Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 40

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 35

←

Archive 38

→

Neutrality tag

I'm not sure why the neutral tag was added, and unless I'm missing something here on the talk page, it doesn't seem to be with any support. However, since it was added, let us discuss it. I do not feel the article warrents the tag. JW's feel the article puts them in a bad light, and ex-JW's/anti-JW's feel the article puts the JW's in a good light. The fact is that this article is heavily referenced and there really isn't all the much in dispute other than actual wording choices, the inclusion of particular "facts, and particular individual sections. I suggest the removal of the tag and (if needed) the addition of the tag to the particular section to which is applies. Any thoughts on this? — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 16:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag was added by User:Vassilis78. Discussion regarding which points were believed to not be neutral should have been initiated by Vassilis78 when tag was placed, to work towards a solution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support it's being taken down. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In the absence of an initial point of discussion defining the problem, I'd suggest there's no significant problem with neutrality that can't be overcome without the continuation of careful, collaborative and gradual editing. LTSally (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I put the tag explaining the reasons above. My tag has to do with the introduction.

The group has been criticized as authoritarian[7] and accused of coercing members to obey doctrines including the ban on blood transfusions.[8] The religion is said to demand unquestioning obedience from members, with the threat of expulsion facing any who fail to comply with, express doubts about, or disagree with, doctrines.[9]

All the big churches of Christendom (Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists) have killed people for their doctrinal differentiation. JWs never did that. However, in none of the articles about these churches the introduction begins with the murders they have committed in the name of God.

The issues mentioned are current regarding JWs, whereas those mentioned regarding 'the big churches of Christendom' refer to non-current events. I agree that the wording should be changed. I don't think we need a word like 'authoritarian' in the lead, nor do blood transfusions need to be mentioned in the lead twice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, some people may say JWs are authoritarian. This is can be debated (murders cannot be). If there are serious sources that say that, this can be added in the article, but not in the introduction. Even the positive comments of JWs can be written in a more neutral way the introduction.

Instead of:

The religion has achieved significance through its contributions to medical practice in bloodless surgery, US & Canadian constitutional law concerning civil liberties and conscientious objection to military service, and an international publishing and missionary activity.[4] The religion's pacifist stance has brought it into conflict with governments which conscript male citizens for military service[5][6] and activities of Jehovah's Witnesses are banned in some countries.

this could be written:

Jehovah's Witnesses have become widely known by their international missionary service, especially from door to door, by their objection to military service and their refusal to blood transfusions.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, with minor changes: "Jehovah's Witnesses have become widely known for their international missionary activities, especially from door to door, for their objection to military service, and for their refusal of blood transfusions." Though they have also been in involved in significant legal cases in the US, I don't believe this fact is 'widely known', and it also serves to deinternationalise the group in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The reply by Vassilis here hasn't really addressed the issue of neutrality and whether the whole article warrants a neutrality tag. Part of the notability of Jehovah's Witnesses is that they are a religion that attracts much, much criticism. A simple Google search will show this. Anyone Googling Jehovah's Witnesses will be struck with the number of anti-Witness sites dealing with blood transfusions, doctrines, paedophilia and mind control. Whether or not they are correct, these are widely disseminated views that help to define the perception of Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyone asking "What's the big deal?" and turning to Wikipedia should expect to get an answer, not only in the article body but also -- to avoid undue weight -- briefly, in the intro.

The intro as proposed, seems to be covering only positive aspects about the subject of the article. Given the controversy over the religion, this is not neutral. The intro as it stands, deals, in order, with (a) their history and what they're most well known for; (b) The good things they've achieved; (c) their controversy. That seems fair and neutral.

