Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Reference Works, Usage of "Christian", Consensus?

In the way of information, the following are the entries for various religions from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.: --

Jehovah's Witnesses . A sect derived from Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916), emphasizing biblical literalism and the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus is not God but the son of God, the first of his creations. The fulfilment of the promise of God's kingdom will be inaugurated by the battle of Armageddon, an event which was predicted for 1914—hence the saying of Rutherford, Russell's successor, that ‘millions now living will never die’. 1914 is now interpreted as the establishment of the kingdom. Jehovah's Witnesses engage in persistent door-to-door proselytizing, endeavouring to sell The Watchtower, in which the movement's interpretation of world events is contained. --

Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Religious movement derived from Joseph Smith (1805–44) and the Book of Mormon. In 1822, the angel Moroni revealed to Smith where gold tablets were to be found, on which were written God's words. The texts tell of a post-resurrection appearance of Christ in America to establish religious order and truth. The authenticity of the text has been called in question because of its grammatical errors, its reminiscences of the Authorized Version, its resemblance to an unpublished novel, etc., but for Mormons, its authenticity is not in doubt. Under persecution and opposition, the Mormons made several moves, until Joseph Smith was arrested in Carthage, Illinois, and was killed by a mob. Schisms resulted, partly over leadership, partly over doubts about polygamy. Plural marriage after the order of Abraham had been introduced by a special revelation in 1843. Most Mormons followed Brigham Young (1801–77), who led the movement to the Salt Lake area of Utah, where Zion in the Wilderness was constructed. Central to Mormon belief is the Restoration: the Churches have apostasized, but true Christianity has been restored by Joseph Smith. --

Catholic (Gk., katholikos, ‘universal’). A term used variously with reference to Christian belief and institutions. 1. Most generally, of the Church in the whole world, as distinct from local congregations. 2. Especially in historical writers, of the great body of Christians in communion with the major sees and not divided by heresy or schism. 3. Of churches, institutions, and doctrines which claim as their basis a continuous tradition of faith and practice from the apostles—the claim is contrasted with Protestant appeals to the Bible alone. See also ANGLOCATHOLICS. 4. As a synonym for Roman Catholic; it then applies to all churches, including the Uniat churches, in communion with the bishop of Rome. See also OLD CATHOLICS. --

Roman Catholic Church. Those churches in communion with the Church of Rome, recognizing the leadership of the pope. The word ‘ Catholic’ means ‘universal’, and thus the addition of ‘Roman’ seems to some contradictory, since they regard the Church under the successor of Peter (see PETRINE TEXTS) as the one, universal Church; other Christians (i.e. those who are baptized and ‘honoured by the name of Christian’, Lumen Gentium, 15) are held to be ‘in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church’ (Unitatis redintegratio, 3). To be in complete communion with the Church of Rome is to belong to the Catholic Church. However, the addition of ‘Roman’ has become more common during the recent decades of ecumenicism, not least in recognition of the status of uniate Churches and of other uses of the world ‘Catholic’; ‘Roman Catholic’ is therefore used in this article and throughout the Dictionary.

Central government is exercised by the pope and curia (usually referred to as ‘the Vatican).

It is by far the largest of the Christian denominations, with approaching a billion members. Serving the Church's members are just over 400,000 priests, 68,000 male religious, and just short of one million female religious. There are rather more than 2,000 dioceses or equivalent administrative areas, but a quarter of these are in Europe. --

Baptist Churches. Christian denomination. Baptists form one of the largest Protestant bodies with a worldwide membership of over 40 million, plus a greater number of adherents. Its beginnings can be traced among the Anabaptists, and to the ministry of the English Puritan John Smyth (c.1554–1612), and his fellow separatist exiles, who made believers’ baptism the basis of their gathered church fellowship in Amsterdam. In England a Baptist ‘General Union’, formed in 1813, was gradually transformed into the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1873). --

Adventists. Members of Christian sects who believe that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is literal and imminent. Seventh Day Adventists, derived from William Miller (1781–1849) who predicted the end of the world in 1843–4, believe that the Advent is delayed because of the failure to keep the Sabbath. Sabbath-keeping was confirmed in the visions of Ellen G. White (d. 1915), who was a prolific writer of Adventist literature. Dietary laws from the Old Testament are also observed, and the further belief, that the Advent will occur when the gospel has been proclaimed throughout the world, leads to vigorous proselytization. --

Christianity. The origins of Christianity lie, historically, in the life and ministry of Jesus, extended through his death, resurrection, and ascension.

Christianity exists in a vast diversity of different styles and forms of organization, but all are agreed that the figure of Jesus is the disclosure of God and the means of human reconciliation with him.

In the early years, ‘Christianity’ was one interpretation, among many at that time, of what God's covenant with Israel and his purpose in creation should be; but in this interpretation, it was believed that Jesus was the promised messiah (Heb., ha-Mashiach = messiah = Gk., ho Christos, hence the name ‘Christianity’, which was first used, according to Acts 2. 26, in c.40 CE).

Characteristic Christian doctrines emerged from the demand of the New Testament evidence (and from the experience which brought it into being). Jesus mediated the consequence and effect of God, so that on the one hand it was evidently God who was acting and speaking in and through him, and yet on the other it was clear that Jesus addressed God (e.g. in prayer) as apart from himself, as Father (see ABBA): this produced a quest in the early centuries to find ways of speaking of these two natures in one person ( Christology). At the same time, God was clearly present to the life of Jesus (e.g. at his birth and his baptism, and in the directing of his mission), in the ways traditionally spoken of as the Holy Spirit. This led to a further quest to find ways of speaking of the interior nature of God, as being in itself, not an abstract unity, but social and relational (i.e. as Trinity).

