Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

NPOV

This tittle is Words to avoid obviously. 118.111.5.64 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Any response? I think the claim that the title of the page is unacceptable because it uses the word "controversies" is spurious. The style guideline at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Controversy and scandal is clearly talking about its use in sentences that might read, "the society's second president, the controversial Joseph Rutherford ..." etc. The article clearly focuses on accusations against the doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses by opponents and academics and I don't see this as being aimed at discrediting the religion or belittling it. It's not a cheap shot, but a fair article and well sourced. Are we safe to delete the POV tag? Discussion please. LTSally (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is is safe. The article should not be renamed or deleted for the sake of whitewashing the subject material. --Sungmanitu (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No further discussion since March 27. Tag removed. LTSally (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

UN

Fathermore, this article is't reflected the current views of Jehovah's Witnesess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.244.100.232 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your NPOV tag pending a proper explanation of your concerns about what you perceive as a lack neutrality. LTSally (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly,"Biblical controversies" and "United Nations' Department of Public Information association" are biased to Critics Viewes. "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's registration as a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the UN Department of Public Information" is not political but for missionaries. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Two citations have already been provided to explain why the WTS maintained its UN affiliation. Neither supports your claim. If you have information from a reliable source that supports your explanation, please add it. At the moment that section of the article simply states the issue: (1) the WTS has historically expressed strong views against the UN, claiming it is an abominable anti-religious agent that God will annihilate at Armageddon (2) the WTS was accused of hypocrisy after its voluntary association with the UN was revealed in a newspaper and (3) it terminated its association and provided an explanation. Both sides of the controversy have been covered, meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV. LTSally (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think (1) is misunderstanding by critics' advertisement. Certainly, WTS publications express the UN as a wild beast of Revelation or "an abominable anti-religious agent", but this is only Jehovah and His Christ's view. They also explain that JW themselves shouldn't regard the UN as a wild beast, but a superior authority. JW believe that it is not wrong that they use a superior authority for their mission.

About (2), I don't see the newspaper the UN was revealed, because I live in Japan, but I guess that UN was revealed JW as political collaborators, and JW only denied it. 119.244.100.232 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The assertion of User talk:119.244.100.232 is correct in that JWs do view and for decades have viewed the United Nations as among the "superior authorities" to which they owe relative subjection.

• "Subjection to “Superior Authorities”—Why?", The Watchtower, November 15, 1962, pages 688-689, "British-American dual world power, and the League of Nations and the United Nations. (Rev. 13:1 to 19:20) Jehovah God also foretold the destruction of these “superior authorities” in the “war of the great day of God the Almighty.”
• "A World Without War—When?", The Watchtower, October 1, 1995, page 7, "Watchtower magazine has identified the wild beasts of Revelation chapters 13 and 17 with today’s worldly governments. This includes the United Nations, which is depicted in Revelation chapter 17 as a scarlet-colored beast with seven heads and ten horns. However, this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials. The Bible clearly states: “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities [...]”—Romans 13:1, 2. Accordingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses [...] recognize that some form of government is necessary to maintain law and order in human society.—Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1. Jehovah’s Witnesses view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world. They acknowledge that the United Nations continues to exist by God’s permission. In harmony with the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses render due respect to all governments and obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God."

As User talk:119.244.100.232 implies, JW ideas about the UN's true origins and eventuality have never implied that JWs should avoid services provided by UN agencies as though they were especially worse than services provided by other governmental agencies. While it did not always do so, this article's current section on the matter does explain that; IMHO, it is not well explained in the "main article" at Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations. As User talk:119.244.100.232 implies, a typical JW who is familiar with his religion's own doctrines would likely be untroubled at the use of UN services by fellow worshippers, such as Witness missionaries in foreign assignments. The so-called "controversy" discussed in this article and in an entire single-purpose article (referred to above) was about a 2001 incident exhaustively discussed here (a website seemingly sympathetic to JWs).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Blood Parts

That may be so, but that's the Witnesses' religious structure. Every religion gets their doctrinal instructions from some source. But the reason's you've changed them doesn't reflect neutrality, it reflects, and suggests support of, another controversy surrounding them. Hardly NPOV —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the "point of view" or new controversy you say I'm injecting. I have changed the sentence that claimed Jehovah's Witnesses feel that accepting blood fractions is a conscience issue to the more accurate, verifiable statement that they are told by the Watch Tower Society it is a conscience issue. The Watch Tower Society, or more accurately the Governing Body, is the body that decides the issues over which members of the religion are allowed to exercise their conscience. This has changed over the years ... what is a matter of decree one year is a matter of conscience the next, and Witnesses are expected to obey that, regardless of what they "feel". I thought we'd addressed that issue, with some agreement, last December at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Jehovah's Witnesses believe ... LTSally (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought we did, too. The article should point to what the religion officially teaches. "They are told" is just more way to suggest "they are taught one thing, and they do another", which is part of another controversy. No more appropriate would it be to say "Catholics are told that abortion is a sin" or "Muslims are told they shouldn't eat pork". It just doesn't sound encyclopedic, but it does sound like it's pushing the criticisms about authoritarian control, whether that was the intention or not. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly pushing criticisms about authoritarian control, but I'm certainly acknowledging their authoritarian stance. If we can find some middle ground along the line of the position the Watchwower takes on the specific issue, I'm happy. I just hate any bald statement that Witnesses believe this or that. As I said months ago, it's much better to focus on the teaching than the assumed belief. LTSally (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that not all Witnesses agree with the Society's stance on blood transfusions would render any universal statement on how JW's "feel" false.--Sungmanitu (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed "they're told' to 'they believe'. I hope that makes every one happy.

