Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53

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 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Ledes and Titles are different from the rest of the body

I think this can be solved a bit easier than it appears. There's a difference between Ledes and Titles (on the one hand) and the body of an article (on the other).

The body must include all notable and reliable PsOV. The Lede and Title must exclude all notably and reliably contested PsOV.

For instance, President Buchanan may or may not have been a homosexual. There are sources which suggest that he was, and sources which suggest he was not.

Body -- Both of these could be referenced and noted in the body of the article.
Title -- Neither could be stated in the title (i.e. The Homosexual President Buchanan or The Heterosexual President Buchanan).
Lede -- Neither could be stated in the lede (i.e. "President Buchanan was the only homosexual President" or "President Buchanan was a heterosexual bachelor").

Now to the subject at hand. There are sources which say Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians and sources which say they are not. These must be noted in the body of the article, but it would be wrong to presume an answer in the title or the lede.

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination" is incorrect in the lede. It would ALSO be incorrect to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-Christian cult." You can't say EITHER in the lede because both of these conclusions are reliably and notably CONTESTED in the body of the article.

Even worse, however, is that the statement "Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination" is rejected by BOTH Jehovah's Witnesses (who do not claim to be a denomination among many) and mainstream "Christendom" (who do not claim Jehovah's Witnesses as a representative group).

In short, the article must contain all PsOV, and the lede and title can only represent the entire article if they avoid contested statements.

If we follow this principle, all PsOV will be fairly represented.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice the body of the article has the following:

"[JWs] believe that only their religion represents true Christianity, and that all other religions fail to meet all the requirements set by God and will be destroyed."

—What Does The Bible Really Teach?, p. 145.

Looks like Wikipedia agrees with EGM "all other religions", and Alastair "all the requirements set by God".

Alastair Haines (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One small comment: if readers are trying to read Wikipedia regarding doctrinal assertions, then they are reading the wrong wiki. "Christian", for the purposes of an encyclopedia, is a classification. The addition of the term "restorationist" correctly indicates that they feel all other religions fail to meet the requirements of "true Christianity".

The comparison with the homosexuality of Buchanan is not relevant, because 1) the definition of homosexuality is clear and 2) there is no solid evidence to prove the statement. In the case of the Christianity of JWs, 1) the definition is fuzzy but 2) there is solid evidence to prove the statement for many common and reliable definitions.

If either of you really feel that there are reliable sources that claim JWs are not Christian, then I invite you to first construct a section of the article documenting those sources and their claims. Then we can talk about removing "notably and reliably contested" statements from the lede. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make. Jewhovah's Witnesses and mainstream Christians BOTH claim that they themselves are "Christian" and that the other isn't. While it's not a monolithic claim, perhaps, it is certainly a notable one. As you noted, this is a secular resource, so we as Wikipedia do not care. We merely note that the involved parties each claim exclusive use of the term. As far as I'm concerned the Mormons could be right and BOTH of those groups wrong. I really don't care.EGMichaels (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not sure I buy into your assertion that "...mainstream Christians...claim that they themselves are 'Christian' and [Witnesses are not]". As Jeffro has noted previously, the Catholic Encyclopedia considers JWs to be part of Christianity. I'd like to know the who-what-when-where-why of "mainstream Christians" stating that Witnesses aren't Christian. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fizz, as I noted earlier, the mutual rejection isn't monolithic. There are Christian sources that say Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, and perhaps there is a Jehovah's Witness source that says Baptists and Catholics really WON'T be utterly destroyed by God. What we're dealing with isn't unanimity of a view, but rather noted exceptions. Baptists put out belief bulletins to try to convert members of "unsaved" groups get witnessed to correctly: to include Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod puts out similar books. There are "cult" books put out by Evangelicals that include Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way, etc. Bruce Metzger has even been quoted as saying that Jehovah's Witnesses insist on a polytheistic reading of John (which doesn't make it so; but merely notes that each group reads this text in mutually exclusive ways). While it would be wrong to say that "all mainstream Christians reject Jehovah's Witnesses" or (perhaps) "all Watchtower publications reject mainstream Christians" we are rather noting that at least some mainstream sources, and at least some Jehovah's Witness sources challenge the assertion that both groups are equally regarded as being members of the same faith community. I'm sure you wouldn't want the lede to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are an unsaved cult" with quotes from the Missouri Synod or the Southern Baptists. That is, at the very least, a statement that is contested, so it's better to put that in the body than the lede. The same would be the case for saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are just another "Christian denomination." While Jehovah's Witnesses DO believe they are Christians, they do NOT believe they are just another denomination on par with Catholics and Baptists. There is a self identification of Jehovah's Witnesses that is somewhat stronger than "we're just Baptists with pamphlets." Hey, I'm Jewish, so I don't have any stake in the question at all. Certainly JEWS regard Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists in the same category. But we Jews don't have any more right to tell Christians what they are than Christians have a right to tell us who we are. I'm just here as a Wikipedia editor wanting to get the articles to say "x says thus and y says so" rather than "we editors say thus and so."

ARE Jehovah's Witnesses just Baptists with pamphlets? Maybe. But we should probably let them decide that and just follow the references.EGMichaels (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Unitarians

"In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian; in its present specific use it is applied to that organized form of Christianity which lays emphasis on the unity of the personality of God."

In other words, the Catholic Encyclopedia backs what I've been drawing attention to. Some words used to describe Christian docrines (adjectives) are also used substantively (as nouns) as designators for organizations. The word Christian itself is also substantive use of an adjective. Confusion arises because, over time, groups retain names derived from adjectives that do not always continue to apply. Protestants are no longer protesting within the Roman Catholic church, rather they are groups historically descended from people who did.

Denominations as "organized forms of Christianity" and adjectives "designating beliefs" are very closely related in many cases, but not all. Sometimes disambiguation is needed. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another attempt here to confuse the issue, but the point you imagine you made here is irrelevant. The Catholic Encyclopedia here states that the term "designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian". The Catholic Encyclopedia directly contradicts your opinion that "nontrinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron, and specifically indicates that there are in fact "disbelievers in the Trinity" who are "Christian". You have claimed that JWs are not Christian solely on the basis that they do not accept the Trinity. As your single criteria of objection is shown here to be false, then JWs are in fact, per the Catholic Encyclopedia, nontrinitarian Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic position on Jehovah's Witnesses

"There is a galaxy of sects and new religious movements which have spread around the world and they should not be too quickly identified with any religion in its proper sense. Sects are often the result of a confused understanding by their adherents of the original religions out of which they branch [out (sic)] and therefore sects cause difficulties for authentic interreligious dialogue. I would like to mention just some of these: Organisation of Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy, Hare Krishna, Brahma Kumari, Sahaja Yoga, Osho Rajneesh, Ananda Marga Pracharaka Sangha, Soka Gakkai, Sukyo Mahikari, etc. Other sects prevalent in the world are: Church of Scientology, Unification Church (Moon), Jehovah's Witnesses".

— Felix A. Machado, "Witnesses of Hope in an Ecumenical and Inter-religious Surrounding", People on the Move, N° 106 (Suppl.-I), April 2008.

Cardinal Machado is under-secretary for the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. His paper is published at the Vatican website.

We can extract the unsurprising conclusion that Roman Catholic orthodoxy considers JWs should "not be too quickly identified with any religion in its proper sense". In the case of JWs that would mean Christianity in its proper sense. That the Cardinal does not include Mormonism in his list of new religious movements is an interesting thing, though not directly relevant, here of course.

How do people think Cardinal Machado would like us to phrase the lead sentence? Do we think that his point of view is not a significant point of view? Thoughts? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the Cardinal would approve of "nontrinitarian Christians". It designates the religious group they branched out of (i.e. Christian), and that they are not (what Roman Catholics consider to be) orthodox (i.e. nontrinitarian).

Both together would be useful, since "nontrinitarian" would not specify whether this is a sect or a religion. Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims... none of these groups are trinitarian, so "nontrinitarian" by itself doesn't tell you much. But "nontrinitarian Christian" does tell you something. It would be akin to something like:

Trinitarian Muslims -- if such a group existed, it would not be an orthodox Muslim group, and therefore would be a sect.
Trinitarian Jews -- such a group does exist, but it is only the larger of several variations of Messianic Jews...

Compound-Unity Messianic Jews advocate something akin to tri-theism, and are heretical to both Judaism and Christianity.
Trinitarian Messianic Jews advocate generic Christian Evangelical doctrines with a Jewish ethnic and cultural focus. While heretical to Judaism they are orthodox to Christianity, and are therefore not classifiable as a sect because of acceptance by a larger religious group.

Trinitarian Buddhists -- again, if such a group existed, it would be heretical to Buddhism and therefore would be a sect.
Trinitarian Jehovah's Witnesses -- now this would be an interesting twist. Such a hypothetical group would be heretical to Jehovah's Witness beliefs, but would become adopted by orthodox Christians. In such a case this sect-of-a-sect would no longer be classifiable as a sect to Christians, although it could be classifiable as a sect to Jehovah's Witnesses.

This little mental exercise is only meant to say that a sect is only a sect in reference to another religion in which there is a claim to the same name or sacred writings. Christians who claim to represent Judaism (i.e. Messianics) would be a Jewish sect if there were no larger group of Christians to claim them.

However, Compound-Unity Messianics create a problem for classification. Messianics themselves regard both Trinitarian and Tri-theistic Messianics as part of the same group, and have not come to the point of separating between the two. Part of this has to do with size and a larger two fold mission which both share (the two fold mission is to get Gentile Christians more focused on Jewish roots and Jews more accepting of Jesus). Part of it has to do with the age of the group. Nicea did not happen for centuries, and orthoxy was not distinguished from heresy during the period that all believers in Jesus were in mortal danger together.

But back to my point -- Trinitarian Messianics are heretical to Judaism but orthodox to Christianity. "Heretical" and "Orthodox" have no intrinsic value content because they are merely in reference to a group sharing the same name. In the case of "Messianic Jews", "Messianic" is merely a more Hebraic way of saying "Christian." They are basically synonyms, meaning (mostly) "Christian-Jews-who-like-Hebrew-sounding-terms". The "Messianic", then, gives them the umbrella of "Christian." And so, in that respect, are not a sect.

Jehovah's Witnesses have no such adoptive body. They claim the title "Christian" and hold beliefs not commonly held by any larger Arian organization. The Cardinal would therefore recognize "Christian" as the only body they could have come from (both by history and name). The only distinguishing characteristic which separates them is their nontrinitarian stance. There are plenty of Trinitarian millenarian Christians out there, but other Christians are content to claim them.

Jehovah's Witnesses neither enjoy sponsorship of existing denominations, nor wish to have it. To them, "nontrinitarian" is a compliment, while to the Cardinal it is sufficient reason to demarcate them as a sect.

In any case, you ask for speculation, so I had to give my reasons in this exercise.EGMichaels (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Per EGMichaels, the cardinal quoted disputes whether certain sects and new religious movements should be called religions. He does not at all address whether or not any of them are (unorthodox) Christian sects/NRMs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Right -- they are not independent religions... at least not at this time. Mormonism may grow to such a size that it becomes classified as a religion, and I've seen some scholars do so. Basically a "religion" is a "sect" that has reached a certain self sustaining magnitude. I suspect the Cardinal does not list Mormonism for this reason.EGMichaels (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How, Jeffro, do you understand the Cardinal's meaning in "should not be too quickly identified with any religion in its proper sense" and "confused understanding by their adherents of the original religions"? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you ask an Eastern Orthodox Christian about Catholics, he'll say they aren't true original Christians either. Virtually every denomination of Christians on earth claims that they are the only "true" Christians. That doesn't mean that we can't call them all "Christians" anyway. Anyone who thinks Jesus is the messiah is a Christian. It's not really that complicated. These endless efforts to game the system by slicing and dicing a dozen different definitions (and definitions of definitions) are pretty transparent. Kaldari (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not an accurate comparison. There is a difference between denominational and religion level divisions. Eastern and Western Christians are two divisions of the same religion. Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a different religion who use the same name. Although secular classifications can mistake them for members of the same religion as Catholics, they are not.EGMichaels (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Kaldari

"Anyone who thinks Jesus is the messiah is a Christian." — Kaldari, Wikipedia Talk, 2010.

Muslims think Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. (The Wikipedia article correctly states this, without, however, providing a source.)

The Oxford defines Christian as one who "believes or professes the doctrines and precepts of Christ and his apostles."

In brief, "A Christian is one who follows New Testament doctrine."

In a few articles, where the text of the NT is in dispute, other definitions are preferable.

If you think anyone is making "endless efforts to game the system" the appropriate forum is that person's talk page.

Alastair Haines (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Short survey regarding first sentence

To clarify where our opinions are on this matter, please kindly indicate your opinion regarding each statement as an integer from 1 to 10, 1 meaning "couldn't be more wrong", 10 being "couldn't be more right".

Statements

Wikipedia should...

describe JWs as Christian...
1. because they self-identify as such
2. even without qualifiers like 'nontrinitarian' or 'restorationist'
3. (qualifiers can make this assertion more valid and/or stable)
describe JWs as a Christian denomination...
1. only if a word like 'nontrinitarian' clearly separates them from other, more interrelated, denominations
2. (qualifiers can make this assertion more vaild and/or stable)
describe JWs as restorationist Christian...
1. because it further clarifies their separateness from mainstream Christianity
2. because it is a central JW doctrine
3. because JWs self-identify as such

Responses

Respond in any format you like, preferably something like my response

describe JWs as Christian... 9
1. because they self-identify as such 7
2. even without qualifiers like 'nontrinitarian' or 'restorationist' 7
3. (qualifiers can make this assertion more valid and/or stable) 6
describe JWs as a Christian denomination... 8
1. only if a word like 'nontrinitarian' clearly separates them from other, more interrelated, denominations 7
2. (qualifiers can make this assertion more vaild and/or stable) 8
describe JWs as restorationist Christian... 9
1. because it further clarifies their separateness from mainstream Christianity 7
2. because it is a central JW doctrine 8
3. because JWs self-identify as such 8

...comments? ~BF izz 02:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should...

describe JWs as Christian... 10
1. because they self-identify as such 3
2. even without qualifiers like 'nontrinitarian' or 'restorationist' 3
3. (qualifiers can make this assertion more valid and/or stable) 10
describe JWs as a Christian denomination... 7
1. only if a word like 'nontrinitarian' clearly separates them from other, more interrelated, denominations 9
2. (qualifiers can make this assertion more vaild and/or stable) 9
describe JWs as restorationist Christian... 9
1. because it further clarifies their separateness from mainstream Christianity 5
2. because it is a central JW doctrine 8
3. because JWs self-identify as such 3

--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro -- although I appreciate your work here, it's not correct process for a lede. A lede must eliminate anything that is controversial. That means that nearly any reliable and notable source can serve as a veto. If the votes were 100 to 1 then the issue is better for the body of the article.

