Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

Talk page guidelines

• Please do not make disparaging remarks about individuals who do not agree with you.
• Please do not post long quotes of Jehovah's Witnesses publications here. If long quotes are necessary to support or counter a statement in the JW articles, create a subpage for the issue.

The length of the article - again

Appearently, the section about the history is almost identical with the in depth article. I think that the section would do better if made shorter. Summer Song 08:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The plan was to make the indepth articles longer. That was a project I had planned to start but haven't done as of yet, though I hope to soon. Dtbrown 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

source ?????

"They have been instrumental in establishing religious freedoms in various countries." THis is a vague statement that should only stay in if there are good sources

Introductory paragraphs needn't have sources if the assertations are expounded upon elsewhere in the article on in the article series. In this instance, see Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses for some examples that support this statement. - CobaltBlueTony 14:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not A Christian Denomination

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians and therefore do not classify as a Christian denomination because they do not believe in the Trinity. They do not believe the equality of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. - —This unsigned comment was added by 81.106.138.171 (talk • contribs) .

We should stick to the definition of this resource: see Christian. - CobaltBlueTony 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to start endless edit wars over this. I say let's stick with the original opening sentence which allows the Witnesses their view of themselves but does not require sourcing conflicting interpretations of word meanings. Dtbrown 16:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I think some random person simply had a beef and felt the need to express their opinion. - CobaltBlueTony 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though people think that Jehovah's Witnesses are not christians, we need to examine the core beliefs that are held by christians all around. While they don't worship the trinity, they do believe in the three core components of it. I was a Jehovah's Witness and can provide much insight on the matter. The Trinity belief is that the father, the son, and the holy ghost are all one essence. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is a father (Jehovah) and there exists the Son (Jesus) who was the first being ever to be created by Jehovah; he is a seperate entity. There is also Jehovah's 'active force' which he uses to enact his will. It is not him but what he uses, say as a tool, to help people. All people must remember too that all of their beliefs are still based on a version of the actual bible even though it is 'modified'. They still maintain the beliefs that all christians do and in some cases are better at it than others. They may be annoying but they are still christian. ***Note: Who says that Christians have to believe in the Trinity anyway???

