms of religious mandate. Hence the Jehovah’s Witness child who dies prematurely because his parents refuse blood transfusion out of fear of shunning has died directly as a result of doctrine. Parents of Jehovah’s Witnesses take this gamble every day of the week, and this gamble is based on fear. The religion might as well be handing tainted Kool-Aid to these children. It is doctrinally based, and it is deadly. At least men and women choosing military duty have not been coerced out of fear of religious shunning with the effect of destroying close family relationships. At least this is the case among what you now classify as “accepted Western Christian denominations”. -- Marvin Shilmer 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to leave. ad hominem does not apply here, I have not attacked a person. period. There is one editor who has for many months been rewriting the lead paragraph to eliminate any claim that Jehovahs Witnesses are Christian and by the use of many many many many many many words has been able to convince noone other than his or her self of this, yet continues trying. So I will stay, and continue adding balance to this and other articles. and thanks DTBROWN for the vote of confidence. Wonderpet (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: When any editor engages in ad hominem it is relevant as to that individual’s misguided sense of productive dialogue, and it deserves to be pointed out. You have engaged in ad hominem over and over again in this very discussion by replying to my remarks/evidence et al by attempting to appeal to a characteristic/belief of my person rather than addressing the substance of what I have offered in the way of evidence and questions. I doubt you understand this. But it is true nevertheless. I believe even editors like Dtbrown can see this plain as day, but for whatever reason choose not to request you to cease this disrespectful and meaningless behavior.

As for the introduction language, the only reason I have engaged the issue is because I observed an edit war engaged over the subject. Please note, Wonderpet, I was not the cause of this; I was responding to it. At the time editors were attempting to label Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult and every other manner of extremely pejorative terms. My effort was to temper the discussion. I achieved this by bringing a higher level of academic rigor to the table in order to push back at radical editors and help broaden the field of knowledge for moderate editors. In short, you have mischaracterized me. It is apparent you have no predilection for tedious reading. You have said as much. Notwithstanding your own disposition, please refrain from talking about another editor unless you take the time to get your facts straight. If you want to add balance then stop asserting your personal opinion and begin interacting with the evidence itself. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny all this talk over whether JWs are a Christian group. Is there some central regulatory agency which awards the designation only after the particular group has met a certain litmus test? This is silly, and very subjective. They use the New Testament just as much as the next group, they believe that Jesus died for their sins and that they must accept him just as much as the next group. They consider themselves Christian just as much as the next group. Calling them a cult just because certain other (biased) Christian groups don't like them is pretty POV. The word Christian means "Christ-like". By that meaning one could argue that NONE of the Groups that refer to themselves as Christian actually are since hypocracy within them is so rampant. Even Jesus asked "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8. Of course they have the right to that name as much as the next group, and there are thousands, and no one has the right to say they aren't if they believe they are. They are as much a Christian "sect" (not cult) as are the Southern Baptists. 63.196.193.236 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

63.169.193.236: The subjectivity is precisely why I have contended that, in the end, prevailing usage found in a consensus of vetted articles is the best remedy. Because some editors have insisted on applying a litmus test based on how lexical reference works define “Christian” then the question arises of whether these provide a litmus test. Since this is an encyclopedic work rather than a theological or ethical work then biblical/moral concerns et al are irrelevant issues. The question boils down to what is the existing consensus on usage, and in this case whether that existing consensus is one that declares the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. -- Marvin Shilmer 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor I suspect any other Christian sect would recognize what "existing consensus" has to say on the subject of whether they are Christian or not. Existing consensus? Where? What about in Salt Lake City where most people are Mormons? Further I suspect that most Christian groups would be more than willing to deny the designation "Christian" to all other such groups. Christians are not a scientific group which must pass peer review to be acceptable and it is not our place to say who is more Bible like or Christian than others. 63.196.193.236 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

63.169.193.236: It is irrelevant to an encyclopedic entry whether a religion agrees or disagrees with how it is viewed, distinguished and recognized in the body of world knowledge. The world knowledge base will reflect a body of knowledge of any given religion, which includes any religious self-profession but it is not bound to a preferential view a religion asserts of itself. You can find this existing consensus by an analysis of articles written on the subject. However, in this case, because of radical biases it is extremely important to seek the most objective presentations you can find on the subject. Historically the most objective source is the body of peer reviewed presentations. You can access these in any well-funded library in the developed world. The research is tedious and time consuming, but it is there for those who want to get to the bottom of whatever the question. By the way, one fabulous resource for the discussion of religion is the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Are you familiar with it? If you are interested in a study of religion then I recommend it. Though religion is not science it can be studied scientifically. Perhaps you are unaware of this, and perhaps other editors here are likewise unaware.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer, the bulk of the evidence shows that any group self identifying as christian is as christian as any other group self identifying as christian. This is ture, any wordy attempt to disprove such will only meet with failure. Wonderpet 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: The Peoples Temple under Jim Jones self-identified as Christian. Do you consider the Peoples Temple under Jim Jones “as christian as any other group self identifying as christian”? Specifically, do you consider the Peoples Temple under Jim Jones as Christian as Jehovah’s Witnesses? How does the 'bulk of evidence' you assert--but fail to reference--answer this question? -- Marvin Shilmer 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say a cult is more in the line of people who worship a man (like the Branch Davidians did) or the Jonestown people did. The JWs have not done that. I think that what Marvin Shilmer is doing is trying, through long, wordy arguments to establish that a group is Christian only if they are nice mainline groups (oh and large too; anything smaller and more recent of formation is a cult especially if they have some fundamental differences in doctrine). Is there a personal religious motivation at work here? As noted above, there is no controlling body that says who can specifically be called Christian and who can't. There is no one recognized set of rules, not even in the Bible, that does that either. You are inventing this yourself which doesn't even qualify as OR since If you think this why not lay out exactly what you think said group should believe and exactly how old they can be to be afforded the title Christian, A,B & C. Again, if they believe the same basic tenets and consider themselves Christian they are allowed that. It's judgement day that supposed to be the actual deciding factor, No? 66.14.116.114 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

66.14.116.114: Apparently you overlooked the consistent essential element for the historical and contemporary usage of Christianity as indicated in the prestigious works of Britannica Online Academic Edition and Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, not to mention our own Wikipedia article on Christianity. In all cases these indicate the centrality of Jesus to accepted declaration of a religion as Christian. Hence the questions remain of whether Jesus holds the central position in the Jehovah’s Witness religion. Rather than answering the questions on this you instead infer impure motive on my part. Why do editors here have such great difficulty responding to the evidence? The questions asked do not arise from any predisposition of mine. The questions arise from the source materials cited above.