Please note that I was only quoting a subsection of the proposed intro, and that I recommended above that I agree that the other 'negative' issues mentioned above in this section should be mentioned because they are much more current (than for example Catholic murders from centuries ago), though with some changes in wording for a more neutral presentation. Perhaps: "The group has been accused of demanding unquestioning obedience from members, with the threat of shunning facing any who fail to comply with, express doubts about, or disagree with, doctrines." This is only a draft thought.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Two other points: (1) The wording "international missionary activity, especially from door to door" isn't the best wording. They are, as the reference source I cited says, known for their door-to-door preaching or proselytizing work (in addition to the blood transfusion ban and refusal to accept military service). Many religions carry out international missionary work including the Mormons, the Catholic and Anglican churches and I doubt that Jehovah's Witnesses are more well-known for that work than those groups. The key is door-to-door preaching/proselytizing. (2) It is very significant that Witnesses, because of their stand on conscription, are banned in many countries. I fail to see how this statement reflects a point of view and should therefore be removed. Witness publications seem to take pride in the fact that their stand on Christian neutrality has resulted in their being banned. Their pride over the stand of witnesses in Nazi Germany is clear evidence of this, and probably that issue should be incorporated in that sentence as well. I don't see it as a criticism or anti-Witness claim, if this is being suggested. If anything, that sentence dealing with bans and Nazi persecution should follow the initial reference to conscription in the first paragraph to keep that subject together. LTSally (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, if you're suggesting there's still a negative bias in the intro, I don't see how your wording overcomes that. Those who disagree with doctrines and practices may be shunned, true, but only if they are first expelled. So if anything, the line would read: ""The group has been accused of demanding unquestioning obedience from members, with the threat of explusion and shunning facing any who fail to comply with, express doubts about, or disagree with, doctrines." I'm not sure whether you're also suggesting the deletion of the opening sentence of the third paragraph, "The group has been criticized as authoritarian[7] and accused of coercing members to obey doctrines including the ban on blood transfusions." I hope not. Witnesses are very well-known for their stand against blood transfusions and that reference from Canada is a significant statement about that practice in the context of criticisms of the authoritarian nature of the Jehovah's Witness organisation. Again, the inclusion of both sentences does nothing to breach Wikipedia's policies on a neutral point of view. LTSally (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

LTSally, it appears you have misunderstood a couple of things about my prior statement. 1) I said my suggestion was only a "draft thought"; shunning would imply expulsion anyway, but I'm happy with either wording. 2) I indicated that "I agree that the other 'negative' issues mentioned above in this section should be mentioned" in reference to the 'opening sentence of the third paragraph'. I hope that clarifies things.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All, I'd like to focus this topic first on the tag itself. It seems we have major consensus that it is not needed on the article. However, it also seems there is a desire to improve the current introduction with tweaks. So, I iterate that the tag should be removed, but this discussion should move forward. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Fc's comment, and the total lack of response to it, I intend to take down the neutrality tag shortly. If anyone has objections, please state them here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Literature is published in many languages through a wide variety of books, magazines and other publications, with some publications being available in as many as 410 languages. This should now read "in over 430 different languages", as per watchtower of 15th August 2008, page 25, paragraph 19.84.13.214.238 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Coercion

Regarding the statement, "accused of coercing members to obey doctrines including the ban on blood transfusions." If included, I think this needs to be clarified. In general, any religion tacitly 'coerces members to obey doctrines'. To be of significance, it should be demonstrated that this is done in some especially overt manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro, have you read the reference supplied? Open Human (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Have now. Agree that the reference, in combination with the sentence that follows is sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this paragraph may be inappropriate without the more substantial controversies section. It is not really supported by any portion of the current article and should be removed, or have more under controversies restored. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, Fcsuper. It's been on my "To do" list to rename the "Controversy" section "Criticism and controversy", in which an expanded reference to these criticisms can be included. Criticisms, as such, aren't really covered under the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses splitoff article. Not all criticisms are controversies, and those mentioned in the intro are more criticism than controversy. I'll get on to this soon. LTSally (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Could you please provide the passage of this citation?

The religion is said to demand unquestioning obedience from members, with the threat of shunning facing any who fail to comply with, express doubts about, or disagree with doctrines.[9]Franz, Raymond (2007). In Search of Christian Freedom. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 754. ISBN 0-914675-17-6.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are fairly lengthy sections within the book that deal with these issues. Here are a few:

(1) Page 26, transcript of Society legal counsel Hayden Covington in the Walsh case in Scotland, 1954: "Q: You also quite frankly argued that persons who at any time are not prepared to accept authoritative expositions are liable to expulsion from the Society, with such spiritual consequences as that may entail? A: Yes, I said that and I say it again." Franz comments: "No matter what he (a Christian) reads in the Bible, he is not to express that if it does not coincide with the organisation's authoritative teachings ... to fail in this respect is to merit disfellowshipping and "be worthy of death' ".