Alastair -- read "nontrinitarian Christian" as merely a specific type of "heretical Christian." "Nontrinitarian Jewish" is basically a non-statement, no? Merely "nontrinitarian" fails to be an issue since every religion on the planet is nontrinitarian except for Christianity. "Nontrinitarian Christian" identifies this as a specifically Christian heresy.

Everyone else -- my only issue is "Christian denomination", although I would not have problems with a slight rearrangement that could include both terms in a single sentence such as "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination of non-trinitarian Christians who emphasize the imminent destruction of the present earthly age."EGMichaels (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I did not include specific questions about whether or not to call them 'millenarian' or 'nontrinitarian', since we mostly agree that these terms should be in the 1st sentence. Again, not all questions are of equal weight, and I do not lay any claim to having achieved a perfectly neutral, unbiased survey here. ...comments? ~BF izz 02:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your survey asks all the right questions. I rate JWs' self-identification as Christian as quite low, and consider it much more important that objective examination of their beliefs confirms that they are Christian by secular definition. Ratings may be influenced by caffeine and leptin levels, and are subject to change without notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

lol. I agree that it is "much more important that objective examination of their beliefs confirms [the 1st sentence's assertions]". Sorry I didn't think of that before. The survey's intent isn't to be decisive, rather, its main purpose is to quantify and condense opinions into a format that is easier to understand than pages upon pages of discussion. Then maybe we can find a way to address everyone's concerns regarding particular wording choices. ...comments? ~BF izz 04:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Secular sources

From my PDF collection:

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian milennial movement", Page 653 Encyclopedia of Christianity by John Stephen Bowden Oxford University Press, 2005
Andrew Holden 2002 "The story of the Fall is central to all Christian belief, but unlike those who follow orthodox Christianity, the Witnesses regard it as a factual event..."
Poewe, Karla "Christianity is as Luapulan as matriliny; both are involved in the ongoing process of change. Specific features of both organization and doctrines of salvation within different Protestant denominations constitute independent variables that differentially induce behavioral changes. In Luapula, two denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists, stand out from the rest because they adopt a critical attitude toward people's conduct and local conditions." (Religion, Matriliny, and Change: Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists in Luapula, Zambia)
Gordon Melton 2003: "In North America, the adoption of a Christian theology that dissents from traditional fundamental affirmations (such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science) or the adoption of a non-Christian religious ideology (Scientology, Tenrikyô) will quickly lead to a group being assigned outsider status." (Nova Religio 8:1 p 82)
James W Dow (Protestantism in Mesoamerica: The Old within the New) "Protestantism is often seen as opposing Catholicism. For example Fortuny (Chapter 5) writes how the Jehovah's Witnesses challenge modern urban Mexican Catholicism; however, there are many types of Catholicism in Mesoamerica."·Maunus·ƛ· 11:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Bowden is a borderline source for your point of view.

However:

Holden says, Jehovah's witnesses are unorthodox Christians.
Poewe is clearly applying classification, the taxonomic understanding of Christian, as we do in the nav bar.
Melton says, Jehovah's witnesses are dissenters from traditional Christianity.
Dow is also applying broad classifications.

So, we have established what EGM and I have been saying all along.

classification of religious organizations places JWs within "Christianity" as a religious grouping
JWs are "dissenting" members within that religious grouping (i.e. JWs do not identify with it)
JWs are "unorthodox" members within that religious grouping (i.e. non-JWs reject identification with JWs)

Your sources are impeccable, and say just what I've been saying. JWs can be classified as Christian, but cannot be asserted to actually be Christian, since neither they nor non-JWs can be priveleged as being authoritative in declaring orthodoxy. Interestingly, both Holden and Melton are non-neutral secular sources, declaring in favour of orthodoxy.

The Bowden example is weakened because it is in an Encyclopedia of Christianity, rather than an Encyclopedia of Doctrine or a general Encyclopedia. I don't have immediate access, but comparison with other entries would be helpful. Is the Roman Catholic Church called a "movement"?

Anyway, unless your aim is to ensure the word "Christian" remains in the definition. Why wouldn't you accept a compromise like:

"Jehovah's Witnesses. The popular name since 1931 for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society which traces its origins to the Adventist teaching of C. T. Russell (q.v.)."

— EA Livingstone, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (OUP, 2000).

Alastair Haines (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of how you twist sources to appear to confirm your views. There are two possible explanations: bad faith editing or you are simply not intellectually capable of understanding simple phrases. Holden and Melton says that JW are Christians who dissent from traditional/orthodox views - Neither declares in favour of orthodoxy but rather maintain that a neutral classification must define both faithes as christians of different observations. The Bowden source is particularly good exactly because it is an encyclopedia of Christianity written from no particular doctrinal viewpoint. Your own source EA Livingston also implicitly acknowledges that JW are christians - because why else would they have an entry in the "Doncise Dictionary of the Christian Church" and if they weren't the dictionary would be expected to explicitly state so. Dow and Poewe both apply broad classifications, but not broader than being able to locate JW within the protestant branch of the christian tradition. Applying a neutral classification is exactly what we should do and what we do when calling JW christians - apply a broad and neutral classification. Your ideas (or the popes for that matter) about which doctrinal criteria should be fulfilled to deserve being called "christian" are utterly irrelevant to the encyclopedic (non-partisan) reader. Your "compromise" is not a compromise it is you getting to shove your personal viewpoint down the readers throat and subverting wikipedia policy all in one fell swoop.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

~~To borrow your phrasing... I'm glad you agree. We're getting close to a consensus...~~ (This was intended ironically, but the point was deliberately or inadvertently missed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

JWs are unorthodox because they are nontrinitarian. Their dissent from traditional Christianity is their nontrinitarianism. So... they are... nontrinitarian Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Livingstone's entry in the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church for Anglican Communion is also silent on whether they are Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jeffro

So you're happy with the compromise, leave the troublesome word "Christian" out of it, as Livingstone wisely does across the board. Yes, we're very close to consensus.

I also agree, there are other issues, but denying the "full deity of Jesus" is the key issue of dissent and unorthodoxy.

By all means, lets define the JWs as Holden and Melton do "JWs is a dissenting Christian organization" or "JWs is an unorthodox Christian organization". They're nice secular secondary sources, so let's do it. I don't think it will bring stability, though. Were I a JW I'd object and I think I'd have good reason.

"Nontrinitarian Christian" is an oxymoron in fluent prose, from the point of view of the majority of Christian scholars, which will be ascertainable in secular secondary sources also. It works in a database or a sociological study as a convenient label. In prose one would have little excuse.

@Maunus

You're absolutely right, my intellectual capacity extends only to the ability to twist things for the purpose of my bad faith pushing of my own opinion. Huh!

I can't understand your second sentence:

"Both explicitly does not declare in favour of orthodoxy but rather maintain that a neutral classification defines both faithes as christians of different observations."

Regarding the rest of your long post, it argues for exactly what I've never disputed. JWs classify as Christian.

What PoV am I supposed to be pushing Maunus? You've not identified that. If I've pushed it so much you should be able to. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Maunus, I think you're having a rush of blood to the head, "the pope's idea about doctrine of being 'Christian' is irrelevant at Wikipedia" (paraphrase). And that's neutrality! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am absolutely and unreservedly not happy with your 'compromise'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Example scenario. Reader A is a faithful practitioner of religion X that classifies itself as "Christian". In fact, religion X has specific beliefs about what it means to be a "true Christian". Thus, Reader A's definition of Christian excludes Jehovah's Witnesses. Reader A reads the first line of the article, which states that JWs are a nontrinitarian Christian denomination. Three sub-scenarios arise, depending on the beliefs of Religion X:

Religion X is also nontrinitarian. The reader feels that JWs are not "true Christians", but is used to other people calling "Religion X" non-Christian due to nontrinitarian beliefs. Reader A recognizes that WP is probably using a categorical definition of Christian that includes trinitarians and nontrinitarians.
Religion X is not nontrinitarian. Reader A recognizes that WP is using "Christian" in a way that is different from his own definition, since the WP definition apparently includes nontrinitarians.
Religion X is not nontrinitarian. Reader A feels that JWs are still not "true Christians", and is disturbed by the assertion that they are. Reader A is idiotic enough to not recognize that WP is using a different [secular] definition of "Christian" that includes nontrinitarians. Reader A clicks the link to Christian denomination, in order to understand what definition of "Christian denomination" is used, and quickly understands that the definition is different than his own.

The only problem is the last case. If the reader isn't inquisitive enough to click the little blue link, then there's nothing we can or should do for him. In any case, assuming a basic level of intelligence, Reader A should easily come to understand exactly what is meant when WP says that JWs are Christian, and there is no issue with making the assertion. In fact, according to the definition of Christian that we are using (the secular definition), it is essential. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun game: replace "Reader A" with "The Pope" to see why Maunus said that "the pope's idea about doctrine of being 'Christian' is irrelevant at Wikipedia". (pro tip: Ignore sub-scenario 1, which doesn't apply to the pope.) ;) ...comments? ~BF izz 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you arrived Mr Fizz. This is so typical of your quality contributions to the discussion.

You directly address the issue of reader surprise, which is what started the discussion (L.R. from Alberta's post).

You present a clear argument, that is the strongest I've heard yet, in defense of "nontrin Chrn".

I'm thinking about it.

Given the intended sense of Christian (believer in NT), I agree, nontrin is an essential qualifier.

By the way, it is not a secular definition, it is everyone's definition (except perhaps the JWs).

There might be exceptions, but Evangelical Christians classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a "marginal" Christian "denomination".

See MissionInfoBank.org for a database of adherants to world religions produced and hosted by Evangelicals, with categories as defined by Operation World.

Doctrinally, I can assure you, Evangelicals have quite different classifications. But structurally, and in the context of all world religions, everyone comes up with similar categories.

"Marginal Christian" is not just an Evangelical term, it has a currency in secular academia also. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

PS That is a fun game. It is a giggle imagining the Pontiff Googling JWs and clicking the Wikipedia link. I'm still thinking.

Your flow-chart seems sound. I check the responses for (1) and (2). Option (3) puts a lot of work on the link. It might represent the majority of Christian viewers. It does not preclude a pipe. If the link is needed to confirm the sense of the term, rewording for context might still be preferable.

The word Christian is still not required, even if the link were workable for stability. We are bound to explain our categorization somewhere, that doesn't have to be the first sentence.

As I said, I'm still thinking. But you've made a clear case, covering details of how to make it workable. Those things make me want to support. "Non-Trinitarian Christian" is still just so oxymoronic in prose, and others here seem to have little sensitivity to that, that I also feel responsible to represent L.R. from Alberta more carefully. Oh! ... and the Pope! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments; I'm glad you're thinking about it. While the term "Marginal Christian" as applied to Jehovah's Witnesses isn't very common yet, surely the criteria 'millenarian', 'nontrinitarian', and 'restorationist' will help like-minded readers to link JWs to what they consider 'Marginal Christian'. While I began this discussion thinking that 'nontrinitarian' wasn't really necessary, I now feel more strongly that it greatly helps stabilize and neutralize the claim that could otherwise be misinterpreted. I should think that the "majority of Christian viewers" fall into category (2), but I can't say I have hard evidence that such is the case.

Humor: Let's try out this sentence. "Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationarian, millenarian, nontrinitarian, Christianarian, denominationalarian, religionarian organization." That's why I split out millenarianism into a second half of the sentence, to avoid the tediously long string of descriptors.

I'm not opposed to further clarification if it is compact prose with good style. For example, "JW is a Christian [denomination/rel org/thingy], distinct from [orthodox/traditional/mainstream/nicene] Christianity in its nontrinitarian, restorationist, and millenarian beliefs." That's not a perfect sentence but something like that might be acceptable. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, your claim that your definition of Christian is 'everyone's definition' is patently false. I have supplied the Catholic Encyclopedia's position that specifically shows that you are wrong. The vague statement you supply, out of context, from a cardinal addressing Catholics about interreligious dialogue does not contradict the plain statements in the Catholic Encyclopedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter if "the Pontiff" reads the article and disagrees that JWs are Christian. Of course, if he knows his own religion's encyclopedia (which can be referenced in the article) he would realise that other religions are free to interpret the scriptures as they like. Just as the Pontiff probably has his own way of interpreting the bit in the Bible (Matthew 23:9) where Jesus said not to call people Father.

It makes no difference whether it is the Pope reading the JW article or a JW reading the Catholic article. Both may be offended by the fact that one calls the other Christian, but both positions are sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian??

The very first sentence is hardly correct, as the sentence reads ' christian religion'. JW believers do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as christians do. L.R. Alberta,Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.90.57 (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been done to death, and your POV claim is a circular reference. JWs do believe in Jesus as the son of God. Trinitarian arguments for a special definition of 'Christian' are irrelevant here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Both Jeffro and the anon. editor are expressing different points of view.

The neutral point of view is that Wikipedia doesn't know what is Christian and what is not, but recognizes that reliable sources differ in regard to certain questions, the Trinity being only one of them.

Obviously, the issue has not been adequately addressed if Jeffro is still left with such confidence.

The article can neither confirm nor deny that JWs are Christian, and who cares about a label?

Using the terms "JW" and "Trinitarian" is an excellent way of distinguishing the groups without deciding who are the "true" Christians, or deciding (against the evidence) that such issues are inconsequential to defining "true Christianity".

It is argued, and might be true, that Trinitarianism is a heresy.

But it is also argued, and might be true, that Trinitarianism is essential.

Wikipedia does not decide such things. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have argued the same at the LDS Church article talk page: I feel that the term "restorationist christian" solves any issues with those who reject the religion as part of Christianity, since the qualifier "restorationist" makes it clear that the religion departs from concepts that developed in traditional Christianity over time. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'argument' that 'Trinitarianism is a heresy' is a red herring. Trinitarians are Christians. JWs are Christians. Consult a dictionary. Consult lots of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr Fizz, I'm beginning to think you might be right about Restorationist, used as classification only, non-historically, and non-doctrinally.

Mr Anon., imo, Mr Fizz makes a good case that "Restorationist Christian" is a verifiably standard term of classification. There are downsides to the phrase, but the main point is something like this.

A city called Yoville might have a "Main Street Christian Church" and a "Suburban Christian Church" growing to become separate denominations—Mainstreamist and Suburbanist. Say Suburbanists become Spaghetti-Monster-worshippers, but still also feel Christian, keeping that name for their churches. Outsiders have little interest in or knowledge about the difference between Jesus and the Spaghetti-Monster, just observing two groups calling themselves Christian. A splinter group of the Suburbanists start a sub-branch called Spaghetti-ites, still in fellowship with their parent denomination.

Would you agree that Wikipedia could say: Spaghetti-ites is a Suburbanist Christian denomination?

I think it's confusing, but correct. The confusion and correctness both lie in the fact that "Suburbanist Christian" is a set phrase: it is the name or "heading" of a classification based on affiliation or history, not two adjectives describing doctrine.

Of course, were the set phrase split up, or were doctrinal words included in the definition, then it would revert to being adjectival, would therefore be making claims about Christian doctrine, and so would need to be verified against reliable sources of Christian doctrine, like theological dictionaries, etc.