By the way, I see no reason to refuse to declare a religion as Christian based on the extent of if membership. That is nothing more than invented red herring. --Marvin Shilmer 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"I see no reason to refuse to declare a religion as Christian based on the extent of if membership" so then when Christ stated that where two three meet together he is there in their midst he was being ignorant of your rules huh? 66.14.116.114 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

66.14.116.114: This is not a theological discussion. This is an academic discussion. Encyclopedic content is neither formed by nor developed as a result of theological constructions. It is formed by reviewing and presenting whatever is the body of world knowledge on the subject. –Marvin Shilmer 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, whether or not I consider Jim Jones' group to be Christian is irrelevent, if you wish to start an article titled Jehovah's Witnesses and their view of world religions I will be happy to aid you in its construction. This article is about Jehovah's Witnesses who self identify as Christian, not about Marvin Shilmers opinion of them or theirs of other religions. It is no small wonder that the worlds 'experts' of christianity might be unwilling to recognize JW's as truely Christian because it goes against what they have been taught about Christianity. The evidence you provide is from these same experts and is never going to prove that Jehovahs Witnesses are not what they claim to be simply because Christianity is a condition of the heart and cannot be measured, not by me not by you and not by the 'experts' but only by the one who can read a persons heart. GO IN PEACE Wonderpet 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: Whether or not you consider Peoples Temple under Jim Jones as Christian measures the veracity of your statement above that "any group self identifying as christian is as christian as any other group self identifying as christian." I see you do not want to answer for your own statement. So be it. Good faith requires interaction on what is presented. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to and for the benefit of all the editors here who have over and over again accused me of editing based on personal POV bias:

On January 15, 2007 I first observed the infighting over declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I responded at the time by editing a rank POV. Prior to my edit the opening sentence said Jehovah’s Witnesses were not Christian. I edited this to read “Jehovah's Witnesses are an international community professing Christianity.” The basis for my edit was stated as, “removed POV; changed to factual statement professed faith. readers can decide for themselves whether JWs are any more or less Christian than others professing Christianity” I left the subject after that and did not revisit it until May 5, 2007.

On May 5, 2007 I engaged the issue on the talk page by writing,

“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.

“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.”

It was during this period of discussion that I undertook to examine the body of peer reviewed material on Jehovah’s Witnesses and whether there was an existing consensus in that body of knowledge declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. As shown above, on May 5, 2007 I was of the view that the article on Jehovah’s Witnesses should simple let the article present the claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian because this is the claim. Accordingly, when editors such Jeffro77 preferred statements like “Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international Christian denomination” I did not edit the declaration. However, as a result of my methodical search of vetted articles I discovered there is an existing consensus to refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Note, this is not a consensus that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. The consensus goes only to the extent of not declaring the religion as Christian. Once this was learned then my editing preference changed with the new knowledge. Prior to this time I had not undertaken this specific piece of research, and was somewhat surprised at the finding. Nevertheless the finding is as it is. My editing was steered by research rather than my research being steered by POV.

I hope this puts to rest the ad hominem that has been cast in my direction. My bias is to express information that is verifiable, and consistent with existing consensus. For the record, the current opening sentence declaring Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian is not something I can agree with from an academic perspective.

Wonderpet, Dtbrown and Jeffro77, I am not against you. I am for existing consensus among academic works for an academic work.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown asked me last week to chime in on this discussion. I appreciate the invitation although I suspect that my contribution will not what he might have hoped for. I apologize to him for the delay in my response. I was extremely busy last week and this week is not much different but I figured I should respond to Dtbrown's second request as a matter of courtesy.

I have read most of the above discussion although I may not have fully absorbed all of it.

The first and most important comment that I would like to make is that we should avoid using "consensus" arguments if there are less than ten editors involved. Someone (I think it was Wonderpet) made an argument that Marvin was holding out against a "consensus" of editors. That so-called "consensus" consisted of a 3-1 majority against Marvin. This is what I would call an "extremely thin" consensus.

If you go back to the previous discussion of this spring, you will find that I pretty much supported Marvin's position on the "JWs are/are not Christian" question. I still do. Thus, with my support of Marvin's position, the 3-1 supermajority turns into a 3-2 majority. One more person weighing in on Marvin's side would make it a dead even count. I really think a "supermajority substituting for true unanimous consensus" needs to be based on a large number of editors (ten or more). I think a legitimate supermajority is something a 8-2 vote. I could live with a 7-3 vote but anything less is a highly suspect "consensus". In summary, please don't use "consensus" arguments with less than 7 or 8 votes. The lower the number of opinions, the higher the threshold to call it a "consensus". Consult WP:CONSENSUS for a fuller discussion.

Second, I personally am happy to call JWs my brothers in Christ. However, Wikipedia is not based on what I, Marvin, Dtbrown, Jeffro77 or Wonderpet think. It's not based solely on what the JWs think either, although what they self-profess is certainly worth documenting. Wikipedia has to be based on documenting the consensus of academic opinion. If there is no consensus, then the lack of a consensus should be documented along with documentation of all major opinions without giving any of them undue weight. I have not looked at Marvin's research but I am willing to believe that there may be a consensus among academic publications not to call JWs Christian. I would personally appreciate a more detailed summary of his research. For example, I would like to know what percent of his sources do not call JWs Christian. Also, what categorical breakdowns can be discerned such as Catholic, Protestant, non-Christian (e.g. Jewish, Islamic), secular. Finally, I would like to understand how JWs are characterized if they are not characterized as Christian.

I think there needs to be an article or at least a section called "JWs and Christianity" which more fully discusses the JWs claim to be the "only true Christians" and the claims of many other Christians that JWs are not Christians because of, among other things, their non-Trinitarian beliefs. IMO, there is no way that the nuances of this issue can be resolved by the presence or absence of the single word "Christian" in the lead sentence. Not even a footnote can give the topic adequate coverage.

P.S. I think I said most of this earlier in the spring of this year.

--Richard 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard, for your voice here. As was said last Spring, most of the sources that have been discussed referred to JWs as Christian, but with other modifiers. Some used the word Christian "sect," but that does not imply they are not a part of the Christian movement. What they mean by "sect" is not immediately clear, but the word "Christian" remains. JWs are not part of Islam or Buddhism or some other world religion. They are part of the Christian movement, viewed heretical by many but world classifications place them in the Christian realm. Just to note there have been other voices here besides Wonderpet, Jeffro and myself. Duffer has chimed in and so have a couple of anonymous IPs. Perhaps we'll get new voices here as well. Dtbrown 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: In response to Richard’s remarks it is patently false to assert “most of the sources that have been discussed referred to JWs as Christian, but with other modifiers.” Richard is talking about vetted sources. Among peer reviewed presentations most sources do not declare or depict the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, or as anything else. Instead these focus on presenting the beliefs without making a declaration. For example, it is not unusual for an author to express that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity. But the author refrains from making a declaratory statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Also, of authors/articles that, for instance, declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as “a Christian sect,” it is false to suggest these authors fail to make clear what they mean, particularly within the vetted sources.

I have yet to see any serious research on this issue from you, yet you complain of editors who have put in the time, and show by providing actual sources and methodologies. It is not very convincing to constantly hear about mystery sources. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard writes:

“Wikipedia has to be based on documenting the consensus of academic opinion. If there is no consensus, then the lack of a consensus should be documented along with documentation of all major opinions without giving any of them undue weight.”

