Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Lead paragraph

Marvin, when you ask "Who can possibly object to this?" are you saying you don't want input? Dtbrown 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: If someone, anyone, can offer a studied objection to the presentation of course I welcome the input. Who wouldn't? But I see no need to seek input from an editor who takes it upon him or herself to edit what they have not read themselves in terms of supporting references.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I would ask you be more civil to other editors here. Dtbrown 05:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article text must also reflect a consensus, even if you feel that nobody else's arguments have any leg to stand on. -- mattb 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the quotation marks from the opening sentences is also problematic. For example, the phrasing now borrows from Chu's "As a religious body they “arose in response to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity." The lead should not consist of quotes from others, nor should it borrow others phrasing. Dtbrown 05:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, verifiability and neutrality don't mean copying others' phrasing. In fact, that's precisely the wrong thing to do. In any case, I think the current lead wording is awkward and I don't see much reason for the complete rephrase. -- mattb 05:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: What argument? Editors preferential to the Watchtower perspectives want to assert Watchtower perspective, which perspective is understandable and should be included as information. Editors with an opposing preference keep kicking around problems they perceive in relation to "sect" and who is and is not "Christian". Well as it turns out there is a handy solution right from the mouth of the Watchtower organization from its own representatives writing in their official capacity. And it turns out that both their presentations alleviate every related objection I've observed on this page. I guess we can be glad the Watchtower organization has had some of its representatives write in academic journals so we can see how they present themselves purely from an informational point of view.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Please do not confuse directness with incivility.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: I'll rephrase the sentence to express what the reference material states without using exact words. In part I've already done this.-- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: What you write regarding problematic removal of quotation marks and borrowing phrases leaves me wondering what you mean. Can you be more specific? -- Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin's first version that consisted of quotes:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of the world’s fastest growing religious groups. They are well known for their distinctive beliefs, door-to-door proselytism, political neutrality, and legal battles for religions freedom.”[1] They adopted their current name in 1931 under the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[2] As a religious body they “arose in response to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity,” and though small in numbers “attacked such common doctrines of Catholicism and Protestantism as the Trinity and the deity of Christ, hellfire, the inherent immortality of the human soul, predestination, and clergy-laity divisions, claiming that these had no Biblical basis.”

The current version:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one of the world’s fastest growing religious groups professing Christianity. They are known for their door-to-door proselytism, political neutrality, and legal victories for religions freedom.[1] They adopted their current name in 1931 under the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[2] As a religious body they developed in response to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity. [3] They dispute common doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ, hellfire, the inherent immortality of the human soul, predestination, and clergy-laity divisions, claiming these have no Biblical basis.

The phrasing is still borrowed from the sources. This is not appropriate. Dtbrown 06:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Would you please do me the favor of evidencing your claim that "borrowed" phrasing is somehow inappropriate when the source is properly and thoroughly credited by reference? Where do you get these objections from? Please explain. -- Marvin Shilmer 06:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there the need to borrow phrasing from others in the lead? Dtbrown 06:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: The need for optimal accuracy is one reason to use similar, even near identical, language. This becomes an even greater need when phrasing becomes hotly disputed, which it has in this case. An even greater accuracy is achievable by use of direct quotation. But you objected to that. Authors (no academic known to me, in fact!) have no problem with using their terms so long as it accurately reflects their sentiments and they get due credit. In fact they are usually grateful what they write is given legs by authors repeating them, with credit of course.

Now would you please provide some evidence for your claim that "borrowed" phrasing is somehow inappropriate when the source is properly and thoroughly credited by reference.-- Marvin Shilmer 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could just gather a bunch of quotes from other sources for the whole article and then change a few words here and there. Why the need to write an article when we can borrow the phrasing from others? Even if proper credit is given it's not what the lead or the article should be about. Dtbrown 07:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I asked a question. Why are you not providing an answer?

Please provide some evidence for your claim that "borrowed" phrasing is somehow inappropriate when the source is properly and thoroughly credited by reference. Otherwise what you have voiced is nothing more than your own POV.

If you have sufficient time to keyboard a complaint about the actions of another you should have sufficient time to keyboard some evidence that your complaint of that action has validity.-- Marvin Shilmer 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Borrowing phrasing without quotation marks (even though cited) is inappropriate according to this source: "Using another person’s phrases or sentences without putting quotation marks around them is considered plagiarism EVEN IF THE WRITER CITES IN HER OWN TEXT THE SOURCE OF THE PHRASES OR SENTENCES SHE HAS QUOTED." [1] Dtbrown 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Thanks for finally providing an answer to the question asked. The authority you cite is speaking about original ideas (i.e., “other people’s ideas"), not recitation of common phrases and thoughts. The phrases I used are not original to the two authors cited. The phrases are common vernacular used all the time among Jehovah's Witnesses, which I am one of. Nevertheless, I have rephrased the opening paragraph by synthesizing additional source material, which is also now cited.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have another life besides editing here. Thank you for removing the plagiarism. Dtbrown 19:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Plagiarism? Coming from someone who demonstrably misunderstands his own material referenced, how am I to take your backhanded compliment seriously?

Everyone should avoid taking credit for ideas originating from someone else. But it is equally important not to loosely suggest such dishonesty. You know perfectly well what happened in this instance, and that at no time had I in any way whatsoever asserted anyone else's ideas as though my own, and that at all times I was pointing readers and fellow editors to the source of the information I was sharing for this work in process.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was entirely unintentional but it was inappropriate. Dtbrown 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: My editing is never unintentional, and neither does it plagiarize. You have already demonstrated you do not know the meaning of the word. You need to read your own source again, and read the whole thing this time and not just the words you want to parrot in desperation. -- Marvin Shilmer 21:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is plagiarism. If something is stated with a reference but is not quoted, the implication is that the reference supports what is stated, but not that the text is lifted from it. And the lead now reads like a summary from a poorly written TV documentary. 'Extraordinarily' is subjective and misleading as the religion is in decline in most developed nations (comparison of rates of membership growth with national population growths).--Jeffro77 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What you and Dtbrown are suggesting of me is ridiculous. Plagirism is to pass off someone else's work as your own. Readers can review the logs of this circumstance as see immediately I have done no such thing.

If you don't think the term extraordinary is appropriate as applied then take it up with sociologists Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaconne and the peers who reviewed their article for Journal of Contemporary Religion. We are supposed to use vetted secondary sources in verification, aren’t we?

What is it about objective and verifiable presentation that you and Dtbrown dislike? Our presentations are supposed to be objective, aren’t they? -- Marvin Shilmer 23:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the lead now read like a sales pitch? "Join this extraordinarily fast growing religion now and receive your free mug! (offer limited to the first 1440,000)" BMurray 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

BMurry: Presentation reflects the referenced peer reviewed material. -- Marvin Shilmer 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In comparison to say the Australian Roman Catholic Church, whose attendance figures are declining, yes it is growing. The adverb 'fast' is a relative term, let alone the completely POV 'extraordinarily'. BMurray 00:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

BMurry: Vetted journal articles verify the presentation. These are peer reviewed secondary sources. Editors are not to express personal opinion. Editors are to provide information that is relevant, verifiable and then provide a reference for the source. This is what the current presentation provides. What more do you require? -- Marvin Shilmer 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, please refrain from making changes in direct opposition to consensus. Also, sourcing opinion statements with opinion sources dosz not make those statements verifiable. As I stated in another replay above, your method of arguement would make it ok to say the Earth is flat as long as someone is found saying it in a published work. Guess what, there are published works that say the Earth is flat. Are you going to go the wikipedia earth sciences articles and change those to support the flat-earth POV? Fcsuper 02:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: Consensus of whom? The veracity of encyclopedic content and presentation depends on the veracity of its sources and academic rigor of its editors.

The sources I have applied to the lead paragraph are not, as you say, “opinion sources” with “opinion statements”. These sources are vetted journals with good academic reputation.

In response to your attempted analogy, no reputable academic journal with peer review protocol would present flat-earth assertions as legitimate presentation of astrophysical reality. Hence your attempt to give your opinion legs turns out to have no analogous value.

I recommend you learn more about reputable vetted journal content, including the consensus inherent to the content.

I have made no changes at variance with reputable and verifiable vetted sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin: The consensus prior to you popping up here, and the current consensus here. Your changes where obvious unilateral, as there is no agreement on talk regarding your suggestions. Therefore they are against consensus.

Marvin: You well know that the word "extraordinary" and many of the other changes you made are not verifiable in any context, vetted or otherwise Please stop and discuss the points here first. At this point, you are teetering on vandalism. Fcsuper 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: Regarding consensus among local editors (Wiki editors) there is no consensus on this talk page. None whatsoever. The only reason I ever involved myself with this subject page is because of the editorial debacle and bickering going on here. This is not my opinion. If subject page is in a constant state of flux precisely because of lack of consensus.

My efforts are not to assert my own opinion or biases. Rather at each entry point I offered high quality secondary sources for verifying every single thing included in the presentation. By the way, this in includes the term you mention specifically in relation to the growth of Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely the term “extraordinary”.

Your efforts, on the other hand, have been contrary to Wiki policy by removing verified presentation with a presentation with no verification whatsoever! Consensus for encyclopedic content is worthless if the community building the consensus does not have respect for verified presentation properly referenced. I doubt you have even read the referenced material that you have deleted along with it presentation! Have you read this material? If not, then on what editorial academic basis do you delete it?

Now I am on the talk page. I have expressed a position that is strong. Now what position are you going to take? One that disregards verified presentation, or one that stomps on verified presentation as though it is somehow an affront as though vandalism? Please explain yourself.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: One more thing. I do not take being called a liar very well. I have said the presentation I offered is verified. You have said that "I know" that several aspects of the presentation are not verifiable. Personal attack is the final gasp of a person who has no other way to explain themselves. In the future please refrain from personal attack. You should also take time to read verification material before asserting what it does or does not say and support. -- Marvin Shilmer 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin: It seems you are getting heated about this matter. No one said you where a liar, no has anyone hinted at it. Everyone here as assumed good faith. You are no longer assuming good faith, and since there is no cause for that accusation, that does put you in violation of the principles behind of wikipedia policies. It's ironic that by your accustsion, you are the one making the first personal attack here. Please be mindful of this from this point forward.

Also, stating you have a strong case doesn't mean you have a strong case. This strikes at the heart of why this has gotten to this point. Honestly, when one goes through and makes whole sale radical changes to an article, then argues EVERY SINGLE POINT WITHOUT END, it is impossible to consider that person's contributions point by point, as you have just requested. Please limit your edit suggestions to piecemeal activities if you wish them to be considered point by point.

So at this point, I'm going to point out the flawed logic being employed using the primarily obvious example. You keep arguing that the used of the word "extraordinary" is verifiable because you have some source that uses that word in its content. This is not a valid point. Why? .............................. Example:iIf you describe a particular firetruck as Red, this is a statement of fact. The term red is objective since it is well defined based on several principles, such as in science where it is defined as a particular set of light wave lengths. Someone may be picky about whether it is dark red or brick red, but the fact that it is red is veriable based on scientific guidelines. However, the word "extraordinary" has no guidelines for its use. It is completely subjective and comparative. Extraordinatory compared to what? JW's certainly are not the fastest growing religious group in the world. They have been at one time, but they are not so now. And in fact, they've had declines in membership over certain periods of time. How is a decline in membership over some periods called "extraordinary growth"? It's not, unless there is some measure for "extraordinary" that goes beyond simply emphasizing the fact they have grown rapidly at times. There is no way to vet the term "extraordinary" without some formal system of measurement being applied. Is there a % of growth that has been officially called "extraordinary" on some scale that ranges from dismal to phenomenal? I'm guessing not.

Ok, final point for now. You haven't done your own research on this matter. The stuff you keep siting as unveriable is verified in works which are already referenced by this and other wikipedia articles. I invite you to go through the currently sited references. Furthermore, I also recommend going through the JW wikipedia article archives and review discussions to see how consensus was reached on this article. Change is not out of the question, but it cannot be done unilaterally when so much discussion has already occured. Fcsuper 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: What you write demonstrates why the need for consulting and using peer reviewed presentations published by reputable organizations. Your commentary regarding use of the term “extraordinary” is probably without having ever read the source material it comes from. So I am asking you now; have you read it? Do you even know which of the two cited (not “sited”) journal articles applied that very term, and what related expression was applied by the second journal article? Have you read both these so you know what you are talking about, and whether you have properly critiqued this usage, which is verified? If you are going to make these pronouncements of my editing as you have, then you owe your readership (not to mention me) an answer to these questions.

Reply: No matter how many articles you site, an unverifiable statement is unverifiable. "Extraordinary" is a comparative adjective. As such, it is not useful outside of its initial context. Your arguing and arguing and arging about this one little (big) word is pointless unless you can establish the context for its use. However, doing so requires a statement of the comparison. The comparison is unnotable because what it is being compared against is arbitrary. JW's growth is not extraordinary compared to many other particular religious group. Also, things like growth change at the turn of a hat, and is not a reliable "fact" over time. It certainly isn't a desciption of JW's specifically, only a JW of someone's perspective (POV). With all do respect, the arguments you presented on this particular issue are not benefiting your overall arguements. Fcsuper 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: I asked whether you have read the vetted reference material you are commenting on here. Have you? If not, and given the material is/was thoroughly referenced for readers to consider it in its original full blown presentation, then on what basis am I to take your retort seriously. It is absurd for any editor to make commentary on something they have not read with their own eyes. I ask you again, have you read the vetted sources? If not then discussing them with you is pointless in terms of critique.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't contradicted my point. You've simply deflected. But seeing as this is no longer an issue in the article, I will simple ask that you make your point directly on these matters. Fcsuper 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, and contrary to your assertion addressed to me, I have not made wholesale (not “whole sale”) changes to this article. Frankly, the editing really only changed a single sentence, and that change was only make a subjective statement into an objective statement.

You go on and on about an alleged subjective usage of the term extraordinary, yet you are quite content to stipulate a quite subjective assertion stating, essentially, that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian”. This is entirely subjective since what a Christian IS happens to be so disputed, particularly in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses as demonstrated by this talk page. Yet the quite objective (not to mention verified) statement, essentially, that “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity” you balk at. You do this despite the preponderance of literature in secondary sources specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses that do not assert the subjective but rather the objective. Why do you readily dismiss the objective for the subjective? Why to you so readily dismiss secondary vetted presentations that specifically address Jehovah’s Witnesses, including some from official Watchtower representatives? Please explain.

You say a consensus is achieved on this article. What is this supposed to me when it blatantly presents spin as unbiased information?

Again, to these three paragraphs, I invite you to read the archives. It is simply untrue that this article is spinning information, at least in the introduction. This statement is rather unfair (disrespectful) to all the others who have contributed to this article in good faith over its history. Additionally, what JW's belief about their believes is no more admissible than other anyone else's opinions. The statement is a description of their beliefs, and does not taking in to consideration what they believe about their beliefs. Again, please look at the archives and to the other responders here. 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If when you said I asserted something as true that I knew was false you were not intended to suggest me as dishonest, then you have my apology for thinking that a person knowingly asserting a falsehood as true is a liar. I apologize. -- Marvin Shilmer 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, no worries. Ultimately, we are all on the same side here. :) Fcsuper 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unverified content

Any Wiki editor is free to remove attributions that are not verified. Right now the lead paragraph for this article has such an assertion. There is no verification for the assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses ARE a "Christian organization". Until this is verified and referenced it remains subject to removal by any editor. Given the constant bickering and nonsensical pleading among editors on this subject, whatever verification is provided need also make sure it represents a preponderance of knowledge on this subject. Otherwise the ridiculous disputing here will continue and, worst of all, Wiki will lose yet more respect as an informational source. Wiki is not about propagating spin. Wiki is about sharing verified information.

Unfortunately editors here have disregarded verified presentation on this matter by deleting it, despite its thorough and rigorous documentation. Wiki editors are not free to delete verified content with impunity.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no more need to verify that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian organization than there is need to verify that the Roman Catholic Church or some other similar Church is a Christian organization. Dtbrown 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Encyclopedic content must verify everything. End of story. If it’s not verifiable and not verified then what is it but spin at best, or misinformation at worst? Or, are you content to let readers decide what is legitimate attribution based on mere assertion?

Hence if it is asserted that “the Roman Catholic Church IS Christian” then this needs verification, which in the case of the Roman Catholic Church is not hard to find verification from a preponderance of secondary sources.

Likewise if it is asserted that “Jehovah’s Witnesses ARE Christian” then this needs verification, which it appears is rather difficult to verify in this case with a preponderance of secondary sources. As a Jehovah's Witness myself I have no problem asserting Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. But from an academic perspective the attribution is unverified by a preponderance of secondary sources.

Wiki policy gives every editor permission to delete unverified attribution. This is for good reason. If you disagree with this policy then take it up with Wiki administrators. I happen to agree with it.--

I have known hundreds of Jehovah's Witnesses myself over a period of nearly 40 years. I have never known a Witness to be reticent about the Witnesses being a Christian group. Witness authors I have read (Alfs, Penton, Cole, Herle and some others) have not made this an issue. Can you cite some other Witness authors who feel Jehovah's Witnesses can not be classified as "Christian" without qualification? When the name "Marvin Shilmer" is googled the articles that appear are strongly critical of the current Watchtower organization leadership, particularly on the subject of blood. Is that you? Dtbrown 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I am not reticent about Jehovah’s Witnesses being Christian. I have said this repeatedly. But this is my opinion; my belief; my bias. It is a wholly different matter whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are acknowledged AS Christian by a preponderance of knowledge addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically. Hence it is the academic side of me speaking to this subject. When I engage in objective editing my biases are checked at the door.

What Witness (or ex Witensses) have to say regarding their own religion is information. When Jehovah’s Witnesses assert they are Christian, as I do, this is a profession of belief. But this is all it is as information. We should respect this by acknowledging the professed status, but from an academic NPOV perspective we have to acknowledge it for what is is objectively, which is a profession. One simple reason this is true is to recall that professing something does not make that something true; it only makes it a profession.