(2) Page 28: "While asking for tolerance for itself, it does not grant it to any member who objects to, and who cannot accept, erroneous teachings. (The previous passage had dealt with WT teachings that were subsequently altered and admitted as wrong) For them the result is disfellowshipping, being cut off as worthy of death."

(3) Page 110: "Yes that same disposition that resents, deprecates and seeks to silence any difference of viewpoint clearly controls the actions and decisions and outlook of the religous council called the Governing Body."

(4) Page 111, a reproduced section of a WT Nov 15, 1981, page 21, which reads "...In submitting to Jehovah's visible theocratic organisation, we must be in full and complete agreement with every feature of its apostolic procedure and requirements."`

(5) Page 103-104, he discusses the force of "organisational teachings", cites page 156 of the Qualified to be Ministers book which demands Witnesses "'believe all things', all the things that the Watchtower brings out" and claims Witnesses feel guilty if they fail to do that.

(6) Page 255, in discussing directives by the Governing Body on what actions regarding occupations demand disfellowshipping: "What this actually results in is a usurping of the individual's exercise of personal conscience, accomplished by superimposing on his conscience the rulings legislated by the organisational leadership, rulings made binding and enforceable through disfellowshipping decrees."

(7) Page 358: "The objective has been to create a sterile atmosphere, where the organisation's teachings and policies can circulate free from any risk of having to confront serious questioning or of having to overcome scriptural objections and adverse evidence."

(8) Page 409: "Watchtower training causes Jehovah's Witnesses to view 'independend thinking' as sinful, and indication of disloyalty to God and his appointed 'channel'."

These all support the above wording that "the religion is said to demand unquestioning obedience from members, with the threat of shunning facing any who fail to comply with, express doubts about, or disagree with doctrines." LTSally (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Authority section

The statement, "Because of the intellectual expounding of their interpretation of the Bible, they have been termed a rational religion" will likely be misunderstood by average readers. The intended meaning of 'intellectual expounding' and 'rational' should be more clearly explained, or removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Germ theory of disease?

I've been trying to determine, out of curiosity, whether there's any truth to the claim that the Jehovah's Witnesses reject the germ theory of disease. This morning several came to my door and when quizzed, did not know what it is; but that's not clear evidence, and some articles on watchtower.org seem to implicitly acknowledge it. Is there an explicit answer out there on this topic? -Kris Schnee (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds a fanciful myth, along with "Jehovah's Witnesses aren't allowed to drink alcohol", "they can't watch TV" and "they're not allowed to shake hands". Their book on creation v evolution (pub. about 1985) would refer to it if this was true, but it doesn't. LTSally (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a myth; it refers to statements in Watchtower publications in the 1920s and 30s. E.g., "It has never been proven that a single disease is due to germs." (The Golden Age 1924 Jan 16 p.250)

Those views have been long abandoned, and most JWs are unaware of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jesus is Michael

The end of the section on Jesus reads, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and the Archangel Michael are the same being." The two references given for this statement are:

Angels: how they affect us (2006) The Watchtower, January 15. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society
"The angel foremost in power and authority is Michael the archangel, or Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9) Seraphs, cherubs, and other angels are under him."

and

Russell, C.T. (1877) Three Worlds and the Harvest of this World, (p.107) Published by N.H. Barbour & C.T. Russell: Rochester, NY.
"There is not the slightest scriptural ground to oppose the fact that Christ is again present, and that Michael, his assistant, has also again returned to earth."

It seems to me that the second reference, by stating that Michael is Jesus' assistant, contradicts what it is credited as supporting. So is the JW belief that Michael is Jesus, or is it that Michael is Jesus' assistant?

Also, regarding Mandmelon's statement above that the JWs are "unique in identifying Michael the archangel as Jesus," the Seventh Day Adventists also hold this belief and it is a basic tenet of the Urantia Book. I do not know (but I would like to find out) whether there is a common source for this teaching, or if it was arrived at independently through different agents.