Thanks for the breath of fresh air. Anything editors want to know of my research I am more than willing to share. For the most part, the methodology is presented in the discussion from last spring. I also provided many examples of how vetted articles depict Jehovah’s Witnesses. I would ask editors to begin by considering this information (which I invited and linked to many times way back at the beginning of this sub-Section) to reduce time allocation.

I want to add one more thing that perhaps other editors have not noted in terms of inappropriate bias attributed to me. It would be quite easy for me to garner anti-Watchtower editors to participate here in order to construct an artificial majority. Frankly, at the drop of a hat I could overwhelm participants here with an army of editors favoring the conclusions I have asserted here. Respect for academic standards of excellence compels me to avoid such dishonest behavior. Indeed, I have not requested a single individual to weigh in on this discussion. This has been intentional on my part.

We should focus on the most objective sources of information available and examine them for consensus, if there is one. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a pervasive consensus is to refrain from declaring the religion as Christian. I encourage editors here to examine how peer reviewed authorship has referred to the religion, and to look for whatever consensus is there. The methodology I expressed allows any editor here to duplicate my research for purposes of verification. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By definition, Jesus Christ defines who is a Christian, not academics ex post facto according to their own ideas or by popular consent. Jehovah's Witnesses themselves claim to be Christian, so the question becomes. "Do they meet the tests as defined by Jesus Christ?" As recorded at John 13:34,35 Jesus presented one identifying "litmus test" of who is a true disciple (i.e., a Christian): "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (American Standard Version) Jesus never took up arms in any war against any one at any time, and rebuked those who did, even Peter, making it evident that to qualify as a Christian one had to show the same principled love that he himself (Jesus) showed. By this measure, only Jehovah's Witnesses have not/will not engage in murderous warfare with any other group, never mind with each other. I know of no other religion claiming to be Christian that can make this claim truthfully. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible does it say directly that to be a Christian one must worship Jesus -- it only says that you must willingly do as Jesus taught, which instruction he (Jesus) received from God, and dispensed in full accordance with God's command: "And this is life eternal, tha. I would think that Jesus Christ's definition should be used.t they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which though hast given me to do." (John 17:3,4, American Standard Version). And that work? At Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus gave it: ""And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with always, even unto the end of the world." "Disciple" according to Vines Expository Dictionary is a learner but as more than a mere pupil: a disciple is an adherent to what has been learned. Do Jehovah's Witnesses apply what Jesus taught? It would be rather impossible for an unbiased observer to conclude anything but that they strictly use the Bible and Jesus' teachings as the core, breadth and depth of their instruction to the exclusion of all other teachings. Given these fundamental tests, it would be impossible to exclude Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, as defined by Jesus. In contrast, the fact that all other professed Christian religions will war against others to preserve their secular status quo, including warring against those of the same specific religion, seems to suggest they fail this key test of Christianity. On doctrinal issues of homosexuality and of fornication, it would also be difficult to include many other religions as Christians, apart from the fact that they themselves claim that they are such (but fail to meet plain and unambiguous scriptural tests). Also, I know of no scripture that says that Jesus himself must be worshiped. I know of some that are argued to equate to this and many that even refute that notion, but those are matters of doctrine and interpretation. Jesus never specifically required worship directly, but specifically did require adherence to his teachings. While correctness of scriptural application is beyond the scope of this article, it cannot be reasonably argued that Jehovah's Witnesses do not sincerely endeavor to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ to the exlusion of all else. While I understand that to those who have decided for themselves that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians according to their own POV, what I have presented will also seem merely a POV. However, it is self-evident that if one applies simple tests of Christianity established by the founder of the Christian faith, it is specifically abusive to exclude JW's as a Christian religion in an academic overview on the basis of popular opinion and apart from the tests published by Jesus Christ himself. cfrito 08:30 21 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: This is an encylopedia; not a pulpit. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shimler: I presented a solid argument that a proper "Christian" designation is orthogonal to labels assigned by popular decree. It doesn't matter what you think or anyone else thinks for that matter -- it only matters if (in this case) JW's meet the scriptural criteria set forth by the founder of the religion, Jesus Christ. I presented the authoratative information, which are quotes from Jesus Christ. All other sources to which you refer are inferior to the source I quoted. Prefering inferior sources exposes the foundational weakness in your argument. You are injecting your own personal bias into the analysis and hoping that throwing population figures and popular opinion at the issue fixes your serious academic flaws. I simply presented evidence to support the argument that a Christian should called such, not becuase Dr. So-and-So says so or such-and-such committee thinks so, but because they meet Jesus Christ's definition. Based on your decision to mount a personal attack rather than a cogent, sober, and reasonable counterargument on why Jesus' own criteria should be subordinated to yours -- or anyone else's -- I conclude you cannot do so. Your argument is extremely thin and weak: You are in effect arguing that it is you who gets to define Christianity by a show of hands, and Jesus Christ's own definition is secondary to yours. Perhaps you could provide some real insight by revealing your idea of who should define who a Christian is and what the criteria is -- maybe Jesus won't even qualify. At any rate, that would be substantially more valuable, academically speaking. After all, you are the one who called for a verifiable methodology: you wrote, "We should focus on the most objective sources of information available and examine them for consensus, if there is one.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)" I submit that the best, most objective source is Jesus Christ himself. I would strongly encourage the editors to use Jesus' own definition as the primary source, anything else is academically fraudulent. cfrito 08:30 21 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: Every academic work has protocol and policy for presentation, verification and sources. Wikipedia is no exception. My recommendation is that you take a look at Wiki's policy and guidelines. What you’ve presented above is pure preaching. Though I do not disagree that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, this bias of mine is beside the point, not to mention irrelevant. What matters for Wiki presentation is Wiki policy. If you do not like the policy your objections should be directed toward Wiki decision-makers, which I am not. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shimler So you are saying that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Christians are not defined by their adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ? cfrito 03:10 22 Decmeber 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: I am saying: Read the directions. And, by the way, “adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ” is a threshold with as many values as there are religions claiming Christianity. Which of these threshold values do you suggest we apply? Read Wiki guidelines. Then we have something to talk about. PS: please have the courtesy to stop editing my entries on the talk page. You are not hiding anything. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shimler: I have read the directions, policies and guidelines and I am in strict compliance with them. If you have something specific let's talk about it. But, back on point, by what objective measure do you declare anyone a "Christian", if not the Bible? On what basis are "subjective" assessments made? Do you not consider the Bible's measure and definitions to be authoritative or reliable? The Bible, by definition, is a Primary Source for determining who complies with Jesus' teachings, whereas popular opinion is not. A scholar's interpretation of a Primary Source makes it (at best) a Secondary Source. PS: Please have the courtesy to not add personal information about me which you are clearly aware I do not wish to be presented, they add no value. To be sure I have not edited any content of yours at all, and you know it, only information that I do not want on a Wiki page about myself -- and not for fear of ID but because web bots will start harvesting the data and pounding my machines -- maybe you could give your reasons why you are posting mine but no one else's. It is personal data and it is not added automatically by Wikipedia nor is it required by any policy or guideline. You have now been put on formal notice not post anything but "cfrito" when addressing me on this forum -- "cfrito" is a valid registered moniker for these purposes and you know it, so before you start howling about lack of respect, show some yourself and don't imply people are editing your comments when you know they are not -- it too is intellectually dishonest. As to hiding, there is nothing to hide about and your innuendo is a personal attack. Moreover, I'd be very interested to hear you thoughts on why me not approving of you putting my IP on a wiki page means to you that I'm "hiding", when your source IP is nowhere to be found. If you feel it's important to post, then post your own and let me decide for myself regarding mine. The more you attack me personally the weaker your overall positions become, and it is you who now risk violating Wikipedia's Guidelines and Policies. You appear to be rather inconsistent in your application of policy and guideline. -- cfrito 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: I do not know what you’ve read, but you advance a position that is contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