As far as I know all Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they belong to a Christian religion; hence I know of no Jehovah’s Witnesses who would, as you say, feel Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be classified as Christian. But this is a POV held by a group of individuals with an understandable, not to mention strong, bias to a certain POV.

I have no trouble talking about my critical views of the Watchtower organization, or my own religious sphere of Jehovah’s Witnesses when I see something deserving criticism. Do you find this objectionable? When it comes to blood I happen to have some atypical experience compared to most of the population, and compared to most Jehovah’s Witnesses. As with any other subject, if I see where criticism is needed then I do not refrain, even when it touches as close to home as my own religious affiliation. Do you find this particularly objectionable?

As for whatever you found googling Marvin Shilmer, I have no idea if everything attributed to this name is authentically my own. If there is something you have in mind specifically you can ask and I will express whether I am the author or not.-- Marvin Shilmer 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across this posting by a Marvin Shilmer on the Jehovah's Witness Discussion Board [2] (which is primarily a board critical of JWs) regarding seeking scans of an article in the 1913 Bible Student Convention Report connecting Clayton Woodworth (first editor of the Golden Age magazine) with evil spirits. Is that you?

It's my observation that those who claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian are usually strident critics of the organization. There are strident critics of the Roman Catholic Church which claim it is not a Christian denomination. Personally, I think that the views of such critics (be it of the Roman Catholic Church or Jehovah's Witnesses or other self professed Christian groups) do not deserve a hearing here on that subject. In my opinion, they are simply pushing a POV. Dtbrown 22:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Since you mentioned Penton, and recalling that Penton had contributed to encyclopedic content specifically on Jehovah's Witnesses, I looked up the Canadian Encyclopedia article he authored. Nowhere does it stipulate anything remotely like "Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian". I don't have the Encyclopedia Americana handy at the moment, but Penton also authored some material on the same subject for this highly regarded work.

I do have the entire Encyclopedia Britannica handy, though. So I looked up its entry. Nowhere does it assert the attribution "Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian". Nowhere.

I also did a search of Marley Cole’s Jehovah’s Witnesses and the New World Society. I found not a single instance were he expressed “Jehovah’s Witnesses ARE Christian”. On the other hand, over and over again he expressed biblical argumentation on what Christians should do and be, and he more than intimated that Jehovah’s Witnesses do these things. He did, however, point out that Jehovah’s Witness profess Christianity by writing, “Wycliffe belongs in the Christian tradition claimed by Jehovah’s witnesses”. Please note Cole’s objective presentation by expressing the claim of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Regarding the request for the 1913 document scans, the message is mine.

Regarding your observation of those who claim Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian, I fail to make the connection. I do not claim Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. So what’s the point you are making?

In your commentary you commit a fallacy of making a sweeping generalization. Please explain why you did this?

Do you equate veracious criticism with strident criticism because it is reiterated? If any criticism I’ve offered is inaccurate I want to know about it. This is how we grow, as individuals and as a society.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: For my views on affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses you can read my views expressed at [3] and the second page of the discussion, if my views you consider pertinent enough to bring up here.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, I believe Penton does classify JWs as "Christian" in the Americana article. He certainly does in Apocalypse Delayed.

Thanks for the clarifications of your position. While we cannot verify your actual membership as a Jehovah's Witness we can verify your activity as a critic of the Watchtower organization. Many of your edits here make points that are embarrassing to JWs (such as the recent one on the first Board of Directors and the Witnesses' Governing Body and your many edits regarding the non-acceptance of the Watchtower's blood doctrine among JWs). I think your campaign to not have JWs classified as "Christian" in this article is borne out of your critical perspective and evidences a strong POV on your part.

I think this subject has been talked to death and I think we have enough consensus. Consensus does not mean everyone agrees just as there are critics of the Roman Catholic Church who do not they they are a Christian body. Dtbrown 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: My religious affiliation is irrelevant to whether my contributions here or elsewhere have veracity. This is because I have asserted neither my status as a Jehovah’s Witness nor my personal opinions as a basis for any editing I’ve offered here. As I said before, if any criticism I offer (whether of the Watchtower organization or anything else) is inaccurate I want to know. You appear to suggest that a willingness to share criticism somehow taints participation here despite that I have not asserted my religious status or my own opinions as a basis for any editing. Do you understand how stifled human knowledge would become were it not for active researchers willing to critique and publicly share criticism?

Whether knowledge embarrasses or does not embarrass is no reason to avoid sharing it. Were encyclopedic content to run presentation and content through an embarrassment sieve in order to determine acceptability it would impede knowledge. Because some Americans are embarrassed by historical civil rights happenings is this a reason to avoid sharing the bald facts for everyone to have, learn from and grow? I think the mere concern over whether a historical event/fact embarrasses anyone is patently absurd and wholly out of order for an editor intent on encyclopedic presentation.

Speaking of “embarrassment,” why on earth would any Jehovah’s Witnesses find embarrassing the history of female presence on the body it identifies as is initial Governing Body? You seem extremely sensitive on the whole topic of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the point of fault finding for me including this historical fact. Please explain this.

I have no campaign to classify Jehovah’s Witnesses at all. You and a few other editors are the ones campaigning to label Jehovah’s Witnesses. My bias is checked at the door. From the beginning of my participation on this one issue I have insisted on solid sourcing and objective presentation. You, on the other hand, are bent on labeling rather than objective presentation. Please explain this.

Consensus building is an excellent tool. But consensus for encyclopedic content is not a democracy of editorial opinion. Rather the editors must allow themselves to be moved by solid research and objectivity. That is, here it is our job to determine what is the existing consensus among verifiable sources as to attributing anything to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or job is not to invent how a majority of editors here want to label Jehovah’s Witnesses. Encyclopedic entries are not invented; they are developed from source material.

If you want to read my declaration as a Jehovah’s Witness and that I believe they are Christian, you can read some of my commentary archived by the British Medical Journal here: [4] In my presentation titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood vs. Justification and Responsibility you will find my statement, “I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses…. Jehovah’s Witnesses desire to be loyal to God. Like most other people we are willing to die in defense of or loyalty to certain issues. As Christians we are willing to lay down our life in order to remain faithful to our Creator, Jehovah.”

I see no form of consensus on our subject matter here. All I see is a lot of opinion throwing and, here and there, some narrow conclusions drawn from works mentioning Jehovah’s Witnesses as part of a broad review. I have sat in my office and tediously word searched huge and very powerful databases of vetted material on the narrow subject of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Editors here appear to be disinterested in what is found there. It’s a sight to behold!

Regarding Penton, you write “I believe Penton does classify JWs as "Christian" in the Americana article. He certainly does in Apocalypse Delayed.” I have Apocolpse Delayed. Do you? In Apocolypse Delayed Penton refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “major Christian sectarian movement”.(Introduction, p. 3) Please provide the reference where Penton "certainly does" as you allege .-- Marvin Shilmer 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Penton refers to them as "Christian" in the quote you give.

Having only limited time I will wait to see what others write on this subject before any further replies to you. Thanks again for sharing your views. Dtbrown 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Your reply explains a flaw in analysis. To assert “Penton refers to them as ‘Christian’ in the quote” is like someone asserting “Your mother refers to my friends as wise” when my mother actually states, “Your friends are wise convicts”. For the record, in the quote I supplied Penton did not characterize Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. He characterized them as a “major Christian sectarian movement”. Hence Penton attributed Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect, or, if you prefer, a sect of Christianity.

Now, you stated that Penton “certainly does” classify Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. I asked for your reference, not mine. Again, please share the reference. I want to read with my own eyes what you allege of Penton.

Other editors will chime if when and if they want, which is as it should be. But we need not wait for feedback that may or may not come for you to share the reference of what you allege of Penton. I am just as interested in additional research as the other editors, assuming good faith as always, of course.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Denomination, Sect or Group?

I propose we change the first sentence to "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian denomination or sect" to simply "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian group" which I think is more NPOV. Thoughts? Dtbrown 00:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I have no problem with this attribution, if editors here can show it represents a consensus among verifiable secondary sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Group" has to be verified? Dtbrown 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: “Group” is not the attribution of your proposal. Your proposal represents an assertion of fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a “Christian group”. I have no problem whatsoever with this attribution, if editors here can show it represents a consensus among verifiable secondary sources.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your views, Marvin. I misread you. My apologies. What do others think? Dtbrown 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we go around in circles if we debate whether JWs are "Christian" or not. I worry about "denomination" because JWs may not agree that they are a denomination. Hmmm... it just occurred to me that we should see what Wikipedia has to say about what a denomination is...

A denomination, in the Christian sense of the word, is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.

Christianity is composed of five major divisions of Churches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant. Each of these five divisions has important subdivisions. Because the Protestant subdivisions do not maintain a common theology or earthly leadership, they are far more distinct than the subdivisions of the other four groupings. Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian groupings including each of the multitude of Protestant subdivisions.

Denominationalism is an ideology which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all churches teach this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term as its implication of interchangeability does not agree with their theological teachings.

Messianic movements

Other faith traditions claim not to be descended from any of these groups directly. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for instance, is often grouped with the Protestant churches, but does not characterize itself as Protestant. Its origination during the Second Great Awakening parallels the founding of numerous other indigenous American religions, especially in the Burned-over district of western New York state, and in the western territories of the United States, including the Adventist movement, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science (which had roots in Congregationalism but regarded itself as restorative), and the Restoration Movement (sometimes called "Campbellites" or "Stone-Campbell churches", which include the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Church of Christ). Each of these groups, founded within fifty years of one another, originally claimed to be an unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church.

Thus, although I have been kind of pushing towards "Christian denomination" recently, I also see that this could be problematic because JWs don't really see themselves as being "just another brand of Christianity" in the sense that Presbyterians and Methodists could be argued to (i.e. Presbyterians and Methodists accept each other as Christians)

--Richard 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian, Christian Denomination, Christian Sect, Other

These attributions appear the sticking point in this discussion. Though editors have offered opinions rather freely, what I see missing is an attempt by editors to examine what, if any, is the consensus of religious attribution of Jehovah’s Witnesses among secondary sources, particularly vetted presentations.

Here is my own finding (so far anyway):

1. Within survey works and broad religious reviews I see Jehovah’s Witnesses often lumped in with Christian affiliation. But as sources these tend to lump religious tendency towards one of a few major religious philosophies or else a multitude of relatively obscure religious affiliations. Hence if a religion professes itself one of the major religious philosophies they get lumped in without regard for how the greater population of that major religious philosophy regards the group, or for that matter how other religious philosophies regard them. But even among these generalized works I do not see a consensus of willingness to attribute Christianity to Jehovah’s Witnesses. However I do see an overwhelming consensus within this source stipulating that Christianity is the professed faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So you're saying that there is a much greater willingness to label Presbyterians as Christian but only a grudging acceptance that JWs profess Christianity without actually conceding them that label? This is a strong statement and worth making if it can be backed up with sources.

I suspect that it will be difficult to back up this assertion with specific quotes as I'm guessing that what you wrote is an inference rather than based on explicit statements. NB: I'm not challenging your integrity here. I'm just commenting that sometimes it's necessary to "read between the lines" and it's hard to prove things with short quotations that explicitly make a point that the author assumes. I would be happy if you could prove me wrong. --Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: When academic works address the religion of Presbyterian they do not have a tendency I’ve noticed to attribute as simply as you suggest. These tend to speak with narrow descriptive language, such as stating it is representative if classical Protestantism and then offering comment on unique developmental roots. In terms of begrudging behavior (or not), this is not what I speak of. Authors of works attempting to cover a wide spectrum of religious bodies have to apply some basis to associate them with their work. With works offering broad overviews it is not unusual for an author to place Jehovah’s Witnesses in the category of Christian for purposes of comparison with a wide range of other religions professing Christianity. I am not asserting a majority or a minority does this, but it is nevertheless not unusual. But when it comes to an academic work focusing on Jehovah’s Witnesses in relation to the historical and traditional body known as Christian, authors are very stingy with the label Christian.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Within works specifically addressing the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses it is a rare thing to find one willing to attribute Christianity to Jehovah’s Witnesses beyond stating things such as “Christian sect”. This was rare enough that when providing a vetted source attributing Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “Christian denomination” I had to rely on a work by Stark et al where it applied the phrase as part of a larger survey conducted. But the very same authors refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “Christian sect” when focusing on this religion in particular.

This is interesting and useful. I would be happy with "Christian sect" or "Christian denomination".

BTW, does Watchtower ever refer to itself as a "Christian denomination"? What is the most common phrase that they seem to use? --Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The Watchtower professes that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian and it rejects the attributions "Christian sect" and Christian denomination".-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in the findings of other editors here as they survey the extensive secondary source material addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching strictly peer reviewed works in the EBSCO Host Research Database I found an attribution of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a ‘communion of heterodox Christology’. (Ref. Missiometrics 2007: Creating Your Own Analysis of Global Data, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, published by Overseas Ministry Study Center, January 2007, Vol. 31 No. 1. pp 25-32)

For editors unfamiliar with this particular EBSCO research database, it is a repository of literally millions of peer reviewed documents made available in digital format. It also provides reference data on millions of additional documents that are not yet digitized from decades ago. In addition to peer reviewed articles this database also searches God knows how many news and purely journalistic article presentations not subject to veteran review. You can apply search parameters to target your research. The search mentioned above applied three search terms (Jehovah, religion, Christian) and was restrained to peer reviewed publications only. The result found 1326 documents. After reviewing the first 50 I have not found one attributing “Christian” or “Christianity” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I have found many presenting Jehovah’s Witnesses in various other ways, such as sect, sectarian, professed Christians, etc.

But a Christian sect is still Christian, right? After all, Christianity started as a Jewish sect and only stopped being one when they stopped asserting that they were Jews but something else entirely different (i.e. "Christians as opposed to Jews" rather than "Jews who were also Christian".) --Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The phrase "Christian sect" is a depiction in comparison with the historical and traditional body known as Christians. Hence it is a comparative term and not a declarative term. Whether any "Christian sect" is in fact Christian is something readers have to determine for themselves. The two terms ("Christian sect" and “Christian”) are neither mutually exclusive nor opposed by necessity. That is, a Christian sect may in fact be Christian or it may in fact not be Christian or it may in fact be somewhat Christian. Determining this is purely a subjective affair, which is why academic works tend to leave it for individuals to make their own determination whilst the work itself focuses on providing as accurate and objective attribution as it can for this very purpose. There are special exceptions to this associated with the historical and traditional community of Christians known colloquially as Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox. -- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several other research databases available for this sort of research, and I have applied searches to these as well with similar findings. Relevant to our discussion, I am still looking for input from other editors on what existing consensus you find in the database of world knowledge.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence Opinion Request

What do editors think of this for an opening sentence:

“Jehovah's Witnesses are an international religion with a heterodox Christology headquartered in the United States with roots in the 19th century Millerite and Bible Student movements.” (provide reference) -- Marvin Shilmer 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Christology the only objection that mainstream Christianity has to calling JWs Christian? (Could be. I'm just asking the question to check our assumptions) And why can we not call them a "Christian denomination"?

How about "Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian sect with a heterodox theology headquartered in the United States. Its roots come from the 19th century Millerite and Bible Student movements.” (I don't like overly long sentences.) I would consider adding a footnote on "heterodox theology" which explains Non-Trinitarianism and the fact that some/many "mainstream Christians" do not consider JWs to be Christians.

Another alternative would be "JWs are a non-Trinitarian Christian sect headquartered in the United States." Then we can defend that text against Christians who argue that "non-Trinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron. I assume that we can find sources who assert that not all Christians are Trinitarians.

--Richard 15:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: I do not think Christology is the only point of objection held by mainstream Christianity regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it may be a commanding point of objection. Though focusing on the main objection (rather than a singular objection) has merit for introductory presentation of a religion, the latter point of commanding objection is hard to elicit with certainty from the body of literature addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other hand, there is amply evidence associated with Jesus’ deity (hence Christology) suggesting this is a primary objection if not the primary objection.

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. It is better than your latter suggestion (i.e., "JWs are a non-Trinitarian Christian sect headquartered in the United States” et al) though the latter presentation is also verifiable. But the sentence that includes Jehovah’s Witnesses professed status of being the restoration of early Christianity must be retained because that too is objective and verifiable information.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A suggested compromise: "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian faith [1] headquartered in the United States" and then in a footnote note the "heterodoxy". I think instead of using "heterodoxy" we could note their non-trinitarian stance as that seems to be the main reason given by those who dispute the JW status as Christian. Dtbrown 23:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Will not work. It’s not objective and it’s not verifiable by a consensus of knowledge on the subject.

Why are you so intent on making a declaration rather than a simple objective and verifiable statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity? Why?

I ask your response to the follwing:

1. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.”(Or equivalent) Mainstream Christianity will balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

2. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.”(Or equivalent) Jehovah’s Witnesses will tend to balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

3. “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity.”(Or equivalent) I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this as an objective presentation. Not a single soul.

The last (3rd) presentation has the best chance of stability and defensibility because it is verifiable and not a declaration. Your comment?-- Marvin Shilmer 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because saying that the Witnesses only profess Christianity is POV pushing. That is exactly what most Watchtower critics want to see here. It is grossly unfair. Why do you require the word "wect"? You were willing to accept Christian sect. Why can we not use a neutral phrase and note that potential conflict in a footnote? Dtbrown 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: You write, “saying that the Witnesses only profess Christianity is POV pushing.” Why do you say this? It is verifiable. It is objective. It is true. What is POV pushing about this?

Can you provide evidence demonstrating a consensus exists in the present world knowledge base declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? If you can, then I’m all for making this declaration part of this encyclopedic entry, and to encourage it in all other’s too. But I do not see this when I examine the body of knowledge available to us. It is not our prerogative as editors to invent an artificial consensus. We have to verify what we write here; hence we have to find the existing consensus.

Why do you and other editors worry about Watchtower critics? What they say is either true or it is false. So what? Whether an edit has merit has nothing whatsoever to do with anything or anybody, other than what can be verified. Fairness has to be determined by what is fair for readers of an encyclopedic entry. Fairness to this readership demands that we concentrate on what can be verified. If we assert an artificial consensus this subject will never achieve any degree of stability, and it will never be fair to readers.