It was also recognized that what Jesus had done during his life for some particular people, in reconciling them to God when they had become estranged from him and from each other, was, as a consequence of his death, resurrection, and ascension, extended to others, and indeed made universal, at least as an opportunity for those who respond in faith. This led to doctrines of atonement.

This extension of the consequence of Christ was made immediately realistic, and thus realizable, through the enacted signs of baptism and of the last supper ( eucharist).

During the New Testament period, the nature of Christian community (the Church) changed dramatically: the original metaphor of the Church as the Body of Christ, with all parts being of equal importance under the headship of Christ, was changed into a metaphor derived from the Roman army, with a hierarchical organization and vertical levels of authority of bishops, priests, and deacons: the clericalization of the Church and the subordination of the laity have remained characteristic of most parts of Christianity down to the present. After the support of Constantine and the recognition of Christianity as the religion of the Empire under Theodosius I (emperor, 379–95), Christianity became the major religion of the Roman world.

Faith and practice were constantly disputed and contested, leading to a series of Councils in which attempts were made to achieve unity and conformity. Creeds developed from baptismal formulae (which served as ‘passwords’) to summaries of approved and legitimized faith. But major divisions emerged, some of which (e.g. Monophysites) persist as continuing Churches to the present. Especially serious was the schism between E. and W. Christianity. Despite attempts at repair, the Orthodox (i.e. E.) Church (itself comprising several different traditions, disciplines, and practices) remains resistant to the claims of the bishop of Rome (the pope) to teaching and jurisdictional authority. W. Christianity was disrupted by the Reformation, with the Reformed Churches dividing further, and repeatedly, on issues of doctrine and practice.

The early involvement of Christianity with the Roman Empire led to the development of a religious life which was deliberately separated from the world. It began with the desert fathers and spread across the known world. It eventually found expression in the monastic orders, notably that of St Benedict, and it gained its evangelical outreach in the religious orders of the 13th cent. onward.

Throughout its history, the Christian quest to share the good news ( gospel) of Christ has produced an emphasis on mission, especially in the 19th cent., ‘the century of mission’, culminating in the Edinburgh Conference, 1910. As a result, Christianity is found in all parts of the world, and makes up more than a quarter of the world's population.

Liturgically, Christians follow the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus throughout each year, marking particular days as festivals, and celebrating also those who have been exemplary in faith and practice ( saints). The practices of prayer (in its many forms) and worship are fundamental in Christian life.

Vital also is the fact that Christian life should be the manifestation of a pervasive quality of love ( agape). From this has arisen the recent view that orthopraxy is at least as important as orthodoxy (perhaps more so): see LIBERATION THEOLOGY. It is this stress on the transformation of human life into love which has led through the centuries to the founding of schools and hospitals, and to the care of the poor, and to the recognition of such people as Francis of Assisi as exemplary. --

Peoples' Temple. Movement founded by the Reverend Jim Jones, a Christian socialist, in Indianapolis during the early 1950s. Having moved to California in 1965, Jones then established Jonestown, Guyana (1977). The Jones-town tragedy occurred in Nov. 1978, when 913 followers and Jones himself died, a sizeable number by drinking cyanide-laced ‘Flavor-Aid’ (the remainder were murdered). The tragedy was triggered by an investigation by Congressman Les Ryan and a party of journalists, seen as demonic agents. --

Methodism. A Christian denomination, itself made up of several parts, deriving from the preaching and ministry of John and Charles Wesley, and initially of George Whitefield. The term ‘methodist’ was in origin used derisively by opponents of the Holy Club at Oxford, but Wesley used it from 1729 to mean the methodical pursuit of biblical holiness. The rapid success of Methodism, reaching places and people that the established Church did not, soon set up a tension, since the class system seemed to be setting up a ‘parish’ within a parish, especially when those converted wanted no connection with the parish church. In any case, Wesley was compelled by the shortage of ordained preachers in America (after the war of Independence) to ordain his fellow presbyter, Thomas Coke (1747–1814), as Superintendent over ‘the brethren in America’, who became the Methodist Episcopal Church; the title of Superintendent became that of Bishop in 1787. Many divisions occurred in the 19th cent.: the Methodist Episcopal Church divided in 1844 over the issue of slavery; before that, two black Churches had been established, the African Methodist Episcopal (1816) and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (1820), which now number over 4 million. Among many groups in Britain, the Wesleyan, Primitive, and United Methodists came together in the Methodist Church of Great Britain and Ireland, in 1932. In the USA, a similar process brought into being the United Methodist Church in 1968. The World Methodist Council was set up in 1951, not only to draw Methodists together, but to seek transconfessional actions and unions. Methodists number about 60 million in 100 countries. --

Quakers. Usual name for the Society of Friends. It was first given in the mid-17th cent. to the followers of George Fox. Its derivation is uncertain: it may be derived from an occasion when, in 1650, Fox told a judge in Derby to ‘tremble at the Word of the Lord’; or from an existing women's sect; or from the ‘spiritual trembling’ experienced at meetings. --

