Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 30

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 External links 2 External Links - www.jw.org

External links

While doing Recent Change Patrol I noticed that a number of the external links here do not belong in this project for one reason or another. This is just a headsup that I will be removing them and this provides a place for discussion. --Alfadog 15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alfadog: Which external links do you have in mind? Recently several relevant external links have been removed and I reinstated them. Can you please clarify your intentions? -- Marvin Shilmer 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main intention is that this project not be misused to push agendas. The main references is WP:SOAP. That means that we do not insert external links such as those in the article unless they are notable, i.e. the sites have received some press coverage. See WP:EL and WP:NPOV. That said, I have reviewed the links you inserted and they do seem to be notable within the community and silentlambs, at least, has some press coverage. So, I will not dispute them although another might. On the video link I removed, after looking at it, it is possibly not WP:COPYVIO but seems a dated, non-notable, self-published, "talking head" video that does not need to be promoted by this project. Unless you can show the video is in any way notable then it should stay out as should my home movies. Best wishes and carry on! --Alfadog 16:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you just added some links that have not been discussed on the Talk Page. We've had this request (not visible until someone tries to edit) that asks:

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

I removed the Silent Lambs site yesterday as it had creeped in recently without discussion. I see you've readded that along with the Associated JWs for the Reform on Blood. It's been customary for editors to discuss what to include in the external links section before adding these links. Also, are you connected to the Reform on Blood site? Dtbrown 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbtrown: It is "customary" for Wiki editors to participate in good faith with evidence offered. You have avoided this interaction when pursuit of the evidence runs contrary to your bias. Now suddenly, as an editor, you ask for interaction you were unwilling to have with me above. Why am I not surprised?

The links to Silentlambs and Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood are links to sites who speak in behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses who cannot speak out for themselves without facing the consequence of extreme organized shunning at the hands of Watchtower appointed officials. By removing these links you are disenfranchising these Jehovah's Witnesses. The sites are loaded with public media, academic articles and news items that address Jehovah's Witnesses. The links are being put back. If you feel these do not belong then feel free to express yourself. Unlike you, you will find me more than willing to interact to whatever evidence you put forth. In detail. -- Marvin Shilmer 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Oh, and in response to your question of my person, as though the answer is any of your business, the answer is No.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, as you've said the logs speak for themselves. I believe the logs show that I have interacted with your "evidence." You are free to express yourself to the contrary if you wish. The reason I asked about your connection with AJWRB is because this site [1] contained a post from you where you answered a question re: a statement in their newsletter. You stated: "By the way, researchers with AJWRB have taken the precaution of speaking directly with administrators at the WTS working in its Hospital Information Services department in Brooklyn, NY. These administrators readily acknowledge that accepting transfusion of a hemoglobin therapeutic is up to the individual JW to decide without any threat of religious repercussion from the WTS or local JWs whatsoever. You can call them yourself at 1.718.560.4300." So, I thought you were connected with AJWRB and Wiki rules do not permit the posting of self-promoting links. That is why I asked the question. Evidently, you believe that your view is the only valid view here and the request we've had for external links to be discussed before they are posted is something you don't agree with. Dtbrown 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Indeed, the logs speak for clear, and loud. When the subject and evidence of an existing consensus within the vetted literature was raised by me you avoided any pursuit of it despite my repeated requests. Only you know why. But your actions speak.

As for my remark about researchers at AJWRB, in case it is an alien concept for you I’ll tell you how I learned that bit of information. I asked. Not only what, I took a few of those calls myself, and so did several I know personally in Hospital Information Services. (You figure that one out)