As for your question ‘Why do I require the word ‘sect’?’ I am not sure what you mean. Editing I have offered does not include this term. My first preference would be to stipulate that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity without speaking to where they fit on the technical grid of religion.

I have no problem with footnotes. But the main text has to be objective and verified, and not an artificial consensus invented by us.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

How about

"Jehovah's Witnessess is/are a Christian faith that claims to be an unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church. Its roots are in the 19th century Millerite and Bible Student movements. A distinctive element of their theology is a non-Trinitarian view of Christology. The Jehovah's Witnesses movement is governed by the Watchtower Society, a worldwide religious organization headquartered in the United States."

Add a footnote to "non-Trinitarian view of Christology" that says "Some/many Christian groups consider JWs to be outside of Christianity because of their non-Trinitarianism."

I think we can tinker with "unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church" but I'm hoping that my wording comes closest to nailing the truth without getting into too much trouble with NPOV. Yes, there are still going to be people that object to "JW is a Christian faith" but, per Marvin's research, the fact is that they do get lumped in with Christians all the time (they're certainly not Buddhists!).

At some point, we have to come to a compromise that we can defend against all comers (both JWs and anti-JW mainstream Christians).

What do you think of this proposal?

--Richard 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Your proposed opening sentence presents subjectivity right out of the box. It declares, "Jehovah's Witnesses are/is a Christian faith..." when this is a subjective conclusion. Borrowing from your language, an objective opening sentence would read:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious faith that claims to be the unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church."

We can verify this statement without making any subjective declaration.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I can accept your proposal but I am probably more amenable than some of the other editors of this article. My primary criterion is: stability and defensibility of the text against "all comers". Regarding your charge of "subjectivity", do you see the same subjectivity in the leads of the following articles: Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Protestantism? Why or why not?

If you do see subjectivity in those leads, why do we not enforce "objectivity" across the board?

Which is the greater sin - a uniform application of subjectivity (based on self-identification and profession) across the board or an inconsistent application of objectivity?

--Richard 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: We share primary concern.

The three articles you inquire of happen to be the three special cases I speak of at some length in previous entries to this talk page. For reasons already expressed and explained, from a historical and traditional, and consensual theological perspective it is accepted to declare these three as Christian. But beyond that you will find very few vetted resources that declare religions as “Christian”. Instead you will see them expressed in terms of their historical association with wherever they come from, and whatever comes with that. What I express here is strictly my observation of current and historical presentations. My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian, but I am unable to find a consensus for this among reputable and arguably unbiased sources, particularly vetted sources. If we are to achieve the primary goal we share then we have to avoid inventing an artificial consensus and make sure we are presenting what we can verify.

Regarding other articles addressing other religions, though it is best for a single reference work to apply a standard approach in related topics/appellations it is more important to make sure whatever presentation is under consideration is made objective and verified. If work need be done on other articles that is a subject for those articles. Editing a reference work is not about fair treatment. It is about objective treatment. Poor form in one reference article should not reduce other articles. The reverse should be true. An academic standard that has works reduced to the lower denominator are no better than gossip from the streets.

The bifurcation you present is a false one because no matter how objective is one presentation, from one presentation (subject) to the next we will never have consistent objectivity because of the human element. What we do as a result is examine whatever the subject presentation for veracity to identify the subjective from the objective. Researchers and editors have a higher obligation here, knowing that he average reader is often too apt to accept declarations as fact without bothering to test its veracity or perhaps not having the skill to do so. But researchers and editors must know better. Otherwise they have no business editing in the first place.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Your revised introductory sentence equates denomination and sect with faith. For our purposes here I see no problem with this. However I am compelled to point out the logical flaw of equating “faith” with “Christian faith”, which is how you extended your initial equivalency proposal. To put it another way, all denominations and all sects are some kind of a faith, but no all faiths are Christian. Hence your sentence is illogical on the basis you assert it. Declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian remains an assertion of the subjective, and still do not see any verification of this from whatever existing consensus of world knowledge. -- Marvin Shilmer 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment about "faith". I think "faith" is preferable to

denomination - because JWs understandably object to being labeled "just another denomination"
sect - well, I don't think JWs should object to this but some editors do object
religion - if Christianity is a religion, is JW another religion different from Christianity?
organization - um, is the Roman Catholic Church a Christian organization or a Christian church?

I don't know what other word will mollify all of us except "faith"

So, the remaining problem is the adjective "Christian" which you would object to in most formulations except perhaps "Christian sect" which I would be content with as well. I think the two front-runners are "Christian sect" and "Christian faith". I could go with either but I think "Christian faith" will garner more support because of the pejorative connotations of "sect".

--Richard 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: I do not disagree that, for Jehovah’s Witnesses, “faith” is a better noun to apply than denomination or sect.

Regarding you question “If Christianity is a religion, is JW another religion different from Christianity,” this is at the heart of the issue. If we take the position that this Wiki article should declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian (or Christianity) then we have to verify this as representing world knowledge rather than representing an artificial consensus of us puny editors here. Objectivity is a must, and verification is key.

Regarding “organization”, it is a poor term applied to a body from a socioreligious perspective. Typical vernacular would be either “church” or “religion”. Between these Jehovah’s Witnesses would probably tend to prefer “religion”.

As for mollification, objective editors are appeased by an objective and verifiable presentation of facts. I can verify with sources that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity. I cannot verify with sources that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. This is why an earlier edit I offered eliminated terms such as denomination and sect and, instead, presented the undisputed and verifiable declaration that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religion professing Christianity. I am still bumfuzzled why anyone would argue with this presentation. Editors here seem more interested in spinning and/or using Wiki as some kind of declaratory tool, when it is supposed to be an encyclopedia.--Marvin Shilmer 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Your latest edit is objective and verifiable (i.e., ““Jehovah's Witnesses are an international faith that claims to be an unprecedented, late restoration of the primitive Christian church.”) It needs referencing, though.

Further on our mutual primary goal:

1. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.”(Or equivalent) Mainstream Christianity will balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

2. “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect.”(Or equivalent) Jehovah’s Witnesses will tend to balk at this as an objective presentation for the foreseeable future.

3. “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity.”(Or equivalent) I don’t know anyone who disagrees with this as an objective presentation. Not a single soul.

The last (3rd) presentation has the best chance of, as you say and I agree, having “stability and defensibility of the text against ‘all comers’.”-- Marvin Shilmer 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your wording on the lead in, you forgot to mention that they are Christian. I will change it back later if there are few objections.Thanks--Ice9Tea 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: What you raise is what is under discussion. To state Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian is to make a declaration. The question is, is there a consensus among the existing knowledge base to verify such a declaration? Please review what has already been presented on this question and participate in this discussion prior to editing. Thanks.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion. it seems there is a question over whether Jehovahs witnesses are or should rightly be referred to as Christians.Lack of support from the world on the side of those saying they are is no great surprise. the knowledge base? of course we would refer to the Bible as the supreme authoritative source. As for the definition of a Christian, what does the Bible say? Must I believe that Christ is God? He didn't.[5] Must I believe that Christ is equal to His father. He didn't.[6]. Seriously why would anyone object to the millions of people who are well known for their going right up to people in their homes to tell them about Jesus Christ the Reigning King of Gods Kingdom actually being called Christian? does this objection make sense to anyone?--Ice9Tea 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: You have expressed a POV, and that is fine. We all have one and we should express ourselves.

Do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic entry should reflect the existing consensus on whatever the subject? If not then what?

If we accept your biblical interpretation (which I probably agree with on this subject) then from an academic perspective we are also bound to accept the next person’s biblical interpretation, which would leave us at a stalemate.

If you accept that an encyclopedic entry must present an existing consensus in world knowledge then help editors, such as both of us, seek this consensus for an objective and verifiable presentation here. It is not our prerogative to assert our POV. It is our responsibility to provide what we can verify, particularly from secondary sources with high academic standards.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin how about this "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious movement professing Jesus Christ as their King. They actively share with others information about their God, whose name is Jehovah, and about his Son, Jesus Christ.Their beliefs are based entirely on the principles found in the Holy Bible and they look to first-century Christianity as their model.--Ice9Tea 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice9Tea: What you write is, for the most part, objective and verifiable. The exception is the statement “Their beliefs are based entirely on the principles found in the Holy Bible”. You could easily remove the subjectivity with this edit:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religious movement professing Jesus Christ as their King. They actively share with others information about their God, whose name is Jehovah, and about his Son, Jesus Christ. They assert biblical bases for all their beliefs, pointing to the Bible as the Holy word of God. They look to first-century Christianity as their model.”

Though I have no issues with the objectivity and verifiability of this presentation, I must confess it reads more like a sermon than an encyclopedic entry. Nevertheless, in the edited version I do see objectivity and verifiability. You might want to hear what other editors have to say on this, too.

Comment? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Carey Barber

I have started the article about Carey W. Barber and I hope for participation in developing that article. Would be interesting if there have been any mentioning of him in newspapers etc. That is a question where ordinary internet research still may give scarce info, so mentioning of that would be a great addition to the theme. Summer Song 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have access to archival documents that may provide you with good reference material. I look around for you and see what I find.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sect

Dictionary.com gives these meanings for "sect":

1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice. 2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination. 3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

Can we not use "religious body" instead of "sect"? Dtbrown 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: The current edit does not employ the term sect.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you has said earlier to Richard:

"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."

If you have no problem with calling the JWs a "Christian sect" then why can't we use "Christian religious body" and then note the reason some other Christians have in distancing themselves from the JWs? Dtbrown 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Because the two statements are relevantly dissimilar. Because I can verify one but not the other.

Stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect is something we can demonstrate carries substantial support in the world knowledge base. I do not find a remotely similar level of support for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian religious body. And, let me be clear here. I dismiss the sources applying “sect” pejoratively right out of hand. I am talking about academic use of the term where it is applied to indicate religious order.

To state Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian religious body is to declare the Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. I am unable to verify this from the body of world knowledge. I have looked for this. But I cannot find it. We cannot declare what we cannot verify. It is not our prerogative to invent consensus that is not found in the knowledge base of literature. We are supposed to present what we can verify.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Religious body" is another meaning of "sect."

At this point, I think your bias as a vocal critic of the Watchtower Society is quite clear. I think this needs to go to mediation. You will only accept the word "sect" and not another meaning of that word: "religious body." Dtbrown 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I agree that “religious body” is another meaning of “sect”. This is not disputed by me. The problem I have is an encyclopedic presentation making a declaration that we cannot verify holds a consensus in the world knowledge base.

Do you agree or disagree that an encyclopedic presentation must represent a consensus of knowledge, and that it has to have verification accordingly?

I do not think you know the extent that I have researched this issue. If I personally considered Jehovah’s Witnesses something other than Christian then how do you explain my open statement to that effect in the reference of my work archived by the British Medical Journal that I cited earlier, specifically for you? I have spent a lot of time researching this in vast databases, such as the one I cite above. Does this mean nothing to you? If I am wrong, show me. All I’m asking for is an entry that reflects the existing consensus in the world knowledge base, whatever that is. Why not research to provide this rather than attacking my motives? This is the unbiased, objective and academic thing to do. Don’t you agree? -- Marvin Shilmer 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. You state I will only accept the word sect. This is false. I have expressed a preference not to use the term sect at all. I have recommended a statement that Jehovah's Witnesses profess Christianity, without mention of sectarianism. Also, the current edit, which is objective, makes no mention of the word sect. Again your assertion of me is patently false! I hope you share the falseness of your assertions with whomever you ask for mediation.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you not state to Richard:

"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."

But when asked if you'd accept the equivalent "Christian religious body" you say you will not accept that. Why? Dtbrown 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Have you read a word I’ve written?

Let’s start with this lesson in sociological usage (not being sarcastic):

Though “sect” can mean “religious body” it does not mean that “sect” and “religious body” are equivalents in usage.

This is why earlier I wrote that the two propositions you proffered are relevantly dissimilar. Did you miss this? You respond as though this was never said. You never even inquired of it as though it were misunderstood.

When non-biased third party researchers apply the term “sect” in their literature they are not simply speaking of a “religious body”. They are speaking of sectarianism. This is their usage. Sectarianism is not a dirty word in this context. It is a reference to religious order. I have expressed this to you too, yet you respond as though it was never said. Why? If you do not understand something why not ask rather than accusing my motivation? Why? I do not understand this.

Getting back to what we can verify, the reason I said Richard’s statement was objective and verifiable was not because his presentation is my preferential one. I expressed his statement was objective and verifiable because his usage of “sect” can be verified with an infinite extent of third party vetted sources. Also, and this is important, Richard’s sentence made no declarations that are unverifiable. -- Marvin Shilmer 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide documentation that "religious body" is not equivalent of sect. Dtbrown 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Do you want usage or a lexical reference? -- Marvin Shilmer 01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide whichever you think best. Dtbrown 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Lexical (OED):

Religious body is a compound term. Hence we have:

religious: Imbued with religion

body: The main portion of a collection or company; the majority; the larger part, the bulk of anything

Religious body is a collection of individuals similarly imbued with religion, a collection of individuals of the same religious preference.

Sect. We have:

sect: A system of belief or observance distinctive of one of the parties or schools into which the adherents of a religion are divided; sometimes spec. a system differing from what is deemed the orthodox tradition; a heresy. (b) A body of persons who unite in holding certain views differing from those of others who are accounted to be of the same religion; a party or school among the professors of a religion; sometimes applied spec. to parties that are regarded as heretical, or at least as deviating from the general tradition.

Lexical finding: Though members of a religious body may be of the same sect, a religious body is not necessarily a sect because its traditions may not sufficiently differ from what is deemed “the orthodox tradition” for whatever religion is in question.

Note: If you read the entire entry for these terms you will see immediately they are not equivalents because of the enormously different range of meanings, not to mention etymologies.

Usage:

Rodney Stark et al apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses the term “Christian sect” in reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a “new religious movement”. A new religious movement is “new” precisely because it significantly differs from traditional orthodoxy, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are very different from traditional orthodox Christianity. Hence Stark et al use the term “sect” not merely as a religious body but rather as a sectarian religion differing from traditional orthodoxy. (Stark, R. et al, Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow So Rapidly: A Theoretical Application, Contemporary Journal of Religion, Vol. 12 No.2 1997) -- Marvin Shilmer 02:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So sect can mean: "A system of belief or observance distinctive of one of the parties or schools into which the adherents of a religion are divided" I think the American Heritage Dictionary is not far off when it gives "religious body" as a meaning for "sect." A footnote showing that JWs differ from traditional orthodoxy should take care of any misconceptions that JWs hold to traditional Christian beliefs. I think this is the only fair way of handling the situation. Otherwise, all other non-traditional Christian groups can fall victim to the designs of their critics. Can you imagine someone suggesting that the Quaker article should not refer to them as a Christian religious group despite that many (if not most) Quakers do not hold to trinitarian belief? Dtbrown 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Who’s pushing a point of view?

The usage you are trying to assert is not supported in the literature addressing our topic because the literature applies a usage other than the one you would assert. This is equivocation. It is patent fallacy.

An objective and verifiable presentation has to agree with usage as it exists in a consensus of source material. It is blatant equivocation to pretend these source apply the term “sect” as a “religious body” when they are actually applying the term to mean a sectarian deviation from traditional orthodoxy. In effect, you are suggesting we use a work to mean something the literature does not support. This is contrary to every academic standard I am aware of. Why do you insist on a usage that is not supported in the consensus of literature addressing the subject?

Do you disagree with me that whatever we present here must be objective and must be verifiable from the consensus of literature addressing the subject? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I said we could footnote the deviation. Even though you reject the negative connotation of sect there are many others who do not. Can we not find a way to compromise? Why do you insist that the word sect be used when we can use an alternate phrasing that is more neutral and footnote to clarify? Dtbrown 02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I have no problems whatsoever with any presentation that is objective and verifiable with an existing consensus in the world knowledge base.

You repeatedly avoid the problem of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. If this can be verified from an existing consensus in the literature then I have no problem with this. But you have not worked this problem at all. Where is your research verifying that such a declaration is verifiable from a consensus in the body of literature? If it’s there no one will be happier to see it than me! Footnotes or not, the main text still has to be verified as an existing consensus in world knowledge.

As for alternate and more neutral phrasing, I have done just this and got my backside chew by an administrator as though I had disrupted paradise. My suggestion was, and still is:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an extraordinarily fast growing religious group professing Christianity.[1][2] They are known for their doorstep ministry, neutrality in politics and war, and legal victories for civil rights.[3][4] They adopted their current name in 1931 under the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[5] As a religion they developed in response “to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity.”[6] They dispute doctrines such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, and clergy-laity divisions, ‘claiming these have no Biblical basis.’[7] Their most widely-known publications are the religious magazines The Watchtower and Awake!.”

My recommended language is neutral, objective, verified and makes no subjective or unverified declarations. Comment? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with only saying that Witnesses profess Christianity without noting they are part of the Christian movement. I think footnoting their divergence from traditional Christian orthodoxy is fair to both sides. Dtbrown 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: We should not concern ourselves with “sides”. We must concern ourselves with objectivity and verification found in a consensus of world knowledge. You are pushing a POV, and you are doing it contrary to what secondary sources assert. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown unverified edit

Dtbrown has edited the introduction using language contrary to the consensus found in literature. His language declares that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, and he offers not verification of this by any consensus of literature. When I offered a neutral introduction fortified with stellar references and verification it was deletes and I was warned for editing without consensus. I see nothing justifying Dtbrown's edit. He has left unanswered questions in his wake throughout this talk page. He is asserting a POV that is not verified by any consensus of secondary sources. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown has now removed a request for verification of his declarative language. Wiki guideline permits any editor to remove unverified language. Administrators? -- Marvin Shilmer 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can not spend as much time as Mr Shilmer on this talk page. I admire his gift for writing but do not agree with or have time to respond to his every point. I think a neutral phrasing is possible using "religious body" and noting that there are other Christian groups that do not recognize the JWs as Christian. Marvin Shilmer has admitted that he writes anti-Watchtower articles on this talk page though he says he checks his biases at the door when he edits. I fail to see why this article cannot accept the JWs self-profession at face value and then note their departure from traditional orthodoxy. If we permit critics of Jehovah's Witnesses to make this article reflect the views of religious orthodoxy then how can we prevent similar critics from neutering articles on Quakers, Roman Catholics and other groups? Mr Shilmer also says that the language "Christian religious body" goes against consensus found in literature. I think that is disputable. Most major reference works on the Christian movement consider Jehovah's Witnesses as part of their work. Many use "sect" but that has various meanings and I think "religious body" is a neutral term that can mirror the meaning of sect. Dtbrown 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No one is suggesting you need to spend more time on this forum. Rather, it is recommended that you verify what you assert by providing secondary sources in support and establishing that these sources represent a consensus of knowledge given the disputed nature of your declarative assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian as opposed to asserting that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity.