To maintain a neutral point of view (see: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and to avoid original research, editors must provide primary and secondary sources in verification of assertions. A neutral point of view will also express majority and minority views without giving undue weight to either. This is the objective approach.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: I have cited my Primary Source numerous times: The Bible itself. I cited unbiased test conditions from that source, and Jehovah's Witnesses meet those tests, and many, many others. You are hardly neutral, as any cursory internet search on your name shows. The Bible provides the only true, legitimate definition of who is a Christian. As to the Secondary Sources, there are plenty listed here, and others have noted that JW's have Jesus as a central person of their faith. But I do raise an objection to the correctness and the neutrality of at least one of the secondary sources listed herein: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Any unbiased review of the definitions of Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses shows that they believe many of the same things, especially as noted: the preaching work, the end of this present world, and even the 1914 bit (I believe Barbour, Russell and Miller worked that out together). Bt the Oxford Press calls one Christian and the other a sect deriving from Russell. Not unbiased at all. Furthermore, it claims that the door-to-door proselytizing is becuase they endeavor to sell the Watchtower. I believe this is materially wrong -- publications have always been offered free to those who can't afford them now all of them are offered free of charge. But then again, Oxford is an Anglican establishment and so its bias must be considered. Keith McKerracher, a retired marketing expert who advises the church, published data showing that, between 1961 and 2001, Anglican membership plunged from 1.36 million to 642,000 - a decline of 53 per cent. McKerracher said the ACC is losing 13,000 members a year and "is facing extinction by the middle of this century." Of course, the JW organization has gone from roughly 920,000 to roughly 6.9 million iover the same time, with a key distinction that JW members are active ministers, whereas only a fraction of the Anglical (or Catholic etc) are active ministers doing the work Jesus did and taught his disciples to do. Perhaps this is why the Anglican publication is uneven in its treatment of JW's. But nevertheless they are factually incorrect about "selling"the Watchtower. You should be more careful in including sources that are so obviously wrong. It should be removed as a reliable source due to known material errors and clear bias against JW's.

cfrito: First, the subject of this article is Jehovah's Witnesses. The subject of this article is not Christianity. Accordingly, the Bible is not a primary source for the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible is an ancient text. Jehovah's Witnesses is a contemporary religion. Second, bias is written into your remarks above. Do you see how many times you write "I believe"? Hello!!! This is bias. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: Why do you keep editing 74.92.210.149 out of my entries? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, why do you keep inserting it??? You don't do it for other editors (nor should you). 1) IP addresses can change based on ISP. 2) Treating a user differently to the way you treat other users may be seen as harassment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I do not appreciate my entries being edited. My first response to this editor was addressed to the signature. Without explanation cfrito took it upon him or herself to edit this entry of mine. Users who take it upon themselves to edit the written word of other editors deserve special treatment. Special treatment does not equate with harassment. If cfrito wants me to use some other address for him or her then all he or she has to do is ask. Presumably, cfrito/74.92.210.149 can speak for him or herself. But, again, it is unappreciated for one editor to mess around with the written entries of other editors. Next thing you know we are forced to examine the history and see whatever else an editor has monkeyed around with from other editors. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: First, the subheading of this talk page discussion is "Christian" so you are clearly wrong in your statement that the Bible is invalid as a reference source. The focus of this subheading (and a few others too) is whether there is consensus on referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians. You discount to zero supporters of JW's Christian designation if they are JW's or if you personally perceive them sympathizers. You highly esteem a source that has blatant provable errors in its write-up: not just demonstrable factual errors, but that it questions the motive and objective of JW's work in it's "definition" of a religion.

While you assert the Bible is not a Primary Source, it contains the primary, original, authoritative definition of Christianity and therefore is a Primary Source according to Wikipedia's definition. It leads to conclusions you personally prefer not to support, but that doesn't mean it is not a primary source on the definition of Christianity. Again that is exactly what many of these subheadings on this talk page are directly discussing: Are JW's a Christian religion? Should they be represented as such on the Main Page? Other Encyclopedic works have used the exact same methodology I am advocating, and include Wikipedia itself. Only you seem to argue that the Bible is not a primary source for the definition of Christianity. An objective answer can be determined by check-listing the general, undisputed requirements. Only when extent or interpretation is involved does the analysis become subjective. For example, to qualify a Christian must (among other things) firmly believe Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, and is an objective measure: Yes or No. And there are plenty of other such tests. Asking the extent to which a group engages in the evangelizing work is subjective; that they engage in it at all is objective. And it is absolutely relevant what the group thinks of itself and less so what others make of that view -- the group then identifies the standard against which they measure themselves and for others to measure them against. If JW's think that they are Christian and the think that they are complying with the requirements Christ set forth and can demonstrate in good faith that are doing so, then they are by all objective measures Christian. You persist is this subjective framing simply to further your own agenda by asking only those who are not JW's to rate JW's adherence to Christian standards or those who base their own opinions on matters of simplistic antiquity. And others on this page have noted the same.

As to giving equal emphasis to majority and minority positions, I have not added anything to the Main Page (yet) where that is perhaps the penultimate requirement, which I fully support. Here on the discussion page, it is less strict as practiced by all (even by you). I have simply been encouraging using the Bible as primary source to answer the question of Christian qualifications -- in agreement with the method used by related Wikipedia pages when they answered this same question.

