User talk:Jesse Jaimes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am Jesse James Shoot Back 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

welcome to my talk page, Please feel free to express yourself here, within wikipedia standards of course.

[edit] Hello

Thanks for your recent edits on the JW article. Understandably the article is subject to significant bias from various directions. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not intended to defend, only to inform. Nor is it a preaching platform. Calling people 'worldly' and making broad statements about everyone hating a particular religion is not appropriate. If you notice something inappropriate in an article, go ahead and change it, but please refer to the Wikipedia policy regarding assuming 'good faith'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I meant the Talk page. Just a word of advice, because it's a very easy way to get other editors offside. Though it shouldn't make a difference, it can make it much harder to get consensus on points if you've previously alienated yourself by belittling other editors with such comments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libel

No, I most certainly did not. Of the remark in question, I said, "The comment by 193.220.102.253 was unnecessary." I then added, in response to 70.244.81.60 (who said, "then why are you here?"), that the editor has the right to edit Wikipedia articles. Be careful of the accusations you make.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'here' is indeed Wikipedia. The second user suggested the other editor should not edit articles about JW if they don't agree with JW beliefs. That was the problem I was replying to in defending their right to edit. I also stated that the comment by the first user was inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-JW?

It's interesting that you've chosen to say in your version of the article that Jehovah's Witnesses merely "self identifies" as Christian. That seems counter to someone who is concerned that the article was biased against JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro I have watched the article for over a year, "self-Identifies as Christian" is as close as one can get to neutral on the subject. My personal beliefs aside, self identification as Christian is truthful, accurate and cannot be disputed whatsoever. I think it is a good wording. What are your thoughts?Jesse Jaimes (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My immediate reaction, based on this choice of wording, was that you may be a sockpuppet of Marvin Shilmer. But more broadly, the use of "self-identifies as Christian" is biased against JWs as the religion is inherently Christian by any secular measure of the word.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. The sockpuppet theory was only my immediate reaction, but one I decided against after reading through some of your other changes to your copy of the article. I do agree that the main article is excessively long. I don't agree that only JWs would agree that JWs are a Christian religion. Any theologically unbiased source aware of JW beliefs would have to acknowledge that JW is a Christian religion, because their beliefs cannot be separated from fundamental Christian belief based on their interpretation of the scriptures, just as is done by every other Christian religion. (Whether they are right is also completely irrelevant as to their identification as Christian.) The theological interpretations of other Christian religions cannot be used as a yardstick for determining the Christianity of another religion. From the research Shilmer did (and despite his conclusions with which I disagree), no purely secular source is actually prepared to say that JWs are not a Christian religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77 and for sake of Jesse James: Since my name is invoked, and since my research and presentation of sources is invoked, just to set the record straight (once again):
1) No research in secular sources I have done has led me to conclude that secular sources say Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. On this point we, apparently, see eye-to-eye.
2) No consensus of secular sources at my disposal (which is extensive) suggests Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. On this point we, apparently, see eye-to-eye.
3) Alternately, no consensus of secular sources at my disposal is willing to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. On this point, I have offered a mountain load of evidence demonstrating this lack of declaratory language. If you disagree, I have yet to see any substantiating evidence beyond your own opinion, if in fact it is your opinion that secular sources do declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Marvin, your research indicated that some sources say they are Christian. It also indicated that biased sources say they are not Christian. Of the majority of sources that did not make a determination, most of those were medical articles, chiefly dealing with blood - in those articles, declaration of (non)Christian is incidental to the purpose of the article, and the absense of such a declaration is not relevant due to the context of those articles. The consensus of your research is improperly weighted toward an argument from silence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77: Yes. And some sources call JWs other things, including non-Christian. So what? None of these presentations came even close to a consensus as a presentation. On the other hand, of sources that refrained from declaring the religion as Christian (or non-Christian) we not only found a majority presentation, we found a supermajority presentation. This is next to the highest order of consensus, outdone only by 100 percent unanimity. Your remarks above focus on only a single methodological search that was performed and shared by me. It fails to account for all the other search methods that contained the problem(s) you cite. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeffro77: The remarks you make above are not new for you. On this archived page you make similar, if not identical remarks. Each is refuted. In that discussion your means of assigning weight was notably skewed.
On the above referenced archived page you wrote, “As previously stated, many of the sources are medical ones, which do not necessarily state the religion's disposition, as religious persuasion is not directly relevant to providing medical care (beyond the refusal to accept blood transfusions), though some medical sources may mention it at their discretion.” That statement was false then and it is false now. The very search results your remark was aligned with disputes your statement.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I and other editors previously explained why your conclusions were improperly weighted. Your opinion that my statement was or is false is irrelevant, because you are biased in favour of your own conclusions. Jesse's talk page is not the place to continue this pointless discussion, and I have no intention of continuing it elsewhere. As usual you will likely want the last word, so go right ahead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing the 'Christian Series' template would definitely be inappropriate. (This comment relates to Jesse's comment on my talk page and does not relate to Marvin's comment.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your JW Project Work

Jesse Jaimes:

1) I agree with you that the main JW article has become too large and should be pared down.

2) I agree that stating JWs profess Christianity is as objective as it gets. It is easily verifiable and does not run counter to any consensus presentation from secondary sources I am aware of. This is my first choice of how to depict the religious disposition of the religion. A historical objection to this objective presentation is that it is not applied uniformly of all religions, or even of all new religious groups. There are bases for this discrepancy, but in my experience it is difficult for quite a few Wikipedia editors to understand them, with a result that these object on a basis of POV rather than substantive merit.