If Dtbrown is correct when he asserts that it is disputable whether his usage of terms is inconsistent with a consensus of literature on the subject, then all he needs to do is demonstrate this just like anyone else making an assertion.

Now Dtbrown makes an assertion based on weasel words of “Most major references works” but he fails to reference these and he also fails to demonstrate his sources (whatever they are) represent a consensus view, particularly given the substantial vetted articles I have taken the time to share on this talk page and in the main text.

Shockingly, Dtbrown continues to assert a fallacious equivocation between “religious body” and “sect” knowing perfectly well these are not equivalents.

Dtbrown continues trying to suggest impure motives of my contributions here based on articles of mine critical of specific teachings and policies of the Watchtower Society. But not one time has he bothered to show me where a single one of these criticisms are in error. Not even once. So what is the point? It is contrary to good academics to think solid criticism is somehow a bad or impure thing. I have expressed to him over and over that if wrong I want to know. But he offers not rebuttal, yet persists to insinuate impure motives. I do not understand this. I have worked hard trying to help this subject to find solid ground to make it indisputable. Unlike Dtbrown, every question he has asked of me I answered. I even did research for him! Yet above is a record where he has consistently failed to answer specific questions of him, including assertions he’s made of authors and failed to provide references when challenged.

Here I am not attributing impure motives to Dtbrown. We all have our own background, experience and training, and these effect how our methods, perspectives and projection. I am sure Drbrown is honest in his efforts here. But I am befuddled by his willingness to edit an encyclopedic content in contrast to his manifest refusal to sustain a solid academic dialogue by responding to academic presentation and questions. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Shockingly, DTBrown...." Is that necessary? Dtbrown 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: When a person asserts an identified equivocation it is shocking to observe. I am convinced of your sincerity. But you have failed over and over again to demonstrate the declaration you want to assert. This is all I ask for good academic presentation. An assertion needs to be verified as representing a consensus of world knowledge, and do so in the main text. Debatable assertions have a place in research presentations, but not in the main text of an encyclopedic reference. Children use Wikipedia for goodness sakes. We must think objectively and make sure we verify what we write as representing the knowledge base out there rather than representing petty views among a few editors here, including myself. -- Marvin Shilmer 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the rules of civlity here. Please do not describe other editors opinions as "shocking." Dtbrown 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not contrary to Wiki policy to express dismay. Hence refrain from asserting known equivocations so readers will not be shocked by what they read. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you bring up civility, the first order of civil dialogue is to answer questions asked in an exchange. Above there is not a single request of me I have failed to respond to. You, on the other hand, have left a wake of unanswered questions despite having the time to spend mulling over my motivations.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, this topic is covered in the archives. Fcsuper 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: The archives show a conspicuous absence of vetted resources bearing on this subject. --

I am sorry Marvin but you really are a thorn. Dtbrown and Jeff neither one subscribe to JW beliefs yet they realize that it is incorrect to not categorize JW's as Christian by the definition of Christian and also by the multitude of references which categorize them as christian or a Christian sect or with terms like chialist or millenialist which generall refer to Christian sects. Sect contains a perjorative meaning outside of academic circles and most WP readers are not going to be academic. I respect your desire for perfection but you are taking things way too far as the recent interjection by Lisa brought out. You are the only person here pushing this POV. (don't request references I am tired of re-referencing things) Please even once just yeild to the consensus of other editors. Editors on both ends of the scale are finding your style tiresome. Don't you have a job? George 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: A person’s religious, social or personal preferences have nothing whatsoever to do with whether any given assertion can be verified by a consensus of literature on whatever the subject assertion. All I have asked of anyone here, including Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and others, is to verify whatever they assert in their editing. What about this is misunderstood? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic work, isn’t it? We are supposed to verify based on a consensus of information, aren’t we?

And, please, suggesting I am looking for perfection is absurd. If you read above you will see several instances where I agreed with various editing proposals. Just this evening user Ice9Tea proposed an edit with considerable objectivity and verifiability, and I commented accordingly. Notwithstanding any agreeableness, my concern is really one thing: verification of the consensus of knowledge. We are not here to invent information. We are here to express information we can verify from the world base of knowledge.

Do I have a job? Yes. I am a research scientist. Do you have a job? -- Marvin Shilmer 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, numerous references have been provided to show that the most academic way to refere to JW's is as Christian. any and all qualifications of that statement bleong in the body of the article as per WP:LEAD. So when you say: All I have asked of anyone here, including Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and others, is to verify whatever they assert in their editing. You've gotten it in spades! you are holding the page hostage with your astounding amount of free time and tenacious style. You are not always right, even if you are the most academic. It is you who are trying to force the consensus of academia into your mold instead of following procedure. the lead must be simple. Discussion of the particulars of the relationship JW's have with mainstream CHristianinty belong later inthe article as you have been reminded many times. Please stop saying verify, objective, etc; that point has been dealt with. Yeild a little once in a while if you care to avoid resentment and actually want to build consensus.George 07:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin wrote: "All I have asked of anyone here, including Dtbrown, Jeffro77 and others, is to verify whatever they assert in their editing. What about this is misunderstood? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic work, isn’t it? We are supposed to verify based on a consensus of information, aren’t we?" We are also called to interpret the information. The article represents how the editors interpret the information and how we weigh the sources. Dtbrown 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George m: Where are all these references demonstrating an existing consensus of world knowledge declares Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? All I see are a few broad references, and even these do not amount to a consensus of the literature. So where is all the referenced you allege?

I have no problem with simplicity. In fact I encourage it. So why don’t we just keep this simple and you show me where all these references are you allege. Then we can compare notes. This is what talk is for, isn’t it?

As for consensus, it would be an artificial consensus were we to assert a presentation of a subject based on a majority of views held by editors on this forum. As editors we must find the existing consensus in the world knowledge base (found in the literature) and express this. This is the consensus capable of passing the laugh test, and beyond.

Resentment? Who here is worried about resentment? I am not here to pander to emotional needs, including my own. I am here to help form a solid presentation on subject that represents the consensus of world knowledge on the subject. Emotional needs are better served somewhere else.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Any “interpretation,” to use your vernacular, must conform to whatever is the existing consensus of world knowledge on the subject addressed. You avoid this consensus at every turn. Where is your research? Where are your sources? Why don’t you just provide what you say is there so editors can examine it for veracity? Are we supposed on depend on your interpretation of references you fail to even share for review? I’ve already had experience with you alluding to things source say (e.g., Penton) only to have you fail to actually provide any reference for your allegation! Then, worse, you seriously misconstrue a quotation from the same source so that it wholly and demonstrably says something inconsistent with what the author actually stated. It’s all in the record above. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, it is unproductive to argue every single point out to infinity. Please try to be more understanding and respectful of others here. Constantly refering to others statements in perjortive terms (direct or indirect) when they do not agree with you is ultimately hurting this article and the wikipedia enviroment, despite your best intentions. You are not doing as good of a job discrediting others as you seem to believe, based on your comments. Nor are you making your case as well as you seem to believe. This is not an attack, but a plea for cooperation on this article. Fcsuper 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

comment from the outside

I happened to come here yesterday seeing the activity at Recent Changes, & since the discussion is still ongoing, I will step in--perhaps out of foolish optimism--and offer some advice, based on my experience in some other subjects: It is very difficult to get the nuances exactly right in a first paragraph. On one set of articles about whether X invented something or just improved it, it went back and forth for months, until people agreed to have the first paragraph just state the basic facts needed for background, without trying to summarize the question in a single sentence. Similarly with wording: I've seen pages get stuck over whether something is or is not a diploma mill. Let the reader decide that. its his opinion that matters, and he will get that from the facts, not from your opinions and not even from the published opinions of other people. I've done some work with "pseudoscience", and here too it doesn't matter whether or not you call something pseudoscience. It's enough to describe what different people say happened, and the reader should know how rational it is.

Look: it is obvious to anyone who has heard about the Christian religion, that the doctrines of JW when described at the most basic level are somewhat different from those of Catholic and Protestant churches. Whether that falls within or without the limits of Christianity is not something you will settle at WP. Just explain the doctrines first, and then compare them, and people who care about it will judge. There's an analogy I've used: it is not necessary in the lead paragraph --or anywhere else in the article--to say that Stalin was an evil man. It's clear from the facts.

I don't want to say that matters are quite that sharp here--but the way the actual truth of the doctrines will become clear is not through argument, here or elsewhere. Best wishes for the article. DGG 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sage advice. State the facts and let readers decide. It really is that simple. -- Marvin Shilmer 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DDG is right. Let the facts speak for themselves. Using references to make unveriable statements is the same as making unveriable statements without references, just more work. Unveriable means just that. No matter how much data one collects or has a source peer reviewed, there is not way to make certain statements veriable. That's the English language for you. This is not to say those statements are false, but simply that they need to reworded in a way that is veriable within the context of the article. I would like to work with everyone in this regard, but some just are not listening, at least not yet. My hope is that some will soften their position and be open to the fact that others have this article's integrity in mind. There are ways for those persons to say the facts they've presented in neutral language. They are just having trouble seeing that their edits are not neutrally worded. Siting a fact from a source, and wording something neutrally are two complete different things that must be taken into account when making edits, particularly to a controversial article such as this one. Fcsuper 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal for the lead in

What about this language for the lead. I think everything is verifiable and objective, and it makes no subjective declarations:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international religious body that rejects orthodoxy in favor of a restored primitive Christianity.(+ref) As a religion they developed in response “to what they saw as compromise and corruption in mainstream Christianity.”(+ref) They dispute doctrines such as the Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, and clergy-laity divisions, ‘claiming these have no Biblical basis.’(+ref) Their most widely-known publications are the religious magazines The Watchtower and Awake!. The name Jehovah’s Witnesses was adopted in 1931.(+ref) The Witnesses are governed by the Watchtower Society, a worldwide organization headquartered in the United States.”

--Marvin Shilmer 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I like most of it except for the part where they aren't described as "professing" or "claiming" to be Christian. Also, the word "orthodoxy" is just slightly ambiguous. Can we develop "orthodoxy" into something that more clearly indicates "mainstream Christianity"? I thought about "orthodox Christianity" but that could be interpreted to mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. Another possibility is "the orthodoxy of Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches".

I'm not sure about the phrase "restored primitive Christianity". Does this mean the same thing as "a restoration of the primitive Christian church"? I assume that you intend it to mean the same thing. I'm not sure that it does.

Also, I'm not fond of the phrase "religious body". What is a "religious body"? I will comment that the Eastern Orthodox Church is described as a "Christian body" and I don't like that phrasing much either. (I know this phrasing does not necessarily originate with Marvin.)

Otherwise, I like the rest of it.

--Richard 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do most leads consist of a series of referenced statements? This doesn't seem to be the pattern in other articles. Dtbrown 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Declarations by necessity must be referenced so readers (and editors!) can verify the assertion’s validity, or lack of validity. This is as true for introductory language as it is for any other portion of a presentation. Every vetted article requires this as a must. Yet you are content to avoid this like the plague. It makes no sense. It will not stand up. It is too vulnerable. Why not discuss the consensus of knowledge found in literature and express this? This is what encyclopedic content is supposed to be. This is not a research paper examining a theory. It is a reference work. Again, a reference work. That is what an encyclopedia is.-- Marvin Shilmer 12:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent

Richard: Yes, I would rather state it as a profession of faith, too. This is the most objective presentation, and it is readily verifiable. Other editors here have yet to articulate anything remotely akin to a refutation of this presentation, as to why it should not be applied.

“Restored primitive Christianity” is one thing. “A restored primitive Christianity” is something else. I applied the latter phrase. The indefinite article suffices to state this is a brand of Christianity rather than declaring it is Christianity. It’s close. I’ll give you that. But it does, however so barely, get past the academic lens. The problem I have with the term is that, from an academic perspective, it is not always enough to construct a valid statement. It is also important to construct a valid statement that is as straightforward as possible. Circumspect language can be valid, but it is easier to misconstrue. Nevertheless, the presentation I throw on the table I can verify, and it makes no subjective declarations. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer's request for verification that JWs are part of the Christian movement

Marvin has asked that the statement that JWs are a Christian religious body be verified. There are several sources that state that which have been addressed on this talk page already. I don't think we have to rehash all that right now. As editors we are called to weigh the sources and yes, there are many sources which put the JWs outside of Christian orthodoxy. Most sources which are not theologically based place the JWs as part of the Christian movement. Some refer to them as a sect of Christianity. Since this is not a theological resource I have favored following a secular meaning for Christian in this article. "Sect" can have a negative connotation so I recommend we use a neutral phrase instead. If we have to demonstrate that the JWs are part of the Christian movement then we will have to do the same elsewhere. Are the Quakers Christian? There are many Protestants who do not believe the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church. What if someone with the same determination as Marvin started a similar tactic on the Roman Catholic page? Would we be forced to also remove a declarative phrase from that article that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian Church?

In short, is Wikipedia unable to state that the JWs are part of the Christian movement because they have some critics among other Christian Churches? I think this is a matter of fairness. A footnote can explain that there is some controversy and that the JWs are not in the mainstream part of the Christian movement. Dtbrown 07:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To follow Dtbrown, I want to say that at the Christianity talk page you will find also the same consensus being forwarded by the majority of edtiors here, namely that inclusiveness is preferable when dealing with groups claiming to be Christain. WP has official and unofficial policies. This would rank as an unofficial one within the Christianity category. I would encourage Marvin to visit the discussion there and make his arguments. I also encourage marvin to try his tactics and reasoning on the Mormonism, Quaker, Unitarian anrticles etc. For that matter why not the cahtolicism article? There are a great many verifiable protestant references which would label Catholicism as not Christian. That should probably be in the lead of that article too. George 11:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: You write: “Most sources which are not theologically based place the JWs as part of the Christian movement. Some refer to them as a sect of Christianity.” Prove this claim. My extensive research in, to use your term, “not theologically based” literature runs contrary to your assertion. Over the past few days I have examined over two hundred vetted articles addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is relatively rare to find one making a declaratory statement such as you have asserted, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. So please prove your assertion.

Regarding other subject religions, have you heard the term super majority? I suggest you look it up. It has to do with the consensus of world knowledge. There are editors just as interested in those other religions. You can bet your bottom dollar that if they spot something contrary to existing consensus (particular a super majority) then they will address it. Editors should stick to subjects they are either trained or experienced to examine.

You ask: “Is Wikipedia unable to state that the JWs are part of the Christian movement because they have some critics among other Christian Churches?”

Please note your strawman tactic. If only “some critics” held a view contrary to your own then we would not be having this discussion. So please refrain from misrepresenting. If my research is an indicator, if anything there is a super majority of world knowledge contrary to your view.

Fairness: Fairness for a reference work is one thing: verifiability. So where is your verification that your view represents a consensus of world knowledge? Where is it? This is what I have asked you and other editors for, repeatedly.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: Please just show us the beef on this topic. Demonstrate a consensus of world knowledge favoring a declarative statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian and this discussion will end there. Otherwise the test of time will ultimately prevail. Future readers and editors will recognize, ultimately, any biased presentation and remove it. Why not get the job done now by presenting what represents a consensus of the literature. This is, after all, what a reference work is supposed to do.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not have the same amount of time to spend on this article as Marvin Shilmer does. I have provided a source for the statement that Jehovah's Witnesses can be said to be a Christian group from another secular encyclopedia. They have weighed the sources and this is their verdict. Let us see what other editors say. Dtbrown 13:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I appreciate you citing World Book Encyclopedia (WBE). At the very least this demonstrates your declarative assertion (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian…) is not unprecedented for an encyclopedic reference (though a ‘CliffsNotes’ version). This is an interesting choice you cite, from my perspective. WBE is written for adolescents. As such it is not readily available to my remote access research database, which is why I have not already reviewed the primary work presentation (rather than the ‘CliffsNotes’ version). WBE tends to round off presentations whereas more methodical reference works tend towards narrower presentations with more definition aimed at incisiveness on whatever the subject. I have commented on this several times earlier on this talk page (i.e., a broad overview/presentation compared to a specific presentation). It is noteworthy that reference works such as Britannica do not support this declarative language. It is more noteworthy that vetted journal articles are decidedly more conservative in attributing Christianity to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Hence the question left for editors is whether a minority view expressed in secondary sources should be in the main text or in footnote, and vice versa whether a majority view expressed in secondary sources should be in the main text or in footnote. You argue a minority position should find the main text and the majority position should find the footnote.

If you do not have the necessary time to thoroughly review and address this subject matter then you should at least work with those who do, including responding to their questions. Speaking for myself, I ask questions to move things along with some logical expediency. When fellow editors fail to respond it results in a disadvantage for the subject material. It is also inconsiderate. If time can be expended to question motivation then there is certain sufficient time to respond to questions.