Moreover, I went back through this very talk page, and you yourself use the term "I believe" far more than I have! In fact you are among the leaders in its use, making you, by your own definition, among the most biased on the page. And there is a big difference between our literary styles: You use "I believe" to support your conclusions and give your own statements weight where facts are lacking and thus injecting personal bias; I use it to: A) avoid being dogmatic and remain polite; and B) When I am remembering something that which I cannot/choose not to immediately third-party reference, alerting the reader to do any investigation personally if they so desire. Case in point is the text above. Clearly the Oxford Press reference included within is biased, and that was the point being made, not that Barbour, Miller and Russell were coauthors and coeditors and their conclusions and research overlapped for some period of time (that much is obvious). However, the Oxford Dictionary "defines" these two groups with identical beginnings who differed on some theological issues as one being "Christian" (following Ellen White's writings, the Adventists changed to Trinitarian theology), and the other being a 'Russellite Sect, whose main objective is selling Watchtowers.' Oxford is Anglican, not exactly a source that is unbiased in this regard. A closer reading of the Oxford "definitions" reveals that, in Oxford's opinion, qualification as "Christian" correlates closely with Trinitarian underpinnings rather than obedience to Christ's commands, even though the latter standard is included in their own definition of Christianity and the former is not. (The Unitarians are said by the Oxford Dictionary to "be connected with Christianity", but this is as close as they come to calling a nontrinitarian group "Christian".) As to sect, Oxford Dictionary is equally biased: Under its definition, a solid argument that most all protestant religions are sects: Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, you name it -- they all started in the way the Oxford Dictionary says marks a sect. But perhaps you, Marvin Shilmer, could submit evidence why all of Christendom's religions should not be considered a sect under Oxford's definition: Jesus Christ and the early disciples fit the definition perfectly. I believe that the Jews, the established religion of the time and place, considered it so (Normally I'd gladly give the reference, a Primary Source reference, but the last time I did you accused me of "preaching" so look it up yourself.)

Editors: Shilmer's bias is underscored by the evidence that other Wikipedia pages list JW's as Christian in an unambiguous way (see List of Christian Denominations) Presumably this referenced editorial group meets all Wikipedia's standards but evidently not Shilmer's. Furthermore, JW's are listed as non-Trinitarian Christians on Wikipedia's Christianity page. On that page, the test of Christianity is much the same as I've supported here, and thus different from Oxford Dictionary's measure. Shilmer repeatedly attacked me personally, and continually re-inserts my source IP address in his comments -- clearly violating the Privacy Policy and blatantly disregarding my request demonstrating a clear lack of respect for others. Shilmer has repeatedly accused me of not supplying source references but a reading of my discussion items reveal those assertions to be patently false. Shimler rewards himself as beyond bias and to have discovered how to be truly unbiased ("The methodology above makes it absolutely impossible for me (in this case) to manipulate information in a biased manner. -- Shimler, 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC), this page). "Absolutely impossible"? Of course what Shilmer omits is his selection bias. Shilmer rewards personally agreeable questioners with statements like "Your questions are precisely on point" in a self-promoting of his own methodology.

While superficially presenting a NPOV, Shilmer repeatedly says there is no consensus on this issue, so I added up his own data and his own conclusions from this page: Of 58 references he cites, 39 are immediately discounted to zero because they are silent on the issue; 1 is against the designation "Christian"; 18 support the designation "Christian" (i.e. 94.4% for the Christian designation). But even after discounting those who Shilmer regards as "biased" the tally is 9 for the Christian classification, and zero opposed, 39 irrelevant (100% for the Christian designation). Therefore I find that his own analysis and conclusions contradicts his "opposing" position. Shilmer himself agrees with the majority view of his own findings, yet he persists in opposing exposing his unreliability in making any meaningful assessment in this matter. ("Though I do not disagree that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian" -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

I also submit that Shilmer's blatant disregard to treat others respectfully (to wit his continual re-publishing of my source IP despite my requests to stop and solely with regard to me does he do it at all) should be censured. This further evidences how Shilmer abuses this forum. I am a properly registered contributer and I have always referenced my work and have established a user page for polite feedback. Shilmer's practice should not be condoned as contravenes Wikipedia's mutual respect guidelne (at the very least) as well as its published Privacy policies. -- cfrito 17:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: Beyond my initial addresses to you, I apologize for addressing you with what is, apparently, your IP address. How I could have overlooked responding to your request that I do so is inexplicable. There is no excuse. I have edited my previous points of address.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your numerical analysis of the cited sources is amusing. Tell me, have you actually read all those source presentations with your own eyes? I have.

Marvin Shilmer: Here is the first list of six that I saw from you:

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

- Dr. Christine King applies 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."

By your own comments, 2 for Christian Sect, 1 for milliarian group, 1 for chiliastic, 1 for sect, 1 for fundamentalist sect. So we have three clear Christian equates (the two Christian Sect ones plus the chiliastic one). As for the milliarian group, I have no idea what that means, but these two argue law cases, so who knows, I'll discount this one for now, Marvin you'll school me I'm sure. 1 for sect, not sure what that one means either, except the WWII date and "Christian Neutrality" stand probably means anti-JW, but I'm just guessing here, Marvin, same as for milliarian. 1 for Fundamentalist Sect, which means a return to basic principles and ideas plus "sect". Since JW's claim to follow Jesus (not in dispute) I assume he means Christian fundamentalist. But since I cant be sure, discounting this one too. So that's 3 for Christian, 3 too vague to call without reading the articles. I admit to counting Hooker as for Christian and I origially read the milliarian as "millenarian" and counted them too.

Regarding your 1-20 of 85 list and your results:

Results:

Of the 20 articles above,

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

1 article depicts the religion as a millenniallist sect.

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

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

So, that's 5 for Christian (including the millenialist sect one), 1 against, and 14 irrelevant (by Shilmer's count). Discounting for bias, 1 for Christian (the millenialist sect), 19 irrelevant.

For 21-40 of 85, Shilmer reckons:

Results:

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

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

So that's 5 for Christian, 0 against, 15 irrelevant, Eliminating those Marvin doesn't approve of, thats 2 for Christian and 18 irrelevant.

Final tally: Fully discounted is 6 for Christian, 40 irrelevant (error from original tally because I misread "milliarian" as "millenarian". Millenarian in a religious context refers to someone who believes in the Christian doctrine of the 1,000-year reign of Christ (according to the Random House Unabridged 2006). This also adjusts for the my not assuming "fundamentalist" meant "Christian fundamentalist" as I originally did, or that "sect" meant "Christian sect". But the results are the same: 100% for the Christian designation. That is amusing.

One final note: Shilmer uses the caption "Does not declare or depict religious disposition" under each related article which I take to mean they are silent. As to reading them or not, Shilmer's express intent by summarizing these was to have people rely on his assertions, which is what I have done, although if he sends me the full texts I will read them, especially the one where I will learn what a "milliarian" is. -- cfrito (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: Regarding authors King, Stark, Iannaccone, Cote, Richardson, Zygmunt, Sprague and Hooker, you completely miss the boat. The consensus among these authors is that all of them address the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses yet none of them declare the religion simply as “Christian”. This is the consensus found in this set of authors.