Unitarianism. A religious movement connected with Christianity. Unitarians are those who reject the Trinitarian understanding of God. Although there are many antecedents, the specific point of origin for the movement is usually taken to be the work of Servetus, and of the Sozzinis (i.e. Socinianism). The first Unitarian congregation in England was formed in 1774, and in the USA in 1782, but the movement did not become fully organized until the Baltimore sermon of W. E. Channing in 1819, on ‘Unitarian Christianity’. The American Unitarian Association was founded in 1825. In 1961, the Unitarians merged with the Universalists, the joint movement becoming known as the Unitarian Universalist Association. It is characterized by an emphasis on members seeking truth out of human experience, not out of allegiance to creeds or doctrines. There is no hierarchical control, each congregation being self-governing. There are more than a thousand congregations, mainly in the USA and Canada. --

Sects. Groups, usually religious, which are set up with their own organization in distinction from, and often in protest against, established religions. Sects featured in Troeltsch's Church-Sect typology. Sects are characterized by: depending on volunteers (to be born into a sect indicates that it is on the way to stability); charismatic authority; strict discipline with clear rules of conduct; sense of élite privilege (of being the only ones in a true, or enlightened, or saved state); restriction on individuality. In addition, R. Wallis (Salvation and Protest, 1979) suggested that sects are either world-affirming (seeing power, value, etc., emerging from within the universe) or world-denying (seeing the world as evil and requiring rescue by God).

--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

United States of America, Christianity in. ... The question of racial slavery divided American Christians. Some argued for freeing the slaves, others that slavery had biblical sanction and was a means to Christianization. In the North, free Blacks organized independent Black Churches. By the time of the Civil War (1861–5) Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists had split over the issue. The intellectual revolution symbolized by the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) was reflected in theological conflict. Conservative Protestants, later identified as Fundamentalists, rejected the new science in the name of tradition and became embroiled in ecclesiastical controversies. Protestant Liberalism, also known as the ‘New Theology’ or Progressive Orthodoxy, attempted a reconciliation of science and tradition in support of an optimistic perspective on human nature and progress, emphasizing the immanence of God. At the same time, the expanding urban environment, with its stresses and uncertainties, fostered the growth of new religious movements. These included Christian Science, Seventh-day Adventism, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Holiness and Pentecostal Churches arose in both urban and rural locations in response to a perceived loss of spiritual vitality. (Excerpt from "United States of America, Christianity in" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.)-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the above set of entries lead to the conclusion that the JWs are a "sect" or "new religious movement" within Christianity? I also agree with Jeffro77 that the failure to declare JWs as Christian may not be a deliberate and conscious decision on the part of authors but possibly something not done because it is assumed or considered irrelevant. I would prefer to have material which explicitly deals with the issue of JWs being Christian than trying to draw conclusions from your admittedly thorough and meticulous research. The fact remains that, if you do the research, it is original research and inherently suspect. I think the most defensible formula is " the JWs are a sect (or new religious movement) of Christianity which claims to be the only true form of Christianity, rejecting key doctrines of mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity questions the validity of this claim based in large part due to the non-Trinitarian beliefs of the JWs." --Richard (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you write: “Doesn't the above set of entries lead to the conclusion that the JWs are a "sect" or "new religious movement" within Christianity?”

The overwhelming consensus from secular sources is that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a Christian sect, or as social laissez-faire’s advocate, a Christian new religious movement. (Olson, Paul J, The Public Perception of “Cults” and “New Religious Movements”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2006 45(1): 97-106; Goldman, Marion S, Cults, New Religions, and the Spiritual Landscape: A Review of Four Collections, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2006 45(1): 87-96)

The irony in this whole discussion is that participants such as Dtbrown, Jeffro77, Mattb and others have asserted the lead sentence should be constructed from a secular perspective to avoid POV, yet when it comes down to examining the secular evidence these same editors assert the JW POV by asserting the religion simply as “Christian” rather than the well-documented secular perspective that the religion is a Christian sect (or, Christian new religious movement). These editors leverage secular perspective to garner the floor, and then assert a POV. It is entertaining theater. If these editors want to leverage the secular perspective then they need to let the secular perspective speak for itself based on the overwhelming consensus of the literature. When I have tried to edit the sentence to show the secular perspective (with verification) it is quickly reverted to the JW POV.

Incorrect, it is Marvin's desire to not have them referred to as Christian at all in the lead that is at issue. I do not care if they are called a Christian 'sect'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Thank you for demonstrating so well that you have not taken the time to know my position, though you have taken enormous pains to denigrate me with name-calling over and over again. For the umpteenth time, I favor an opening sentence along the lines of, “Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international Christian sect of the same name, whose adherents believe it to be restored first-century Christianity.”

So here is where we are:

- Peer reviewed articles and reference works are provided.

- Richard has concluded the literature depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect.

- Jeffro77 is fine depicting Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect.

- Duffer affirms language stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.

- Wonderpet has edited the introduction sentence using “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect”. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=176098098&oldid=176093175) -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

- Anonymous editor 63.196.193.237 affirms language stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.

- Marvin Shilmer has for months agreed the literature depicts Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect.