I ask that you review my proposed opening paragraph above, and comment.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin I do not need to demonstrate a consensus of world knowledge, let me restate myself for your benefit: I want to say that at the Christianity talk page you will find also the same consensus being forwarded by the majority of edtiors here, namely that inclusiveness is preferable when dealing with groups claiming to be Christain. WP has official and unofficial policies. This would rank as an unofficial one within the Christianity category. Please dont argue oranges when I talk apples. We don't need to invent a new way of dealing with just this page because one person isn't satisfied woth current way. For crying out loud Marvin lookat how many edits on just the lead in the last week. Mosr of them by you. You haven't even come close to working out a consensus here you just rewrite what you don't agree with immediately. Not that it matters, you think you're right about everything. You may even technically be right. That doesn't make it good form or NPOV. Wen 9 out of 10 encyclopedias refer to JW's as Christians(no I am not going to relist these sources you will just have to reread through this huge discussion and find them again) without footnotes or qualifying statements enough precendent has been set for WP to do so. We don't need your permmission. George 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George m: I am not concerned with the predilection of a handful of Christian apologists and/or antagonists. None of us should be. For an encyclopedic reference work we should be concerned with verifiability. If that verifiability is contrary to the consensus of world knowledge then what is it worth? What is it about researching this consensus that you are so adamantly opposed to, and presenting whatever that is? To oppose such a consensus presentation is blatant POV.

You assert that nine out of ten encyclopedias “refer to JWs as Christians,” and you state you will not “relist” these. The problem is I don’t see any such list presented on this talk page or its archive. So where is this alleged list? Above I see several sources (including the prestigious Encyclopedia Britannica) misrepresented in terms of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. In another instance above one of your favored editors, Dtbrown, demonstrates a willingness to misrepresent how an author presents Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g., Penton). So what confidence are editors supposed to have in an alleged list of ten encyclopedic references you say exists but are unwilling to produce along with your assertion of what they represent? If you want editors to accept what you assert then you have a burden to prove it, particularly when it is disputed. If you have time to keyboard these paragraphs then you have time to keyboard these alleged references so editors can examine the veracity of your assertion.

One of my favored editors? Dtbrown and I have had numerous disagreements in the past. He does not agree with me on many subjects, he does however understand the need for consensus here. I am reproducing the list again for your benefit, again.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Jehovah's Witnesses

A millenarian movement organized in the USA in 1884 (def of millenarian is a christian with specific beliefs about 1000 years mentioned in REV)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

Jehovah's Witnesses

–noun a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule.

wordsmyth http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=Jehovah's+Witnesses&matchtype=exact

a Christian sect that opposes war and governments, believes in the imminent end of the world, and actively seeks new converts.

Infoplease

Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent.,

Microsoft encarta

Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian religious group, founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, first published by InterVarsity Press, Carol Stream, USA, 1994, second edition, Regent College Press, Vancouver, 1999

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: a highly RATIONALIST ADVENTIST type SECT founded by Charles Taze RUSSELL in the late nineteenth century. It originally mixed a blend of interpretation of Biblical PROPHECY with PYRAMIDOLOGY and various other ESOTERICS to foretell the end of the world. As the THEOLOGY developed such orthodox CHRISTIAN BELIEFS as the TRINITY and INCARNATION of CHRIST were rejected and a unique DEISTIC theology similar to ARIANISM developed. EVOLUTION is totally rejected as are blood transfusions. (emphasis from source, SECT is obviously referring to a sect of Christianity)

Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia

Jehovah's Witnesses

A popular millenarian Christian religious group

From Wiktionary

A monotheistic and nontrinitarian Restoration Christian denomination founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1879 as a small Bible study group. Originally known as International Bible Students or Bible Students.

history.com encyclopedia

Christian sect, founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh, Pa., by the American clergyman Charles Taze Russell

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah's+Witnesses

Thesaurus1. Jehovah's Witnesses - Protestant denomination founded in the United States by Charles Taze Russell in 1884 I assume you agree that a pretestant is a Christian or do I need to provide a verifiable reference for that?

Now this does not represent all views but the majority of encyclopedias make no bones about calling JW's Christian. It is up to the individual encyclopedia to determine the best course of action (Sect, etc) You Marvin are not the end all of academic opinion and the rest of us have a right to say we think it is improper to use a term that has a perjoritive color (sect). We also have the right to disagree with you about needing to reference statements in the lead paragraph which is not done in any other WP article. When searching for the identity Marvin SHimler on the internet, it is associated with 'apostate' JW's. This does not make your contributions bad, but it does in the light of your tenacious opposition to referring to JW's as Christian make one suspicious that perhaps your agenda is beyond the academic. George 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See "George’s Reference Presentation, A Review" below.-- Marvin Shilmer 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is dumbfounding to observe editors so bent on not providing references for what they assert is supported by references. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert Rule Violation Allegations

I have become the object of a complaint alleging me as a regular violator of Wiki’s 3 revert rule.(Wiki policy prohibits use of my name in the complaint, but there is no doubt I am the subject, and the complaint was made according to Wiki policy and every editor has this prerogative) This talk page is pointed to for administrative review of this allegation; hence I address it here for whomever.

I categorically deny having violated Wiki’s 3RR. I certainly am not a regular violator of this Wiki policy, or any other I am aware of.

Most recently (May 13, 2007) I made three reverts during a 24 hour period. But no more than this.

Earlier there were editing changes to this document, but these were not reverts; they were edits discussed by participants on this talk page, and my editing was an attempt to follow the discussion. On this talk page in the section “Lead paragraph” is the transcript of editors working through my editing. A main point of contention was over presentation form. I had introduced quoted material from primary and secondary sources in an attempt to let Jehovah’s Witness representatives speak for themselves. I did this because rival editors preferred to let Jehovah’s Witnesses represent themselves as they prefer whereas other editors desired to take more of an anti approach. This was an attempt to alleviate bickering, and to verify the presentation. But my use of quoted material was objected to, so I removed the quotation marks and left the thorough references as I continued working with editorial views. The discussion then proceeded to how much paraphrase was needed in the absence of quotation marks. Unfortunately accusations of plagiarism were leveled, and addressed. This discussion too is documented in the same section (Lead paragraph). The end of this bit of editing (not reverting) was when rival editor (in the academic sense) Dtbrown replied, “Thank you for removing the plagiarism.”

The 3 reverts I performed were done after this discussion was over, and not before. However, I do not think even these reverts should accumulate under Wiki policy because Wiki guidelines expressly states that any editor is permitted to remove any language that is not verified in the article. The only thing my reverts did was remove unverified declarations, and nothing more. Hence my impression is these reverts were done entirely within Wiki policy. Nevertheless, I was careful to avoid even a semblance of violating Wiki policy by resisting any urge to delete the same unverified information when it was again reverted back to, by the same editor. Only today has this vying editor finally installed a reference for the offending language (academic sense). And, at this point it remains debatable whether this reference represents a consensus of knowledge on the subject it addresses.

In defense of my participation here, even a cursory review of my comments demonstrates a desire to talk about editing prior to making changes. I doubt any editor here will deny the thoroughness I have applied to this discussion, whether they agree with my conclusions or not. I have offered proposals, responded to proposals, offered references pro and con for the subject of dispute. I have even done research at the request of and for rival editors. Hence it leaves me confused and amazed that any editor would allege what they have of me. -- Marvin Shilmer 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get bent out of shape. As far as I can tell, you weren't accused of violating 3RR, you were warned that you were on the verge of doing so. The 3RR violation report page always has erroneous reports where people think that reverting 3 times constitutes a violation. It doesn't. The administrators know this, so don't worry about it.

I suggest you refactor (i.e. delete) this section from this talk page, as it has little to do with improving the article. These comments really belong on your talk page. -Amatulic 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic: I do not appreciate having my section from the Jehovah’s Witness talk page move here. Wiki stipulates that “Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article.” Since my behavior is in dispute then I opt to address on the talk page where the alleged misconduct occurred. This is according to Wiki policy.

And, you are dead wrong about the allegation. George M has accused that I am a regular violator of the 3RR. You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. You can verify this is his accusation based on his contribution log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/George_m.

I did say that an editor was consistently violating the 3RR at the request for comment page. Regardless of whether I was referring to you, I did not say who that editor was, so if you feel I was talking about you then apparently you have something to feel guilty about. George 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: Coy, are we? Editors here can see this for what it is. It’s not tealeaf reading.

Now I suggest putting energy into the constructive task of the actual subject by researching for and demonstrating whatever is the consensus of world knowledge regarding the current sticking point on this talk page. This is best done by studious methods, including responding academically to academic questions.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I respectfully request you return this material from whence it came. The Jehovah’s Witnesses talk page. Regards, Marvin Shilmer 17:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation is ridiculous. I haven't touched your comments or your talk page. All I did was respond here. You seem sensitive about false accusations against you, yet here you are doing the same thing. I'm done here. -Amatulic 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic: Please accept my apology as well. I made a classic mistake of assumption based on Richard’s stated reason for moving my entry. My false impression was you had issued an administrative direction, which Richard acted at the behest of. Assumption is poison. Forgive me. -- Marvin Shilmer 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm done. I apologize for the tone in my previous response. -Amatulic 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic: Your response is perfectly understandable.

Regarding my reason for this section entry, I do not want you to misread me. On this talk page I have worked hard. I have not worked hard for myself. I have worked hard for the subject; for other editors; for pros; for cons. I have proposed. I have responded to proposals. I have researched; I have shared that research; I have answered every question sent my way. Yet despite this hard work there are contributing editors here who spend more time trying to torpedo my participation with innuendo of my motives than they do trying to verify what they assert. On top of this one of them has the audacity of falsely alleging misconduct on my part. This conduct is so egregious that it deserves to be put in the light of day.

All I have sought from day one on this subject is that editors 1) seek and find whatever is the consensus in the world of knowledge in relation to the sticking point, 2) express this consensus view as information and 3) use a source representing this consensus view in verification of the presentation. But no matter how hard I try to jump start an academic ‘man hunt’ on the subject, from vying editors I get weasel words, misrepresentation of source quotations and nearly outright refusal to provide references for assertions. I wonder what they think they are vying against—me or the consensus in the literature? -- Marvin Shilmer 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, it was me who moved it to Marvin's Talk Page. I was acting boldly on Amatulic's suggestion. I moved it back at Marvin's request. --Richard 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

George’s Reference Presentation, A Review

George M: To start with, I want to share my appreciation for reproducing the listing you indicated as your resources on the question of whether to use declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.

George has indicated 11 sources. However one of these sources (Infoplease) is not a single source; it has three presentations of almanac, encyclopedia and dictionary. Though George quoted from Infoplease he failed to express this multiple presentation. It turns out that George was quoting from the encyclopedic presentation only. Since elsewhere in these references George cited dictionaries and encyclopedias, but no almanacs, then I am including the Infoplease dictionary entry as a 12th source whereas I am excluding the almanac entry.(See end note 1)

Analysis

Of the 12 sources:

6 of the 12 sources declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. (Assuming Encarta here, see note below with Encarta)

6 of the 12 do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian

Of the 6 that do not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian:

5 of the 6 declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Christian sect.

1 of the 6 declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as millenarian, without further clarification.

The raw data from my review of each resource (except Encarta)

Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia

Improperly represented. CRE does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

CRE has no entry for millenarian. George has transposed an extraneous meaning onto CRE’s entry.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary millenarism does not necessarily refer to a Christian. It could just as well refer to what OED states as “relating to any of numerous religious or ideological movements based on the belief in a millennium marking or foreshadowing an era of radical change or an end to the existing world order; esp. (a) believing in the imminence or inevitability of a golden age of social or spiritual renewal; utopian; (b) believing in the imminence or inevitability of the end of the world; apocalyptic.”

CRE presents Jehovah’s Witnesses as millenarian without further appellation.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a Christian sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Wordsmyth

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a Christian sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Infoplease Encycylopedia (see note above re. Infoplease resource)

Properly presented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Infoplease Dictionary (see note above re. Infoplease resource)

Omitted by George: This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Microsoft Encarta

Have to take George’s word on this one. I threw away this worthless thing without unwrapping it. So did everybody else I know.

Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Improper assertion by George regarding an aspect of this entry (see explanation in conclusion)

Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

From Wiktionary

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

history.com encyclopedia

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a Christian sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Thefreedictionary.com

Properly represented. This source declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

Discussion

By themselves these resources suggest a blasé presentation of whether Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. If true this would suggest editors have no cause for concern with this issue. For practical purposes, it would be a non-issue.

However, this list represents only a few works that are marginally reliable as rigorous development, and not a single prestigious source is included in these works.

The preeminent dictionary for the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. This work is conspicuously absent from a source pool that includes dictionary references. The OED entry for Jehovah’s Witnesses is:

“a member of a fundamentalist millenary sect, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, founded c1879 (under the name ‘International Bible Students’) by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), which rejects institutional religion and refuses to acknowledge the claims of the State when these are in conflict with the principles of the sect.”

The preeminent English language dictionary does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Rather, it declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a sect of fundamentalism.

The finest English encyclopedic work is Encyclopedia Britannica. Its entry for Jehovah’s Witness is:

“an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world…”

This very prestigious encyclopedia does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. Rather, it declares Jehovah’s Witnesses as a sect of millennialism.

The consistency of these two fine works (lexical and encyclopedic) cannot be ignored. Neither applies declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, and both declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as a sect.

It is incredible to me that an editor would rely on resources George presents for an encyclopedic entry. Most of these are ignored in academic circles as unreliable. The protocol for several is about as thorough as “How fast can we copy and dump some information into this thing so we can put it online.”

There is also a troubling aspect of George’s presentation of references. George has asserted inferences based on these references, which suggests to the reader he has thoroughly examined his presentation for accuracy. But we find the following:

1. The Infoplease reference omits the dictionary entry despite other lexical entries inclusion in the set of references. This is either sloppy research or else selective omission. I believe it was only and oversight, but sloppy nevertheless. Another of George’s statements demonstrates a bad assumption.

2. When presenting his finding from Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, George states, “def of millenarian is a christian with specific beliefs about 1000 years”. This statement is false in relation to the work George cites. The CRE has no entry for millenarian, so George had to look elsewhere for a definition, which he did. From this extra-CRE definition the assertion is made that “def of millenarian is a christian…” But George fails to express that the term millenarian does no necessarily mean Christian. The entry from Oxford English shows this is the case. Hence in this instance George improperly represents one of his resources.

3. In his presentation of Irving Hexham's Concise Dictionary of Religion, George parenthetically states “emphasis from source, SECT is obviously referring to a sect of Christianity”. (Emphasis by George from source) This is a false assertion. The same source defines sect as:

SECT: an important term which is often loosely used to mean a religious GROUP that has broken away from an older TRADITION. Confusion is created by the fact that it is sometimes used theologically to refer to groups of questionable ORTHODOXY or outright HERESY. Sociologically the term has been contrasted with CHURCH and used of groups which live in tension with the surrounding SOCIETY. To facilitate operationalizing the term Rodney STARK defines a sect as "a religious group which lives in a state of relatively high tension with the surrounding society that has a prior tie with another religious organization and was founded by someone who left that organization."

3. cont’d From this entry we see George’s assertion and presentation of this resource is false. By capital delineation this source does not suggest anything regarding religious affiliation (i.e., Christian or otherwise). It turns out this resource delineates is internal entries by applying all upper case letters within any given entry. The upper case has nothing whatsoever to do with Christian.

Mistakes such as these three demonstrate a novice attempt at research. It questions whether George has drawn appropriate conclusions from whatever research he’s done, on this issue or any other. This is because these type mistakes are systemic ones. That is, each of these mistakes could have been prevented by following a few basic protocols of good research. That this proportion of error in research is presented indicates an untrained research effort.

Concluding

Over the past few days I have examined over 200 peer reviewed article presentations specifically addressing Jehovah’s witnesses. It is rare for one to express declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Most of these simply depict Jehovah’s Witnesses based on their developmental roots (i.e., Russell is their founder…, etc) Of those offering a depiction in relation to religious order, by far the majority declare Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect of some sort (i.e., Christian sect, fundamentalist sect, millenarian sect, etc). Of these articles I have already shared several here by reference for readers to have an idea of the finding. Though I have no intention of keyboarding all these resources (by reference or otherwise), I am willing to share a few more if a reader has one or two they know of but do not have access to (if I have access to the document myself).

If editors here want to depend on marginal resources as solid secondary sourcing then what to do is inconsequential in terms of declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian. But if editors here give due weight to esteemed sources with highly reputable vetting protocol, then there is no question but it is inappropriate for this article to use declaratory language that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.

End note 1: The almanac reference declares Jehovah’s Witnesses a sect. It does not declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian.

-- Marvin Shilmer 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Marvin for your review. I want to be sure I undestand your position. Are you saying that a "Christian sect" cannot be classed as Christian? Also, could you please write more concise replies to my questions. I am unable to devote as much time to this as you are able to. Thank you. Dtbrown 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: First of all, I have already found some egregious typos and am trying to correct them. As you can imagine, for a review such as this no one is between me and the entry; hence the inevitable gaffs.

To declare X is a Christian is different than declaring X is a Christian sect. The difference relates to historical and traditional usage of the term Christian.

Usage is what determines what words mean/convey, not a dictionary. A dictionary is only to relay usage in order to enable sufficient commonality essential for efficient language and communication.

To explain (briefly), the term Christian has over centuries taken on a usage applied to a range of belief. The closer to the center of this range the more orthodox. The farther away from the center of this range the less orthodox (left or right). The term sect, though, tends to be applied/used toward beliefs that are, at best, marginal to the range of belief associated with Christian, but that are probably outside the range of meaning of Christian from a majority perspective. Hence the compound phrase “Christian sect” informs (conveys to) readers a religion is at best on the margin of “Christian” and probably outside the normal range of meaning associated with the term. Hence to declare a “Christian sect” as “Christian” is to make a declaration that is probably contrary to a majority perspective of what Christian means; hence the usage would present a false impression.