Thanks for your input Mr Anonymous, because we can now slightly improve the article. :))

Jeffro, dictionaries are obviously irrelevant (even my Greek, Hebrew, and many other dictionaries) ...

... except dictionaries of theology! There's lots of those too. Go get one mate! Or better still, many. :)) :) Alastair Haines (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More poor argumentation. You might have had a point if JWs were so far removed from Christianity so as to not resemble it at all. However, JWs believe that Jesus:

is the son of God
had a pre-human existence
was perfect
was the Messiah (the core definition from the word's etymology)
performed miracles
died for their sins
was resurrected
is their savior and redeemer
is their leader
is their exemplar
is the ruler of God's kingdom

(This is not an exhaustive list.) Even official Catholic doctrine rejects the one single point that you believe excludes JWs from being Christian. So on what exactly is your claim based?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see you citing from a theological dictionary Jeffro ... or interacting with anything I said, just demonstrating that you've not read much I've posted, because you claim I say things that I do not.

People need sources Jeffro. How does the Kid's Almanac define Messiah? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please state, specifically, with diffs, what you believe I falsely claimed that you said.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

At issue here is simply the matter of self definition. There are three imperatives:

All groups must be allowed to claim their own terms.
All groups must be allowed to claim their own membership.
When those first two imperatives conflict, we must note it.

This really shouldn't be that big of a deal. Jehovah's Witnesses and Nicene Christians both claim the term "Christian" but do not claim each other. As Alastair noted, Wikipedia does not care who is right. We merely reference their self definitions, reference the mutual exclusions, and move on.

Once noted, it may be helpful to use a shorthand term to mark each group. "Jehovah's Witnesses" is pretty simple, since they use that term for themselves. Perhaps "Mainstream Christianity" may serve as a designation for the "Christendom" Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to be associated with. While Wikipedia should not show preference for one group over another, it should use easily recognizable terms for the generic reader.EGMichaels (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, I'm fairly sure you already know the etymology of the words Christ and Messiah, and I certainly don't need to cite the 'Kid's Alamanac' for it. You have been repeatedly requested to supply a neutral definition of Christian that excludes JWs in support of your view, and you have consistently failed to do so. Instead, the closest you've come is a single POV by one guy about the beliefs of "orthodox Christians" and entirely ignored the Catholic Encyclopedia's inclusion of Unitarians as Christian, the one factor you claim supports your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV implies Wikipedia can only assert points of view that are universal. Because Jeffro wants Wikipedia to assert that "Jesus is God" is not at the centre of Christianity, you try to claim it is universal on the basis of your own interpretation of a 1917 Encyclopedia article on Unitarianism. Even if your reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia were right, which it isn't, you still couldn't prove a universal from that single case, not even from lots of them. If even one reliable source from a significant point of view says "'Jesus is God' is at the centre of Christianity", it disproves the universality of the counter-claim that Jeffro would have Wikipedia assert as uncontended fact. You've admitted I've provided such a counterexample. NPOV requires both your claim (adequately sourced, and it can be) and the other point of view that I've sourced to be represented in the article. It's not negotiable. Neither you nor I have any a choice. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal, 1st sentence

Based on my suggestion in the section above, and slightly adapted, how does this sound as a first sentence?

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination, distinct from traditional Christianity in its nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs.

Constructing the sentence is kind of like bingo with adjectives, but I'd be happy with most re-arrangements of this kind of sentence. For the record, I'm also happy with the current wording. The Conservative Christianity article (redirected from traditional Christianity) isn't superb, but I think it is an acceptable way of handling the issue that Alastair is raising. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bingo with adjectives is very apt.

You're providing good humour and lots of alternatives and it tempts me to want to go with you.

I like the way you concisely pack the two points of view into the first sentence, without this being any fuss at all.

If others agree, then we've all learned that more than one PoV can fit in the definitional sentence.

I share your reservations about linking to Conservative Christianity: it's the reverse of the Christian denomination (piped if necessary) disambiguation. The latter genuinely defines the words linked, while the former is just a subset.

That's easily fixed by not linking. However, perhaps it points up that we can't let links do all our work for us.

The "Christian" in "Christian denomination" is just precisely the sense of "Christian" in the nav bar, and that does both give scope for categorical adjectives, and require them.

I think my main sticking point remains just simply the use of Christian in the definition.

I don't want to deny the classification, I just want us to brainstorm alternative definitions, without that word.

Survey of Wikipedia leads on Christian denominations:

Orthodox Church — asserts that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles
Catholic Church — also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church
Anglicanism — Anglicanism is a tradition within Christianity comprising churches with historical connections to the Church of England or similar beliefs, worship and church structures
Protestantism — is one of the three major divisions within Christianity
Lutheranism — is a major branch of Western Christianity that identifies with the theology of Martin Luther
Evangelicalism — is a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Great Britain in the 1730s
Reformed churches — are a group of Christian Protestant denominations formally characterized by a similar Calvinist system of doctrine, historically related to the churches that first arose especially in the Swiss Reformation led by Huldrych Zwingli
Baptists — are a group of Christian denominations, churches, and individuals who subscribe to a theology of believer's baptism
The Salvation Army — is an international Christian evangelical movement
Religious Society of Friends — is a Christian religious movement, whose members are known as Friends or Quakers
Nonconformism — is the refusal to "conform", or follow the governance and usages of the Church of England by the Protestant Christians of England and Wales
Dissenter — labels one who disagrees in matters of opinion, belief, etc. In the social and religious history of England and Wales, however, it refers particularly to a member of a religious body who has, for one reason or another, separated from the Established Church.

I think the current sentence we have here is probably too short. Your proposal above seems more in line with the freedom other articles show.

You're good at sorting stuff out Mr Fizz. Is there any overall consensus across Wikipedia editors working on major Christian denominations regarding definitional sentences? All I can see is a lot of freedom.

And a second question. I'm not sure we want to do this, but how would you feel if we were to invite everyone at WP:JW, WP:Chrnty and say WP:LDS? Alastair Haines (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with inviting members of the JW and Christianity wikiprojects to chime in. Inviting WP:LDS seems iffy and might be perceived as canvassing to steamroll a particular opinion. As for your first question, I have no idea. ;) I will say this, though. I disagree that "the current sentence we have here is probably too short". It feels about the right length to me; a sentence that's too long loses meaning and makes it harder for the reader to get the point. I had originally contemplated including brief definitions of 'millenarian' and 'restorationist' in the sentence, but the way I tried it took a lot of space to explain and wouldn't have fit well with the rest of the paragraph. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"in its nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs" seems a bit of a clumsy way of qualifying Christian, though it does present a good contrast with "traditional Christianity". Perhaps some rearrangement of this could work. Alastair notes that his "main sticking point" is still that he doesn't want to say JWs are Christian. The facts (a comparison of JW beliefs with secular definitions of Christian, and the professional opinions of sociologists, and the Catholic encyclopedia's inclusion of nontrinitarians as Christians) show that JWs are a fundamentally Christian religion. It is the role of Wikipedia to present sourced information, not to omit something because some people don't like it. Many people do not realise that JWs even identify as Christian (though self-identification is not paramount), so it very important that the article make it clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I might like: L.R. of Alberta understands the word "Christian" to mean worshipper of Christ, which does not include the JWs (according to JWs, and according to secular scholars). There are rather a lot of other people who think the same way as L.R. This article will not be stable if it makes unexplained assertions that are false in the ordinary use of English.

Currently, participants in this discussion, other than myself, have not posted any attempt to explore definitions of JW that provide simpler, more informative, and less contentious descriptions of the JWs, without direct reference to Christianity. Examples of such definitions from secular scholars have been provided, as have examples of Wikipedia articles that define denominations in more direct ways than by classification.

The JWs can be defined perfectly well without direct reference to Christianity, pro or con. Why won't others even attempt this? Why do they insist on prolonging discussion? Undoubtedly, workable definitions including reference to Christianity are possible, but we'll never know if they're preferable if we don't explore alternatives without such reference.

We've had a lot of proposals including reference to Christianity. I've proposed a few without, which have not been accepted. Unless others are simply insisting on including the word "Christian" in the definition, it would be nice to hear at least one person other than myself make some attempt at avoiding the controversy L.R. from Alberta has alerted us to. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

'L.R. from Alberta' claims that "JW believers do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as christians do." 'L.R. from Alberta' is wrong. And 'L.R. from Alberta' did not say what you claim he did.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but who is L.R. from Alberta? Anyways, no one else has proposed wording without 'Christian' (apparently) because no one else agrees that a one-sentence definition of JWs is complete without that crucial categorization.

The early church declared arianism a heresy, but it is classified as a Christian belief (see also: Christology). Iconoclasts declared images to be non-Christian, yet they and iconodules are both categorized Christian. Even though it is against "their regular English" for some people to call JWs Christian, those people are not the majority case, and they can learn to adjust their paradigm. Their regular English is biased; it favors a particular point of view over an objective, scholarly definition. We don't have to cater to that. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sentence, version 2.0 [BETA]

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian religion with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from traditional Christianity.

Slightly reordered sentence, but mostly the same words. (Five in a row is bingo whether vertical, horizontal, or diagonal.) A few minor tweaks could still be considered:

The word 'separate' could be replaced by 'distinguish' or something like that.
The word 'with' could be replaced with a more appropriate clause ('whose'? 'which'? does it need a comma?).
'nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs' could be 'nontrinitarian restorationist beliefs'

In this proposal, I wanted to try out the word 'religion' in place of 'denomination', which seems to work better than 'religious organization' would, and seems to work just as well as 'denomination'. IMHO this sentence is slightly less clumsy than the previous proposal. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternate idea to consider

We could go back to the starting block (the sentence we had before this all started), and add the new info in a second sentence.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination. Its nontrinitarian beliefs separate it from traditional Christianity.

Its a weird tradeoff that reduces the clunkiness, but the split into two sentences makes it just a little awkward in a different way. ...comments? ~BF izz 07:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actual edit

I went ahead and upgraded to the 2.0 wording, replacing traditional Christianity with mainstream Christianity, basically the same idea, but the target article, though a stub, is much closer to the desired meaning. If there is any objection of this upgrade as compared to what it was then speak now or forever hold your peace. If you have other proposals or issues with this wording, well, make a new section and propose them. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'denomination' in lede

Folks, we are making this WAY too complicated. The lede is a simple matter:

Include what is required to distinguish this subject from other subjects
Exclude anything that is contested

That's it.

Example: "Christian denomination" does NOT distinguish this subject from actual Christian denominations, and in fact is disputed by BOTH Jehovah's Witnesses and Orthodox Christians. Neither regard the other group as a peer -- period.

Principle: elimination of something from the lede does not make it untrue. It merely makes it contested. While we can NOT agree whether this is a "Christian denomination" we should at LEAST agree that it is contested.

There was a proposed lede I saw before Shabbat that I had no problem with. Why are we still fighting?EGMichaels (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You have invented those principles yourself - they are not part of wikipedia policy. Read WPLEAD to find out what wikipedias requirements is for the lead. It nowhere says that there cannot be contested information in the lead. In fact it says that the lead must faithfully reflect the material in the rticle body, which again must reflect all notable viewpoints.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus -- exactly how do you reflect all views by contradicting one held by a third of the planet?EGMichaels (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Partially agree, but see response in section above re omission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, right -- while I also have a problem defining them unambiguously as "Christian", I have not problem with "nontrinitarian Christian". Yes, they self identify as "Christian", but no, they are not "trinitarians."

My problem has to do with "Christian denomination" since that falsely identifies them as a group that regards itself as a peer among others. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe they have any peers in Christendom.EGMichaels (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Indeed, I suggested some time ago that we use "nontrinitarian Christian", and that religious organization may be more agreeable than denomination. It seems we're on the same page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be -- but it's time for bed...EGMichaels (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs don't self-identify as a peer among others, but they are. Orthodox Christians don't regard them as peers, but the are. I see nothing wrong with using 'denomination'. "Christian denomination" distinguishes JWs from a lot of things, like bikes, soda companies, and laws of thermodynamics. More usefully, it distinguishes JWs from other Abrahamic religions and non-abrahamic religions. The argument that "Christian denomination" does not distinguish JWs from other Christian denominations is a circular argument. "Nontrinitarian" does not distinguish JWs from nontrinitarians either.

To quote from the article Christian denomination "A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity...Issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, and papal primacy separate one denomination from another."

Like the 'Christianity' debate, this isn't an argument over whether or not it's disputed. This is an argument over which definition we're using, and if it said definition is transparent to the reader. I appeal to my above proposal, which clearly divorces JWs from traditional Christianity. The qualifier "restorationist" also indicates that they feel they are the only "true Christians" (and have no peers), though admittedly, the average reader may not know that without clicking the link.

All that being said, I could live with 'religious organization', but as had been discussed above, there are also issues with that phrase. I argue in defense of the "denomination" wording because I think its better, and others, like AuthorityTam, do too. But if "religious organization" will end the endless debate, then so be it. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Side-note: the article we get redirected to from religious organization is a much poorer description of JWs than religious denomination. I use the WP article test to see if proposed statements actually mean what I intend for them to mean, and in this case the test favors 'denomination'. But if anyone wants to go and edit the article and describe the term "religious organization" in a way that fits how you think it applies to JWs and other "religious organizations", by all means, do. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fizz, a "denomination" is by definition interchangable with another. A five dollar bill is a denomination of currency. A ten dollar bill is another denomination of currency. One could trade two five dollar bills for one ten and have exactly the same thing. For better or worse, the religion we call Christianity has defined itself as a Trinitarian faith, much as Judaism has defined itself as a Unitarian faith. "Trinitarian Judaism" could theoretically be correct (i.e. Jesus could really be the promised Messiah for Israel) and yet it would not be a denomination of Judaism. In this case "Judaism" would have defined itself in (theoretically) a "rejection of the truth" and still carry that self definition.

"Christianity" has done the same thing. That is, if Jehovah's Witnesses are right -- then Trinitarian Christians are not only wrong, but damnably so. They will be destroyed as apostates of Satan, etc. etc. etc.

No group on the planet should be maligned by Wikipedia by being called a "denomination" of a group they consider to be condemned.

The "only true Christians in the world" cannot therefore be called a "denomination of [false] Christians."

That is akin to saying "a Federal Reserve Note is a denomination of Confederate Currency."EGMichaels (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also be happy with denomination, which is my own preferred term. However, I also suggested religious organization as an option that may be more agreeable, though I also stated that it could be confused with its redirect target, Religion-supporting organization.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I (hesitantly) agree that 'religious organization' is probably more agreeable. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My preference is Christian denomination, a term that accurately describes what they are even if they hesitate to use the word. As pointed out above, they do use it in some formal contexts and quote external uses of it without objection. I agree with above views that "religious organization" is vague and suggestive of other functions, but it's acceptable. I don't, however, believe it will last forever in the article: someone will in due course take objection. BlackCab (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"Christian denomination" is certainly standard use in Evangelical sources of classification, JW and secular sources too.