Regarding set 1-20 of 85, the consensus you dismiss is that 14 of the 20 sources that present the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses do not declare the religion simply as “Christian” (or as “Christian sect” or as “Christian NRM”). Instead these sources present belief for what it is -- belief. The same is true for set 21-40 of 85. For instance, a source might say “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” but never use declaratory language that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian”. In this instance the methodology employed would have categorized the presentation as “does not DECLARE or DEPICT the religion as Christian”. Instead the presentation would be bias neutral by expressing the religion’s belief for what it is, a belief. I have argued for such a presentation here because it is demonstrably the most objective presentation, but other editors have resisted. I have argued in the past that the opening sentence should read “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” or something of the kind. But editors are intent to use declaratory language. This is at the center of the problem. Were we to simply apply neutral language by presenting the belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses for what it is (a belief) then all this editorial conflict would be solved, not to mention the article would be more informative and objective. This is something I have advocated from the beginning. But as I said, other editors are intent to apply declaratory language. Such declaratory language is decidedly contrary to the consensus presentation in peer reviewed literature. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Digressing back to the point, the 39 presentations (using your count) you quickly discount in fact shout loudly, and clearly. Though each of those sources address and present the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses none of them declare the religion simply as Christian. These presentations demonstrate that academic presentations of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses refrain from declaring the religion simply as Christian.

It is a mistake to think those sources do not at all depict or otherwise characterize the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in their respective presentations; they do. It is what they abstain from doing that shows a consensus. That consensus is to refrain from declaring the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as Christian. The typical presentation is to express the beliefs of the religion as just that, beliefs. But in the instances were declaratory language is used the consensus usage is “Christian sect” or the like.

The biblical text you assert as primary source material is pure preaching. Since no biblical text expresses the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian then you are left to construct a scriptural argument to that end. But that is the problem. Constructing a scriptural argument unavoidably impresses a POV presentation because your argument is constructed on what you think the passages you cite actually mean. I asked you before whose interpretation of your selected biblical texts we are going to apply. You failed to answer. It is no wonder why. – Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: There are no Biblical texts that say the Catholics or the Lutherans or anyone else is a Christian, so your position is dismissed as specious. It only tells disciples of Christ what they must do to be acceptable to him [The Christ]. I have already given a few examples that are objective measures. Jesus' parting words to his disciples were to go preach and make more disciples, teaching them to do the same (Matt 28:19,20). JW's all preach. So that's one: Jesus said to be a disciple, you have to preach, score one for JW's. When giving his disciples instructions to preach, he said, 'freely ye received free, freely give'. JW's preach and teach the word without payment and seek opportunities to do so, following this principle. Thats two. It's easy once you get the hang of it. There are lots more, but I suspect you know them. But you are convinced that unless the Pope says they're Christian (which is unlikely since it will eat into his bottom line) you'll just continue being obstinate. And as for answering you've not submitted a single reason why they should not be considered Christian, besides, of course, your uncanny ability to perceive what sources who don't say either way really mean by their silence.

Shilmer, you must be one heck of a researcher to be able to peer into the minds of all those researchers who are silent about JW's religious classification to determine that they really mean "non-Christian" by their silence. I'm sure to the unlettered and ordinary, "silence" would mean, well, "silence". But that was before becoming aware of your great powers of perception. I now see that since not everyone one calls you a troll at every turn, it really means that you actually are a troll because the clear majority's abstaining from classifying you as such in reality proves consensus that you indeed are a troll. And, since virtually all the important academic literature makes no mention of "Marvin Shilmer" whatsoever, it really means that he doesn't exist or is completely irrelevant. Thanks for that wisdom, Mr Shilmer, sorry I missed it before. I always thought that when a writer left something out it was because it wasn't material to the matter at hand, but now I see that it means whatever a sharp researcher like you wants it to mean.

For clarity, Shilmer has previously said about these "silent-on-classification" researchers, "Does not declare or depict religious disposition" but what Shilmer is saying now is, "It is what they abstain from doing that shows a consensus.". Hmmmm. I assume that Shilmer means that since these researchers do not classify JW's one way or another, JW's simply aren't allowed to be Christian until they get proper permission, nor can call themselves anything else for that matter. Come to think of it, I'm not sure they ever got permission from the masses to call themselves anything but "Russellites". Shilmer, could you check on the status of their request to not be called "Russellites" anymore? Since everyone has been silent on that I presume that they mean it was disallowed. Someone should tell Adams right away. -- cfrito (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: You are correct that there are “Biblical texts that say the Catholics or the Lutherans or anyone else is a Christian”. But since I have not suggested biblical texts as a basis for applying the label Christian within a secular work (Wikipedia) then this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I have presented. But it has everything to do with what you have argued, because you have argued that editors here should form a conclusion based on biblical texts.

Marvin Shilmer: You are the one who said, "Since no biblical text expresses the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian then you are left to construct a scriptural argument to that end. (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)" That's why I commented what I did. You brought it up, I answered you. But that's entirely the point -- a Christian is a Christian by what he does (which includes a public declaration of what he believes). And so how is it that Catholis or Lutherans or Anglicans get to say they are Christian, if there's not Bible text that identifies them by name? Or how does anyone make that statement about another? How does anyone know that Peter James and John were Christians but not Herod and Pilate? What is the test?

As to reading all the articles you presented, I'd be happy to read all of them if they were all freely available online. I did read some other articles by many of those authors that I could find and did some background work on them. But, then again, you are the one who presented the synopses. I said plainly that I was making a tally based on your characterizations. And I did point out that there was a discrepancy in the way you worded your initial per-article comments vs. your summaries. For example, you commented, "Does not declare or depict religious disposition" under many of the articles you listed but then you list in the summary section this way: "14 articles do not declare or depict the religion as Christian." Which is it? "religious disposition" or "religion as Christian". Adn while they are experts on what they specialize in (like the lawyers for example) are they experts in assessing Christianity? It's really quaint how you've researched and read all this material, told everyone whether it's something worth considering and why/why not, and then harangue those that react based what you said. Either they say JW's are Christian (or add some qualifier like "sect"), or the use some generic term like just "sect", or they say JW's are from Mars, or they just don't say anything at all (which is the author's prerogative). But for you to say they don't depict or declare religious disposition and then say that by not saying anything what they were really saying is that they disagree that JW's are Christian is not supportable by the evidence as you yourself presented it. Now indeed you may now be representing more closely those authors wrote, but that's a material change from what you originally wrote.

Oh yeah, been meaning to ask, is this your handiwork: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood vs. Justification and Responsibility ?

Cfrito: Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans AND Jehovah’s Witnesses “get to say they are Christian” because every religion has a right to self-profess whatever faith or belief it wants to profess as its belief. But, and here is the point, Wikipedia is not one of these entities. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedic work. It is supposed to present neutral and verifiable information. Expressing the belief of a religion as a belief is entirely objective. But when it comes to declaratory statements (statements of established material verity), editors have an obligation to find whatever existing consensus of information there is and share that, and this includes whatever consensus of presentation exists, if there is one, and in this case there is one. The consensus is to refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as “Christian” (or “Christian religion” for Jeffro77’s sake).

An encyclopedic work can appropriately apply declaratory usage that a religion is “Christian” when this presentation represents a consensus in the body of world knowledge. Until now, we do not find a consensus in the body of world knowledge declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as “Christian”.