I am more than happy to consider evidence from whomever brings it forth, and it matters not one iota to me whether it happens to agree or disagree with a view I may hold at the time. Honest research begins with a willingness to put evidence ahead of personal bias. If you believe you have some reason why the Silentlambs and AJWRB web sites should not be provided in the article as external links then please state your case. You will find me more than happy to discuss your views. I only hope you are just as willing to interact (in good faith!) if I expend time in response. -- Marvin Shilmer 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Marvin. I'll let others discuss the merits of the inclusion of those sites. Up until now, we've had the policy of removing sites in external links unless a consensus had been reached beforehand to include them. Dtbrown 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtrbown: And, who would “we” be of “we’ve had the policy…”? Neither Wiki policy nor Wiki guidelines have editors seek some special interest group of good ole boys prior to editing. Wiki asks editors to act in good faith and to comply with its written guidelines and policies. Fortunately these are not held hostage by a trio of editors who are better at asserting a special-majority rule rather than taking time to construct a consensus from existing and reputable sources. -- Marvin Shilmer 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, the request was inserted awhile back into the article and was discussed in Talk here [2]. As you stated, it's not set in stone. If everyone agrees, perhaps we should remove the request from the article? Dtbrown 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: The talk discussion you link to is about what I expected to find. You and one other pro-Watchtower editor agreed external links needed some extra policing. Why am I not surprised? The only editing with good odds of standing the test of time is editing that presents as accurately as possible that which is real. If that which is hard-core is soft-peddled then the soft-peddling will not endure. If that which has a consensus is substituted with a special-majority then the special-majority will not endure. The “we’ve had a policy” is laughable. You and mattb had a policy. You and s/he are the “we”. -- Marvin Shilmer 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The request has been in the article all this time. That is what I meant by "policy." There have been other editors who have deleted links based on the request that has been in the article. The request can be removed. Perhaps it should be removed? What do others think? Dtbrown 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I have no problem with the request in the Section. But a request such as this does not place a burden of policy on future editors, and neither does it grant license to other editors to remove links. It is arbitrary to have such a code, not to mention outside Wiki policy and guidelines. Editors concerned with this article are not in a position to determine Wiki policy. -- Marvin Shilmer 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen: In the overall discussion of "policy" about external links, I agree with Marvin that two editors cannot create a policy for an article. I would offer an alternative model, namely that of WP:BRD. If someone inserts a link that you object to, then revert the insertion and offer an explanation of your objection on the Talk Page along with a good faith invitation to discuss the merits of inserting that link.

As for the two specific links inserted, Silentlambs and Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, I would offer the opinion, based solely on Marvin's description of them and without having actually visited the sites in question, that such specific and polemic sites do not belong in the External Links section of this article but rather in the External Links section of a more specific article such as "JWs and blood" or "Criticism of JWs".

--Richard 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The request was put in by mattb and not by me. I don't really care if it remains or not. It was not an agreement between Matt and myself and some other editors thought it a good idea at the time. I vote to remove the request from the article. Dtbrown 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Regarding Silentlambs and Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, these two web sites are about Jehovah’s Witnesses and for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Anyone else these sites assist is purely an ancillary matter. To remove these sources of information is to silence a great many Jehovah’s Witnesses who the Watchtower organization refuse to document the views of on the Watchtower organization’s own web site. Hence to remove the only voice these Jehovah’s Witnesses have is to disenfranchise a major voice of internal dissent by Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is as you said above, there should be “documentation of all major opinions without giving any of them undue weight”. It is not even hardly undo weight to offer a simple web link to source material documenting major opinions of Jehovah’s Witnesses who disagree with two of the most serious and advertised policy of the Watchtower organization. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I have now visited the two websites in question. If the issue was whether or not to remove those two sites as External Links in every article on JWs, I would agree with what you have written above. However, I see this issue as being more a question of which article is the appropriate place to present the two sites in question. As a general principle, it seems to be the consensus of editors working on other religion articles that links critical of a particular aspect of a religion do not belong on the main article about that religion. (Well, I confess that my experience is limited to working on the Roman Catholic Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints articles. I cannot vouch 100% for this "general principle" across all Wikipedia articles on religions but I suspect you will find me more or less on the money if you test the principle against the actual articles.)

Rightly or wrongly, the underlying rationale is that a religion deserves to be described "as it stands" and "as it presents itself" without the distraction of running critical commentary. This has led to creation of subsidiary articles starting with Criticism of X articles such as Criticism of the Catholic Church. There are those who disagree with the Criticism of X model but these articles have survived at least one AFD so it seems to be the preferred approach for now.

Within the context of the above, I note that there are articles on Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, Controversies regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. These are, in my opinion, more appropriate places to put these links.

--Richard 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Lloyd-Henderson I have removed link to silent lambs dot org, because it does not belong on a page about Jehovah's Witnesses. Please find a more appropriate place for it, perhaps Controversies regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse would be more suitable. Take care Wonderpet (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

External Links - www.jw.org

This new official site was recently made public. It will be used to download Watchtower & Awake! digital downloads (mp3s, I assume). To confirm it is an official site, please visit WHOIS: WHOIS Listing I think this should be added to the external links section. I added it before, but without discussion (sorry). Bluemike 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)