But I don't think we're meeting L.R. from Alberta's objection, because I think we're spending too long on the wrong words.

I think we also need a wider mandate if we make any change.

Are there any objections to asking WikiProject Christianity for input via a request for comment?

How should we pose the request? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we just leave L.R. alone? His objection was, quote, "JW believers do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as christians do." Wrong. They do believe in Jesus as the Son of God. L.R.'s case is closed. Moving on. Most of us are about ready to conclude this discussion, Alastair. If you find somebody at WP:Christianity that wants to review our proposed sentences and weigh in on whether or not it should include 'Christian', they are more than welcome. But please don't turn this into a case of forum shopping. ...comments? ~BF izz 10:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

LR of Alberta claimed "JW believers do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as christians do" and therefore that JWs aren't Christian. That claim was simply wrong, so there is no need to "meet his objection". I don't see any point in raising it again. All you're doing is extending this argument needlessly. Because Alastair wears me out with his comments, can someone who is following this more closely tell me whether there is any sign of agreement? If we take Alastair's contrariness out of the picture, is there a semblance of consensus? BlackCab (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, so far for the discussion of 'denomination'...

EGMichaels and Alastair: we propose to use 'religious organization' instead of 'denomination'
BlackCab, Jeffro, B Fizz: we prefer 'denomination' but 'religious organization' would be bearable and possibly more stable. Or less.
(previously) Manus: I think other options like 'religion' or 'church' would be better
(previously) AuthorityTam: here's a bazillion quotes that show we should use 'denomination'.

4/7 indicate a preference to stick with 'denomination'. 5/7 would be OK with 'religious organization'. ...comments? ~BF izz 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I feel people are taking unfair advantage of being more numerous, rather than dealing with issues that are being raised.

I believe Mr Fizz called that a steamroller or something.

Numbers don't decide things at Wiki, time and reason do. There's no point clutching at the straws of a temporary numerical advantage.

In the long run, the stability of the text and the harmony of editors requires a decision that has sources and reasoning behind it that will stand the test of the scrutiny of large numbers of people, of all points of view.

L.R. from Alberta is absolutely correct. "Son of God" means very different things to JWs and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. L.R. states the Catholic point of view, Wikipedia can't do that. But nor can it state the JW point of view, as a perfectly reasonable reader has concluded it does. It might not be the intention of the editors here to assert that the divinity of Jesus is irrelevant to Christianity, but that is how your text has been understood. The divinity of Jesus is so central to Christianity that there's no way Wikipedia can bury it, without breaching the most holy of its fundamental principles.

I might be wrong, but I'm going to need better sources and better arguments than I've seen yet, to let L.R. from Alberta's comment go undealt with. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The claim made by L.R. Alberta was simply wrong, and was dealt with long ago. Stop trying to reinterpret their comment as something entirely different in support of your own POV. The rest of your claim here is invalidated by sources already provided, including from the Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Alastair's bolded comment, we're not buring it. We're outright saying that JWs are nontrinitarian Christians. #Problem Solved! [words linked in retrospect] ...comments? ~BF izz 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Some alternatives to 'denomination'

There has been a tidbit of discussion regarding the appropriateness of replacing 'denomination' in the lede with 'religion'. As I said in another section, while I prefer 'denomination', I feel that 'religion' it is just as accurate, and maintains good sentence flow and style. (see my comments at #Comments on common responses for my strong words supporting 'Christian denomination').

Other options that have been proposed are to replace 'denomination' with 'religions organization', or to replace 'Christian denomination' with 'religious organization'. I feel the former too verbose (though acceptable), and the latter a lopsided sentence (less acceptable). It (the latter) misses the contrast between "Christian with nontrin/resto beliefs" and "mainstream Christianity". As has been said before, "nontrinitarian" is meaningless without "Christian", and not directly calling JWs "Christian" misses the point of the other qualifiers. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian v Christian-based

IMHO, the term "denomination" tends to imply "Christian denomination"; perhaps that is why "denomination" is sometimes hesitantly applied to Jehovah's Witnesses" by exclusivity-seeking "Christians".
Of course, JW literature overwhelmingly prefers "religious organization", and that term is unlikely to confuse or contradict.
The point of contention concerns the term "Christian-based". Is there a difference between "Christian" and "Christian-based"?
If no, use the simpler term. If yes, why is the term "Christian" disqualified for JWs? --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, "Christian" is not disqualified for either Jehovah's Witnesses or Nicene Christians (i.e. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelicals). But it can't be assumed either. Since both groups vie for the title and often claim the other isn't "Christian" then we can neither call Jehovah's Witnesses "Christian" or "non-Christian" in the lede. I would argue equally against a lede that called them a "cult" (isn't every religion a cult anyway?).

As for "Christian-based" I think that at least gives the article flexibility to stress the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have a more accurate version of "Christianity" than is generically understood by the term.

Let's assume for the moment that they are the only true Christians -- why clump them with all that "Christendom" that's going to be destroyed?

The lede does stress that they feel adherence to the Bible is important, as understood by the elders in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. That's pretty accurate, just as Catholics understand the Bible by their own heirarchy.

In any case, I in no way want to denigrate the Jehovah's Witnesses or treat them as "false" or "non-Christian." Since I'm a Jew, I have no stake in the matter. My only concern is that the lede should leave some flexibility for all the positions stated in the body of the article. Most positions will side one way or the other, but they do seem to agree that while Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian-based, they don't consider themselves run of the mill.EGMichaels (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs meet every objective secular definition of "Christian". The article on Jehovah's Witnesses should use language consistent with that used by articles on other self-described "Christian" religions. If a particular editor has an insistence on the term "Christian-based" then surely he can cite several examples of other religions which are described similarly by Wikipedia. If not, per WP:DUCK Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion/organization/etc. --AuthorityTam (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Witnesses regularly call themselves christian in their publications. That should be enough. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is enough for the body -- not for the lede. The lede is no place for contested terms.EGMichaels (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nbo policy that says that contested terms cannot appear in the lead. On the contrary WP:LEAD says that the lead should be an adequate summary of the body presenting views weigthed according to notability and relevance just as in the body.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot summarize a topic by contradicting its parts.EGMichaels (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, please cite an example of a secular RELIABLE SOURCE which considers Christian to be a "contested term" in connection with Jehovah's Witnesses. That will be more productive.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Wikipedia thinks that Tam: "[JWs] believe that only their religion represents true Christianity, and that all other religions fail". That's not reliable and it's not secular, but it's neutral and it's true, isn't it?) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A red herring (and User:Hell In A Bucket's suggestion is incorrect for the same reason). JWs theological opinion of other Christian religions is not relevant to a neutral definition of Christian, just as Alistair's theological opinion of JWs is also not relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro -- I have no interest in establishing who is and is not a Christian. I merely wish to note that Jehovah's Witnesses and other "Christian denominations" often do not regard each other as "Christian". When you have two groups desperately trying to save each other from hell, at least give them the courtesy of noting their hard work!EGMichaels (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. At least thinking differently is better than killing people who worship the same god slightly differently, so at least some religions have made some progress. But whilst I certainly commend humanitarian efforts of religious organizations (and anyone else) to help people in actual bad circumstances, since it seems considerably unlikely that 'hell' exists, I don't really consider their efforts at 'salvation' (sometimes as an inducement for, or at the expense of, 'actual' help) to be particularly meaningful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah -- but it's meaningful to them (and that's who this article is about)! BTW, you reminded me of a cute Dennis Miller quip, "The Middle East is the only place left where people kill each other over 'What happens to you when you die.'"EGMichaels (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. And I'm happy to defend the facts here for them (and, occasionally, from them). Nice quip. :)--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are only secular sources reliable? Why not Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they are different from those condemned Christendom folks, or Evangelicals claiming they are not Arians? You are not only going against the claims of both groups, but now you are outlawing them as sources. That's about as useful as letting a bunch of lawyers design healthcare...EGMichaels (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agreee with Tam that in order to present a religious topic neutrally secular sources should be considered more reliable as sources for general claims about the nature of religions, whereas religious sources can be used as sources for specific religious viewpoints. A catholic theologian is a reliable source for the catholic viewpoint and the watchtower is a source for the JW viewpoint. Now, it so happens that all the secular sources call JW "christian" this is of course relevant to the article. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have no interest in defining who is and is not "actually a Christian." As far as I'm concerned both could be, or neither. I only wish to note that these particular groups often do not regard each other as "Christian." That's all. We note that they disagree with each other and let them worry about who's right. "Who's right" is not our business.EGMichaels (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, fwiw, I agree that "Christian-based" is non-ideal terminology for defining JWs in the lead. The fact that the BBC used it, only proves that on one particular occasion they wanted to avoid committing themselves to a simple statement that JWs are Christian. We have a secular source saying JWs are not "simply Christian". But secular sources are no authority on doctrine, and most secular sources classify religious organizations by historical affiliation, so placing JWs clearly in the basket of "religious organizations arising from the Christian traditions."

I think your argument, Tam, is absolutely decisive. The only way we could defend usage of "Christian-based" in this article is by using it in all articles about groups with a substantial quantity of Christian doctrine or with historic roots in Christianity. Of course that's exactly what we do on the navigation bar. The navigation bar lists a bunch of religious organizations that are "Christian-based". It is neutral about what subset of them represent "true" Christianity. Quite simply, we are not competent to judge that.

The BBC source is only useful for classifying JWs, not defining them. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, I'm not trying to classify OR define them. I'm merely trying to find a way to note that two groups which claim the same name do not claim each other. It's the same as "Judaism" and "Messianic Judaism." They both claim the name "Judaism" but do not claim each other.

I'm not noting who's "right", but rather that two groups regard each other as "different." This really shouldn't be controversial, since BOTH sides insist they are different.EGMichaels (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice explanation of the dilemma. You've got me thinking. Instead of looking for how secular sources deal with internal Christian doctrinal disputes, perhaps what we need to do is look at how secular sources deal with internal ideological disputes between secular organizations that claim the same name but do not acknowledge one another. I'm trying hard to think of examples. Academic theories must do this. Perhaps in psychiatry. Political ideologies must do it too.

Could WWII Vichy France help us? Three French governments: a German occupation zone, Vichy France and a government in exile. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

From my basis in anthropology I can say that we deal with that all the time. When working with the sociology of religion we simply apply definitions of the terms that are value neutral: "Christian" means selfidentifying as christian - then we can see which definitions of the term each christian groups uses and possibly what they have in common. Denomination is used to mean a (christian) religious group that does not see it self as included in other religious groups. When working e.g. with ethnicity we do the same thing someone is a member of an ethnic group if they self identify as such. If the other members of the ethnic group do not accept them as belonging in their group then there are simply two groups with the same name that can be described as by what they have in common and how they differ. This is for example the case with some of the non-recognized native american tribes in the US. This is in my view the only neutral way to do it since if at anytime we consider that one group has more of a right to a name than another then neutrality is lost. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree somewhat (about self-identification, not about "Christian-based"). I certainly don't think that self-identification is a reliable determinant for establishing a definition (and I don't think you're saying that either), because anyone can claim to be anything, though it's certainly a good place to start for the purposes of comparison with established definitions. It is indeed true that if "we consider that one group has more of a right to a name than another then neutrality is lost", which is consistent with my previous statements that JWs' theological opinions about other religions (and vice versa) having little to do with a basic definition of Christian. Perhaps it would help to qualify the word Christian with nontrinitarian, which, given this controversy, is probably more important to the lead than is millenial, which it could therefore replace.

Notably, the articles, Nontrinitarianism and Unitarianism do not seem to have had the same degree of attack about them being 'not Christian' than has this article (of which this current spate is just the most recent of several), and those concept-based articles aren't even about specific groups that 'self identify' as anything. It would therefore appear that it is JWs in particular that some feel particularly bitter about acknowledging as a Christian religion, rather than a general attitude of excluding nontrinitarians from the definition of Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Jeffro. The issue of trinitarianism is certainly part of the debate about which definition of Christinaity one applies, but their millenialist beliefs are the very core of their doctrines and shouldn't be ignored in the description. Russell began writing his books because he was convinced God was about to end the present "age" and usher in a new millennial age. His books and WT articles were very much focused on when this would be. It's easy to overlook that fact now, because Witnesses have become more well known for the procedural and ideological changes introduced by Rutherford (regulated "witnessing", political neutrality, opposition to blood transfusions etc). However their millenialist beliefs remain a major part of their raison d'etre. If you'll pardon my French. LTSally (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something else could be reworded to retain the concept of millenialism in the lead. However, it seems central to this ever-recurring and tedious debate to qualify the religion as one of nontrinitarian Christians, and it is preferable to limit the number of adjectives in the first sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I could support the inclusion of non-trinitarian as a modifier of Christian and the movement of "millenarian" to a description of JW belief.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed here as well. Definitely have no intentions of demeaning anyone, just disambiguating!EGMichaels (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. But I don't want us to leave LTSally's insight behind. Most of us are approaching this from the outside. Sally's got a valuable perspective because she's seen things from the inside.

Sally's comment above strikes me as going to the heart of self-identification. JWs self identify as Witnesses to something. They self identify as being Jehovah's messengers of the millenial hope, an interpretation from the Bible, considered urgent.

That's the kind of insight that can give a quality definition. When we know little, we classify from the outside, until we get to the heart of the matter. Linneaus classified by appearance. Darwin saw relationships. Genetic research, going right to the heart of the matter, can now show relationships definable by something much more comprehensive.

The difficulty is sourcing Sally's insight. It can be sourced, but can it be sourced as a definition? I'm not sure it matters. As long as what we select is verifiable, and provides some kind of definition, that's all we need. There's no single right way to define things in many cases.

I do think beliefs, i.e. doctrine, is at the heart of what Jehovah's Witnesses stands for. I'm hearing that the millenium, and therefore the Bible, are part of that. Why do we classify JWs as Christian? Because they use the same Bible as other groups we classify as Christian.

Could we expand on Sally's approach: say, "JWs is the formal name for the movement founded by Russell on the conviction, drawn from the Bible, that a thousand year, divine kingdom is imminent."