Beliefs and Clarification Within

While I certainly understand the effort to not be repetitive, I would also like to point out there is an ease of reading goal too. For someone who visits the page and overlooks that they are reading the "Beliefs" section it would most likely make the question the entire article's NPOV to read the statement "Jehovah's Witness are the one true religion." It certainly sounded that it was written by someone with that belief, not just someone trying to keep repetition down. I personally think that in order to benefit the greatest numbers of readers (and not have them dismiss the article) the clarification that is it their belief be left within that sentence. I did not notice anywhere else that clarification was needed. JayM 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate what you're saying. This is a difficult question in my opinion. For instance the opening line "The entire Protestant canon of scripture as the inspired, inerrant word of God." could be seen as pov. Should it not read, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe the entire Protestant canon of scripture as the inspired, inerrant word of God."? If one were to do that, you would have to jam qualifiers everywhere. I wanted a solution which would avoid repeating one's self over and over again. Should we really be concerned about the pov opinion of readers who don't read at least that section sequentially? Readability concerns are valid, and I admit that one sentence does read awkwardly. Any ideas? joshbuddy 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An addendum, looking at other belief sections, many have used the first sentence of each piece to say "such-and-such believe..." I think this is reasonable. Someone feel like altering the first sentence of each section to reflect that? (If everyone likes the idea) joshbuddy 16:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way to go. For whatever reason it was just that one particular statement that felt antagonistic to someone else reading the article. For some reason I did not feel that another person would be put off by the other statements as much as the one true religion statement. Hrmph. If others agree in adding the "JW's believe" opening statement, then I can do it if no one else wants to. But I'm also good on just leaving the belief qualifier in there for only the one true religion statement. JayM 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Its interesting that that one statements provokes such a visceral reaction. I think it would be arbitrary if we left the qualifier in on that one statement, but left it off everywhere else. I think either the qualifier needs to removed and the preamble for beliefs expanded, or it needs to be added everywhere. joshbuddy 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Btw, do you like the new beliefs section? It took me awhile to do, haven't really heard if anyone likes it or not. joshbuddy 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks accurate and good to me, I appreciated the presentation quite a bit. It has been a while though, while I was raised as a JW and was bapitized in '94, I've since changed my mind on religion and am now much more Zen in my approach to life. If no one else has a comment, then I'd say removal of the qualifier for the one statement and an expansion of the starting Beliefs section would be a very good thing. JayM 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say to that, go nuts. I look forward to seeing your change. joshbuddy 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That edit looks just perfect to me! Thanks for the conversation and agreement! JayM 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I talked to a couple of admins in irc, and they suggested something along these lines. Seperate out the critical content from the beliefs so that it only reflects JW beliefs. Then create a section called Critical View of Beliefs and Practices, and add in that data. They felt the disclaimer was unneeded as the context make it clear. joshbuddy 21:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Whether the disclaimer is needed or not I personally feel that it makes the article much more accomodating to the reader. Your choice however, as you are the one interested in maintaining the article. Enjoy yourself and feel free to archive this section, I promise not to poke my nose in your article again. I do thank you for considering someone elses opinion. JayM 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still very willing to consider your opinion on this. I'm hardly married to the current way its done. How would you go about writing the beliefs section in such a way as to not incur too much repetition? Perhaps take a smaller section and re-write it. Hey, if its better, who am I to oppose it? My concern was with having to constantly restate over and over that this is a JW belief. joshbuddy^talk 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that each section that is describing JW beliefs, should be introduced with something along the lines of "JW's believe that..." or "For JW's, ..." If you come up with three or four such variations to rotate, it shouldn't get too tedious. I suggest for each subsection with a heading, because it's possible to link to those sections directly via a link like Jehovah's Witnesses#Beliefs (if I did that right), so one might easily miss the qualifier. Wesley 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Nazi persecution not notable enough for lead in?

I don't understand this? I thought the Nazi persecution was notable enough for mention within the lead-in. It was taken from the governments section. How is it "propaganda"? joshbuddy 16:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. Dtbrown 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on Jews and Homosexuals do not mention Nazis in their introductory paragraphs. While the Nazi mistreatment of Witnesses should indeed feature in the article, it doesn't really belong in the introduction, and its presence there could be seen as a bit propaganda-ish.--Jeffro77 10:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Both Jews and Homosexuals are deeper topics, with far more ground to cover. While I agree it is somewhat propaganda-ish, the lead in is supposed to summarize the article. If you can put in a balancing point or reword it (from the article) then it should be fine. joshbuddy^talk 15:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses is also less known. I think that is one reason it deserves mention in the introduction. Dtbrown 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is unique and notable is that nearly all Witnesses in Germany could have easily escaped the fate assigned to them by Nazi ideology by nominally denouncing their faith -- and not get caught praticing it -- but chose to refuse to compromise in any way. Few others had any chance at all of escaping the Nazi plan. - CobaltBlueTony 17:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that bit of pro-Witness trivia has to do with whether mention of Nazis belongs in the introduction. The lead-in should contain general information about Witnesses, not details about a specific period of time that is not distinctly related to their formation or beliefs.--Jeffro77 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see why this is an issue. It is notable and worthy of inclusion in the introduction, IMO. Dtbrown 05:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

JW and Cult

Someone wants to add the word cult to describe the Witnesses. I don't like the word cult because its very loaded language. There are better more accurate words to describe religious groups such as the witnesses. I think most good sources would avoid the word cult. Anyone else's opinion? joshbuddy^talk 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine the Britannica or some other dead-tree encyclopedia using the word "cult" to describe the JWs. Just because something is sourced (as this guy is doing) does not mean it's acceptable here. Dtbrown 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay Jones Encyclopaedia of Religion pg. 2,084 opens the "Cults and Sects" article by stating:

• "CULTS AND SECTS. The terms cult and sect are regarded as stereotype-loaded terms that are associated with new or unpopular religious movements, and these terms are thus mostly avoided by scholars. They are, however, widely used by the media and by groups (especially so-called anticult groups) that perceive certain new religious movements as objectionable and dangerous. In contemporary English, cult functions as the derogatory word, with sect reserved for less controversial groups."

