Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses a Christian Denomination?

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not a denomination of Christianity. According to Dr. Walter Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults," the sect is considered a cult, and not a denomination of Christianity. Didn't someone research this before making the statement at the top of the article? I would edit the article, but of course, it's locked. Tpkatsa (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A) It's protected because editors like you show up every now and then ranting about the JW's being a cult and changing it, then we have to change it back, and you argue about how it's this and that. It gets old after a while. B) "Dr". Martin's book was written over 50 years ago from an incredibly biased, evangelical viewpoint. His definition of "cult" is "a group of people gathered about a specific person—or person's-misinterpretation of the Bible", of course, the "correct" interpretation of the Bible is his, not exactly an NPOV. JW's are a Christian religious denomination, Christian being a person/religion who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, which they do, even if they have different interpretations of what those teachings mean. Vyselink (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tpkatsa, perhaps you are unaware that the terms 'cult' and 'Christian' are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a group to be a Christian cult. The word 'cult' is ambiguous, and is generally a pejorative term in informal contexts. Wikipedia has quite specific guidelines about contentious labels. Even a sociological description of a group as a "cult" would only be properly sourced to an academic source, and certainly not from a theologian of a competing denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a Christian is not just following the teachings of Jesus Christ, but accepting Him for what he is - Lord, Son of God, the Saviour. He is not a "priest" or whatever JWs say he is. 91.148.89.105 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but we use what reliable sources say about religious groups, not the assertions of an anonymous editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

91.148.89.105-Your ignorance on this matter shows. JW's do in fact believe that Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of mankind, and their Lord that God has put over them. They do not believe he is God, or one of the "three heads of God" i.e. the Trinity. Why don't you do some research before commenting. Vyselink (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And that is exactly why they are not Christians. Christians believe Christ is God, these people don't. That is important. 91.148.89.105 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

1) The terms 'cult' and 'Christian' are not mutually exclusive. 2) Nontrinitarian Christians are Christians, regardless of your theological objections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are showing both your ignorance and your bias. Christians believe in several tenants regarding Christ. That he is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that only through him is salvation possible. The idea of the Trinity has been argued for literally thousands of years, since the beginning of Christianity as an organized religion (remember Christ was a Jew), and even the idea of the Trinity was not really formalized until about the 4th century. There are many denominations of Christians that do not accept the (disputed) doctrine of the Trinity or that Christ is God. Go away. Vyselink (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are many ways of defining Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly self-identify as Christian. While other Christians, such as myself, may not appreciate such claims, encyclopedia articles should be general. Certainly, Christianity is Christ-centered and not Jehovah centered. We will not settle the great Trinitarian debate here. I say let them self identify as Christian. We Christians know the truth about the Truth.75Janice (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)75Janice

Um. Thank you for that entirely self-serving sermon about true Christianity.....I guess. Vyselink (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Janice, you don't seem to be suggesting any change to the article. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for Change: Why don't you summarize the Wikipedia definition of Christianity at the Christian article? It is a neutral definition. One could say that Christianity is diverse but..........and cite the Wikipedia article. Beginner. Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be suggesting a change to this article. There isn't a "Wikipedia definition" of Christianity, and this isn't the article about Christianity. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, and Wikipedia should not cite itself. Also, Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and doesn't need to yield to theological opinions about who are 'real' Christians. Broadly, a 'Christian' is any person who believes that Jesus was the 'Christ' (the Messiah of the Bible). Definitions beyond that are unhelpful here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding California Court Verdict

First of all I object to giving a broader detail of a case all the way from trial court. Jehovah's Witnesses has a great record on handling child abuse legal cases. None of the courts in United States or any other country have ever found that the policy of Watchtower is wrong. If you look at the report published by Watchtower society in 2007, out of 15 Cases all of them dismissed charges against Watchtower society. Yes WT have previously made settlements with victims, not because they have erred in a policy, but because elders failed to apply a policy. Sometime they pay because of compassion to victims, often they waive legal charges of plaintiff on their own. Watchtower have a higher chance of filing an appeal to courts of appeals on requirement to police field service. A reader who is glimpsing the article could pick 27 million and be misinformed. But I leave that decision with the editing police department of JW articles in here.