That's a very rough draft, I'm no expert on the JWs. We will need to go on, quite quickly to some short statement relating JWs to the category of Christian. But it feels right to let the JWs speak first, since they can and do. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake to believe that LTSally is the only one with inside experience with JWs. Aside from that, and I realise that's only a first draft, but in addition to being awfully wordy (and particularly silent about JWs as nontrinitarian Christians) your suggested wording is also historically inaccurate, and you would quite likely have a heard of Bible Students letting you know that JWs weren't the group founded by Russell. Given the current lead, it would be more relevant to cite their 'millenarianism', with some rewording, in the 3rd paragraph with their related beliefs about end times and Christ's subsequent rule—the millennial reign). Given the importance of millenarianism and the relative obscurity of the term, it would likely serve the article better to briefly elaborate on it there anyway, rather than a single obscure word tucked among a bunch of adjectives. Nontrinitarian is less obscure, particular to those whom it matters most, and helps resolve the immediate issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair's latest proposed opening sentence doesn't work. If we believe we are overloaded with adjectives in the opening sentence, then we can easily lose "restorationist". This is a vanity title only and very much a sideshow to the main circus. In truth, their claim to be a return to the primitive Christian church was lost decades ago as they steadily built up a complex, entrenched hierarchy that developed its own talmudic set of rules. They are a millenarian Christian-based religious denomination. LTSally (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"millenarian Christian-based religious denomination" sounds perfect to me.EGMichaels (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And thanks again for your oily flattery, Alastair. My "insights" don't come from having been a member of the religion, but reading books about it. Yes, sources are available. LTSally (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, just above, you said "I agree also", suggesting you are supportive of nontrinitarian as a qualifier for Christian (unless you were agreeing with some unstated thing other than the immediately preceeding comments by User:Maunus and User:EGMichaels). So it would seem that everyone is supportive of nontrinitarian Christian as a suitable qualifier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, Jeffro, as a classification, non-trinitarian Christian ("Christian (classification)"—neutral short-hand for "doctrines of apostles", i.e. New Testament–based) is the right basket into which to put the JWs.

As prose in the lead "Christian" still needs disambiguation, because the most common point of view is that of the Oxford Dictionary and the Roman Catholic Church, which is that "JWs are not Christian" ("Christian (doctrine)"—they do not profess what the apostles professed).

"Millenarian Christian-based organization/religious denomination" is fine by me.

"Millenarian, non-Trinitarian Christian-based organization/religious denomination" is also fine by me.

There are other approaches, but we're all probably exhausted by now and something like this will do. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Sally's words regarding "restorationist" seem realistic to me, and the term did not show up much in searches I made for it.

Thanks for the thanks, btw, but I don't flatter, oily or otherwise. I saw something valuable and grabbed the opportunity to second it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The basis on which the other denominations consider JWs to be not Christian is because they are nontrinitarian. To qualify the term Christian with nontrinitarian and -based is tautological.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. It's not tidy. However, "non-Trinitarian Christian" is a self-contradiction, from the point of view of a rather significant constituency. In casual conversation, and in certain contexts I'd say it myself and people would understand. But if Wiki says it, it will be under scrutiny from endless IP addresses. It's tedious to constantly revert them if we can avoid it.

Another option is "JWs is a Millenarian non-Trinitarian religious denomination". That leaves the precise details of whatever kind of association JWs have with Christianity implicit. Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian imply "Christian-based" without asserting what is or what is not Christian orthodoxy.

I hope we're getting closer. I think we are. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am tiring of these charades, shifting the goalposts everytime you sense a will to compromise, and it is beginning to look less like an attempt to establish consensus for a neutral lead than a faithbased POV push. Jehovah's Witnesses SELFIDENTIFY as Christians and are DESCRIBED as such by all NEUTRAL and OBJECTIVE SCHOLARS of religion. Whatever Catholics think they should be called is 100% irrelevant - except as an explicit description of the Catholic viewpoint. "Christian-based" is not an option because it is: 1. a neologism not supported by sources, and 2. non-neutral POV and undue weight given to a partisan viewpoint. You need to understand that "christian" is not a trademark regulated by any specific branch of christianity - but rather a neutral term used by scholars of religion to classify religions that base their faiths on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. PROVIDE 1. neutral source written by a SCHOLAR OF RELIGION (that is a historian of religion or a sociologist of religion - NOT a theologian) that explicitly states that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian and we can discuss including that viewpoint, OTHERWISE desist in this ridiculous waste of everybody's time.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going in circles. When the term Christian is qualified with nontrinitarian, we aren't asserting anything about orthodoxy. I will happily point the hypothetical "endless IP addresses" to the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of Unitarians, which can be cited in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Faced with the statement, egg-laying mammal, some people might complain that it is a contradiction 'attacking' orthodox mammals. Despite the fact that almost all mammals give birth to live young, a minority (obviously, monotremes) lay eggs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, you are welcome to your point of view that:

"'Christian' is not a trademark regulated by any specific branch of christianity - but rather a neutral term used by scholars of religion to classify religions that base their faiths on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

The reality is, though, "Christian" is a name, first used in the 1st Century, for people who worship Christ. It still has precisely that common usage in English today. As you mention, contemporary Christian scholars, of all denominations, like non-Christian scholars of other religions and secular scholars, all alike happen to also have a neutral technical usage of the name "Christian" for New Testament–based religious organizations. Since the current article is not an article on comparative religion, the technical usage of Christian is moot. It is appropriate in the nav bar, but not in the text.

Alastair Haines (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Got a source for your 'reality' that Christians in the first century worshipped Jesus as God or that they believed in the Trinity?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoah! Folks, we aren't talking about a theoretical first century church. Were they Messianics? Trinitarians? Nontrinitarians? It's a false lead, since it goes back to the question of who is "actually a Christian" rather than who "calls themselves a Christian."

We have two groups -- orthodox Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses who both claim the name but do not claim each other. Let's stay neutral, recognize that they both use the same name but do not represent the same beliefs, and move on.

All this first century stuff is debating ultimate reality, which is beyond our pay grade as Wikipedia editors.

A few additional points:

They are a Christian heresy or heretical Christians (i.e. they are not Orthodox Christians).
They are a Christian heresy and not a Buddhist heresy because they claim to be Christians and don't claim to be Buddhists.
A "heresy" is not necessarily wrong, nor is "orthodoxy" necessarily the correct or original faith.
Paul was a "heretical Jew" and perhaps an "orthodox Christian" (I say perhaps since the JWs could theoretically be right).
"Nontrinitarian" by itself is a meaningless term, since it describes almost anyone other than a Christian.
"Heretical" by itself is a meaningless term, since it describes anyone who claims a name contrary to its mainstream definitions.
"Nontrinitarian Christian" is merely a specific type of "Heretical Christian."
"Nontrinitarian Christian" therefore identifies this group as claiming the name "Christian" outside the boundaries of its mainstream definitions.

And, finally -- why is this such a big deal?

Let's do a little thought experiment: We could say something like..."Messianic Judaism is a religious denomination that emphasizes a worship of Jesus in Hebraic symbols." But we could NOT say something like "Messianic Judaism is a Jewish denomination." They are NOT a "Jewish denomination" because they fall outside of the boundaries of mainstream definitions. Even if we were to find secular sources saying this group is Jewish, the normative internal use of the term functions as a veto.

The veto does NOT mean that "Messianic Jews" aren't what Judaism is "supposed to be." Presumably most Christians believe that Judaism is SUPPOSED to worship Jesus, and that Judaism is itself in rebellion against God. In other words, while Christians could agree that "all Jews should be Messianic" they should NOT agree that "Messianics represent mainstream Judaism."

In the same way, even if we all agreed that "all Christians should be Jehovah's Witnesses" we should NOT agree that "Jehovah's Witnesses represent mainstream Christianity."

I think that the only reason we are having trouble here is that we are treating the term "Christian" as if it has some kind of value to it. It doesn't. It is merely a term used by a group with a mainstream boundary that includes Trinitarianism and specifically excludes nontrinitarianism (i.e. the Nicene Creed). So, any deviation from the mainstream needs to be noted, or else the specific group loses its distinguishing characteristic and the connotations of our definition lack encyclopedic value.EGMichaels (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I previously quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry for Christianity, which states the Catholic view that "we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical." They give no position about "heretical" Christians, except that they specifically do not deny that they are Christian. I also previously stated that value judgments about JWs or Christians or any other group are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"[Christian] is merely a term used by a group with a mainstream boundary that includes Trinitarianism and specifically excludes nontrinitarianism (i.e. the Nicene Creed)." No. See my later comments on 'every dictionary ever'. Regardless, "nontrinitarian Christian denomination" perfectly assuages your requirement that "any deviation from the mainstream needs to be noted", does it not? ...comments? ~BF izz 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "Christian" precedes the Nicene Creed by centuries. The term "Christian" has encyclopedic value when its use is by consensus, rather than by dogged insistence of a single editor. The secular consensus has long been that the noun "Christians" applies to "persons who declare an intention to follow Christ", without regard to whether they do so perfectly or as others may insist. Wikipedia editors can modify the noun "Christian" with whatever verifiable adjective suits the article and is acceptable per Wikipeda policies (acceptable modifiers might include: nontrinitarian, restorationist, politically neutral, big, orange, etc)(unacceptable modifier might include: true, false, apostolic, heretical, biblical, cultic, genuine, condemned, blessed, cursed, lovable, unlovable, etc). --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd even be agreed to modifying BOTH "mainstream Christians" and "nontrinitarian Christians" throughout the article, as long as the modifiers stay attached to "Christian" and not wander around a sentence. Since the topic of the article is Jehovah's Witnesses, it may actually make sense to modify "mainstream Christian", but leaving Jehovah's Witnesses with an unmodified "Christian" is a problem because of common use and the fact these two groups exclude each other from the same name.EGMichaels (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that the term "religious organization" be used in preference to "denomination".

Rationale: "Denomination" is a legitimate and popular usage, but has connotations of "Christianity" which is an ambiguous idea. Although editors here are familiar with a lot of issues and sources, the average reader may not be. Reader surprise is one factor we need to consider. This page can either remain stable because people maintain it, telling passing IP addresses that "it's all been worked out and the text is correct" OR we can use what we know to say the same thing in words that are less prone to triggering reader surprise. If "religious organization" is not wrong, we might find it is actually preferable. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jeffro77 was probably right to suggest it.EGMichaels (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Qualified support: Since WTS literature overwhelmingly tends to shy away from describing themselves as a denomination, and encyclopedias also tend to avoid the word, the term "religious organization" is accurate enough. The fact that they base their beliefs on the Bible is also stated in the intro, but it is also important to state in the first or second sentence that they are Christian, or are Christian-based, or that they claim to be Christian, or in some other way identify themselves as matching the description of Christian as per the intro that Wikipedia article. LTSally (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. I think you are right. Although we would normally avoid two points of view in a lead if they weren't necessary, it is absolutely the case that readers will expect reference to Christianity or appreciate some kind of disambiguation, as long as we do it short, sharp and sweet. Something like, JWs believes it is the only authentic branch of Christianity. Other branches deny the authenticity of JWs. Example reference: "Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian because they do not believe that Jesus is fully God." P. Edmund Adam, Relationship with Jesus, (Xulon Press, 2006), p. 60.

I support both the proposed and the current wording; both are acceptable and accurate imho. If you feel it will be more stable this way, then go for it says I. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "religious organization" has different connotations, suggesting that possibly its an organisation within another religious denomination like "Opus Dei" or some such. How about using "faith" or "religion"?·Maunus·ƛ· 06:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point about Opus Dei or thousands of parachurch organizations.

I don't like "religion" because it seems to divorce JWs from the Christian religion, which doesn't seem fair to me.

More objectively, it clashes somewhat with categorization: most people would think "religion" is the highest order of classification—the Phyla of Faith as it were.

"Faith" is a good word, used in the Oxford defininion of Christianity. I don't like it cause it feels "fluffy" to me, but it's not totally fluffy and fluffiness of the right type is possibly what we're looking for. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility might be "church" which is obviously not the preferred JW wording but which still maintains a connection to christianity and keeps it separate from other denominations.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming alternatives is great. Yes, "church" would certainly mesh with Christian without directly asserting it. Would JW sources and non-JW Christian sources agree with us? Readers might still be touchy. My guess is "denomination" is better than "church". Which would you prefer Maunus: "church" or "organization"?

We need a word that tells the truth, whether people like it or not, but still doesn't give reasonable likelihood of misinterpretation. At the moment my preferences are "faith" or "organization", but maybe we can think of more and better options. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually think I prefer denomination, For me, coming from the sociological pespective, the word does not have the connotations that you dislike. In a sociological context denomination is the most correct and neutral word. But opf church, faith and organization I prefer faith. Of Church and organization I prefer church.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also we don't need a word that tells the truth - we need a word that is verifiably expresses the most common viewpoint in neutral reliable sources. I still believe that "christian denomination" best meets that criterion. As I said I can agree with possibly avoiding to give characterization if this is judged to be the most beneficial approach - but I don't think that approach will get us closer to the truth. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it hard to work with "denomination". I prefer to speak of Buddhist and Hindu denominations rather than sects. But the problem is, we're not writing this article for academics. We editors must be familiar with academic usage, and indeed adopt it where it's helpful or necessary. To a JW/Christian not familiar with academic usage, and a good number of non-religious non-nerds, "denomination" sounds Christianish and sounds like "Christian as one of many groups of inter-related sister Christian groups."

Hmmm, here are some brainstorming alternatives: "(parent) body", "group", "incorporation" (yuk), "(legal) entity" (lol), "movement" ... Alastair Haines (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"denomination" sounds Christianish - perish the thought. I personally prefer 'denomination' (probably for the same reason you think it sounds "Christianish"), but religious organization would be my second choice (but my first choice as potentially most agreeable). None of your other brainstorming suggestions really grab me; in particular movement implies more than a single religion, and the religion itself is an offshoot from the Bible Student movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Support (obviously). As stated above from a quote someone apparently grabbed from 2009, I originally used denomination (and think it is slightly better), but have no specific qualms about religious organization. I don't like the term 'faith', for the same reason as Alastair.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "nontrinitarian Christian" is more useful than "millenarian Christian" in a one-sentence description of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Agree that JW millenialism is likely best-discussed somewhat below the first paragraph.
Agree that "denomination" or "religious organization" are both acceptable, but that "denomination" is probably less ambiguous to typical readers. I'd consider Watch Tower to be a "religious organization", but the religion seems increasingly referred to by them as the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" (by comparison, juxtapose "Christian Congregation" with "Church of Jesus Christ" and juxtapose "of Jehovah's Witnesses" with "of Latter-day Saints").
Utterly oppose "Christian-based". --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In case there is any ambiguity, I also utterly oppose "Christian-based". Nothing other than the Trinity has been raised as identifying JWs as not Christian. The qualifier nontrinitarian is sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: "Christian-based". The BBC can and did say this, but I agree, Wikipedia cannot say it in a definition. WP:NPOV

arbitrary edit break

Comment. As someone not involved with Jehovah's Witnesses but familiar with the group from an outside perspective, I have to say that the term "religious organization" would be surprising to me. The YMCA is a "religious organization". I would personally call Jehovah's Witnesses a "denomination" as it is a group with a specific subset of beliefs and doctrines. Isn't that the definition of a religious denomination? Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Denomination" is, precisely as you say, accurate and common. It is understood by unschooled readers, and is an academic term of preference. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that the academic term is strictly neutral, implying no association with Christianity, and no membership of a parent body; whereas, in common usages, it tends to connote both association with mainstream Christianity, and membership of a larger body. JWs are not a subset of Christianity in JW teaching, nor are they a subset of Christianity in mainstream Christian teaching.