Marvin here contradicts his earlier statement. His first comments in this dispute, which has been perpetuated almost solely by him, stressed at every opportunity that JWs are not Christian (a view that he has held to for most of the discussion), not that they are depicted as a "Christian sect".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I appreciate you again taking time to demonstrate disregard for what I have actually said in favor of what you, for reasons unknown, want to assert I have said. It is categorically false that I have said Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian or that they should be construed as non-Christian. I have said the consensus of world knowledge does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as Christian without accompanying depiction (e.g., new religious movement, or sect), and that in most instances authors refrain from declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as either Christian or non-Christian. As for your statement that I have not advanced a view that Jehovah’s Witnesses could rightly be presented as a “Christian sect”, you are so wrong and backward in your assert that it defies the senses. Here are a few brief excerpts from previous statements from me on this very issue (emphasis added for the reading impaired):

- “Then maybe we should follow the lead of highly regarded encyclopedia content (e.g., Brittanica and/or Funk and Wagnalls) and characterize Jehovah's Witnesses as either a millennialist sect or a Christian sect.” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

- “You failed to comment on my recommendation of applying the terminology used by the Watchtower organization's sociologist of choice, Dr. Rodney Stark. He applies the term "Christian sect" to Jehovah's Witnesses. If the Watchtower organization sees merit in this man's perspectives then why should you object?” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

- “Stark states Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect. Why not use the terminology used by the Watchtower organization’s favored sociologist?” (Marvin Shilmer 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

- “Your suggested wording (i.e., "Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect with a heterodox theology headquartered in the United States” et al) is objective and verifiable. I have no problem with it.” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

- “Stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect is something we can demonstrate carries substantial support in the world knowledge base.” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

- “Editors here have objected to terms such as “Christian New Religious Movement” (NRM), “Christian offshoot,” “Christian sect” et al. Terms such as these convey a more specific religious attribution than does the single term “Christian”. More importantly, such conveyance is supported by a consensus of vetted sources.” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

- “"Christian sect" is accurate and narrower usage, and acceptable based on the body of evidence.” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

- “The overwhelming consensus from secular sources is that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a Christian sect, or as social laissez-faire’s advocate, a Christian new religious movement.” (Stamped: Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

So, tell me, Jeffro77, which of these clear statements of mine did you fail to understand? You do know how to use your search key, dont' you?-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I certainly mean to suggest that you are inconsistent.

"You will also find that a consensus of vetted resources do not declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian. I have edited out your declaration in the articles opening sentence that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. This edit makes the sentence objective and factual, and removes POV. To declare Jehovah's Witensses as Christian is rank POV. Again, read the linked material from top to bottom, if you please.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your flip-flopping is evident, and this indicates you to be a troll. I need say no more.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice how now that Marvin's own research shows his own preferred statement to be false, he is forced to fall back on those sources he quoted that indeed indicate JWs to be Christian. However, this has not been his own position in this dispute, and he has tried to discount such sources as biased in this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: It is no flip-flop to say “a consensus of vetted resources do not declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian” and to assert it valid to state “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.” The former statement objects to simply presenting Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian because such a simple presentation runs contrary to a supermajority of vetted presentations. The latter statement admits what we can all read in the literature, that vetted sources often present Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect. Hence my statements consistently present a case to follow the consensus found in peer reviewed literature. Apparently you do not understand this. Your quotation of me also asks readers to consult information at a given link, where I make the same point. I said the same thing about the same sources in that discussion as I have here. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: In response to your edit to bold my statement, “To declare Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian is rank PO,” as pointed out above, the POV objection is a result of simply declaring the religion as Christian. The overwhelming weight of literature refrains from such a simple presentation, yet the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses asserts this simple presentation boldly and exclusively. This is what makes such a simple presentation a rank POV for an encyclopedic entry. It flies in the face a supermajority presentation found in vetted sources, which authors and institutions recognize the issue is more complex. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Accordingly, I am editing the opening sentence to read: Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international Christian sect of the same name, whose adherents believe it to be restored first-century Christianity.(Reference here)

To the above opening sentence I have provided a verification reference to a peer reviewed article by Dr. Rodney Stark whom 1) the Watchtower organization cites as an authority and 2) is likewise cited as an authority on the subject by author Carolyn Way who is a long-time Jehovah’s Witnesses who works at the world headquarters of the Watchtower organization in the capacity of associate general counsel. (Stark et al, Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow So Rapidly: A Theoretical Application, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, Num. 2, 1997: 133-157) (The Watchtower, Jehovah Prepared the Way, August 15, 1999, p. 23) (Rebuttal to the Composite Expert Conclusion, (Civil Case 2-452/99), Golovinsky Intermunicipal Court, Northern Administrative District of the City of Moscow, Compiled by the Administrative Center for Jehovah's Witnesses, St. Petersburg, Russia, January 2001) (Wah, C, An Introduction to Research and Analysis of Jehovah’s Witnesses: A View from the Watchtower, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 43, Num. 2, 2001:161-174)

If an editors feels this opening sentence is inappropriate then, hopefully, he or she will take an initiative to demonstrate this in the face lf the extensive discussion above, including the vast references. And (Jeffro77 et al) hopefully these editors will take time to actually digest what is being said and why.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin has repeatedly tried to ignore and/or misrepresent my position. I have not disputed calling JWs a "Christian sect", though I recognise that some may disagree with such usage. I have disputed the following: refraining from calling JWs Christian; placing a footnote after such mention of being Christian to discuss the JW view of other religions; calling JWs a cult because the term is not definitive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the literature references I have supplied in abundance above, it is patently wrong for any editor here to draw conclusions from these without reading the material for themselves. It is also false for editors to conclude that certain disciplines (e.g., clinical medicine) should not be expected to address the religious disposition of Jehovah’s Witnesses in their work. Jeffro77 makes this mistake asserting it “irrelevant and superfluous to the context of the article”. When it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the whole reason this religious group gets so much attention in the literature is precisely because of the religion’s novelty. Hence the religious disposition gets attention because it is the reason it is addressed in the first place. It is how these authors depict the religious disposition that is relevant here. They choose not to declare the religion as either Christian or non-Christian. This is the consensus.