         Maneatinglemon 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with your change, and I'm not sure you read or understood the discussion above. You have changed the wording back to almost what it was initially. I have changed it again, hopefully removing any wording that would provoke objection. I have also left a message on your talk page regarding your customized signature. LTSally (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And Jeffro77 changed it back. Are we edit warring here? This phrasing "Jehovah's Witnesses are told" just doesn't seem neutral. Again, what religious group isn't "told" what its followers are supposed to believe? This whole insinuation that they believe one thing and think another is fine for the criticism that addresses it. But it shouldn't shape the terminology and tone of the whole article, even if just in part. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And if I might add another point, I noticed that the rationale being used here is that since Jehovah's Witnesses change their teachings frequently, compared to other faiths, that "they believe" is inappropriate. Why does frequent change in doctrinal minutia disqualify the followers of such a religious group from "believing" in their faith anymore then any other religious group who might change more slowly over a longer period of time? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the more neutral line, given the above dispute, is what I last wrote, "For Jehovah's Witnesses, the acceptance of blood fractions from donated blood is a matter of conscience ... ". That's accurate and shouldn't cause offence. (Nor, Jeffro, is it JW-speak). Jedi Master, I think you're being overly sensitive in suggesting that I'm implying Witnesses "are taught one thing, and they do another". That wasn't my intention and I don't think most readers would gain that inference. I simply want the article to focus on the official teaching rather than the unverifiable generalization that all Witnesses believe this or that. And on a matter as hardline to the Watch Tower Society as blood transfusions, it was reasonable, I initially suggested, to say that Witnesses are told what practices within medical treatment are left to their conscience. But for the sake of peace, I'm happy to change it it to the sentence above.

Unlike in society at large, where anything may or may not upset a person's conscience, and that thing may or not be offensive to society in general, JWs are told what things are "conscience matters", as opposed to other things that might not sit well with a JWs actual personal conscience, but they just 'must' accept as 'truth'. 'Conscience matter' in such a context is indeed pure JW jargon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Two other points: Firstly, my knowledge of the Anglican, Catholic and Baptist churches, for example, may not be great, but I'm certainly not aware of members of those religions being told – at risk of being excommunicated – what they must believe. Birth control and abortion may be the one exception in the Catholic Church, but given the extent of Watch Tower Society rules, Jehovah's Witnesses are quite unusual in the degree to which they allow their Governing Body to become so involved in their everyday lives. Secondly, the fact that the Governing Body has made numerous changes to its stance on blood transfusions, and at a pace and subtlety that often leaves Witnesses confused about what is and isn't acceptable, makes it particularly inappropriate to say baldly what Witnesses "believe" on this issue. Without a Kingdom Ministry or Watchtower in front of them, a survey of 100 Witnesses chosen at random on whether they would accept or reject an infusion of certain blood components would produce a good range of opinions. What would you say then about what Witnesses "believe"? The fact is the WTS instructs that they are allowed to make a decision themselves on this specific issue, and in an encyclopedia nothing could be clearer than that. LTSally (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest it was your intention to be non-neutral, LT, just the inference in your choice of words came across that way. I would argue that the changes in the stance on blood transfusions has been fundamentally the same for a very long time, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make here. What I want to push here is as much neutrality as possible, and some of the tone in these articles seems to want to suggest there's a incongruity between what they believe and what it taught. I don't feel that's our place to suppose, unless pointing it out as a common criticism. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

True LTSally, if you asked Witnesses whether they would accept certain blood fractions their answers would be varied. But that's why I said it was a 'matter of conscience'. The answers would be varied because the acceptance of those blood fractions was up to the individual. The Witnesses believe it's a matter of conscience whether or on to accept some treatments. I didn't mean to suggest all Witnesses believe a certain way about all fractions of blood. Sorry if it came accross that way.

As for 'they are told' being more appropriate then 'they believe', 'they're told' just seemed slightly biased, like they were being lied to. And, admittedly, 'they feel' seems slightly biased in the other direction. 'They believe' is true, (for if they didn't believe what the were being 'told' I don't think they would be a Witness) with out leaning either way.