Second Jeffro77's edit has wrong information. Yes media and opposers would love to hear 7 million or even 28 million, but that's not true. The court opinion did not say how much would be the compensatory damage. But go read news, and you will find all news report say $2.8 million. That is based on a solid calculation (subtract ~8 million punitive from total ~11 million) . I would've have reverted it, but not interested in playing an edit war like I used to do in past. Fazilfazil (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely suitable to provide context of the case (and I did not restore all of the information).

A report published by the Watchtower Society cannot be considered remotely neutral, and the fact is that most of the cases were settled out of court rather than 'dismissed'.

The cited sources from the court make no mention of $2.8 million. The cited source indicates that "The jury awarded Conti $7,000,000 in compensatory damages, including $130,000 for future counseling and therapy, and $6,870,000 in non-economic damages." The source further indicates that on appeal, "The compensatory damage award is affirmed." If you have another source, provide it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your speculation about what 'media' and 'opposers' might 'love' is irrelevant, and a little odd.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Settling cases out of court is not an uncommon practice in United States, even if the party is not guilty. It has been done for variety of reasons, like I mentioned above. But the fact still stands, none of the appeal courts in United states has ever set a legal precedent by stating that WT policy is wrong. This is an exclusion, with options left to Watchtower. Though this precedent is more vindication than a negative observation. You can keep it if you want, also add a couple of cases too then. lol Fazilfazil (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your belligerent attitude is not helpful. I did not state or imply that settling out of court indicates guilt, which would be just as erroneous as your attempt to imply the opposite. I did state though that settling out of court is not the same as the cases being "dismissed" as you had claimed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• News reports (1, 2 , 3) Fazilfazil (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources make any mention of the supposed $11 million that you claimed had $8 million deducted from it. Actually, the $8.6 million was the separate amount for punitive damages and is entirely separate to the $7 million. The $2.8 million the news sources refer to is actually the proportion of the damages to be paid by Watchtower, and that the rest of the $7 million is owed by Kendrick (which he probably won't pay, but was still the court's judgement). The $2.8 million is part of the $7 million, and nothing to do with the imaginary $11 million that you made up, and nothing to do with the $8.6 million of overturned punitive damages. This article accurately provides the total amount of compensatory damages awarded by the court as indicated in the court documents cited, and does not say that whole amount is payable by the Watchtower Society. As such, the changes I made are accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Man, you are doing Original research. If that makes you happy again no problem keep it. But curious, why would you then keep the amount Kendrick owe in an article dealing with Jehovah' witnesses? Add at-least how much WT owe then, instead of trying to prove "I am correct always, and I should have final say". Fazilfazil (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not added any 'original research' at all. I have simply explained at this Talk page the manner in which you were entirely wrong about the amounts of punitive and compensatory damages. Everything I said above is derived from the available sources, and it is not article content. I have no objection to elaborating on what portion the Watchtower Society was ordered to pay.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Australia

I have one major concern and a couple minor thoughts on this new information added by @Rjensen: "Trouble arose in Australia in 1931 when the Jehovah Witnesses took control of a radio station. In 1933 the government banned its diatribes against the Catholic Church, the British Empire, and the United States. In 1941, at the demand of the Army and Navy, its station was closed down as dangerous to national security; furthermore, the Jehovah Witnesses were declared an illegal organization."

My concerns are NOT about the information itself, or the source. The source is highly reliable, and the information is relevant (and fascinating, as I'd never heard that before). My minor concerns are: 1) placement. Does this belong in its current spot, or would it fit in a different article better? 2) Wording. "Trouble arose" and "furthermore" sound a bit to POV'y to me. It makes it sound less like a statement of fact and more like condemnation, which we are not here to do.