Marvin illogically states that the JW's religious disposition gets attention, and then admits that its religious disposition is usually left unstated. Significantly, in medical sources it would be inappropriate to diverge unnecessarily into the theology of JWs when discussing their medical treatment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Secular writers in all disciplines overwhelmingly refrain from using the simple designation of “Christian” when speaking of Jehovah’s Witnesses for a reason. The reason is as plain as the nose on the typical face. Secular disciplines see the religion as a sect of Christianity rather than Christianity itself (whereas JWs uniquely view their religion as Christianity itself). The reason the current edit will not stand the test of time is precisely because it runs contrary to this plainly evident and real depiction in the secular vetted literature, which represents the secular body of world knowledge and presentation on this precise issue.

Marvin again admits that JWs are a Christian sect, yet continues to argue to refrain from referring to them as Christianity. Note also that the JW view that only they are Christians is irrelevant when identifying them as being a Christian religion from a secular point of view, and such detail belongs in the 'Controversy' section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I dare say that though editors here have vigorously contended this issue that hardly any of them (if any) have performed a thorough and methodical search of vetted literature on the subject for verification purposes. All appearances give an impression of researching to prove a POV rather than researching to find whether there is a consensus and if one is found what that consensus is. This would explain some of the back-woodsy responses I have received. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvin's own research is sufficient to indicate that JWs are secularly recognised as a Christian sect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Secular disciplines see the religion as a sect of Christianity rather than Christianity itself - Marvin Shilmer. Christianity is a collection of sects, some large some small. No one Christian religious group can trace it's ancestry all the way back to Christ. None is, or can be, "officially" sanctioned (by whom?) as Christian. The oldest, Catholicism came 325 years after him. Since no one here has disputed claiming that JWs are a Christian sect seems like Marvin Shilmer's pointless argument is with himself. 63.196.193.46 (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

63.196.193.46: Contrary to your claims, there are editors here who have objected to calling JWs a “Christian sect”. As for the rest of your remarks, I have argued in favor of language representing the consensus found in the body of world knowledge when it comes to presenting the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This has been an uphill discussion from my perspective because so many editors here are/were either unaware of this consensus presentation or else were/are insisting on a POV presentation. From your response, I doubt you follow this at all. My recommendation is that you read this entire discussion, included its development stemming from extensive dialogue on the talk page back in spring of this year (2007).-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

According to your above comments Richard, Jeffro77, Duffer, Wonderpet, yourself, all the principles in this "debate", and myself, do not have a problem with calling JWs a Christian sect. So where's the argument? As for what "Christianity itself" is, again, that is a subjective issue that various Christian religious groups have been arguing about for the last 2000 years. It is not yours to settle the issue here and now based on your chosen criteria whatever that may be. 63.196.193.46 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On a different note I would recommend changing the wording of the opening sentence from "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international Christian new religious movement of the same name" to something a bit clearer. It kind of sounds like JWs call themselves a "an international Christian new religious movement". Minor rearragement would do it. 63.196.193.46 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

63.196.193.46: I listed those who agreed at that time for sake of record. I did not list those who disagree because I was waiting to see who among current editors would disagree. As preferences are declared then these were/will be added. I believe you are included in this list as anonymous editor 63.196.193.237. If this is incorrect then please inform. However, the record shows there have been editors who disagreed with the usage “Christian sect”. Even recently the usage of “Christian sect” has been edited out in favor of a more contemporary term that is perceived as a softer rendering of “Christian sect” (i.e., “Christian new religious movement”). Back in the spring (2007) I offered the usage of “Christian sect” and it was removed by other editors. Hence the current discussion. I have not tried to settle a question of what “Christianity itself” is. I have tried to resolve through research what is the consensus presentation of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in respect to the body of world knowledge of Christianity. Please note, I have not applied any personal criteria. I have researched the issue methodically, and have shared both the method and subsequent information. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the principles in the debate agree to call them a Christian sect. I suppose you could throw out an ever widening net but pretty soon that would include everyone on the planet. My limited understanding of NRM is as a replacemnt for the word "cult" used by those who wish to disparage unorthodox Christian strains they don't happen to like or agree with, not as a replacement of the less contentious "sect" which simply derives from "section" or a subdivision of a group (in this case Christianity) [1][2]. Of course some would like to attach the same negative connotation to sect as to cult. I think most modern secular reseachers today would reserve the word "cult" to an actively destructive, person centered group like Jim Jones' or the Branch Davidians. 63.196.193.46 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

63.196.193.46: You write, "As I said, the principles in the debate agree to call them a Christian sect." Yes, now. But this was not the case from the beginning of the discussion. So what is your point? If you prefer "Christian sect" over "Christian new religious movement" then go ahead and edit accordingly. I am good either way, and have been for quite some time. Whether other editors will accept this rather than the present language we will have to see.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that given a choice of equally acceptable options to all the decision ought to go to Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. It is their religion we are writing about here, let's give them that respect. While I may prefer "sect" the word may have a more negative association to them. I note that in the NWT "sect" is often used negatively, however given it's more or less innocuous derivation perhaps they may find it acceptable these days. The are other options that could be used I think such as society, group, denomination, faction, division, offshoot, schism and I suspect we could find "authorities" which would use any one of these. I do however think it petty to insist the least flattering but secularly acceptable term (not saying that that's what you're doing). 63.196.193.144 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course realizing that this is a secular article Jehovah's Witnesses themselves may need to understand that and be willing to compromise somewhat. It may be that no one descriptor will be just right. 63.196.193.144 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