The biblical test for Peter, James and John is strictly an internal biblical one. That is, if one accepts the Bible as true and the Bible presents Peter, James and John as Christian then from the internal perspective of the Bible we can say Peter, James and John were Christians. But all this is a question of theology and interpretation. Wikipedia is not a theological work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic work. The test for an encyclopedic work is as simple as learning what is the consensus presentation in the body of world knowledge. An encyclopedic work is to be as objective as possible, which means reducing subjectivity as much as possible. Objectivity is to share information that can be verified by weight of evidence.

I agree my choice of words you inquire about is less than stellar. Accordingly your inquiry is understood, appropriate and appreciated. It is unremarkable that matters such as this must have further explanation. Indeed, this is one of the purposes of vetting protocol. In this case, I presented the information to get feedback precisely to flesh out the discussion and clarify whatever needed clarifying. This is your request, and it is appreciated.

When I wrote that a source "Does not declare or depict religious disposition" and later that “14 articles do not declare or depict the religion as Christian” my remarks were to express that though these authors wrote about the religious population of Jehovah’s Witnesses and though these authors depicted the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses (to various extents), none of these applied declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion is Christian. The consensus of presentation is what I was speaking of. The consensus was to refrain from declaratory language of religious disposition. These authors offered beliefs of the religion but did not declare the religion as Christian, or otherwise label it.

Specifically, you wrote, “But for you to say they don't depict or declare religious disposition and then say that by not saying anything what they were really saying is that they disagree that JW's are Christian is not supportable by the evidence as you yourself presented it.” Get this straight, please. I have NOT asserted these authors disagreed that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Editors here, you among them, have repeatedly and fallaciously concluded this of me. To say these authors do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian is not to say these authors disagree Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. When you assert the latter based on the former it represents an argument form known as denying the antecedent; it is fallacious. (Technically your poor argument form looks like this: Declare Christian = Christian, Not Declare Christian, Not Christian)

As found in the literature represented above, the consensus presentation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to refrain from declaring the religion simply as “Christian” or “Christian religion”. You have disputed this, but you have not remotely refuted it.

So I can answer your question, please tell me, precisely what is an ‘expert in assessing Christianity’? Once I have this piece of information then, if need be, I will happily see what is the consensus presentation among these “experts” regarding how to present the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in respect to Christianity, and share this here for all to read.

In answer to your last question, yes. I wrote the article published online by BMJ titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood vs. Justification and Responsibility. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cfrito: I want to point out something about one of the research disclosures on this talk page that may have escaped your notice, or perhaps you failed to see its import.

In the sub-Section on this page titled “Methodical Research of Vetted Sources, Consensus Declaring JWs Christian?” you will find some research from Gale Academic Onefile. As are the other research efforts of mine, this one is methodical. There are differences expressed about this particular research of literature compared to that from EBSCO Host Research Databases, Academic Search Premier (found in the same sub-Section).

The method applied in the Onefile research was to narrow the search focus to material that would tend to declare religious disposition, should there be a consensus in vetted literature to make such a declaration. I noted this narrower focus when I introduced the material sources on December 5, 2007. However, by error of omission I failed to express an applied search parameter to exclude medical journal articles. This was done to address concern about whether articles in medical journals would have a tendency to address a theological position of a religion, and in particular whether such articles would have a tendency to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I had forgotten about this additional research, and only noticed it today because I determined to conduct a new bit of research to do what I described above, and during the process of reviewing results my memory was tickled that the material flow looked awfully familiar. So I went back and found where I had already performed the same search, and where I had published it for other editors to review, test and comment.

That additional research confirmed the consensus demonstrated in the earlier methodically selected material. That is, it demonstrated a consensus in the vetted literature addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses to refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as “Christian” or “Christian religion” (for Jeffro77). I invite that you take a look at that material and comment.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Today I added more methodically searched material from the Onefile database. This material should not be confused with what I refer to above. The researched material spoken above starts with “New search:”. Today’s additional material starts with “Additional search:”. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Of your proposed usage of biblical texts, you write, “I have already given a few examples that are objective measures.” Here is the problem with what you propose: what you have asserted is objective in your eyes, which makes it a POV. There are as many “objective” biblical conclusions of what is Christian as there are religions and individuals claiming Christianity. So what makes your “objective” biblical measure more reliable than all the rest?

Regarding the sources I have cited, it is misleading for you to assert what you do. The context of my stipulation that a source “Does not declare or depict religious disposition” is that the source did not declare the religion as “Christian” or as “Christian sect” or the like. My remark does not suggest the cited sources fail to present the religion, including what it professes of itself. The mistake you make in your assertions on this point is typical of critique from a person who has not bothered to read all the cited material on their own. In short, it is misleading for you to suggest the cited sources were silent. There were not silent, and I have not suggested they were. Indeed, had they been silent on the subject of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses the methodology would have excluded them as sources. Furthermore, what I have expressed about the consensus demonstrated by these sources is nothing new. What I have expressed to you is precisely what I have expressed on multiple occasions since back in the Spring of 2007 when I first engaged the question. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit dispute between Marvin and Wonderpet... Either 'religion' or 'new religious movement' in the article is technically valid. The set, 'religion' includes the sets 'new religious movement' and 'sect'. A Christian new religious movement is inherently Christian, and is therefore a Christian religion, so the view that they cannot be referred to as a 'Christian relgion' is incorrect. However, the most specifically accurate term to describe the religion is 'new religious movement', because it began with a new bible study group started up initially by one person, rather than several persons who left a particular religion at the same time to start their own religion (which would better describe a sect).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The group you allude to was not “started up initially by one person”. Russell was one of several who jointly entered into what was, by all reports, an intense study of the Bible. Russell was not even the first president of Zion’s Watch Tower Society. There are several pieces of information it seems you have no idea of regarding the beginnings of what we know today as Jehovah’s Witnesses. For example, do you know that one member of this group was a woman who was both Russell’s step-mother and sister-in-law, a woman several years younger than his wife, Maria? Do you know the early members of this group? Do you know the influence in this group of Maria and her sister/mother-in-law?

Notwithstanding what, if any, influence the above information has, it remains that the overwhelming consensus in academic presentations of Jehovah’s Witnesses is to refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as Christian, or as “Christian religion”. Overwhelmingly authors restrain personal bias by factually expressing information about the religion in the way of what it professes of itself and various of its doctrines. When these academic sources do make a declaratory statement of the religion the overwhelming consensus is to use “Christian sect”. This is what we find in the literature. Can you supply reasons why a proposed academic work, like Wikipedia, should defy this consensus? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, it is because the word "sect" is perjorative in many contexts, including in reference to JW's in many writings. Finding many sources using the term technically is fine, but that is in science-speak. In regular day-to-day speach, the word is used to diminish a group, similar to how "cult" is used. I've even seen the media use the word "sect" as a code word for "cult" (how's that work?)