My major concern is that the passage, as written, fails to paint the full picture of the events as described in the source. For example, the source states that in 1940 the government began looking into the station not only because of it's objectionable anti-Catholic stance etc, but also essentially trumped up charges of subversion, and that "[t]he war had provided an ideal opportunity to get rid of licensees long regarded as deviant". There is quite a bit of interesting and relevant information in the source, and it should be fleshed out further IMO. Via WP:BRD, I am going to replace it with what I feel is more neutral and complete wording, and am open to discussion. Vyselink (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms what happened, I suggest that "trouble" is the appropriate terminology and not POV. It was trouble from the point of view of the Jehovah witnesses; it was trouble from the point of view of the government. Wartime suppression of the Jehovah witnesses happened in a number of countries – in Canada for example. What surprised me when I came across the scholarly article was that the government had intervened as early as 1933 regarding the content of the radio broadcasts. As for the placement of the episode, I certainly think it fits this scope of this article, may indeed fit other articles as well. Getting suppressed as an illegal organization in Australia is a real event in history of the Witnesses. As for the context, the issue of subversion was uppermost in the minds of the Australian Army and Navy during the war-- at a time when Australia was losing the war. However subversion was not a feature in 1933 when the government first acted. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The information does not belong at the main article for the same reason that the main article does not provide detail about specific incidents in other countries. Belongs at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. There are also minor inaccuracies, such as referring to the group as Jehovah's Witnesses in 1930, when no such group existed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeffro77 is also opposed to the entire section on persecution. This article is written for everyone, not just believers, and the harsh treatment of the Witnesses is a very important part of that broader picture. The term "Jehovah's Witnesses" was introduced by Rutherford in 1931, so it is not anachronistic. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The one paragraph under "Opposition" provides an adequate summary of the material that follows, which includes brief coverage of imprisonment and deportation in some countries. The experience of Australian JWs (a radio station closure and an official ban which the government seemed to only half-heartedly enforce) is not so serious or extreme that it needs to be included at that point. The main Jehovah's Witnesses article is already long and contains many links to spinoff articles. Inclusion under the "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments" article would be appropriate. BlackCab (TALK) 10:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, your opinion of what you imagine I'm opposed to is quite irrelevant, and entirely baseless. I clearly specified why the information I moved does not belong at the main article. And your confirmation of the fact that the name Jehovah's Witnesses was adopted in 1931 only confirms my comment about misusing the term in reference to 1930.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well that the information is better suited under "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments" than it is here. And yes Jeffro, I am aware of the fact that in 1930 "Jehovah's Witnesses" didn't exist per se, but 1931, as Rjensen sad, is not exactly a huge difference, and they were known as Jehovah's Witnesses when the main events of the incident occurred. So unless we are going to put in "in 1931, now known as the Jehovah's Witnesses..." which is verbose and just plain silly, I think it matters little. Vyselink (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nvm. I like the "Watchtower" reference better. I did however reinstate the 5KA, as the source mentions only 5KA as playing the sermons, and in fact is almost exclusively about 5KA. The other stations are merely in to identify to the others stations owned by WT that were shut down. Vyselink (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I correctly stated that the stations were associated with the Watch Tower Society, making wordy phrases about the name change of the religious group redundant. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate reference

I am transplanting a concern from a newer contributor about a reference. The actual edit I did not approve was [[1]]. Please be gentle 8) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is in the article presented as Holden's opinion/findings. It could be his findings ("Materials such as The Watchtower" is restated with the pompous formulation "pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications") is somewhat freely interpretated in the article, but the statement and ref is still presented as Holdens finding. I can't see I share the newer contributor's concerns here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts here Grrahnbahr. I'm new to this and want to understand and follow the rules. I am confused about statements from Holden's findings. I have found at least 3 statements where I know them to be false and can quote the Watchtower page or pages that are the opposite of Holden's statement(s). If someone writes a book or article and subsequently says "my findings" are such and such; if an editor can provide documentation that "his findings" are inaccurate are you saying you still can't remove said "finding statement"? I truly am asking I'm not trying to be contrary. STravelli (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@STravelli: To answer generally, sources are weighed on their reliability and perceived neutrality. Sources close to a subject are perceived to have an inherent bias and so independent academic studies are often given more weight. Frequently, if both sources are strong or important enough, both sides will be presented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

STravelli: The JW official standing, "[t]hey consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs", with a reference from a book published by WBTS, is listed in the article. If you got more sources or details regarding the subject, be bold and add them. Holden is a scholar in a relevant field with a professional distance to the subject, and a published author. His opinions and findings could, and should, be included when of relevance, like here. If a vaste majority of sources claim otherways, it should may not be included. If there are other sources claiming otherways, it could be right to include both sides. I'd like to recommand guidelines like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I've found those very useful. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)