If we say "JWs is a Christian denomination", that is true in an academic sense, but non-academic readers will hear something quite different to what we know are the facts, as the IP-address comment that brought me to this page indicates.

The question we're considering is, how do we avoid misleading unschooled readers into thinking we're making doctrinal assertions that are false, while explaining the perfectly good classification of JWs as within the broad demographic category of Christian. For such a thorny issue, I think we're making good progress!

"Denomination" is a great word, but is it the best in this context. Any more thoughts? Alastair Haines (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Denomination" is fine when coupled with "religious denomination". That's like a $10 bill being a "denomination of currency." The problem is the coupling of "Christian" and "denomination" since they fall outside of traditional orthodoxy. This is something that Jehovah's Witnesses and other self-identified Christian groups dispute. For instance, even if a Bahamian dollar were pegged to the U.S. dollar, a Bahamian $10 bill would not be a "denomination of US currency" but instead rather a "denomination of currency."

While I have no intention of saying Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT Christian, I'm only pointing out that this is a subject of dispute. Certainly from a Jewish perspective they are more of what Jews think of by "Christian" than orthodox Christians themselves (see my early comments re: shittuf).

The problem lies in what is normally meant by the term "Christian." Without a disambiguation a "Christian denomination" would connote a group identified with traditional orthodox Christian beliefs. However, I would not have a problem with a disambiguation such as "nontrinitarian Christian denomination."

Please, again, understand that I have no intention of demoting Jehovah's Witnesses from "Christianity." Since I'm a Jew this is entirely a matter of disinterest to me. However, as a Wikipedia editor I do have concerns when normative groups are identified with smaller groups that do not want to be identified with them (on either side). Thus, while a Christian may AGREE with "Messianic Jewish" beliefs, he would do well to call them by "Messianic" or "Messianic Jewish" because "Jewish" does not normally connote a person who believes in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

I note that Tam took issue with "Christians disgree with nontrinitarians." But "Christian" is not meant in an absolute truth sense, but rather a normative meaning sense. The normative doctrinal distinction of Christianity versus other religions is the doctrine of the trinity. While Jehovah's Witnesses may be the "only true Christians" in an absolute sense, the term "Christian" by itself normally identifies a trinitarian religion.

In the same light "Baptists" normally applies to Calvinistic (or more recently Dispensational) Evangelical Christians with a congregationalist governing structure and joint missions ventures, who also emphasize believer's baptism. There are Arminian "Baptists" but they are usually designated as "Free Will Baptists." So then, even though there IS a group of Arminian Baptists, it is still fair to say "Baptists disagree with Arminian doctrines." While not true of "Free Will Baptists" it remains true of the normative group.

A little messy, perhaps, but that's English: when you have a smaller group using the same name as a larger group, you need to tack on a modifier such as "Messianic Jews" or "Free Will Baptists" or "nontrinitarian Christians", etc. The terms used without the modifier (right or wrong) revert to the normative group. So then, to recap, while there ARE "Messianic Jews" one can still say "Jews don't believe in Jesus"; while there ARE "Free Will Baptists" one can still say "Baptists don't believe in Arminian theology"; and finally, while there ARE "nontrinitarian Christians" one can still say "Christians are Trinitarians." In all cases a term without a modifier reverts to the normative meaning of the mainstream group.EGMichaels (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be sloppy writing and worse editing to allow Jews don't believe in Jesus. or Christians are Trinitarians. in a Wikipedia article.
Frankly, I'm not even sure Most Jews don't believe in Jesus. is accurate. And ironically, certain telephone surveys have reported that a majority of self-identifying Christians do not self-identify as Trinitarians. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Who thinks that Christian = trinitarian? Christian just means someone who believes that Jesus is the messiah, i.e. "Christ". That's the layman definition, the theological definition, the dictionary definition, and the Wikipedia definition. If Christians were all trinitarian, they would be called Trinitarians, not Christians. There's a reason we have two different words. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Our problem then, stems from the principle of disambiguation. Apparently you want anyone who calls himself anything to happen (which I do too) WITHOUT the normative meaning being addressed. So, you would be fine with "Jews believe in Jesus" even though the vast history of Jews has been identified with continuous martyrdom and persecution in an effort to avoid just such a belief. Not sure we'll be able to reach an accord here. If words don't have normative meanings, then we're basically stuck.EGMichaels (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most people in the world understand that normative meanings and actual meanings are not always the same thing. For example, just because the normative meaning of "computer" is a Windows PC, doesn't mean that you can't call a Macintosh a "computer". It's still a computer regardless of what is "normative". Same for religions. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari -- please note that I repeatedly DO say that you can call Jehovah's Witnesses "Christian" and that you can call Messianic Jews "Jewish" and that you can call Free Will Baptists "Baptists." My only point is that we editors need to be aware of what these terms mean in their unqualified state. To do otherwise is to disservice BOTH the normative AND the qualified meaning. For instance, Free Will Baptists have a reason for using the term "Free Will"; Messianic Jews have a reason for using the term "Messianic"; Jehovah's Witnesses have a reason for using the name "Jehovah's Witnesses." If you used the generic name without the modifier you rob the specific group of their unique meaning. Thus, you will unfairly connote that Free Will Baptists are Calvinists (they insist they are not) or you will unfairly connote that Messianic Jews do not believe in Jesus (they will insist that they do) or you will unfairly connote that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Trinity (they will insist they do not).

I'm not trying to denigrate anyone, but rather designate them with both the terms and the meanings they hold for themselves. Jehovah's Witnesses, in fact, are quite proud of the fact they are nontrinitarian. That's a real selling point for them. Don't rob them of it.EGMichaels (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument made sense up until the sentence "you will unfairly connote that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Trinity". Calling someone a Christian doesn't mean they are trinitarians and I don't know anyone who would claim such a thing. Just as calling a Macintosh a "computer" doesn't imply that it runs Windows. Your argument is a classic example of the logical fallacy of accident, i.e. "destroying the exception". Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari, whether it makes sense to you or not, words do have normative uses. Sometimes those norms change over time, but norms do remain. You'll note that I never bit on your analogy about Macintosh computers. That's a wrong analogy.

All Macintosh computers are unambiguously computers -- and I know of no reliable source that would say otherwise.
The reliable sources regarding the meaning of the term "Christian", however, do at least include a significant number who regard Christianity as a Trinitarian religion.

It's like a "Republican" or a "Democrat" congressman in the context of abortion. Since the parties lean one side or another on the abortion issue, you have to distinguish a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat when discussing them on that specific subject. While it is not true that ALL Republicans are pro-life or ALL Democrats pro-choice, it is certainly unfair to speak of a pro-choice Republican as "he's Republican on abortion" or a pro-life Democrat as "he's a Democrat on abortion." You just mischaracterized those individuals based on the normative stance of those two parties.

Again I remind you that "Messianic Jews" are (or a good number are) actually "Jews", but their theology is not "Judaism."EGMichaels (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Republicans and Democrats, we still refer to Bart Stupak as simply a "Democratic Representative" in the lead sentence even though he is anti-abortion (i.e. not fitting the normative definition of Democrat). We don't call him an "anti-abortion Democrat" or an "anti-abortion politician who caucuses with Democrats". It isn't always necessary to point out that something is an exception to the rule in the very first sentence, especially if people are already aware that there are exceptions. I don't know of any source, layman or technical, which would negate the existence of non-trinitarian Christians. The history of Christianity is fully of them. Just because some source makes a generalization such as "Christians are trinitarians" or "Democrats are pro-choice" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions and that most people are aware of that fact. Kaldari (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And it seemed as though there was progress. Sigh... Does anyone have any real objection to qualifying Christian with nontrinitarian (a definition demonstrated as acceptable by the single largest mainstream Christian religion), or are we going to go in circles. I'm going to work now. Play nicely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@EGMichaels: Your particular example is not analogous to this situation as you are pointing out that it is incorrect to label a group based on a shared characteristic with the normative definition of another group. If we were calling Jehovah's Witnesses "Christians" because they were trinitarian, but did not otherwise identify as Christians, your example would be analogous. That said, it seems calling them "non-trinitarian Christians" is a reasonable compromise, as suggested by Jeffro. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Although you and I obviously have theoretical differences, I'd be delighted with "nontrinitarian Christians" (as would Jehovah's Witnesses themselves). They are rather proud of that theological distinction.EGMichaels (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We can say what we like, so long as it can be sourced, and so long as it doesn't imply a PoV like "JWs are Christians", without also acknowledging that PoV is contradicted by thousands of contemporary scholars, and on the basis of biblical interpretation with a 1,700 year history.

Classifying JWs as coming from the Christian tradition is uncontested as far as I know. That's not our issue. Our issue is ensuring we don't blunder and imply "JWs are Christians", or that JWs are one of many associated Christian churches.

The JWs don't define themselves as Christ-ians but Jehovah-ians. We can do better than being stuck in a rut as though Christian is the only sort of meaningful thing to say. It ain't.

Anyone know why Jehovah's Witness are called Jehovah's Witnesses not Christ's Witnesses? Just like the JWs themselves, we'd probably be wise to avoid the word "Christian", except to explain the technical classification.

Let's try some lateral thinking. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and Education, ©2002 Watch Tower, page 2, "Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians who are known worldwide."
The Watchtower, July 15, 1975, page 442-443, "Jehovah’s witnesses are Christians who worship Jehovah, since He is both the Creator and the Father of Jesus."
Awake!, November 22, 1988, page 10, "Similarly, a Greek appeals court said in its decision 354/1987 that Jehovah’s Witnesses “constitute a ‘known religion’... It also noted that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, “since Jesus Christ constitutes the central figure of their doctrines.”"
The Watchtower, March 15, 1953, page 165, "Jehovah’s witnesses are Christian ministers and Bible educators."
JW-Media.org, 2000-12-14 press release, "Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are Christians, don’t celebrate the holiday because of the non-Christian origins of many holiday traditions."
JW-Media.org, "Our View of Authority", "We are Christians who sincerely try to live our lives in conformity with the Bible."
JW-Media.org, 1999-02-11 press release, "Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians who worship openly in nearly 200 lands."
Jehovah's Witnesses in Russian, ©2008 Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, online, page 2, "Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians. ...Their worship in Russia can be dated to the time of the czars."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs most certainly do define themselves as Christians (though this is not directly pertinent to a neutral definition of Christian), and have never described themselves using the term 'Jehovah-ians' (their literature has occasionally used the term Jehovist(s), but only when quoting other sources). JW literature at times uses the extended terms Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Christian Witnesses, in addition to Christ being an intrinsic part of the core beliefs. A multitude of Christian religions do not include Christian in their name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam -- let's make sure we can stay focused on all aspects of this.

They call themselves Christians (per your sources)
Some secular groups consider them Christians (again per your sources)
Christian sources consider them a heretical Christian group or sect (per sources Alastair and I submitted)
Jehovah's Witnesses consider all other self-defined "Christians" to be apostate servants of Satan (per sources I submitted)

This is clearly a case of two groups being recognized for using the same term with resemblances that members of neither group find acceptably similar, and that non-members of either group find acceptably similar.

The position of Wikipedia is that no judgement can be made either way. We can only note that they are a group calling themselves Christian with fundamental differences from other groups calling themselves Christian. "Nontrinitarian Christians" is probably as good as we can do.EGMichaels (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A fourth bullet point should add:

No verifiable secular reference asserts that JWs are not Christians.

Most Wikipedia editors are pretty interested in verifiable secular refs. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that too many non expert sources WOULD differentiate between two groups competing for the same term. While I certainly DO want to include non expert (i.e. secular) sources, let's not exclude the use of the actual people being discussed.EGMichaels (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, unfortunately, Jehovah's Witnesses DO call themselves "Christians" in contrast to "Christendom" (i.e. orthodox Christianity). However, they do NOT appear to call their religion "Christianity".

But the distinction is internal to Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, and the term "Christendom" isn't really used by Christian churches to describe themselves.

We really do have two groups claiming the same term, and it's not an easy thing to avoid.

However, consider the term "heretic". The term itself is only meaningful in reference to a particular larger group. Thus, the apostle Paul was both a heretical Jew and the founder of orthodox Christianity.

The term heretic is only some kind of insult when left hanging by itself. When coupled with a larger group designation it still sounds rough, but is actually neutral.

Raymond Franz, for instance, was a heretical Jehovah's Witness and may have become an orthodox Christian.

Orthodox Jehovah's Witnesses, in contrast, are heretical Christians.

The only really neutral way to do this is to use the unmodified term "Christian" only for orthodox members of that group, and use modifiers to designate deviations from that norm. Thus, unitarian Christians; nontrinitarian Christians; monophystite Christians; nestorian Christians; etc. Once the coupled designation is made, then the short hand becomes the modifier, not the generic term. So, "unitarian Christians" becomes "unitarians" rather than "Christians". Nestorians are well defined. Jehovah's Witnesses, as a religiously governed structure, is also defined.

We should call them "nontrinitarian Christians" in the lede and explain the unique distinctions of this group. Orthodox Christians will understand "nontrinitarian Christians" to mean a specific type of "heretical Christians". Those attempting to define Christianity in a non-orthodox way (such as merely someone using the name "Christ") will at least have the appelative "Christian" added to "nontrinitarian" in the lede. That should be enough to disambiguate without prejudice.EGMichaels (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "true Christianity" occurs quite frequently in JW literature, in reference to their own organization. The claim that "they do NOT appear to call their religion "Christianity"" is incorrect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction.

So, this makes it even more a case of two groups claiming the same name.EGMichaels (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we've already established that the nontrinitarian Christians have some differences of opinion to the mainstream Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs don't define themselves as Christians, they describe themselves as Christians.

Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly do "define themselves as Christians". Note this excerpt from their reference work Reasoning From the Scriptures (©1989 Watch Tower, page 199), immediately under the entry "Jehovah’s Witnesses": "Definition: The worldwide Christian society of people who actively bear witness regarding Jehovah God and his purposes affecting mankind.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If Christianity is a religion, who does it worship?

Jeffro, you hit the nail on the head. It is JWs who publish the Scotsman thingy.

JW: all Christians worship Jehovah as God but not Christ.

RC: but I'm a Christian and I worship Christ.

JW: all true Christians worship Jehovah as God but not Christ.

<Joke> Wouldn't it be nice if both sides could just agree to follow the doctrines and precepts of the Kid's World Almanac?

One thing everyone agrees on—Oxford, JWs, and RCs—is that Christian means "student of New Testament".

Alastair Haines (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I previously stated, the JWs do raise a no true Scotsman fallacy regarding the definition of other religions as Christian. As I have also previously stated, this is irrelevant in regard to a neutral definition. Further, just like every other Christian religion (including the other nontrinitarian Christians), JWs follow the New Testament according to their own interpretation of it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I for one think you are right, interpretation is the key.

To be Christian is to follow one's interpretation of the NT. JWs can be classified as Christian for that reason. For Wikipedia to assert that any particular group actually is Christian, is to assert the validity of the interpretation of that particular group. But here's the thing, to deny that a group classified as Christian actually is Christian is to take the doctrinal POV of rivals.