It further states on pg. 2,085 of the same article (this is the important part):

• "The latest influential sociological statement of the differences between church, sect, and cult was included in The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation (1985) by American sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge. A church is defined (following Troeltsch) as a religious group that accepts, and cooperates with, the dominant social milieu, while a sect is a religious group in a situation of tension or hostility with respect to the social mainstream. However, the same group may be regarded at the same time as a sect in one country and a church in another. A sect is by definition a group that exhibits some degree of deviance while remaining within a tradition perceived as nondeviant in a given society. According to this definition, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a sect because they are perceived as deviant by mainstream Christianity, yet remain within a (heterodox Christian tradition that is not perceived as deviant per se in the West. While sects, though deviant, remain within a nondeviant tradition, cults are perceived as both deviant and as belonging to a deviant tradition."

And here's the section that matters most (same article, sub-heading The Anticult Movement, pg. 2,085):

• THE ANTICULT MOVEMENT. For the anticult movement, the distinction is simple. Religions and churches are joined out of free will. Cults and sects (the distinction between the two being somewhat blurred) use mind control, or “brainwashing,” in order to attract members and keep them within the fold. Although only a tiny minority of academic scholars throughout the world would take this distinction seriously, it has been used in parliamentary reports and laws (particularly in Europe) and is still widely quoted by the news media."

Minority views are an inappropriate source for Wikipedia giving what's known as Undue weight. It can be said: "Witnesses are considered by the Anticult Movement to be a cult." In light of the fact that the Anticult Movement is the minority, and the fact that no independantly established Encyclopaedia catagorizes Witnesses as a "Cult", it shouldn't be allowed. Duffer 09:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Though some Witness behaviour may be viewed by some as bordering on cult-like, it is indeed NOT appropriate to refer to the religion as a cult, as it diminishes the significance of the term. It would be appropriate to refer to the organisation as a sect in the strict sense of the word, but it would not significantly benefit the article, and could imply biased overtones.--Jeffro77 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

jeovah witness should be expelled from wikipedia due to hate against other religions.according to the wikipedia policy not make hateful statements against other people.13:05,25march2006

I don't think the word "cult" is all that great, because of confusion over what is meant. It has a very specific meaning in anthropology; I've heard that in some parts of the world it just means "sect" or even "denomination." "Heretical" seems like a much clearer adjective to describe the perspective of the anticult movement and of trinitarian Christians in general towards nontrinitarian religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Wesley 17:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This issues has been beat to death many times already here on the talk pages. Check the archives and you'll find that the end result is always the same: "Cult" is the religious equivalent of the "N" word. It is academically meaningless, and simply a perjorative term used to incite. Don't use it! --DannyMuse 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary defines a cult as "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

It's pretty extremist to excommunicate people for accepting a blood transfusion for their child who is not old enough to consent to any religious or medical procedures. False? They insist that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC rather than 587, despite the ample evidence against that claim. Authoritarian? You can get excommunicated for airing your doubts about the faith or even associating with people who do so.

If the shoe fits, wear it. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdRedRain (talk • contribs) on 15:19, 11 April, 2006

If I'm allowed to aim an opinion at only one of your points: How can the Jerusalem matter be enough to classify them as a cult? If you look closer into this teaching, or perhaps ask them yourself, I'm positive they'll explain why they put their teaching this way. Also, if one is using such things as arguments, one could ask himself about Christianity and their teaching that everything was created in seven days, despite the ample evidence against that claim, hmm?

Header/FAQ section for talk page?

In light of Josh's retrieval of that rehash discussion, perhaps we could put forth the effort to maintain a permanent section of the consensus of editors for past issues, which would link to specific sections in the archived discussion pages. This way, it would serve as kind of a FAQ for someone who wanted to bring up a point that had already been decided on. They could then read the discussion to determine if their point had already been discussed before deciding to bring it up again. And we certainly wouldn't discourage them from discussing pervious point as tehy may have new ideas or perspectives; we would simply be asking them to review our progress beforehand.