Remember that we are talking about an English term; Christian. Accordingly English usage comes heavily to bear on how this term is understood and used.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of your view of the significance of "sect." I think "sect" has a wider meaning. For example, while the Brittanica (a well respected work) refers to JWs as a "millenialist sect" it also classifies them as a "Protestant denomination." That would place JWs inside the Christian camp. Dtbrown 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: Undoubtedly you are referring to the Britannica entry from the Uganda article. If so, please note that this article is about Uganda and not specifically about the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hence the vetting protocol is not aimed at precision regarding the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses so much as a general religious demographic of Uganda that happens to include Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other hand, protocol for the Britannica article specifically addressing the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is aimed at a precise depiction of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the world view. Research demands that we properly apply weight were it belongs, which is inherent to the subject of address for vetted material. The closer to the subject the more intense is the vetting. A researcher can find references in support of whatever he desires to support if he is willing to assert equal weight no matter the target subject. -- Marvin Shilmer 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I see now you are referring the Britannica Concise entry for millenarianism. This entry in Concise is lifted from the Encyclopedia Britannica’s eschatology article. You should not reference this material as Encyclopedia Britannica but rather as Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. This represents a significant difference for researchers because of the vetting/protocol weight we apply, and how it should be applied. In this case you are applying a compound term (Protestant denomination) to a specific religion based on an entry that is not about that specific religion. Worse, because you are probably unaware that your reference is actually a subset of an original article on an entirely different subject (eschatology) then the vetting is once removed within the article it is in, not to mention the main article is not to address Jehovah’s Witnesses. You should take care how resources such as this are applied, and what weight you assign.-- Marvin Shilmer 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin What is a Christian sect if not Christian? The Oxford and brittanica require subscriptions so I was unab le to include them in my list. Aside form the main discussion Marvin, I have questions for you. Are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? (you previously stated you are) Are you a Christian? What is a Christian? If you are a Christian but JW's are not then... Why do you thnk JW's are not Christians? If you think JW's are Christians then why do you fight so strenuously to have them labeled otherwise? George 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: I have already answered your first question to Dtbrown just a few lines above this in the same section. Please consult.

I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I consider myself Christian. I have not said Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. I have said I cannot justify making this declaration in an encyclopedic reference work verified by a consensus of world knowledge. Furthermore, from a purely logical perspective, to refrain from asserting Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian is not to say Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian.

My foray into this discussion has only to do with an academic presentation. Wikipedia is neither a theological platform to assert religious preference nor is it an instrument to declare status. Wikipedia is presented as a reference work, and encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are for academic presentation of a consensus of world knowledge. Our focus should be on these things, here. Aside from this venue there are plenty of opportunities to express and even impress our theological views collectively and individually. But this is not the place. Here we must check our bias at the door, except the important bias of academic rigor.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think these entries from the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia illustrate that "sect" can have a wider meaning that you apply to it. For many people today sect means a religious group that is not mainstream. Dtbrown 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: What you have written will not stand up. Whether at my hand or some future editor, eventually whatever is the consensus of literature will move this subject to that consensus. This is how the world works, and it is what academic presentations for reference works must do.

Your current presentation declares a status that is unsupported by a consensus of world knowledge. Easily it bucks the consensus. And, based on my review of the last few days, I would also have to surmise it is probably bucking a supermajority. I still see no reason whatsoever for the declaratory assertion you make. What is the point? Are you trying to assign a status? A status is only worthwhile if it is earned. We cannot assign status from a social perspective. Trying to assign a status contrary to a consensus of world knowledge is to assert something artificial. I am not expressing this as an attack, or to minimize or criticize your earnest efforts. But what I see in your use of references and language is someone who has an end in mind and he is going to wrap his research around that end rather than letting the research speak for itself. The former is not useful. The latter is very beneficial.

If you know Jehovah’s Witnesses then I wager you have more respect for those who are/were willing to stand up and speak plainly even when that was maybe not the religiously flattering thing to do. Such behavior earns respect. When readers examine this Wiki page they will know Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witness partisans played a role. The presentation will speak for itself. It will either help earn a status or it will turn people off as more of the same ole religious rhetoric and mumbo jumbo they get every day of the week.-- Marvin Shilmer 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you are a gifted writer. Nonetheless, I disagree for reasons already given that "sect" has such a narrow focus. Obviously, there are academians (including writers at the Brittanica and the World Book) who disagree with the analysis you are suggesting. Dtbrown 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: No. Contributors to Britannica do not disagree with me. If you properly weighted what you found you would realize this. Your use of Britannica seriously misrepresents what the work presents on Jehovah’s Witnesses as a vetted source. I explained it above, already. There is no need to reiterate here. I respect that you disagree. I also know your estimations are flawed, and way wrong.

By the way, another thing that is simply astonishing is that neither you nor George nor Jeffro77 et al have even remotely weighed the mountain of peer reviewed secondary sources addressing this subject. You don’t even inquire about it. Your opinion is sitting squarely under a mountain the size of Everest. I don’t know your library affiliation. But I can see you have no idea of the magnitude of this vetted material as it impinges our subject. All this represents a consensus of world knowledge. Did we look at the same list that George offered to me as his initial offering of references? It is a pathetic mix of unstable online rags, and it was offered as a frontline of references.-- Marvin Shilmer 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, just because you can write long eloquent prose does not mean we have to disregard the World Book or Brittanica statements. I put both "millennial sect" and "Protestant denomination" in the footnote. It is not a misuse of the Brittannica to note it does refer to the JWs as a "Protestant denomination." You fix on only one meaning of the word "sect" as implying that JWs are possibly outside of Christianity. A Christian sect can also mean a religious group not in the mainstream of Christianity. That is what JWs are and that the Brittanica places them as a Protestant denomination clearly shows that. You are the one who is misusing sources here. Dtbrown 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown: I do not suggest ignoring any knowledge. You are the one ignoring knowledge, particularly the weight of consensus. The main text should reflect the consensus of knowledge.

You keep talking about the term sect. I have no particular affinity for this term. You do. I have not even suggested using it in the main text; or even as a footnote for that matter; or even making it a subject for discussion in the article.

What I have recommended is using descriptive language to express the consensus of knowledge, and to do it in a neutral way. It is not keeping with the consensus of knowledge to declare Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian in the main text because this is not the weight of consensus shown in the literature. And, by literature, I am not talking about dime store rags. I am talking about peer reviewed and well regarded secondary sources. And, we also have to include primary source material. The way you use Britannica Concise is inconsistent with the weight it projects. I’m sorry. I realize you disagree, either because of lack of training or stubborn disregard. If you want to express how Britannica presents specifically to Jehovah’s Witnesses you have to examine Britannica where the subject is primarily about Jehovah’s Witnesses (vetting protocol et al), because this is your usage (i.e., specifically). The difference between our uses of sources is one of us analyzes and presents (articulates) these in terms of academic value (weight) and the other is either unable or unwilling to do so. If an editor uses an academic source as an authority then they must use that source based on its academic standard of presentation.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How can it be astonishing to you? You told me:"Wikipedia is neither a theological platform to assert religious preference nor is it an instrument to declare status." Yet the 'mountain of peer reviewed secondary sources' you refer to are just that and you would use WP to further their ends. George 07:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: You forget to mention and accommodate what Wikipedia is, or at least supposed to be. This lack is laced throughout all your analyses I’ve read on this talk page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work; an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not research initiatives where departures from consensus is precisely what everyone is looking for in order to consider lesser accepted views, or entirely new views. Encyclopedias are also not a pulpit for making declarations inconsistent with a consensus of world knowledge.

An encyclopedia is supposed to be a reservoir of world knowledge, and present that knowledge with the weight of the existing consensus. They do not ascribe weight. They present existing weight. This is why past usages of whatever language cannot be measured by contemporary isms or usages. For a reference work to make a declaration of language usage inconsistent with or contrary to an existing consensus is academic fraud. To watch someone do this in full view of contemporary consensus is, as I said, astonishing. To do this is to improperly exert bias. Based on your presentation of references reviewed above, my guess is you either will not even consider the merit of I just wrote, or else you are unable to for lack of training (evidenced by your reference presentation). You certainly missed the point in this immediate reply. It could be poor training or it could be intentional. I think it is poor training.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin How would referring to Jw's as Christian in the lead be a departure from consensus? What bias is being exerted other than your own antiJW one? I said before that it is up to the reference work to decide if they will use the term as the references you and I presented show. (Oh right my references are invalid in your opinion) Further as each reference work makes its decision it employs a policy; WP articles already have a policy of inclusion therefore it is you who is working against consensus. Even if only half of the available works listed JW's as Christian or even less than half, guess what - WP editors would still be able to come up with a consensus internally, which they have and you disagree with. Have you looked at the WP articles I have mentioned more than once? We are able to make our own decision because There is no academic consensus the varied results we have found nail that fact down tight.George 13:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: I fully realize you disagree there is a consensus of knowledge on the subject of dispute here. The frontline set of references you offer, along with your interspersed commentary, explains why you have this disagreement. You lack training in research and analysis. This is stamped all over your presentation of these references. You have not even inquired about the many journal articles available on this subject, which is telling in its own right.

I am aware of Wiki policy. When I chose to participate in the Wiki initiative I thoroughly familiarize myself. I also consult it regularly when thorny issues arise.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to employ a plural YOU when speaking because you are arguing agains WP consensus. SInce you are aware of the consensus here you really need to change the consensus on WP not this talk page only, so... better get to work. I know how much you love debate and typing so I am sure you will jump right in at the mormonism, christianity and other pages dealing with marginalized christian groups. 75.23.76.76 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:75.23.76.76 Whomever: One man can move Mount Fuji, but only one grain at the time. The key to the dilemma of bickering on this talk page is to employ description rather than declaration. This is what researchers are looking for in a reference work because this is what a reference work should do as it presents the world of knowledge. Declarations are for editorials and propaganda, not reference articles in an encyclopedic entry. This is true no matter the choice of poison.

The current article gives editors opportunity to review such a presentation, at least in the introduction. Given the extremism and exclusionary language found particularly in religious literature regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, vying editors have valid concern that Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be presented or suggested as non-Christian. As it turns out, vetted literature addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses provides ample verification that the religion sprang from various theologies arguably having Christian heritages; hence we can attribute Jehovah’s Witnesses to Christianity. However it is one thing to attribute X to Y and quite another thing to declare X is Y. Here we find another consensus in the literature that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not declared Christian.-- Marvin Shilmer 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin I can accept your most recent version of the lead. George 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Primitive Christianity

I request the modification that some link is used to show what "primitive christianity" is. Is there a wikipedia article already covering this? Can one be created? Or show we reference Restorationism more specifically to bring this to a more neutral context? Fcsuper 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I support a link to Restorationism. Linking to Primitive Christianity is a bit more problematic because it redirects to Primitive Apostolic Christianity which does not mention JWs. Instead it discusses Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. Let's discuss how to resolve this. Why doesn't Primitive Apostolic Christianity mention JWs? Is this an omission or is there a substantive reason? --Richard 04:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't mentioned on that article's talk page then it is likely just an oversight and needs to be researched.George 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Primitive Christianity,

The term primitive Christianity is used to distinguish a practice of Christianity aside from any development of the Christian community beyond the contemporary apostolic period of Christian writing known as the New Testament. This practice of Christianity tends to be a fundamentalist approach. By contrast, orthodox Christianity is a practice of Christianity developed among the community of professed Christians from the religion’s inception until today. Accordingly, theologian Thomas Campbell argued primitive Christianity should “take up things just as the apostles left them” and “disentangled from the accruing embarrassment of intervening ages”. (Kalscheur, G., Journal of Law and Religion, 2006, Vol. 21)

The theory of primitive Christianity contains several common attributes, some of which are inherent to any new religious movement, some of which are formative and others that are ideological.

An inherent tendency of any new group is to distinguish itself from surrounding groups. This is unavoidable. Otherwise whatever the group, it would not be new. Accordingly, regarding primitive Christians, Dr. Carl Clemen (PH.D. University of Bonn, Germany) remarked that “the primitive Christian church was much less open to direct influence from pagan sources than Judaism had been in its long history.” (Clemen, C., The Princeton Theological Review, 1914, Vol. 12 pp 305-310)

A formative and ideological observation is expressed by John Gillon who writes, “They went back to the fellowship, to the ideas, to the practices, and to the form of organization of the primitive church.” (Gillin, J., The American Journal of Sociology, Sept. 1910, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 236-252) Professed primitive Christian religions tend to reject orthodoxy associated with the social development of the mainstream Christian community. (Kalscheur, 2006)

Though not common to all primitive Christian movements, there is a tendency among them toward a messianic theological schema, which in turn influences many of these groups toward some form of millenarianism. (Mathews, S., The American Journal of Sociology, Nov. 1912, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 289-317; Brown, I., The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Dec. 1952, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 441-458) Several religious groups identified with primitive Christianity have also developed theologies of non-violence. (Chu, C., Journal of Genocide Research, Sept. 2004, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 319-342)

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the reader not confuse what various Restorationist groups claim is "primitive apostolic Christianity" with what "primitive apostolic Christianity" actually was. This is my own personal opinion but I would guess that we cannot know clearly what "primitive apostolic Christianity" much more than we can know who the "historical Jesus" was. Do we consider "primitive apostolic Christianity" to be Christianity before Paul or after Paul but before the Christian Fathers?

And, as an aside, how do the Mormons get to claim that they are restoring "primitive apostolic Christianity"?

I would guess that there are many variations on what different groups think "primitive apostolic Christianity" really is (or else the JWs, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists would be much more similar religions). Thus, I am really tempted to have the lead text say "what they claim to be a restoration of primitive Christianity" but this sounds a bit awkward and would no doubt start up another long round of debate.

--Richard 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: During the apostolic period there was no primitive Christianity. That community only knew Christianity. It is only looking back that we can theorize what was/is primitive Christianity. To strip away the emotive baggage and religious bias from the term “Christianity,” think of this in alpha terms. Then let me repeat this way: During the Y period there was no primitive X. The Y community only knew X. It is only looking back that we can theorize what was/is “primitive X”.

The usage of “primitive Christianity” is then, unavoidably, a theory in term. This means that any group declaring itself a restoration of primitive Christianity is supposedly practicing what is, to them, the earliest form of Christianity. Hence, based on usage, to say a religion is a reformed primitive Christianity is to say it professes its religion is modeled strictly by Christians of the apostolic period (not “early Christians”) according to its understanding. This usage provides an interesting solution to the bickering here because in academic terms it asserts “professed Christianity” whilst the average reader will have communicated that Jehovah’s Witnesses are attributable to Christianity, and both are true. Jehovah’s Witnesses do profess Christianity, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are attributable to Christianity.

A similar thing is true of the term “orthodox Christianity”. This, too, is a post period usage applied to the most common form of religion practiced by professed Christians at any given point since the apostolic period.

If Mormons claim themselves as “primitive Christian” then the religion does so because a religion (or anyone else) has freedom to claim whatever it wants. However, based on usage of this term in the literature, Mormons would have a harder time convincing readers to accept them as such because historically “primitive Christian” is applied to 1) groups attributable to Christianity who 2) assert they strictly abide by the New Testament as it presents the apostolic period. Though one may (or may not) be able to 1) argue Mormonism is attributable to Christianity, I see no bases upon which one could 2) argue the religion asserts it holds strictly to the New Testament for this theology.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I made my request above because I don't really believe the statement "form of primitive Christianity" is accurate in the opening sentense. JW's may believe they are applying a form of primitive Christianity, but this is an opinion they have about their beliefs, more so an actual accurate statement that describes them. No one knows what form primitive Christianity took in the 1st Century. We can add a reference to Restortionism to being the comment into context, but otherwise this is unverifable, as there is no consensus on what form first century christianity took. Fcsuper 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Primitive Christianity or Early Christianity?

These are two terms with different meanings in usage.

“Primitive Christianity” is used in the literature in reference to religions professing a strict (or rather strict) dependence on the apostolic period as rendered in the New Testament.

“Early Christianity” (or “Early Christians”) is used in the literature in reference to religions professing dependence on the Christian community from the apostolic period until near or at the First Council of Nicaea. We can reduce this by calling it orthodox Christianity as of the First Council of Nicaea.

Hence these two terms are not equivalents and should not be so misunderstood. (Not that anyone has expressed this construal)

My interpretation is that there are at least two stages of "early Christianity" - Christianity in the apostolic period which is documented in the New Testament and perhaps some non-canonical gospels and epistles and Christianity in the period of the Church fathers which is documented in the letters of Church fathers who were not apostles. I think we are equating "primitive Christianity" to the apostolic period. --Richard 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: First of all, let me just express that by no means am I considering other Wiki presentations as in influence here. This is purely because of time constraints for me. Since the vetted literature carries the bona fide weight of consensus then, for time sake, I am restraining myself to such secondary sources. Whatever my presentation here, it is directly influenced by and verified from this vetted resource of knowledge. As I have time and things move along I am more than willing to assist with Wiki material impinging our work on this subject.

Based on usage in vetted sources the expression “primitive Christianity” refers to the apostolic period, specifically and exclusively as it is documented in the New Testament. Hence the term is associated to something that is very well defined. The expression “earliest Christians” is fairly close to “primitive Christian” but 1) its usage in the literature is not as well defined and 2) as a result it may or may not include extra-New Testament influence, and, conservatively it could even be referring to the very narrow period of the period attributed to the time the Biblical Jesus personally spent in his ministry (literally “the” earliest Christians).

The phrase “early Christianity” is a usage associated with a well defined but much longer period, but whose developmental influence is not so well defined. The “primitive Christianity” is said to be influenced by the New Testament as it represents Christianity. Whereas “early Christianity” is arguably influenced by a much wider range of influences aside from the New Testament.

As I tried to express in my initial talk presentation on this, the literature’s presentation/usage of “primitive Christianity” appears to parallel how Jehovah’s Witnesses profess themselves.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In terms of our article, based on 1) Jehovah’s Witnesses theology and profession of faith, and based on 2) secondary literature, are Jehovah’s Witnesses expressing a primitive Christianity or an early Christianity?

My research and firsthand knowledge of Jehovah’s Witnesses theology and my reading of secondary vetted sources leaves me with a strong conclusion that Jehovah’s Witnesses should be presented as “in favor of a restored primitive Christianity” rather than depicting them as “in favor of a restored Early Christianity”.

Ice9Tea has edited the lead sentence to read, “in favor of a restored Early Christianity”. Based the above remarks, I think this should be reverted. Before I change the edit made by Ice9Tea back to “in favor of primitive Christianity” I wanted first to discuss this revert to consider other perspectives.-- Marvin Shilmer 19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the underlying problem is that the average reader will not know what "primitive Christianity" means, let alone understand the difference between "primitive Christianity" and "early Christianity". To the average reader, "primitive" means pre-civilization like "primitive man" or "primitive tribes".