63.196.193.144: Encyclopedic material must have a neutral perspective. A NPOV requires an article about religion X to express the teachings of a religion for what it is just as the religion teaches it. Hence, it is entirely appropriate, objective and neutral for an article on JWs to state “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe their religion is Christian” because this is what the religion teaches. On the other hand, it is altogether something else to have a sentence declaring a belief as a fact by saying, “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.” The latter construction makes a declaration that is subjective and POV. An encyclopedic entry is to share information, not make it up. (Not that you have suggested the latter). The only way to share information and avoid POV bias is to look to the body of knowledge on whatever the subject and share that, with verification for readers and researchers. At the moment the article on Jehovah’s Witnesses declares information about Jehovah’s Witnesses verified from the body of knowledge published on this subject, and it also states what the religion teaches of its own disposition in relation to Christianity. So, again I am forced to ask: What is your point? I fail to see what you see as a problem. What you suggest is what the article already does. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The current opening statement says: "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international Christian new religious movement". That edit which you yourself provded (see 00:18, 6 December 2007 above) is fine IMO. Further, I don't see anyone else except for the vandals objecting. Your new suggestion now: "Jehovah’s Witnesses believe their religion is Christian" is petty in the extreme. If you want to edit it that way then be prepared to change the such descriptions for every other Christian denomination out there. Again they have every bit a right to that description as every other try as you might to find a way to deny them that. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY. Now, you've already agreed above (e.g. 00:38, 2 December 2007) that calling them Christian is "acceptable", so why don't you LEAVE IT ALONE ALREADY! 63.196.193.105 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

63.196.193.105: I have no idea what you have been rambling on about, or what you are talking about now. Whoever said I was not perfectly content with the current opening sentence? I certain have not! So, what exactly have you been talking about? You have yet to express whatever you feel your point is. I have not suggested changing the opening sentence to read as you suggest (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses believe their religion is Christian). If you think otherwise then, frankly, I see no need for further exchange. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up. 63.196.193.208 (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. in its definitions of religions apparently uses adherence to Trinity Doctrine as a primary test of Christianity. This is consistent with Oxford's known bias as an Anglican institution. Of the religions listed above, those that are identified as Christian are those that presently and explicitly hold to the Trinity doctrine. Of those that are not said to be Christian directly, none of them hold to the Trinity doctrine. The definition given for Unitarians comes closest, but only in that they are 'connected with Christianity.' Since the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible I submit that this reference work be discounted as biased. I understand the contention regarding this particular doctrine, and I am not arguing for it or against it (that's a Theological discussion). Furthermore, the description of JW is materially wrong and clearly negative in its portrayal. JW's do not "sell" any literature, and it has always been offered free of charge and have explicitly done so since well before CY2000. The pejorative nature of the description and the questioning of motivation for their door-to-door work is doubly-indicative of negative bias. This work should be not be considered as anything except the views of. -- cfrito (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito, the statement that JW literature "has always been offered free of charge" is completely false. Though their literature is now available "without charge" (though donations are accepted), each publication used to have an explicitly stated price. Those prices previously appeared in 1) the publication list, 2) the Kingdom Ministry, and 3) in the Watchtower and Awake magazines (in their table of contents page, and in 'advertisements' for other publications.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, You are correct regarding the published price and the "without charge" matter. I will try to find a written reference to support this, but even when publications carried a cover price they were made available at no charge to those who could not otherwise afford them and a WTS policy. -- cfrito (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your claim of bias here is amusing.

Noteworthy is that The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions presents the Roman Catholic Church with declaratory language as Christian. On the other hand, when The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions presents Anglicanism (something I doubt you’ve read) it does not use declaratory language that the religion is Christian. Instead it presents the religion’s belief that it is Christian. Were this reference work to have the rank bias you claim it would most certainly reserve the declaratory language for Anglicanism, which you say is what the supposed bias favors. But, it does not do this.

Also noteworthy is that The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions follows the consensus of an overwhelming majority of vetted sources when it presents Jehovah’s Witnesses. It does this by refraining from using declaratory language and, instead, expresses the beliefs of the religion for what they are, that religion’s beliefs.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments are based on exactly what was presented herein from that publication, and I did use the word "apparently" to denote that I did not peruse that publication.What was presented herein was done so to support a POV. I challenged based on the information that was presented. The fact that Shilmer had to go outside what was published herein demonstrates that my assessment was correct. -- cfrito (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You objected to the use of The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions regarding its application of the term “Christian” to religions on grounds that it has a “known bias as an Anglican institution”. Yet it when it is examined for this bias we find that it uses declaratory language that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian, yet when it addresses Anglicanism it does not apply this declaratory language. Hence the “known bias as an Anglican institution” you allege as the basis of your objection is refuted.

I have no idea what you mean by “Shilmer had to go outside what was published herein demonstrates that my assessment was correct”. I examined what you wrote on this page compared with the very work you object to, and found your objection lacked merit on the basis you asserted of a “known bias as an Anglican institution”. You have not proven this premise of yours, and facts iterated above from within the work you question, dispute you. Would you please explain what you are trying to say here?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The bias I was referring to was that of trinitarianism. I was pretty clear about that: "in its definitions of religions [the Oxford Dictionary] apparently uses adherence to Trinity Doctrine as a primary test of Christianity. -- cfrito (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" (Oxford Dictionary reference added to preserve original context). Anglicans are trinitarians and so it is correct to say they hold that bias. What I meant by saying that Shilmer had to go outside what he had originally written was that his list of "definitions" did not include "Anglican". He added that later to support his sleight-of-hand trick mutating the focus of what I said from Trinitarian to Anglican so he could keep the merry-go-round turning. That's what I meant. -- cfrito (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You just don’t get it, do you? Are you oblivious that Anglicans believe in Trinity? In this case, then, the bias of the Oxford institution has every reason to declare Anglicanism as “Christian”! Yet it does not do this, does it? The bias you assert is tested and refuted.