Thoughts?

CobaltBlueTony 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Publishing Languages

The article states that Jehovah's Witnesses publish their literature in 410 languages. There is no citation for this figure, and even with a citation, the figure is still misleading. Not to diminish their publishing efforts, but it should not be implied that all of their literature is available in that number of languages, since many of them are only represented by a very small amount of available literature.--Jeffro77 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps stating that they "publish literature in 410 languages" is less likely to imply what you see, than they "publish their literature," which does kinda suggest the whole body of work, as opposed to selected material. - CobaltBlueTony 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Theologian

In the sentence "Knorr's Vice-President Frederick William Franz became the leading theologian," I have reservations about the usage of the word "theologian." I'm not even sure what it is about its usage here, but something about it rubs me the wrong way. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? - CobaltBlueTony 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly common to use such terminology in secular media. For example, a recent Associated Press article referred to Fred Franz as "chief theologian":

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/27/special_reports/religion/18_25_301_26_06.txt

Cardinal Ratzinger was similarly styled "chief theologian" under John Paul II. Dtbrown 20:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A very common term to describe his function. I can understand from a JW perspective why the word would bother you, but having said that, from a secularist perspective I believe its quite correct. joshbuddy^talk 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for australian government legislation quote needed

The following quote needs a source. Also it seems a consensus on where to put it is needed. "The Jehovah's Witnesses are often at odds with medical and medicolegal doctrine because of their no-transfusion stance. For example, throughout Australia there is legislation allowing for children (those under 18) to receive blood transfusion without the consent of the child or his/her parents, if a doctor considers it to be necessary."

Ansell 07:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That would fit in the section on blood in the critical views of Witness beliefs and practices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Blood_2

The original location was in the section that presented the JW view. Dtbrown 08:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

POV forking

POV forking is not NPOV. Why are criticism section filled with non criticism such as gambling. Why are there nearly three different sections dealing with critics? Why crticism of JW has been forked out to "two" sister articles? Why theological criticism of JW linked to persecution of JW, covertly implying that all critics of JW are invalid or unjust. And where is the section of prophecies made by early JW, which didn't turn out to be true? FWBOarticle

By all means, go ahead and clean up something in the criticisms section that isn't satisfactory. I threw it together very hastily, with the intent it would be refined and expanded. I think both the first section of the article, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses all adequately cover their "false prophesies". joshbuddy^talk 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Naturtrina

Could someone else have a look at the second set of three reverts that this user has made to this page, as well as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Jehovah's Witnesses controversy. They are not with any communication. He simply comes onto the page and reverts to a previous version. Ansell 03:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the gist of what Naturtrina was doing to the lead in text. joshbuddy^talk 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if you have to restore the consensus gist of the first paragraph again, but due to 3RR on New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures the user has been blocked for 24 hrs. So you wont have huge reverts to ancient versions for a little while. Hopefully they will participate here to explain themselves and we can start integrating their ideas into a consensus. Ansell 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone should checkuser the guy, it's likely he is, or is affiliated with, the indefinately banned user:Tommstein or user:Central. Duffer 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that somewhat unlikely. Naturtrina seems to be advocating a more pro-bible student tone in the article. joshbuddy^talk 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are inconsistencies for supporting either assumption regarding the user's motivations/ possible true identity. No need to treat differently than any other POV editor: assist editor to learn to align to NPOV, or continue to revert edits based on NPOV standards as we (meaning you) have been doing. - CobaltBlueTony 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, if 62.128.202.55 is a friend of Naturtinas? Dtbrown 01:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

See [1] for more information about this. Ansell 01:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Love of Wisdom

I for one, am thankful for the information age - when people can look at everything for themselves. There are many parts of Wikipedia that are a little slanted, but this article I believe has been done justice. Media bias is rampant - people with agendas for this and that. I'm truely worried about the time when all this is rewritten by those in control - those rewritting history. Defend history, and words - newspeak of 1984 is everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.153.83.138 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting at least. Ansell 22:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)