To further muddle the picture, primitive Christianity redirects to Primitive Apostolic Christianity which is a disambig page that refers the reader to Early Christianity or Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian). Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) mentions Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists but not Jehovah's Witnesses. George m thinks that we should add Jehovah's Witnesses to that article but I would like to hear more opinions first. Is it reasonable to consider Jws Sabbatarian? I think not. So, I think we need to do more than just add Jws to Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian). Perhaps, we need to work with other editors to resolve this issue about [[Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian) and Sabbatarianism. There is currently a proposal to merge those two articles.

Richard: Though I understand what you have articulated, readers unable to add two plus two and consistently arrive at four should begin their reading somewhere other than this article. We have to apply some baseline of assumption to write an encyclopedic entry. I think it an entirely well defined baseline when we assign “primitive” to “Christianity” because Christianity is not older than itself. Hence there is no basis I see that a reader literate enough to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses as a distinct religion would not also understand the inference of “primitive” to “Christian”. In other words, these readers cannot be treated as though we are talking about prehistoric Christianity, which is impossible. Also, in order to maintain a consensus with the literature we have to apply a usage based on the same consensus.

Regarding the Wiki article on sabbatarianism, I understand why it has not a single reference. Editors will have a hard time demonstrating assertions of the current presentation align with a consensus of usage in vetted sources. At the moment I would not like “primitive Christian” in our article to any other within Wiki content, until those other articles get some substantive editing.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the term we might all agree on being used here is "first century Christianity" --Ice9Tea 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ice9Tea's comment above.

Marvin, I have expressed myself badly. Of course, no halfway intelligent reader would construe "primitive Christianity" to mean Christianity among the Cro-Magnon men. However, the point that I was making is that most average readers would not immediately recognize the phrase and know its meaning. Well, at least I wouldn't have and, while not an expert, I like to think I know something about Christianity.

Worse yet, Wikipedia does not provide any help in this regard. If Primitive Christianity would link to something useful, I would have no problem in using the term here. I am perfectly happy for us to engage in fixing the issue from that end. Until it's fixed, however, I think we are better off to use "first century Christianity" or "early Christianity" depending on what you think is supportable by the sources.

--Richard 05:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

JW beliefs are in no way "First Century Christianity" or "Primitive Christianity". Consideration of any faith that developed in modern times as these is hella POV. How can a group that developed in modern times be refered to in terms that suggest they are some how ancient in their beliefs. We have no way of knowing what form Christianity took during those times. This is unvettable in light of what is currently understood (and what is currently unknown). If one wishes to use these terms to describe JW beliefs, then they have to be brought into context as an opinion held by JW's, or with vettable references that brings those terms into context (such as ones that compare JW's beliefes to how those terms are normally used). Again, it doesn't matter what opinions JW's have about themselves unless it is clear we are talking about their opinions and those opinions are somehow noteable. Fcsuper 11:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Christian or not

Somebody mentioned something similar above, on topic or off, who cares, but yea, they are not christians, nor are christian sciences, as the above statement says, three criterias are needed: 1. Jesus is God, 2. He is part of Trinity (here's the problem, Orthodox and all christians believe that, but Orthodox says he comes from holy father first and some say from Father first, but who cares), 3. Mary mother of God is virgin and virgin birth, immaculate conception as declared by Pope in 1854 and affirmed by John Paul at Lordes in 2004. I am not the only one to say this. For catholics Mary died at 72 and after being dead for about 2 hours, she was taken to heaven, she also had a choice 22 years before to go to heaven but rejected, for 22 years served people and St. John took care of her, hope you appricate this rare info, it's not around, but it's true!@

(The following is a response to the unsigned paragraph above)

I have to completely disagree with you. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed., a Christian is "a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus." By this source, I would consider JW as a Christian group, being that they believe Jesus as the Christ. Whether or not they are a sect, denomination, etc. seems to be a point of great contention. According to the same dictionary, a denomination is "a particular religious body with a specific name, organization, etc. By that standard, then, one could consider JW as a denomination as well. Further, the dictionary goes on to describe a sect as "a religious body or denomination, ESP.(emphasis added) a small group that has broken away from an established church." Arguably then, could not Catholics be considered a sect, since the description of a sect being a splinter group not necessary by definition? My apologies if these issues have been resolved. Please point me in the direction of the resolution if they have; I really didn't want to read every single post here. I welcome any mature, intelligent feedback!Dannery4 07:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the immense amount of discussion on this page, I missed this until I saw Dannery4's comments. The commentator of the first paragraph should at least cite his/her source(s) of information. Having said that, how on earth can any free-thinking human being possibly read the holy bible and come up with that load of - dare I say - piffle. "Jesus is God" is a trinitarian teaching, nowhere in the bible is the word Trinity mentioned (although most false religious teachings from Babylonian times down has some form of trinitarian docrine), and Mary was the mother of Jesus - again, nowhere in the holy scriptures is there any claim of her being the mother of God. Neither did she remain a virgin, as the bible account shows Jesus had siblings. And the rest of what is written above is simply not worth my time in replying to. Suffice to say, it just shows what happens when someone listens to what is said by someone else instead of examining the bible for themselves... Excuse me if you think I'm ranting (I'm not) but it's unbelievable what I hear sometimes! Back on-topic, JW's class themselves as Christian, as they view Christ as their leader. And Webster's has a good definition to back that claim up as mentioned above. Thank you for that, Dannery4. Oh, and the resolution is near the foot of this page! LOL Joseph C Talk 15:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Scipture is rife with proof of the Trinitarian concept, even if the word itself appears nowhere in scripture. [Mt 28:19], [Mk 1:9-11], [Jn 1:1-18], [2Co 13:14], etc. In addition, it appears that "Witnesses...contradict this line of argument when they use, for example, the term 'theocracy', a word that is also not in the Bible though the concept is." (source: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions, Zondervan publishing.)

I would agree that Mary did not remain a virgin, as scripture clearly teaches that Jesus had brothers (cf [Jn 7:3]).

IMO, whether or not the opening line requires the term 'Christian' has less to do with whether or not JW's are Christian and more to do with the fact that the word in that sentence is simply redundant. If the sentence is changed to "Red Marbles are an international blue organization that rejects much of modern mainstream blueness in favor of what they believe is a more traditional shade of blue", you might get a better sense for the redundancy. 66.177.5.252 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

J

There is no "j" or "w" sound in ancient Hebrew so it can't be Jehovah of Yaweh!Meson man 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant "or not "of". Meson man 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong article for this point. However, to respond, the letters J and I were at one time interchangeable in the English Language. This is point of the Bible developing in English as the language changed, not a statement that elimenates authenticity of the use of J in YWHW. Many bibilical names have J in their name within the English bible (and other languages too), not just in Jehovah. Fcsuper 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of comparison...

Here's part of the lead of the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the LDS Church or the Mormon Church, is the largest and most well-known denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement (a group of churches and adherents who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.). The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established churches and temples worldwide, counting nearly 13 million members on its rolls.[1]

Adherents to the church (usually called Mormons or Latter-day Saints) believe that Jesus leads their church via revelation given to the President of the Church, whom they consider to be a prophet. They count themselves as Christians, but do not consider themselves part of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions. Instead, they believe that the church is a restoration of 1st century Christianity. They believe in the Old Testament and New Testament, but have added three books to their scriptural canon: the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

So... Mormons are not labeled Christians but are described as "counting themselves as Christians".

Here's part of the lead of the article Seventh Day Adventist Church

The Seventh-day Adventist (abbreviated "Adventist") Church is a Christian denomination with a worldwide membership of over 14 million and an active presence in most countries of the world.[1] The title refers to the Church's belief in the imminent second coming (or "Advent") of Jesus, and the observance of the "seventh day" of the week (Saturday) as the Sabbath. The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the middle part of the 19th century, and was formally established in 1863.[2] It is one of the few truly indigenous religions of North America. Among its founders was Ellen G. White, whose extensive writings are still held in high regard by the church today.

The Seventh-day Adventist church is closely aligned to Protestantism, although some critics regard it as a sectarian movement. Its theology corresponds to key evangelical teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Distinctive teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. The church is also known for its emphasis on diet and health, for its promotion of religious liberty, and for its culturally conservative principles.

So... Seventh-day Adventists are labeled as a "Christian denomination" but "some critics regard it as a sectarian movement".

--Richard 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: The problem I see with this comparison is neither the LDS nor the SDA article has a single vetted secondary source in verification, not to mention whether any editor has undertaken to find whatever consensus is held by the peer reviewed literature.

Each religion is different; hence the need to present each religion according to a consensus of knowledge on each individual religion. If a consensus of world knowledge presents religion X as A and religion Y as B then this is how an encyclopedic entry should present these religions, as A and B respectively. This is true regardless of the comparative difference between the two in terms of A or not A, or B or not B.-- Marvin Shilmer 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, your approach to Wikipedia standards is too decentralized for my liking. While it is true that LDS, JW and 7th Day Adventists are three different religions, they share the worship of Jesus in common. I believe we should rise above the parochial focus on this article and establish a common standard for all articles related to Christ-related religions. Despite the lack of sources, it is worthwhile to note that the article on the LDS church does not call them a Christian denomination. Once again, despite the lack of sources, it is worthwhile to note that the article on the 7th Day Adventists does call them a Christian denomination. It would be good if someone were to research these other religions to the same level of thoroughness that you have done with JWs in order to establish that these characterizations reflect the "consensus of world knowledge".

It may turn out that there is a "line" which delineates religions which are called "Christian" from those that are more likely to be described as "professing or counting themselves as Christian". In this particular set of comparisons (LDS and 7th Day Adventist), the line would seem to be drawn around Trinitarianism and canonical scriptures. Understanding this issue in greater detail would be useful in the Christian article.

--Richard 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Too decentralized? You are recommending an approach that, to a great degree, amounts to original research. If we are not here to present a consensus of existing knowledge on whatever the subject, then we are inventing a consensus, which is original research.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, "consensus" and "original research" are difficult concepts. Even your research, looking at approx. 50 sources and drawing a conclusion as to what the consensus in the field is, amounts to original research. Why? Because, to be rigorous, we would have to cite a peer-reviewed source which says "I did this research on X number of articles; this is why X is a sufficient number to draw a academically sound conclusion; and this is the conclusion based on my research". To be really "bullet proof", we would have to see that the publication was cited favorably by a number of other scholars. Presumably, you have not run across any such publication in your research.

Note here that I am not attacking your conclusion. I'm just pointing out that it is still arguably original research and so we really would need to look further before being able to make a solid verifiable conclusion. Look at it this way, I cannot verify your conclusion without doing the same research myself. That makes it OR. Now if you cited a person that had done the research and published it, I could verify your research by reading the cited work and deciding for myself whether to accept the credibility of that person's research. I could also use the publication in which the work was published as a point of reference to determine how credible the work was.

I/we accept the results of your original research because we trust that the access that you claim to have to sources gives us a good measure of confidence that your conclusion is what the hypothetical researcher would have concluded had he done the work and published it. A bit tenuous but that's the way Wikipedia works. Hopefully, your claims to research are more credible than Essjay's. No insult intended here but we really don't know you any better than we knew Essjay.

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: This is why each editor must cite a resource for purposes of authentication/verification. I have not simply advanced a view. I have advanced a view supported by quite a few and quite prestigious sources. Also, just to clarify, by the time I offered my last serious edit, my review had included over 250 vetted sources that I personally reviewed. But I also was able to do a sort of statistical analysis based on search capabilities of the various databases available, which are extensive. I have not included any comment of this statistical analysis because this is original research. On the other hand, it is not considered original research to present the findings of prestigious secondary sources, particularly vetted.

Please understand that I am in no way challenging the validity of your research or your conclusions. I personally believe that you executed this review and that your conclusion has integrity. However, I do not believe the conclusion meets Wikipedia's highest standards for verifiabiity. NB: Neither do many assertions in this and other Christ-related articles. In fact, your conclusions probably set the bar for sourcing a notch higher.

So, why doesn't your work meet the "highest standards of Wikipedia"? Because we don't know how you selected your 250 sources and we don't know if they are representative of the scholarly consensus or not. You haven't cited all 250 sources and even if you did we wouldn't be qualified to pass judgment on whether they are representative or not. Neither for that matter, are you. That's why even conclusions about the scholarly consensus should be cited to a reliable source. It's one thing to say "Some scholars say X while other scholars say Y ." To support such a statement, we only need one citation of a scholar saying X and one of another scholar saying Y. Once sourced, the only real challenge would be either NPOV-based due to omission of POV Z or undue weight claiming that either X or Y was being over-emphasized or under-emphasized.

Richard: A hallmark of legitimate research and presentation is to disclose methodology in addition to citing references in support of whatever your findings. This allows research to be duplicated, which allows the work’s veracity to be either confirmed or refuted, or improved upon. To share the methodology is to sound the death Nell if a person is not sharing bona fide research. Above I shared my methodology. Anyone with access to the tools I employed can duplicate my research. Hence readers here do know how I selected the indicated sourcesl, because I told them.

Since I performed the research I assert then I have no concern of being found out should anyone take on the task of duplicating my work. But there remains the possibility I have misunderstood what I found, and accordingly formed a bad finding from the research. But this, too, is a reason to share both method and finding. Honest researchers know it is enhanced knowledge that moves society forward. Accordingly any honest research wants to know if findings are incorrect, whether their own or of someone else. By sharing methods and findings it increases the likelihood a work will have its veracity tested. I am not interested in being right. I am interested in learning, and sharing whatever I learn.

I am compelled to add that your observations I find incisive and objective. Your work here is appreciated.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, if we wish to say "The majority of scholars say X" or "The overwhelming consensus of scholars is X", then this is a higher level of assertion. Even if you reviewed 500 or 1000 sources, we could not be assured that your review had covered a representative set of sources and that your analytical methods were valid. This is why even the conclusion would have to be cited to a source. Fortunately, we are not attempting to insert a sentence like "The scholarly consensus does not characterize JWs as Christian." for this would surely demand a citation to support it.

As for publications citing usage, this is precisely why I cited the Oxford English Dictionary. On this point the etymology section and the usage sections are invaluable. Panels of experts have reviewed literature specifically to identify accepted usage, for whatever the term or, I some cases, the terminology.

I realize you are not attacking anything, or anyone. You are doing what we all should; testing the edges looking for soft spots in need of support, or greater support. Again, this is the reason for providing and examining cited sources. This is precisely why I took the time to look up and review each of the sources provided by George m. I wanted to examine the veracity of that material, which I did. I also spelled out the findings for review by whomever cared.

I have no idea who or what Essjay was/is. But I do know the nature of this Wiki project is precisely why I have at no time advanced my own credentials as authoritative. As you said, you don’t know me. Hence the need to provide solid secondary sources and let those sources speak.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As for centralization, I disagree with your assessment. The centralization is the consensus of world knowledge. We find this by looking for a consensus of usage, if there is one for whatever the specific issue.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine for a minute that we worked for Wikipedia, Inc., a hypothetical encyclopedia publishing company. Wouldn't you expect that there would be departments which would set up standards for articles in a particular domain? You would expect standards for articles on religion and, in particular, articles on Christianity. It would make no sense for one article to assert that JWs are Christian and another article to assert that they are not. It would also make no sense to one article to assert that JWs are not Christian (or fail to assert it) and another article to assert that Mormons are Christians unless there was a standard "yardstick" definition against which the editors of each article could make their determinations. In the decentralized world of Wikipedia, that is what WikiProjects are for. I think we should surface these discussions at WikiProject Christianity and build a wider consensus for your approach and have it applied across all Christ-related articles.

Note here that I am not arguing that your approach of relying on sources would be discarded as we moved this discussion to wider forums. I don't see it as "Marvin's sources as discussed on Talk:JW vs. random, unsourced assertions in the wider forums". Why can't it be "a sourced discussion of standard criteria discussed in the wider forum of editors interested in Christ-related articles"?

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: My reading of Wiki policy and guidelines leads me to conclude there is a standard in place. I see this standard deviated from here by editors, seemingly, equating a majority view among fellow editors with a consensus. This is a problem because some editors are trained analysts and researchers and others are neither. Some editors have access to vast information that is unavailable to other editors. And, of course, everyone’s experience is different.

I think more than anything else what you are trying to propose is a template for presentation of religions. That would be an excellent idea. This template would present basic information in a given order, and it could also provide a systemic means of arriving at style of presentation. (Style: attribution or not, declaration or not, descriptive or not, etc)-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

“Christ-related” is highly ambiguous and it finds no significant extent of usage in secondary sources. We must stick to usage as it exists. Otherwise we lose the benefit of examining presentation with usage in existing source material.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah. You take yourself too seriously. I'm not proposing to use the phrase "Christ-related" in any article. I'm just using it here on this Talk Page to avoid calling JWs a Christian religion and thereby making an assertion that is disputed by some editors. It's clear that LDS and JW are Christ-related religions even if we can't use that phrase in the Wikipedia articles. --Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no universally held standard of what is Christian. There is only history and tradition, both of which are found in usage of language. The consensus of this usage applied from one religion to the next is the only viable resource to settle the question of what a reference work should assert.

-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What? You think there is a consensus on the LDS church, a separate consensus on JWs but no common consensus on the two churches? This sounds wrong to me. I would argue that there probably is a consensus that focuses on Trinitarianism and scriptural canon. If you went through your 50+ sources and built a table trying to determine the characteristics of who they considered Christian and who they did not, I would bet you would discover that they focused primarily on these two issues. (NB: I recognize that the search terms that you used to search for your sources might not have yielded sources that are amenable to this kind of analysis. Nonetheless, I believe my argument would be valid for sources that are amenable.)