3) I agree that “saying JWs are Christian” is to stage a war. The reasons are multiple. Among mainstream Christianity JWs are seen more as freaks and are not generally recognized as Christian. Of course this larger community holds an understandable bias. Among secular writings we seldom see JWs declared as Christian, which sets a considerable consensus against using the declaratory “JWs are Christian” language.

4) Though the expression “new religious movement” is not my first choice, it is an alternate depiction I was comfortable with because it has support in the literature. Also, I read your statement that “[You] know what wording will work in that sentence and "new religious movement" is not it since Christianity is not new.” The term “new religious movement” as applied by sociologists (this is where the term comes from) is not used in relation to Christianity. Rather, the term is used of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other religions that have cropped up fairly recently in human history.

5) I have read the rumors, and the complaints. But my only “crusade” is to present verifiable information within the boundaries of relevance and due weight. I believe you will find it difficult to find an occasion where I resisted an inclusion of information that has withstood the heat of critical review. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mister Shilmer, "new religious movement" does not work for the same reason that simply declaring JW's as christian will not work. The crusade I mentioned is in reference to the large amount of information which you have presented showing that Jehovah's Witnesses are not popularly considered christian among the community of experts. So I am writing my version of the article to be as neutral and honest and accurate as humanly possible. I welcome your visits and your input. Thank you for stopping by to comment. Jesse Jaimes (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesse James: The difference between the declaration of JWs as “a new religious movement” compared to “Christian” is that it is unusual to find a secondary source declaring JWs as “Christian” but common to find one declaring JWs as “a new religious movement”. The reason one of these stands a better chance of surviving edit warring is precisely because it finds fairly sturdy support in secular secondary sources. Does your research find something different?

I do not believe I have demonstrated the “community of experts” does not consider JWs Christian. I believe I have demonstrated that in vetted presentations we do not find JWs typically declared as Christian but, instead, we find an overwhelming consensus among articles in vetted presentations to refrain from declaring JWs as Christian. This may seem like hair splitting, but careful readers understand authors of vetted articles do not always assert their own subjective conclusions because they prefer to maintain at least an air of objectivity, if not objectivity itself. In other words, these authors want to be taken seriously. Hence, it may well be (and probably is the case) that among these authors we would find those who have refrained from declaring JWs as Christian though personally they accept that JWs are Christian, and vice-versa. I want to reiterate that without a doubt you are correct that presenting JWs as professing Christianity is as objective a statement as can be made.

I will take some time to watch your progress in re-working the JW article. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jessie Jaimes: By the way, like you are recommending now, I too have attempted to edit the JW article to present JWs as self-identifying (professing) as Christian. It lasted a couple of days, as I recall. Hence, I fear the presentation is no more war resistant than other attempts to stabilize the article, but we can always hope. In the end editors should be able to agree based on presentations from secondary sources, and in the case of differences in secondary sources agreement should be based on whatever is the consensus presentation found in secondary sources. If nothing else, at least the latter can stand the heat of intense debate. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mister Shilmer, I suggest "self identifies as Christian" because it is not debatable. "New Religious movement" is debatable, "Christian" is debatable, as we are well aware. Your beliefs and mine aside (debatable), the secular research aside (debatable), self identifies as Christian is not debatable. This is, after all, not a group of scholars publishing an encyclopedia, this is "Wikipedia The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit", so we'll have to compromise a bit. You could line up all the worlds experts with all their opinions of Jehovah's Witnesses on one side and all the Jehovah's Witnesses on the other and NEVER de-polarize the issue. JW's don't believe their religion is anything other than Christianity, which is not a "new movement". And there is no shortage of people who think JW's are the opposite of christian. So, "self identifies"? Jesse Jaimes (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jessie Jaimes: As I said, I agree with you that “self identifies as Christian” is indubitable! The problem is, this has not in the least inhibited other editors from complaining about it at the top of their lungs. I tried this presentation months ago. It was rejected faster than I can type, which is pretty fast.

As for your comments about Wikipedia editors, if we are not to strive for excellence in presentation and information then what are we here for? If we are not here to share what is found in the world knowledge base of reliable knowledge, then what are we here for? The depolarizing influence is the inevitable biases we all hold that is, here, left uninhibited because editors have no fear of academic and professional ruination. Where academic authors take care to avoid publishing material that would bring disrepute upon them, editors here are willing to assert preferences rather than methodologically derived information from reputable sources appropriately weighed by recognized and testable methods. In other words, many editors here do not care if they say and assert kooky things, but reputable sources tend to avoid this for understandable reasons. My own experience is that many editors here do not even recognize kookiness when they say it, or read it. But this should not dissuade editors from the goal of excellence.

The expression “new religious movement/group” is not used of Christianity. It is used of relatively newly organized religious groups. A group can believe whatever it wants of itself, and still be new in this respect. There is little, if any, dispute among learned academics that Jehovah’s Witnesses are properly termed a new religious group. I wish you well in your effort. I felt the same as you, many discussions ago. If you stick with this topic for more than a few months, you will find the same as I have. The camp of editors who just have to make declaratory statements that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are…” is practically impossible to persuade with reputable source material. It is like herding cats. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing JW article

I reverted your major edit because it combines changes to content, as well removal of a lot of content. Doing so in the same edit makes it quite difficult to compare the changes that have been made. It would be helpful if you made the deletions as a separate edit to the paragraphs you are changing. Each may require discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)