Conclusion: Wikipedia must classify JWs as Christian (because everyone, even rivals do), but Wikipedia can neither affirm nor deny that JWs actually are Christian, because neutrality forbids taking a doctrinal position.

Wiki wasn't offered a vote at Nicea, and it refuses to accept sufferage even now.

I know you know all this. It is possible to define JWs without using the word Christian. That's all we need to do.

Russell must have wanted to define JWs, and to do so without associating the movement with the established churches of his day.

How did he do it? You know more about that than me. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "...define JWs without using the word Christian. That's all we need to do."
Why in the world do "we need to do" THAT? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Russell didn't start Jehovah's Witnesses, and probably never even used the phrase "Jehovah's Witnesses" at all. Russell was part of an Adventist bible study group who started the Bible Student movement, from which JWs developed later. On the other hand, there is absolutely no basis for your tenuous claim that he never used the word Christian to define his group (per your claim further down that "Russell must have defined the group without reference to Christianity.") Russell predates JWs, just as Christianity predates Nicea. Get your facts straight, and throw your bias out the window.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Russell explicitly called adherents "Bible Students" but commonly identified them as "Christian" and as "true Christian".

Watch Tower, May 1, 1907 , page 130, (Reprints 3983), "THIS Journal is one of the prime factors or instruments in the system of Bible Instruction, or "Seminary Extension," now being presented in all parts of the civilized world by the WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY, chartered A.D. 1881, "For the Promotion of Christian Knowledge." It not only serves as a class room where Bible Students may meet in the study of the divine Word, but also as a channel of communication through which they may be reached with announcements" [emphasis added]
In a discussion of the Parable of the Tares in Watch Tower of May 1, 1906 (page 138-140, Reprints), C. T. Russell explicitly identified "the wheat" as "true Christians" (that is, as his coreligionists); by contrast, Russell identified "the tares" (that is, the weeds) as "imitation Christians...the tare class of Christendom". Later in the article, Russell referred to the weeds as "nominal Christendom--Churchianity...imitation Christians".

So, if Russell's writings are significant, it is that JWs and Bible Students always considered themselves true Christians in contrast with imitation Christians. They would likely have been brokenhearted to hear someone say they were "not Christian". --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem using some kind of disambiguated term for "Christian" just as Russell himself did. But Russell DID make sure that he was NOT listing himself as some kind of member of "imitation Christianity." While I do not wish to call EITHER group "false" or "imitation" I certainly do want them disambiguated -- just as BOTH groups insist on doing themselves.EGMichaels (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In Operation Mobilisation, Evangelical Christians classify Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christian (Marginal)". There are rather a lot of denominations in the Marginal category. "Denomination", btw, is also used as the generic term for a religious group, rather than "sect" or "organization". Since the group, of which I happen to be a member actually shares a usage you keep presuming me to deny, accusing me of bias only reveals your own. For the umpteenth time, can you please drop the invective?

In Operation Mobilisation, Jehovah's Witnesses, like other traditions that have historically changed their name, are also given a byname: "Russellites".

* "During the period of his leadership, the general appellation for the cult was, appropriately enough, 'Russellites'."

— JE Mulder, M Comisky , "Jehovah's Witnesses Mold Constitutional Law", in Bill of Rights Review 4 (1941).

* "Rutherford further organized and directed his flock. No longer known as 'Russellites,' they became Jehovah's Witnesses on

earth."

— Bill Davidson, "Jehovah's travelling salesman", Collier's Weekly 2 November, 1946. [Perhaps an example of a "muck-raking source.]

I repeat, Russell must have published definitions of his denomination, it would be odd if there weren't some that don't use the word "Christian". Has anyone looked? Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking that you change your beliefs. I'm saying you need to stop asserting them here because they are not neutral, as shown by the sources previously provided.

The Bible Students were known as Russellites in the time of Russell. After a schism in the Bible Student movement, the loyalists to the Watch Tower Society became known as Jehovah's witnesses in 1931 (small 'w' until 1970s), 14 years after Russell's death. But yes, indeed, Russell did describe his Bible Study group, in Zions Watch Tower, February, 1884:

And so, by whatsoever names men may call us, it matters not to us; we acknowledge none other name than "the only name given under heaven and among men"--Jesus Christ. We call ourselves simply CHRISTIANS

--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the query above, If Christianity is a religion, who does it worship?... In general terms, a religion doesn't actually necessitate worship of a deity at all—for example, Buddhists venerate Buddha as a teacher, they don't really worship him in the sense of a deity. Similarly, all Christians venerate Jesus as a teacher, as the Messiah, as the son of God, etc. Of course, Christians, including JWs, do worship the same god, who they variously call "God", "Yahweh", "Jehovah", etc. However, I've not seen any secular definition that states that Christians must worship Christ as God, and though most Christians certainly do, the major denomination of Christianity still specifies that nontrinitarians are Christians (rather than stipulate that other Christians must definitively worship Jesus). Additionally, no source has been provided to indicate that first-century Christians definitely worshipped Jesus, or that they believed the Trinity doctrine. None of this has any relevance to whether Christians, Trinitarians, nontrinitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses or Buddhists are right, wrong, good, bad, or any other value judgement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: nontrinitarian

I've reworked the first sentence to read as follows:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination that strongly emphasizes millenarianism.

I feel this maintains accuracy, and fairly good style. Note that I changed the separate links to Christian and religious denomination to instead point to Christian denomination (see Christian denomination#Messianic movements). ...comments? ~BF izz 18:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support that but suggest rewording to "with a beliefsystem emphasizing a strongly millenarian eschatology" or some such.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"with a belief system that does such and such" is unnecessarily wordy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As stated earlier, [1] the claim to be restorationist is a thin one and adds next to nothing as a definition. They don't so much strongly emphasize millerianism; they are a millinerian religion. They sprang from Russell's beliefs on the millenium and their outlook for the future is wholly concerned with the millenium and its imminence.

I'd suggest: Jehovah's Witnesses is a millinerian, nontrinitarian Christian denomination. LTSally (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"Christian" and "denomination" really shouldn't go together. It gives the impression that they are members of the same Satan apostate Christendom as "Christian denominations." Jehovah's Witnesses make it very clear that they are not members of the same religion as this condemned group.EGMichaels (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Then: Jehovah's Witnesses is a ~~millinerian~~ Millenialist religious denomination with nontrinitarian Christian beliefs. LTSally (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"... with nontrinitarian Christian beliefs" demotes 'Christian' to an afterthought. The fact that their beliefs centre on Christ is much more important than the millenial theme. JWs don't go a single day without mentioning Jesus, but may not mention the millenial reign for months.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian religious denomination with nontrinitarian Christian beliefs" is acceptable to me.EGMichaels (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Their millenialist beliefs stem from their Christian beliefs. They are "a nontrinitarian Christian 'something' with millenialist beliefs", or a "millenialist nontrinitarian Christian 'something'", not "a millenialist 'something' with Christian beliefs".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

move to Jehovah's Christian Witnesses

How about change the title of the article to "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" with redirects from "Jehovah's Witnesses" so that the lede can read something like

"Jehovah's Christian Witnesses is a non-trinitarian religious denomination which emphasizes the imminent destruction of the present age".

We get "Christian" in the title without actually presuming the classification either way.EGMichaels (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. In some formal contexts such as this they call themselves that, but they are 99% of the time called Jehovah's Witnesses. It's not the title of the article that's the problem. LTSally (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

See above: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian religious denomination with nontrinitarian Christian beliefs" is acceptable to me.EGMichaels (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, after consulting Robert Crompton's definitive study of the development of JW teachings, Counting the Days to Armageddon, I'll amend that: it should be Millenialist rather than Millenarianist.

Jehovah's Christian Witnesses as an article title would violate WP:COMMONNAME.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support BFizz's wording. JW literatures often makes statements identifying themselves as restorationist, usually with wording similar to "a restoration of first-century Christianity" (Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 203).--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the WTS refers to itself as a restoration of primitive Christianity. Question is: does anyone else? The article currently cites just one source for the description. Are there others? I repeat that their Millenialist doctrines are more central than their restorationist claims. LTSally (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone else agrees that they are a restoration of primitive Christianity. What matters is they fit the definition of a religion that claims to be such a restoration. I don't think there are any restorationist religions who outsiders identify as definitely being such as restoration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a non-trinitarian religious denomination which emphasizes the imminent destruction of the present age." Alastair Haines (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Jehovah's Witnesses "emphasize" Armageddon in their public ministry or houses of worship. Armageddon doesn't define how they live their lives and practice their faith. Instead, Witnesses see EVERYTHING through the prism of "God's Kingdom" and the issue of Universal Sovereignty. In other words, JWs believe the elevation of true worship (by humans and angels) is of nearly infinitely greater significance than what humans experience as "the current age". --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

debate so far

Here are the descriptive words we are tossing back and forth.

millennialist / millenarian
restorationist
nontrinitarian
Christian
denomination

We've asked some questions regarding each one. For example:

Do JWs fall under the dictionary definition of this word? 1) yes 2) yes 3) yes 4) yes 5) yes
Do JWs call themselves this word? 1) yes 2) yes 3) yes 4) yes 5) no?
Does/would mainstream Christianity call JWs this word? 1) yes 2) yes 3) yes 4) maybe 5) no?
Do scholars/critics call JWs this word? 1) yes 2) yes? 3) yes 4) maybe 5) yes?
Does this indicate/agree with a major JW doctrine? 1) yes 2) maybe 3) yes 4) yes 5) no (disagrees?)
Overarching question: Is there value in using this word in the 1st sentence of the JW article? 1) maybe 2) maybe 3) maybe 4) maybe 5) maybe

Disclaimers of this summary: "maybe" indicates an unclear yes or no. The question marks indicate my assumptions which could be wrong or are not entirely clear. Not all questions and answers hold equal weight.

Is this an acceptable summary of our discussion so far? (excluding the early suggestion to describe the JWs simply as followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which most disagreed with) ...comments? ~BF izz 01:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A reader completely unfamiliar with the subject needs to know that JWs are broadly Christian, as opposed to Islamic, or Buddhist, or some other thing. This tedious debate confirms that the term Christian must be qualified with the term nontrinitarian. Millenarian is important and also relatively obscure, so it is probably better to briefly elaborate on this in the lead rather than have it in the first sentence. Restorationist is somewhat important, but doesn't necessarily need to be in the first sentence, so long as it is covered in the article. Obviously some noun like denomination/religion etc is required; I personally prefer denomination, but another neutral term can be substituted - religious organization seems more agreeable (but could be confused with religion-supporting organization); no inflammatory terms such as 'sect' in the first sentence.

(I see the early suggestion about the "Christian Greek Scriptures" as a test in semantics to see if editors were gullible enough to remove a statement about JWs being Christian while retaining the word, as well as an attempt to massage the egos of JW editors by using their preferred label of the New Testament. It failed, and can be ignored.)

Summary
Question	millennialist / millenarian	restorationist	nontrinitarian	Christian	denomination
Do JWs fall under the dictionary definition of this word?	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Do JWs call themselves this word?*	no recent (60 years) JW literature uses the terms 'millenialist' or 'millenarian' to describe JWs, but see footnote	no, but see footnote	no, but see footnote	yes	not usually, though JW literature cites others calling them a denomination without objection
Does/would mainstream Christianity call JWs this word?	yes	yes (whether they believe JWs actually are such a restoration is irrelevant to the classification of restorationist)	yes	disputed, however largest Christian denomination identifies Unitarians as Christian	depends on context; usually no, to avoid implication of affiliation
Do scholars/critics call JWs this word?	yes	yes	yes	generally, scholars do and critics don't	varies
Does this indicate/agree with a major JW doctrine?	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Is there value in using this word in the 1st sentence of the JW article?	better to elaborate on this concept in another sentence	maybe	required	required	can be substituted with another (neutral) term

^{*JW literature typically avoids specific labels to classify itself beyond Christian. However, their literature indicates that they identify with all the concepts stated.}

--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad Jeffro remembers "followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures", because I've yet to see any proposal that is more satisfactory, and I'm yet to hear any serious objections. The idea came directly from the Jehovah's Witness web-site "Who we are" page. But I'm not pushing for that choice, just grabbing the opportunity of bumping it.

Anyway, thanks for going to the trouble of producing the table. It's a useful focus to progress us towards settlement.

I have two objections to contents in the table, both regarding the word "Christian":

The Vatican excludes JWs from Christianity.^{[citation needed]} (A 1917 source without direct reference to Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't compare)

The Word Christian is not required in the definition/lead sentence.

Imo, the fix we need is simple. Remove the word Christian from the definition, and IP-addresses will not keep reminding us that Wikipedia is expected to remain neutral.

In the second sentence, explain that "JWs consider themselves to be Christians, though this is denied by Trinitarian denominations" or words to that effect.

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral in giving catholics the right to define how other religious denominations should be described in an encyclopedia. Leaving out "christian" on this basis is giving a huge amount of undue weight to that viewpoint and is completely POV and unacceptable. Using secular sources written by of scholars of religion is the only way to achieve neutrality in the description. I cannot see your proposal as anything opther than POV pushing, now drawn much larger than it deserved and as there is no consensus for it either I shall simply disregard further antics from EGM and Alastair untill such a time when new arguments are adduced from secular academic sources, or there is a notable change in consensus. Keeping on this pseudo discussion with Alastair Haines is obviously fruitless and a waste of everyones time.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! We cannot allow Catholics to define JWs as non-Christian. Use the word Christian though, and Catholics get a vote.

The solution is not using the word "Christian". The solution is NOT using the word "non-Christian".

Secular scholars get no vote, because they don't know what Christ taught, so they can't say whether people actually follow him or not.

All secular scholars can say is who claims to be Christian, they cannot and do not say who actually is Christian.

To describe JWs as Christian is to say they actually are. If not, how on earth does it define anything?

By all means, say what secular scholars say, "JWs is a religious organization that claims to be Christian." Alastair Haines (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm able to remember an edit from 5 days ago... amazing... sigh...

Alastair provided no source for the JW 'who we are' page that supposedly endorses his claim that JWs say they are simply "followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures" rather than saying they are Christian; (if it is this page, then he is misrepresenting it and its subsequent content.)