-- Macduff (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the outdated and misleading reference with reference to the Insight book which contains several paragraphs specifically indicating their belief that Jesus is Michael.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

The new section on criticism is too expanded comparing to the rest of the article. In the last weeks this is what happenend: Simplification of the article ("based" on the third-party rule), except the criticism, which was greatly expanded. I believe that this is POV. There are two solutions: either we expand the rest of the article or we simplify the criticism section.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I recommend moving the control/coercion stuff to the controversies article, with some condensing too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And I strongly disagree. As discussed above, in the Neutrality Tag section, this has nothing to do with POV. I'll repeat what I said above: Part of the notability of Jehovah's Witnesses is that they are a religion that attracts much, much criticism. A simple Google search will show this. Anyone Googling Jehovah's Witnesses will be struck with the number of anti-Witness sites dealing with blood transfusions, doctrines, paedophilia and mind control. Whether or not they are correct, these are widely disseminated views that help to define the perception of Jehovah's Witnesses. Anyone asking "What's the big deal?" and turning to Wikipedia should expect to get an answer, not only in the article body but also -- to avoid undue weight -- briefly, in the intro.

Vassilis' original complaint was that criticism was mentioned in the intro, because he complained this represented a "point of view". He wanted all reference to their criticism and controversy removed from the intro. Now he has complained that the Criticism and Controversy section is "too expanded" and needs to be "simplified" because "this is POV." Although the expanded Criticism and Controversies section had been there since October 17, Jeffro decided, without further discussion, to delete all but one paragraph of the section, leaving a list of issues that provide no information. The split-off article deals with controversies. The deleted material in the Criticism and Controversy section dealt with criticism.

To provide neutrality, given the strongly negative views held about Jehovah's Witnesses among many people and writers, the article needs to cover the criticism. The three sections, "Authoritarian control", "Coercion" and "Control", dealt succinctly with the criticism, with a multitude of references. The proportion of the article given to Criticism and Controversy was much smaller than the proportion given to the very long sections of Beliefs and Practices, all of which are contained in the splitoff article. Using the same principle, Beliefs and Practices would also be restricted to one paragraph with a pointer to the splitoff article.

I will restore the Criticism and Controversies section. Please discuss the perceived POV issues before deleting this again. LTSally (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with LTSally. The section should exist, and it should provide succinct discussion of the controversies and criticisms in an encyclopedic manner. This is more than just a list of issues. Naturally expanded information should be available in a separate article, but if so, that article should at least be summarized here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over the article as it is (ie, Sally's version). I think it is preferable to the alternative. It's all sourced, and doesn't use weasel words, so it is in no way POV. It could be argued that it is undue weight, but I don't see it as such. Moreover, Sally's expansion of the criticism section was discussed on 10 October and there was (what I would consider) consensus for it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete the material, I moved it to the controversies article. The issue with the detail at this article is primarily with regard to a) scope and b) article length. The material in question overlapped with material already at the Controversies article, and I have merged the material from here to that article. The main JW article should provide a summary of these issues. I will await further discussion, but strongly recommend deleting the material from the main article that gives undue weight to the selected criticisms still verbosely handled at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Several points, Jeffro: (1) The issue, as claimed by Vassilis in a section helpfully headed "POV", is not scope and length, but primarily a perceived point of view. He has reinforced this claim by reinstating the Neutrality tag. There is, however, no valid claim that inclusion of well-referenced material dealing with criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses is, by definition, material that expresses a point of view. I am still scratching my head over his claim that ... "In the last weeks this is what happenend: Simplification of the article ("based" on the third-party rule), except the criticism, which was greatly expanded. Is he suggesting a conspiracy, and what "simplification" is he referring to? (2) The material you deleted was not previously contained in the Controversies split-off article. The material you left in the C&C section of this article is too short to be classified as a summary. (3) I expanded the C&C section after the observation was made that reference to criticism was made in the intro, but not in the article. It is now in the article. (4) This article is an encyclopedia entry, not a promotion for a particular religion. There is widespread criticism of this religion and the article rightly and fairly encompasses this. (5) If my writing is verbose, then please edit it. Deletion of an entire section is not an appropriate method of editing. LTSally (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Irrespective of Vassilis' reasons or motives, I moved the information for the reasons I stated. (2) It not previously being in the other article is inherent in me moving it there. (3) The issue I had was that your additions skewed weight of criticism against controversy, not in regard to POV. (4) Not relevant to my reason for moving the information. See also 3. (5) I moved it for the reasons stated, which was the same reason the previous 'controversy' sections were also moved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect requested

I have requested that this article be semi-protected so that anonymous IPs cannot continue to vandalise the article, which seems to be a frequent occurrence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Legal instruments"

Please do not refer to corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses as "legal instruments". A legal instrument is a document, not a corporation. JW usage of "legal instrument" is jargon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)