'As for your ‘Marvin went outside what he originally wrote blah, blah, blah,’ apparently you think it somehow a backwards thing for an editor to examine a written work for an alleged bias within that written work, or that, somehow, it is odd to make full use of the very document you make negative assertions of. If you are going to make sweeping assertions of a published source then I recommend you get a copy of that whole thing to read for yourself, and that you do this before you start casting aspersion on it. You have not clarified anything. All you’ve done is gone from making one confusing statement to making an even more confusing statement! Where on earth did you go to school? Never mind. I don’t want to know.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I know very well that Anglicans are trinitarians. Shilmer included a list from the Oxford Dictionary of who they considered "Christian". Overwhelmingly the listed dictionary definitions correlated with the corresponding religion's stand on the trinity doctrine: Does "X" believe in the trinity? Yes? Then "X" is a Christina. No? "X" is a non-Christian sect. I pointed out that Oxford is an Anglican institution and their trinitarian bias would be understandable, but bias nonetheless. Then Shilmer dragged in the Anglican definition from the dictionary which he did not originally list. In my comment above I clearly state "Anglicans are trinitarians..." Then, for the umpteenth time I get attacked and demeaned by Shilmer again: "Are you oblivious that Anglicans believe in Trinity? ...Where on earth did you go to school?" He is abusive, condescending, belligerent, and obnoxious. I am tired of his bullying, his distractions, his attacks -- even with petty stuff as posting my IP address repeatedly after I asked over and over to not do it, there was no cause for it, it was pure truculence. I have taken to addressing the Talk Editors rather than Shilmer directly because I do not feel it is productive or beneficial for the group, the Article, Wikipedia, or Readers to do otherwise. Shilmer insists on challenging every single thing I write to the death, demanding answers and explanations and summarily dismissing what I write. When I make a page edit, he summarily deletes it. Even when I try to end a seemingly endless debate he taunts me as if it is because I am wrong but he has no basis for these claims. I have demonstrated his contradictions time and again. I welcome suggestions on how to improve on my talk page. Except from Shimer, I've heard enough from him -- let's see if he can respect at least one simple request. -- cfrito (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: What a joke is your analysis! Do you have no concept of weight of material? The information included in the quotes I offered from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions is nowhere near what you would need to analyze what you attempted to deduce! This is why your analysis and response is so school-yardish. That you fail to understand what I wrote only underscores this.

Based on what I’ve seen of your responses here, you feel “bullied” because you have poor skills of refutation and construction. The reason I respond to you is because you respond on issues I address and subjects I edit. The reason I challenge what you say is because what we say deserves to be challenged. This is not unique to you. It is true of all. If you do not like challenge then why do you participate here? There is, after all, heat in the kitchen. We should grow from challenge!

I could help you build logic skill of construction and refutation, if you wanted help with it. I have presented potential soft spots in some of my own arguments and wondered why you never realized this and responded with challenge. The reason can only be one thing. It matters not to me that you have disdain for my person. I think I can help you improve a skill that you need to improve on. If you then turn around and use this skill to take me to task, well that’s just all the better because challenge promotes growth, and I like to grow. You can email me if you want. My remarks such as “Where on earth did you go to school” are no more than my frustration of getting non-answer or off-point responses from you. My remarks are not personal. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So you will be altering the Wikipedia article on Anglicanism as well then? That article currently refers to "an affiliation of Christian Churches", though your line of reasoning insists that such as a declaration is POV. Will you as staunchly promulgate your "unbiased view" there as you are here?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: If I had the time there are probably an infinite number of edits I would be altering in many Wikipedia articles. I have not considered the Wikipedia article on Anglicanism, and am not as familiar with what consensus vetted literature demonstrates when it comes to presenting specific aspects of that religion. If this is something important to you, then as a favor and as time allows, I am more than happy to perform research and report method and findings for your benefit. I have not said that declaratory language is POV. I have said that declaratory language represents POV when it runs contrary to existing consensus presentation in the body of world knowledge. Please do not confuse the former with the latter. Advocating presentations according to existing consensus in the body of world knowledge cannot represents bias on my part because I do not determine this consensus. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The alleged 'presentations according to existing consensus in the body of world knowledge' is merely a selection of sources that you think agree with your view, though those sources do not actually indicate that the group is non-Christian or that it is not a religion, and other religions that are indisputably Christian religions are also discussed in the same manner in other works that you allege to support your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: That was a pathetic attempt at refutation. I made no selection of sources as you assert of me. I shared the research methodology for benefit of duplication by other editors, and this methodology made it impossible for me to select sources. The method selected the sources; not me. This accusation you make of my person is absurd.