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: No. That is not what I said. I said there is “no universally held standard” of what is Christian. I did not say there is “no consensus” of what is Christian. There is a consensus I identify of what is Christian. As I explained earlier up this talk page, this consensus is seen in terms such as orthodox, unorthodox, sect, cult, etc. This is a window of usage with the term “Christian” as to how it is understood. This window represents the consensus of what is “Christian”. The problem comes with transferring this understanding to a particular religion when that religion is most often presented in the literature as a fringe group. When society sees a group as fringe from a particular perspective (in this case Christian) then which side of the line this group falls is a subject of debate, which is what we both see going on here. In this circumstance it is even more important to let solid secondary sources do the talking. Be descriptive rather than dogmatic. Make attribution rather than making declarations. Suggest rather than assert. This is the realm of fringe.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If editors are to work on establishing a common standard for presenting religions, then it seems to me the only standard worth discussing is what I have already presented. That is, present the world’s knowledge as verified by primary and solid secondary sources. It seems to me this is already Wiki policy. Perhaps the problem is too many editors are winking at this policy because no one has called their hand by demonstrating otherwise.-- Marvin Shilmer 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your research focused on JWs using "Jehovah" as one of your search terms. Perhaps this is as far as your scope of interest goes. But, the debate that we've had here applies to all other Christian sects, especially Restorationist ones such as LDS and 7th day Adventist. The question that faces us is... "Does the consensus as reflected in these Wikipedia articles reflect the consensus of scholarly opinion?" At the moment, we can only say that we think the JW article reflects the consensus of scholarly opinion based on the research of Marvin Shilmer as presented here on this Talk Page. A better assertion than on the LDS and 7th Day Adventist articles but still a bit tenuous as explained above.

--Richard 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard: Yes. I did apply Jehovah as a search term in many of my search efforts, but not all of them. I intentionally extracted this term (and others) to locate and review a wider range of usage just in case this is found in the literature. Nevertheless, our specific subject is about Jehovah’s Witnesses; hence the need to find and present whatever the literature presents on this particular subject.

Though I have confidence in the research I have done and presented on the subject page, and in analyses I have discussed on this talk page, the very reason I also provided citations is so editors can test veracity if they feel the need. I encourage this, in fact. Anyone who takes Marvin Shilmer’s word for something just because Marvin Shilmer said it, is it a fool. The same is true of everyone. It is fine to trust people. But this has nothing to do with whether a presentation is sound. Whether a presentation is sound has nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with evidence, methodology and logical analysis.-- Marvin Shilmer 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal institutions

Before I get to changing the last sentence of the introductory paragraph too much, it would prolly be best to discuss it here.

It seems to me that some mention of the JW's legal institutions is fitting, but I would rather see reference to their ministry work in the introduction, and move legal institutional references to the next paragraph, where it is discussed. Opinions? Sources?

Also, I cannot find any current statements regarding an actual "Headquarters". Does someone have such information?

Fcsuper 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

use of the term "Orthodox Christianity"

from the wikipedia article Orthodox Christianity "Any particular Christian faith believed by its followers to be correct by comparison to other faiths. In this sense every Church considers its own faith orthodox".this removes the term from the realm of NPOV as it is being used in the lead in for this article. Ice9Tea 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the usefulness of that definition, especially in the context of this article. By that definition, JWs are also "Orthodox Christians" and thus comparing JWs to Orthodox Christianity is meaningless.

--Richard 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how sited source 2 applies

Please explain how sited source 2 applies. Please graciously explain it here, as the sited source is not common enough for the average person to check it readily (i.e., this is wikipedia, not a Ph. D. thesis). Does the source detail JW's rejection orthodoxy and/or does it explain how they consider their beliefs as being representitive of First Century Christianity? Given the title of the article, the original conversation about this matter, the original wording, and the quote given, it currently seems to be a stretch to use this as a source for those comments. Fcsuper 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: It's cited. Not sited.

The associated sentence asserts Jehovah’s Witnesses favor a restored form of first century Christianity. The citation demonstrates this by asserting a reassurance among Jehovah’s Witnesses that “theirs is the original community of true Christians.” There is a direct and unmistakable corollary between Jehovah’s Witnesses viewing themselves as “original community of true Christians” and Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘favoring a restored form of first century Christianity’.

The reference material is available at any public library in the developed world.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Graciously, I asked. Condescension is not graciousness. Either way, your quote says nothing about First Century Christianity or primitive Christianity. Interpreting the phrase "original community of true Christians" is open without the context of the article. This is why I am asking for clarification based on the evidence within article itself, and not solely the quote [c]ited (remember that request for grace?). Please expand your explanation to clarify how the article makes this assertion. The reason I'm asking for this is because the beginning sentence is now a weak and rather defensive statement about JW's beliefs. The fact that a qualifier is used suggests that the POV of JW beliefs may be inferior to mainstream Christianity. I wish to strengthen the statement to be factually stated without suggestion of POV, inferred or direct. This is what I meant by my earlier comments about the integrity of this article. My problem is the current need for the statement "what they believe" to qualify the overall statement to make it factual. I believe there is a much better way of saying the exact same information in the opening sentence without such overt qualifiers, and yet still be factual. I would like to state what their beliefs are, not what their beliefs are not. In other words, the comparitive between maintstream Christianity and JW's beliefs (as currently stated) makes JW's beliefs appear inferior. I want JW's beliefs to neither appear inferior or superior to anything, in order to achieve a NPOV position. Your efforts, though well intentioned, may have played into the hands of those who may have wished to demean JW's beliefs. Fcsuper 15:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No response? Again, I iterate my request for an expansion of your explanation to clarify how the reference article makes the assertion regarding a restoration of first century Christianity. What data does the article collect that allows it to make that assertion? If none, then the use of the Watchtower article and the published reference article represents a use that was not intended by their writers and constitutes original research. (i.e., you did the gathering of information to make the statement, as opposed to someone else that you are referencing.) So, please explain. Fcsuper 15:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper: The source is presented as an extra-Watchtower authority. In this case the author of the article asserts the conclusion quoted in the citation. The use is not original research because the conclusion belongs to the article's author. It looks to me as though you do not comprehend what the quoted material in the reference means. I cannot help this. Do your research. Marvin Shilmer 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem know what the word gracious means, with all of your resources at your disposal even. You continue to dodge the issue by pretending you know more than anyone else and pretending you are actually making your point. Please address the issue and then we can talk on equal terms. This has nothing to do with helping each other. Fcsuper 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done...

Despite all the fussing, as a former J Dub, I believe this article was very well done.

Honestly, what does it matter whether they're Christians or a sect or a cult? The fact is, they're a religious organization. Why must we always fuss over the details? The basic facts about what they believe are conveyed quite clearly.

Again, thank you for this article. 24.107.8.250 08:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, actually the comment about them being a "religious organization" could be argued against as well...and here's the irony...by using JW literature. Yes, there are several references in JW literature that express their believe that JW's are not a relgion. Wrap you mind around that one. :) Fcsuper 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper:I have to disagree with your point about JW not considering themselves a religion. I was raised a JW and I can remember JW literature where they refer to themselves as "the one true religion." I'll try to find those references if this matter persists. Perhaps you could do the same?Dannery4 06:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You can easily find references writen their works about them not being a religion. It's in older works, but it is in no uncertain terms. They switched to calling themselves "the one true religion" when the IRS used their own words against them in challenging their status as a religion for tax-exemption. Fcsuper 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on Abaddon and Apollyon articles

Hi. I have been trying to keep libelous web sites from being linked to what Jehovahs Witnesses believe about the identity of Abaddon on that page, but an IP address user continually reinserts them. If anyone is interested I hope you can help. thanks. Wonderpet 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) thanks anywayWonderpet 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian

Hi, I inserted the word Christian into the Lead-in of the article. Wonderpet 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with it's use, as the article starts by giving the impression that JW's seem to reject Christianity for their own views giving the impression that JW's are not Christian, which is incorrect. However an anonymous editor seems bent on removing that word if you see the edit history. Joseph C Talk 10:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

General Question about Jehovas and Marriage

Hi - I know three JW's from my workplace, and all of them were married before the age of 19. I know three barely represents the majority, but I was wondering if there is some sort of docterine that states JW's should marry younger than is traditional. I feel it's a bit rude to go ahead and ask my coworkers. Thanks 146.186.118.78 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no, there is no marry young doctrine. However please feel free to ask Jehovah's Witnesses about their religion, they love to talk about it. Wonderpet 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

introduction section too long

The introduction section is too long and meanders through discussion points with no flow. It sounds more like of laundry list rather than a concise overview of the article. The introduction should mirror the article itself. It should be no more than 2 or 3 short paragraphs that briefly cover what the article is about. Right now, it's kinda it's own article slapped on top of the JW article. It needs brevity. Also, it shouldn't be heavily referenced since it should be talking about points covered in the article that are referenced within the context of each section. Fcsuper 15:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, it is almost it's own article and needs rewritten. Wonderpet 17:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the first two paragraphs should remain as the lead-in and the rest should be incorporated into the body where ever it is not already duplicated. Wonderpet 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting

This line is bizarre. I was so disturbed by it, that i felt compelled to remove it from the article and place it here for discussion.

They believe voting or elections in themselves are harmless, for example, although they would not vote to elect a political leader, they would not object to voting on a non-political issue such as what color balloons to buy for a party.^[1] They do not stand for any political office.^[2]

I'm not quite sure why this struck me as so curious... it almost seems legalistic, but engineered to appear casual. I heard recently that Jehovah's Witnesses had to rescind the policy of disfellowshipping for voting in governmental elections worldwide in order to avoid having their activities banned in some countries.Watchtower, November 1, 1999 Questions from readers any thoughts? has this been discussed before? --PopeFauveXXIII 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

in the main paragraph dealing with neutrality, i reworded the line "Jehovah's Witnesses are discouraged, but not prohibited under all circumstances, from voting in elections." Based on this analysis of witness literature (particularly the last two articles), there has clearly been a policy change. voting in elections, mandatory or otherwise, has been downgraded from an essentially disfellowshippable offense to a conscience issue as of 1999. --PopeFauveXXIII 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of the name Jehovah amongst Jehovah's Witnesses

Regarding this statement:

Other Witness teachings include the use of God's personal name, Jehovah which appears more than 7,000 times in the original Bible manuscripts and is usually translated as YHWH–also Yahweh in English–and the belief that such use is vital for acceptable worship

This is incorrect

Although Jehovah's Witnesses usually use the name Jehovah in place of God, it is certainly not vital for acceptable worship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.135.56.27 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 July 2007 UTC.

Sorted and clarified now I hope... Joseph C Talk 22:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph: you are wrong, see the citation. Regularly using the personal name of God is an essential part of worship in the Witness view. This does not mean using the name EXCLUSIVELY.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040122/article_03.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.13.48.17 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 July 2007 UTC.

Sorry, you misread. All I wrote was "Sorted and clarified now I hope..." -- The sentances before that were from someone who did not sign their name, It's usual wiki etiquette to start a reply indented. (which is what I did) Personally I think the word "Vital" gives off a life-or-death implication, so I reworded the article as you can see. We certainly do not substitute at every opportunity the word God in our everyday speech for Jehovah.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the way you can edit to get the (The preceeding unsigned statement was left by xxxxx on this date and time) statement or I would have done.

Thanks -- Joseph C Talk 11:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Have added the first comment sig above now using unsigned template - Joseph C Talk 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up. An additional point: Because the majority of Witnesses are not Anglophones, the article should include the information that use of the NAME in the vernacular is what is required and that for the majority of Witnesses this is a form other than the English form Jehovah. I have in the distant past provided representative examples in the article, but apparently the Anglophone majority here considers this information trivial. Some examples: Geova in Italian, Yawe in Ateso, Yekoba in Dinka, Iehova in Gaelic. Ben - July 14th 2007

redundant use of the word Christian

Marvin Shilmer. I have returned the word Christian to the first sentence of the article. Having read it several times over I do not believe it is a redundancy, it is needed to point out that Jehovah's Witnesses are considered to be a Christian religion and not merely a group that rejects mainstream christianity. There is no harm in having the word there in the first sentence. Wonderpet 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

personally, i think this infighting over the word "christian" is silly. a christian is a follower of christ, whether they believe christ to be god himself or even of divine origin. i agree that the use of the term "christian" three times in the opening statement is, in fact, redundant, and the first instance which was removed was the best choice. the rest of the line says very plainly that JWs consider themselves christian, which is a statement of fact irrespective of anybody else's definition of what constitutes a christian. --PopeFauveXXIII 09:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Aimed at no-one in particular) Many so-called "Christians" who are non-JW simply hate to see JW's called Christian, hence all the arguing. Of course everyone has their own definition of what classifies someone as Christian, so perhaps they should consult the bible to see what Jesus said about his followers..? Too many people like to have their ears tickled... and I could go on and on (and on and on) but it is a waste of time especially on this site. Invariably when I speak to householders in the door-to-door ministry and use the term Christian, it surprises many too. Joseph C Talk 10:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderpet: When I wrote "See Talk page" the hope was you would read the extensive discussion on this matter already present on the talk page. A consensus is achieved. If you do not like this consensus then please use the talk pages to argue your case prior to undoing a present consensus. Marvin Shilmer 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer, would you mind please showing me where on this overgrown talk page there was any consensus? Wonderpet 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, there is no nonsense regarding your edits. There is a consensues against many versions of your edits. The current poorly written introduction only remains because several of us have taken a break from this article for awhile. This stay will not last however. Fcsuper 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of these issues could be settled if everyone would just open a dictionary and read the definitions of the terms in question.

(1) Jehovah's Witnesses ARE Christian because they believe Jesus is Christ. The definition says nothing about rejection of mainstream Christian beliefs including that of the Trinity. (2) Jehovah's Witnesses COULD BE considered a sect, but so could every other religion on the planet. Again, check the definition of the term sect. (3) Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT a cult. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. a cult is "a system of religious worship or ritual or a quasireligious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs. " By the first part, I would consider Catholics more of a cult because of the somewhat ritualistic things they do during worship. Dannery4 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dannery4, Yup. It is just that simple. One individual has been trying to argue that JW's are not Christain because some sources happen to call them a "Christain Sect" (however, even sources that say this tend to use the two terms interchangeably). As illogical as this sounds, you can plainly read that there are tons of comments to that effect in this discussion page. The point hasn't been made, but its supportor does not concede. It's a red-herring issue however, because the agenda is to keep from calling JW's any sort of Christain in the introduction (knowing that the term "Christain Sect" is to often perjoritive and cannot be used in the introduction without proper context). Fcsuper 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

archive this

this page is very overwhelming, would someone please archive it Wonderpet 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone, please! Dtbrown 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ancient Witnesses"?

Are we editing an encyclopedia article or a theological interpretation of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses? The idea that the Jehovah's Witness movement existed before the days of Barbour and Russell is a theological interpretation and could be placed in the Beliefs and Practices section. It has no place in the main article discussing Witness history. Dtbrown 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit as it currently stands says this: "But in about C.E.56, the apostasy occurred among them, their mind started to be divided.(Acts 20:29, 30) After the death of John, the last apostle, the apostasy had spread.(2 Timothy 2:17)" Isn't this POV? Dtbrown Dtbrown 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New lead?

I think it's time to come up with a more stream-lined lead. The current has way too much info in it. Thoughts? Dtbrown 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For now lets keep the first paragraph, then let the zealous editors find places to incorporate the remainder. But as it is now it is a mess. Wonderpet 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Membership

I think this paragraph, which has been recently edited, is a bit redundant. Any suggestions? Abbott75 ☺ 10:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Jehovah’s Witnesses count as adherents the number of baptized publishers who actively preach the kingdom good news which as of 2006 is some 6.5 million.^[3]^[4] Of these adherents it counts as publishers those who report time preaching each month. As of August 2006 this membership is about 6.5 million.^[5] "

That does seem rather redundant, would you drop the first, or the second portion? Wonderpet 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Abbot and Wonderpet:

Referenced sources clear this up, and I wish editors would take care to consult referenced material prior to making changes. (Not that either of you have done otherwise)

The religion draws a distinction between adherents and members. The number of “adherents” is the statistical sum of meeting attendance, which number includes “members” but is not exclusively “members”. “Members” is the statistical number reporting public ministerial activity. Hence, as of 2006, the number of adherents is about 16.5 million and the number of members is about 6.5 million. I have corrected this countless times after editors have, incorrectly, stated the number of adherents and the number of members is the same, as if the two groups are one and the same.

Writing in her capacity as associate general counsel for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Incorporated, attorney Carolyn Wah states, “Based on annual statistics, meetings are attended by some 14 million adherents, including approximately 5.8 million members.” (Wah, C., Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Responsibility of Religious Freedom: The European Experience, Journal of Church and State, June 2001, p. 582, Carolyn Wah is Associate General Counsel for the Watch Tower Society) The numbers have increased since Wah’s 2001 statement. --Marvin Shilmer 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Arianism

Minus any remote link to ancient Christianity -75.46.3.182 (Unsigned comment added to archive by Duffer1. Signature added by Duffer1. Link to original comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJehovahs_Witnesses&diff=149173183&oldid=149172464)

^ "Watchtower". 1999: 28. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ "18 "They Are No Part of the World"". Worship the Only True God. Watchtower. 2002. p. 159.
^ Wah, C., Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Responsibility of Religious Freedom: The European Experience, Journal of Church and State, June 2001, p. 582, Carolyn Wah is Associate General Counsel for the Watch Tower Society
^ 2007 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses
^ 2007 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 31: "Peak of Publishers in Kingdom Service — 6,741,444. Average Publishers Preaching Each Month — 6,491,775. Worldwide Memorial Attendance — 16,675,113." A Publisher is defined as an active member who submits a monthly report of time spent preaching.

[1] "Watchtower". 1999: 28. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[2] "18 "They Are No Part of the World"". Worship the Only True God. Watchtower. 2002. p. 159.

[3] Wah, C., Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Responsibility of Religious Freedom: The European Experience, Journal of Church and State, June 2001, p. 582, Carolyn Wah is Associate General Counsel for the Watch Tower Society

[4] 2007 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses

[population-5] 2007 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 31: "Peak of Publishers in Kingdom Service — 6,741,444. Average Publishers Preaching Each Month — 6,491,775. Worldwide Memorial Attendance — 16,675,113." A Publisher is defined as an active member who submits a monthly report of time spent preaching.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]