Your arguement that because it appears in vetted works means we have to apply it on wiki is equal to finding a ton of works that refer to African Americans as the N-word in the 18th century, so we must use the N-word when defining the group when talking about their 18th history. It is simply inappropriate to use the word "sect" given the social stigma attached to the word. As far as "overwhelmingly authors restrain personal bias by factually expressing information..." goes, that is the conclusion by you based on your own original research, and your original research has been at the heart of my criticisms of your commentary and proposals for quite sometime. You are conducting your own study of what is being said and coming to your own conclusions at to what that study means. I do not agree with your conclusions and consider the facts in your study to actually contradict your conclusions. Since, either way, it does represent original research, I do not see how the point you make on this is valid. There is no need to be declaritive to the degree you desire, and in fact, doing so promotes prejudice, as I have pointed out before.

Also, I regard the over-reliance on vetting works to be a bit comical. I've seen some interesting stuff make it through the review process and get published, including one somewhat recent example that was actually a joke on those within the process to prove the process doesn't work the way people thinks it does. --Fcsuper (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: My strongest recommendation is nowhere found in your remarks. My strongest recommendation is to avoid any declaratory language of the religion and, instead, to express the beliefs of the religion, including that “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess the Christian faith,” or something to that effect. Such a presentation is what we find a consensus for in the vetted literature among the must unbiased sources and authors available. Only as an alternate to this neutral presentation have I accepted declaratory language such as “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian new religious movement” et al. But, again, the neutral presentation, and the presentation that aligns with a supermajority consensus in the literature, is to express the beliefs of the religion without assigning a theological value to the religion by the use of declaratory language.

Use of the word sect is not a neutral presentation in common speak, regardless of professional sources that use the term. It cannot be used here because it is suggestive of something that the responsible professional sources do not mean. Besides that, its even a pejorative term in many professional sources. I don't care if we use a self-declaration if properly stated. We just cannot use the word sect.

On the other hand, I also feel the current wording using "new religious movement" sounds like bad grammar. If this is the agreed upon term, then lets find a good wording. --Fcsuper (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: My recommendation is to offer a neutral presentation. This is my position now, and has been my position for several months. As for the alternate “new religious movement,” if you want to play with the wording, knock yourself out. When you write, “I don't care if we use a self-declaration if properly stated” you mean wording such as “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” or something of the kind where we are presenting the belief of the religion as a belief (which, guess what, is what it actually is!) then you favor my primary recommendation since this is as neutral as it gets.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the search for and sharing of source material I have done is not original research. All it does is exposes editors to a far broader range of source information than had been previously considered. If you don’t believe this just look up the discussion from spring of 2007 and take look-see at the pitiful array of source material that was, at that time, the material of default! I took the time back then, with George’s help, to put the whole bunch of it inline for everyone to see, and then we moved on to much greener pastures of academic rigor. Wikipedia is to present existing information, and to do it in neutral fashion. Wikipedia is not supposed to invent a consensus of presentation when a consensus of presentation already exists in the body of world knowledge. To do so would be to assert original research.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: For sake of clarity I am compelled to add that when it comes to how information is presented, an essential element to Wikipedia policy is to verify with sources that “directly support the information as it is presented.” (Emphasis added) Hence editors are behooved to look for whatever consensus there is of presentation, if there is one, and in this care there is a consensus of presentation. I have repeated this many times over the past many months, but hardly anyone it seems gets the message from a Wikipedia policy perspective. How we present information requires authentication as much as the verity of details of that information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't address my point with this comment regarding original research, though you did give it serious attention. My point is that you do draw your own conclusions from the body of sources you site. You can frame your original research however you want, but at the end of the day, you have conducted your own study by self-concluding what your body of data (the sources view collectively) means. There is no consensus here that agrees with your conclusions or your interpretation of the data in your study. A consensus is required when looking at sources. No one person can stand up and say, "Hey, this is what this data means, and if you don't agree, then you obviously don't know anything," which is how you come off here, and why people are inclined to discount your comments regardless of merit. Truly, if you would actually let the sources speak for themselves, and show a little more respect to others in this discussion board, then this leg of the conversation wouldn't exist because we (all of us) would've moved on other points.

I appreciate the fact that you have access to a wide body of works. I long for the day when we can use your access in a cooperative manner to improve this article. The current contentious environment is exhaustive and produces very very slow progress. --Fcsuper (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, I am mildly in favor of just stating JW's self-declaration as such in the introduction. A problem with the current wording (regardless of terminology we eventually end up with) is that it invites both well-intentioned and mal-intentioned vandalism by people interested in promoting their prejudice over actual facts. I'm of the belief that if we state the self-declaration, it may reduce the well-intentioned vandalism a bit. --Fcsuper (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: I have taken time to search sources on this issue. It is absurd to suggest it original research for me to actually share this research! If other editors want to be taken seriously they need to likewise search sources. I have also done this methodically. This allows other editors to conduct the same exact search, should anyone doubt my word (which some have, and is one reason I did this), or they may wish to examine the material for other purposes. Or, they can do their own search. The advantage of a methodical search is that is removes the possibility of selectively searching, which only reinforces bias. To be sure, I have pointed out that editors should not simply defer to my presentation. I have recommended that editors actually read the material for themselves. I can show where the water is, but I am unable to make anyone drink.

You are wrong about a current lack of consensus among editors. This was achieved by use of either the phrase “new religions movement” or “sect”. I recommend that you read further down the page, and you’ll find it. I documented it for future reference.

Fcsuper, I do not really care what you think about how I ‘come off’. Why should I? Why should anyone? What any editor asserts is either true or false. Readers and researchers of this article do not care one iota about the personalities who put together the material. If you are not already aware of this, you should get to know it. On the other hand, I want you to always feel free to share your opinion of me with me, or you can broadcast it to the world. I matters not to me. I suggest that you cease focusing on personalities and, instead, focus on the work at hand. No one cares what you think of me, including me.

As for self-declaration, I tried this months ago and editors nearly passed a brick. This reaction demonstrated to me a serious lack of neutrality among editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the study group Jeffro77 alludes to, in the words of Charles Taze Russell:

“I soon began to see that we are living somewhere near the close of the Gospel Age and near the time when the Lord declared that the wise, the watching ones of His children, should understand—come to a clear knowledge of His Plan. At this time, myself and a few other truth-seekers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, formed a class for the Bible study and from 1870 to 1875 was a time of constant growth in grace and love of God and His Word. We came to see something of the love of god, how He had made provision for all mankind; how all must be awakened from the tomb in order that God’s loving plan might be testified to them; and how all who exercise faith in Christ’s Redemption Work and render obedience in harmony with the knowledge of God’s will which they will then receive, shall, through Christ’s merit, be brought into full harmony with God, and be granted everlasting life. This we saw to be Restitution Work foretold in Acts 3:21.” (Zion’s Watch Tower, Extra Edition dated April 25, 1894, p. 95)-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

To everyone, Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian. A Christian is a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and who puts their faith in him as the true son of God and the saviour of mankind. A Christian gathers their faith from the teachings of the Bible, of which exist numerous versions. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. It seems that to many, to be Christian summounts to celebrating Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.70.222 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)