Also, and for the umpteenth time, I have not anywhere suggested the literature presents a view that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is non-Christian., or that it is not a religion. These assertions on your part are either inventions of your mind, or else poor comprehension. A consensus presentation that does not declare a religion as Christian is not a consensus presentation that the religion is non-Christian. I have also shared research on how authoritative literature presents a range of religions. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You have used a great many words to say not much at all. You acknowledge that the group is indeed Christian, and you acknowledge that the group is a religion. You also acknowledge that other sources indicate this to be the case. Of the sources you have previously mentioned, most of those that do not say anything were medical sources disinterested in the debate of whether JWs are Christian or not. Of the other sources, most indicated them to be Christian (including those that say they are millenialists, who are also Christian). You are debating merely for the sake of debating.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: That I acknowledge the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is Christian is purely my POV. That vetted sources readily acknowledge Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion does not mean the same body of knowledge declares Jehovah’s Witnesses simply as a “Christian religion.” Otherwise your remarks above are loaded with interpretive conclusions of concern (e.g., “sources disinterested…”) and meaning (e.g., “millenialists, who are also Christian”) rather than weighing the expressed presentation in the vetted literature.

See below for your first tedious example. As far as the second is concerned, if you are unable to understand the meaning of millenialist and if you imagine that it is merely my "interpretive conclusion" of the term that identifies them as Christian, then you are probably unqualified to discuss such issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, The difference between what you are doing and what I have done is that I presented what the authors actually said (which is verifiable) whereas you extrapolate what you want from what the authors say. Do I have explain the problem with this? -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that logical extrapolation is never beneficial? Are you disputing what it is that was extrapolated? Or are you just clutching at straws?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, no, I have not and do not suggest that logical extrapolation is never beneficial. That would be patently absurd.

In this case the question is, What is the consensus presentation? For sake of discussion, let’s say a consensus of information actually presents Jehovah’s Witnesses as millenniallist. In this case the answer to the question is “millenniallist”. The answer is not “Christian”. Were we to extrapolate Christian from millenniallist because millenniallists represent a sect of Christianity then we have distorted the actual consensus into a devised consensus, which is indefensible as the consensus. We have to take existing consensus as we find it, particularly when it achieves a supermajority. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis of the source information above is laughable; it is contradictory and selective. Here is why:

Of the methodically collected resources, there are a total of 9 articles declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Of these 9, 2 are medical sources, and you claim medical sources are disinterested in whether the religion is Christian or whatever. If, as you assert, medical sources are disinterested in the issue then these declarations have little value in terms of deliberate usage. Nevertheless, apparently you believe we should accept declaratory language from a “disinterested” source when it agrees with whatever is your position. Of the remaining 7 of the 9, every single one of the authors is known to hold a strong bias that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. It is, then, entirely selective for you to then leverage this as though it represents anything other than bias POV. In short, either your skills of analysis are beyond rusty, or else you are intentionally misrepresenting information.

LOL. It is you that makes flawed conclusions. And "here is why":

I 'asserted' that medical sources do not always indicate religious viewpoints, not that they always do not. There is a significant difference. However, the point is that many medical sources refrain from making statements that are not directly related to the scope of their article. If a medical source does happen to include such information, there is no reason to ignore it. Your argument is ponderous. I have no inclination to pander to your ego by verifying your count at this time, however, assuming it is actually correct, your definition of 'bias' is no doubt skewed anyway, because the other sources may also be biased by traditional religious views regarding Trinitarianism. And so it comes down to whether JWs are demonstrably Christian, which they are by any secular measure. (The fact that not many people actually know much about this small religious group at all is irrelevant.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, the mistake you made is a fundamental one compare to my research. You assume something about a set of articles without having read them firsthand. I decided to actually read the articles (entirely) before I commented. Saying “many” medical sources do not include “such information” is as valid as me saying “many” theological sources do not include “such information”. It is as weaselly as it gets. When the subject term of a vetted article is addressing a religion by name then it makes expression of that religion. Apparently you are unaware of how the search criteria I applied works. Perhaps like Wonderpet your research acumen is a little too dependant on the Google method? The remainder of your remark on this point is most assuredly the sound of heals clicking backwards! The articles I note as biased are self-identifiable as biased because of who and what the authors are (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses, or admitted contra-Jehovah’s Witnesses). These meet everyone’s criteria as conflict of interest where potential for bias is inescapable. The final comments you offer are nothing short of a sweeping generalization. Your complaints on these points are silly, and embarrassing to read. But I do appreciate your willingness to share your views. On this count you are brave, and I encourage that you continue. We all make mistakes, and we all do it in public view at times. This is part of our growth. – Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have time to read all of the articles in their entirety, and I am under no obligation to; if you do, good on you. Your allusion to weasel words ignores the context and scope of scientific articles (as opposed to theological ones) when discussing religious beliefs. (Sarcastic comment ignored.) (Tiresome sarcastic metaphor ignored.) Again, I do not dispute your methods, only your conclusions. In any case case "new religious movement" is the most accurate available term for the introduction. (Arrogant condescension ignored.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, you have no more obligation to read all the articles than you have an obligation to argue or attempt refutation based on those articles. But it is telling that you choose to do the latter without having done the former. This is the problem I pointed out, and that you dodged. Theological articles are just like any other article—they address the subject they address, whatever that subject is. In this case, the subject term criteria was, gasp, “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. Now who’d a guessed it? As for a conclusion, what I presented is what the articles actually say, the rest is overview. When an overwhelming majority of methodically selected articles addressing a particular subject term are in concert then consensus is so evident even a blind hog could find it. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See cfrito's response above regarding the way you presented your research and how editors have subsequently responded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw it and responded. He responded with more of the same poor argument form.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel my usage of vandalism is inappropriate then I suggest you chew on your own use of the term vandalism--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinct difference has been explained at your Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote on my talk page is very telling, that is for sure. I encourage readers to consider it. There is an education there for the taking.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, feel free. And here is a working link to Marvin's talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)