Also, thanks for the heads up about my signature. I didn't realize part of the code wasn't working. I changed it back to the default, and I'll wait to change it when I have time to make sure the code is working properly. Thanks again.

                       Maneatinglemon 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

The external links section should include links to reliable sites that discuss current, notable controversial issues about JWs. The section shouldn't contain links to general JW forums or other sites that discuss JWs in a general way. It should not promote videos that have not been authorised by the copyright owner. As with the article itself, the links should not give undue weight to non-current controversies. Nor should it contain sites that are merely anti-JW that have no evidence of being accurate or reliable, such as personal web pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem

I was browsing Wikipedia, and I came across this article. I am a Jehovah's Witness myself, and I was ever so slightly offended when reading this.--94.192.95.176 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Witnesses accustomed to reading only the self-congralutory publications of the Watch Tower Society may be surprised to find the extent of criticism and controversy of their religion by external, reliable sources. Your "problem", however, seems to be that you were offended. The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article. Feel free to do so, otherwise you may wish to find another forum to discuss your feelings. LTSally (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

POV tag 2009-09

I saw the POV tag and don't necessarily disagree. However, a POV tag needs to be explained here on Talk so that others can work to remove bonafide POV (otherwise, they will just remove the tag, and rightly so). --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the POV tag is continuously added without explanation. Some discussion appears above, but only discusses points (which are already addressed in the article itself). The tag should be removed now, and immediately again if it is added again, unless some explanation for it can be made by those adding it. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 15:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-title to "Criticisms regarding JW"?

I was recently editing Criticism of Mormonism, an old article. And a new editor suggested re-naming it to "Controversies about Mormonism". I replied and pointed out that most articles that criticize religions have titles that start with "Criticism of .." as in:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church

• Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses
• Controversies about Opus Dei
• Scientology controversy

But you notice that the latter three use "Controversy" in their title.

My question is: Would it help this encyclopedia if all these articles started with "Criticism of ...", specifically starting with _this_ article? (by the way, Im new to this article, so if re-titling has been discussed before, I apologize).

But conistency is not the only benefit: I would offer:

A controversy is a debate, usually public, that may be postive or negative.

A criticism is a negative statement by a notable individual or group.

Virtually all the topics in all the above religion articles are criticisms.

The words critic / criticise / criticism appear about 20 times in this article. Here are some examples of criticisms in this article that appear not to be controversies:

• Some of the wordings in the JW bible translation are not accurate
• Some of the founder's predictions did not come true
• There is a contradiction in policy because blood transufsions are prohibited but breast-feeding is not
• The religion puts pressure on all members to conform to its teachings

In summary, I propose changing the title of this article to "Criticisms of the Jehovah's Witnesses". For two reasons:

• 1) the word "criticism.." more accurately represents the contents

and

• 2) the title would be more consistent with other similar articles.

Any feedback is appreciated, especially if there any suggestions on whether I should put this request on Wikipedia:Requested moves to get more input.

PS: I posted a similar inquiry on the Scientology controversy Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. "Criticism" is a more accurate and focused description of the contents. It also helps reach consistency within Wikipedia articles. The word "controversy" is defined as a dispute, debate or contention, and not all the issues contained in the article are the subject of debate as such ... critics make the claim, but Witnesses often choose not to respond. LTSally (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any more responses? If I don't hear any more in a day or two, I may just do the re-name without going through Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Noleander (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No complaints here. Proposed title is consistent with similarly themed articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I used "Move" to do the rename. Please let me know if anything went wrong. If the new title "Criticsim of JW" sounds like it is talking about criticisms of _individual_ church members, perhaps it could become "Criticism of JW faith" or "Criticism of JW religion" or "Criticism of JW organization". Let me know if you think we should pursue any of the latter, otherwise I'm leaving it alone. --Noleander (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Though there is some ambiguity caused by the group's name, I think it should be fine. In any case, the same implication (about individual JWs) could have been made about the previous title too. The new name is consistent with other similar articles, so I would prefer to keep it as it now is rather than add extra qualifiers unless it becomes obvious that there is broad confusion about the article's purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the subheading in the article should be similarly addressed. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 15:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Abuse

Can someone add information about the Organization's handling of domestic abuse to this? I don't trust myself to be NPOV here.Dysperdis (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article relies on reliable published sources. I've yet to read anything in books or newspapers that deals with this issue or indicates that it something that is widespread. LTSally (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The book "Wolves Among Sheep," which is listed in the article, deals with one such situation. In this article on the killer's parole hearing, he "told the parole board he pressured and manipulated Jehovah authority figures to convince his wife that she was "scripturally obligated" to take him back." [1] The victims in this case were my aunt and cousins, which is why I'm reluctant to write about this myself.

I've read more than a few other stories of abuse cases which were mishandled by elders-- this [2] is one such case. Unfortunately, I lost the links I had saved when my other laptop died.Dysperdis (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)