The Vatican doesn't exclude JWs from Christianity; rather, the Vatican excludes nontrinitarians from Catholicism—it has no authority to exclude anything from anything else, and it acknowledges this in the Catholic Encyclopedia by stating that Unitarians are Christians. Indeed, under Christianity, the same encyclopedia does not state that heretical sects are non-Christian, but rather that, "we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical." (formatting added)

Saying "JWs are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures" is true enough, just as it's true to say "cars have steering wheels", but it is hardly a satisfactory definition. Alastair's ambiguous statement about the "Christian Greek Scriptures" (which will also garner objections because the preferred term is New Testament) and is absolutely certain to attract objections from anonymous IPs, about whom Alastair seems so apprehensive. On the other hand, indicating that JWs are "nontrinitarian Christians" properly qualifies the term Christian, and is less likely to attract criticism than either the unqualified term Christian, or Alastair's preferred vague wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, using the word "christian" does not give Catholics a special right of veto any more than The Democratic Party of the United states has a special right to veto who gets to be called "democrat". Being "christian" does not have anything to do with what christ actually thought - that is a false premise as it assumes that christ taught something in particular and that some people in the present age has a better understanding of what it was than others. That is a religous perspective which does not hold any sway in a secular encyclopedia or in secular religious science. Secular scholars don't say that JW "claims to be christian" they say that they "are". Because in a secular context (such as this encyclopedia) "christian" is a neutral term describing any of the many views that have emerged from the christian religious tradition. From a secular viewpoint which in this case is as close as we get to a neutral one no religious group, majority or minority can be said to have any kind of exclusive knowledge about what "christ taught" since they all claim that their interpretation is the correct one. You're statements are simple advocacy of a catholic viewpoint and constitute bullying of minority religions. This has got to stop. ·Maunus·ƛ· 10:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Heretical or Religious in the Lede

Perhaps it would be permissible to use "Heretical" in the lede in order to keep "Christian" and "denomination" together:

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a heretical Christian denomination which emphasizes a denial of the Trinity and the imminent destruction of world Christendom."

That's pretty accurate and neutral. Although they may hold "the truth", it is by definition so outside of mainstream Christianity that it even proclaims Christianity's imminent destruction.

I would also be open to:

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination which emphasizes a denial of the Trinity and the imminent destruction of world Christendom."

Note here that the emphasis on the denial of the Trinity and the imminent destruction of world Christendom definitely ties this group to the Christianity they want destroyed.EGMichaels (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't find that acceptable. "Heretical" is pejorative and their denial of the trinity is no more emphasized in their doctrine than many other beliefs. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab -- I'd be interested in your pointing out to me ANY publication of theirs ten pages or longer that does not explicitly state their denial of the Trinity.EGMichaels (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BlackCab on this one. I'm not sure EGM is entirely serious. I also would object to "heretical". How can neutrality say that! But Maunus has given us neutral sources for "dissenting" and "unorthodox". So, yes, if we want Christian in the lead sentence: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a dissenting,[Melton 2003&JWs] unorthodox[Holden 2002&Pope] Christian denomination, which emphasizes ...". (Maunus' sources)

I'm happy now that I'm certainly not objecting to the possibility of the word "Christian" in the lead, nor to use of "Christian denomination", nor to use of secular sources to supply adjectives. Not that I ever was.

I'm very interested to hear the views of others. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, Alastair, although the term "heretical" holds an entirely neutral denotation (i.e. Paul was both a heretical Jew and the founder of orthodox Christianity), I'm fully aware that "heretical" connotes something negative to most readers.

I'm therefore far more interested in my second wording:

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination which emphasizes a denial of the Trinity and the imminent destruction of world Christendom."

EGMichaels (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if it didn't matter what anyone except scholars meant by the words, as others here keep suggesting, i.e. ordinary lay Christian objection to the word "Christian" can be set aside, well, it shouldn't matter what ordinary people think about the word "heretical" either.

That doesn't persuade me we should use "heretic", but it does persuade me we can't ignore the views of ordinary readers.

We can't call JWs heretics, but nor can we call them Christians.

OK, so option (2). I'm worried you're making a bit of a point with this. I'd want to soften things to: "JWs is a religious denomination emphasizing the imminent destruction of the world." Alastair Haines (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This wording depicts JWs in the worst light possible. The only things it mentions are 1) how they reject someone else's doctrine and 2) how they predict someone else's destruction. While these things are true, it is hardly a neutral summary of the Witnesses. Unacceptable. Need I add my opinion to those that already condemn the use of 'heretical' here? Well I just did. Sorry to be so negative about this proposal but that's that. ...comments? ~BF izz 11:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fizz, while I'm perfectly fine with Alastair's "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denommination emphasizing the imminent destruction of the world", I'm aware that there are editors who specifically wish to identify them in context with "Christianity." Such a context would necessitate listing the mutual rejection Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses hold for each other. Again, why not just go with this last from Alastair?EGMichaels (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The "imminent destruction of the world" suggests they think the world is about to blow up. That misconstrues their belief. BlackCab (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination emphasizing the imminent destruction of the present evil age." Granted, they could sound like baby boomers imminently expecting plastic surgery...EGMichaels (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How nice to hear BlackCab being concerned about misconstruing someone's belief. I hope that means there's two of us concerned that the views of millions of Catholic Christians are not misconstrued. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrowing our definition of JWs to only their millenarian beliefs leaves out all of those other wonderful adjectives, and is entirely lacking as a one-sentence summary/definition. See also #BIA. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The current (new) wording clearly denotes the concept of 'heretical' in the lede, without actually using the word 'heretical'. Essentially, it says JWs are Christian, but not mainstream Christian (therefore, heretical). Just thought that was worth a mention. ...comments? ~BF izz 00:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current lead (Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from mainstream Christianity.) It quite clearly states JWs are essentially Christian per every available neutral definition (including the Catholic Encyclopedia) while highlighting that they are different to most Christians, and specifies how they are different. I certainly don't think there is anything in this wording that might 'misconstrue' anything at all about what Catholics or other mainstream Christians believe.

I don't like the other suggestions in this section, which should certainly be covered in the article, but are less definitive and unnecessarily confrontational for the first sentence. (I found it quite humourous that Alastair stated: I'm certainly not objecting to the possibility of the word "Christian" in the lead, nor to use of "Christian denomination", but suggested shortly afterwards, "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination emphasizing the imminent destruction of the present evil age.")

As I pointed out elsewhere, saying they are heretical is quite specifically a term to avoid, per WP:Avoid#Religion; however I don't think anyone would argue that they are distinct from mainstream Christianity. My only concern about the current lead would be that mainstream Christianity is a fairly poor-quality article (that is a suggestion that the other article should probably be improved, not a suggestion to avoid those words).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Newest lede wording (4-18)

You had "Christian" in the lede twice and had an orphaned duplicate sentence fragment on millenialism. I eliminated the dupes and would be satisfied with the lede in the way I just left it.EGMichaels (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me. For reference, EGMichaels replaced "Christian religion" with "religious organization", which Bradv then changed to "Christian denomination". ~~I suggest further discussion of such take place in the #Use of 'denomination' in lede section, unless said discussion is directly related to my common responses here.~~ [Discussion instead refactored] ...comments? ~BF izz 00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely prefer your previous edit to the one that's there now. "Christian denomination" in contrast to "mainstream Christianity" is oxymoronic, while your edit was not. I'd change back to your previous edit myself but have no idea how many changes I made today and no doubt I'll cross some revert limit.

But, for the record, I prefer "religion organization" but would accept "Christian religion" as infintitely better than "Christian denomination."EGMichaels (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear why you feel there is an issue with "Christian denomination", and why you feel "in contrast to 'mainstream Christianity' [it] is oxymoronic". The term Christian denomination does not equate to being in the mainstream. It equates to, according to the WP article, "an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity." ...comments? ~BF izz 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've explained this a number of times. A denomination is a different unit or configuration of the same essential thing. A five dollar bill and a ten dollar bill are different denominations of US currency. They are interchangable. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians do NOT feel they are interchangable. In fact, they go to great lengths to try to rescue each other. While they may be within some kind of loose term of "Christianity", NEITHER group feels they are in the same religion or even that they have the same deity. Each views the other as polytheistic. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Trinity is essentially polytheistic, while Christians feel the Jehovah's Witness big Jehovah God and little Jesus god of John 1:1 are polytheistic. While we shouldn't care "who's right" we definitely need to respect the fact that they are "different."EGMichaels (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You explain on your own authority, but like I've said before, the WP articles Christian denomination and religious denomination don't support your explanation. "Denomination" does not equate to "interchangeability", nor does it equate to "mainstream". That is your premise that I dispute. Assuming your premise to be true, your logic is sound. But the premise is a POV definition of 'denomination' that just doesn't fly. I've expressed willingness to consider other words, but I'm not convinced that there is anything wrong with using 'Christian denomination'. Several other editors prefer or insist that we use that phrase. ...comments? ~BF izz 03:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The article that does agree with you is denominationalism. However, according to the article, the concept "is not accepted by all Christian churches" and "is a largely Protestant concept among Christians." But denominationalism departs from the roots of the word. According to wiktionary: From Latin denominatus ("named"). The word simply means that we are uniquely identifying a group of people with a common belief by a certain name. In this case, that group of people is the JWs. We don't have to cater to POV definitions, not when we have every dictionary ever agreeing with our usage. ...comments? ~BF izz 03:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's do a sanity check to make sure we agree on the use of terms. How about... denomination re: Judaism:

A denomination is a "name" per the Wiktionary. A denomination of Judaism would be a named group within Judaism. Well, Judaism needs to agree to that, don't they?

Here is the Wiktionary definition for Judaism.

A world religion tracing its origin to the Hebrew people of the ancient Middle-East, as documented in their religious writings, the Torah or Old Testament.

Messianic Judaism self identifies as Judaism. Is this a denomination of Judaism or a denomination of Christianity or of both?EGMichaels (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An in-depth analysis of the beliefs of Messianic Jews is outside the scope of this discussion. There is a significant difference in the comparison, because Messianic Jews introduce elements of Christianity into Judaic beliefs, whereas JWs (')simply(') have their own interpretations of Christianity rather than trying to merge it with some other separate thing (this isn't the same as themselves being the 'separate other thing'). The label, "Messianic Jews", suggests a group that aims to attract members of typical Judaism to something more like Christianity. In contrast, JWs aim to attract typical Christians (and anyone else who will listen) to another (unorthodox) form of Christianity. However, the label, "Jehovah's Witnesses", doesn't itself seek to do something like that because 'Jehovah' is a name for the same God that Christians already worship, and though they don't mention 'Christ' in the name of the religion, nor do a great many Christian religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the terms Christian denomination or sect of Christianity. To call them a religious organization is not entirely accurate. The Watchtower Society is a religious organization, but that is not the subject of this article. The term Christian religion is also inaccurate as it states that the JW's are a religion unto themselves, distinct from and equal to Christianity, which is not supported by any of the sources given, nor is that terminology in common usage as far as I am aware. I like the lede the way it is, as it provides a clear definition of the movement as a Christian denomination, but then implies that there is a substantial rift between it and mainstream Christianity. That's not to say improvements can't be made, but removing the word Christian from the lede makes the article needlessly unclear. Brad 01:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Christian religion" is entirely superior to "Christian denomination" for precisely the reasons I just gave in the above paragraph. They ARE a separate religion unto themselves, as attested by BOTH Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians.EGMichaels (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The opening sentence currently reads: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from mainstream Christianity." I think that works very well. BlackCab (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not. "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian religion with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from mainstream Christianity." (While not my first choice) is not self contradictory like the existing lede.EGMichaels (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BlackCab in principle, but I can accept EGMs wording above. That is I am not married to the term "denomination" and could accept several alternatives. But I have not seen any valid arguiments against using "Christian" as a basic classification. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the best wording so far (and perhaps for good).EGMichaels (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bradv. Regardless of how unorthodox/unpopular/disagreeable JWs may be in comparison to other Christian denominations, they remain, technically, a Christian denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not perfect, imo, but at least it comes closer to explicit neutrality: self-identification, doctrine, separation and due weight are all there. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanity Check

We're too close to this subject.

Here is a translation for a sanity check:

"Messianic Judaism is a Jewish denomination with Trinitarian and divinity of Jesus beliefs that separate it from mainstream Judaism."

Does this make sense? Not make sense? Reasons? We may be able to clear out some of the clutter with a sanity check.

Also, I was the one who worded the Messianic Judaism lede, which currently states:

"Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that differs from mainstream Christianity and from Judaism by combining elements of each into a single faith."

I worded this lede so that it does not say if it was "actually" Jewish or "actually" Christian, but merely that it was a movement that differed from both of those mainstream groups. The Messianic Judaism lede is short and contains no contested points.EGMichaels (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It also does not conform to WP:LEAD and would have to be rewritten if the article were ever nominated for Good Article or Featured Article status. Also this is a completely different case as there have a religion that might be classified as springing from either or both of the Judaic and Christian traditions. That is not the case here as JW are wholly within the Christian tradition.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Maunus. You are aware that Christianity itself sprang from Judaism, and could theoretically be "wholly within the [Jewish] tradition". That's the basic point of Messianic Judaism -- they are a restorationist movement seeking to restore an original form of primitive Jewish Christianity.

At the same time they seek to restore Judaism to a Messianic faith. As it stands, Judaism has a logical impasse for anyone claiming to be the Messiah. The Messiah is supposed to accomplish certain things that are forbidden to modern Jews because they are waiting for the Messiah to accomplish them. But they can only acknowledge someone to be the Messiah once he has completed these tasks -- not while he is in the process of doing so. Further, the Messiah is supposed to make some halakhic corrections, but anyone attempting to do so would be automatically rejected as the Messiah on the grounds of being some kind of heretic.

You really have to love religions to appreciate them. I'm not sure you enjoy them as much as you could.

In any case, Messianic Judaism absolutely applies as an attempt to restore a form of Christianity that was in existence BEFORE Christianity became considered as a separate religion from Judaism. It is therefore restorationist for BOTH Judaism and Christianity.

One can therefore not have a first sentence that DENIED they were either Christian or Jewish, but because of the self defined distinctions in those mainstream groups, one could not affirm identity with either. (Yes, I'm aware that there was subsequent wording identifying them as Christian, but I made sure it was not in the first sentence).

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "Christian"? By self identification, yes. Are they a denomination of Christianity? No, on two grounds: 1) THEY deny being part of that larger group, and 2) THE LARGER GROUP denies they are members.

Now for another comparison -- imagine I started a church that claimed to be Catholic but insisted the Pope was the Antichrist. Could I be considered a "Catholic denomination"? Well, yes and no. If I CLAIMED to be the only true Catholics and all other Catholics were false, I'd still need mention for using the name. But I couldn't very well be considered just "another name for the same thing" (which is what a "denomination" is). I'm NOT "another name for the same thing" but rather "the same name for another thing."

And THAT's our conundrum:

Jehovah's Witnesses are not another name for the same thing (as Christians), but rather the same name (Christians) for another thing (Arians, semi-Arians, something else perhaps -- but not run of the mill Christians).

Further, I used the Messianic Judaism example for a second reason -- people have been accused of having a pro evangelical Christian bias here. Since evangelicals believe Jesus is the JEWISH Messiah, they should see Messianics sympathetically as BOTH Judaism AND Christianity. Granted, Maunus, you aren't one of those people so accused -- so let's wait a few to see what those pesky Christians have to say for this little trap I set for them...EGMichaels (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad we agree that it would not be wrong to classify Chirstianity as a religious grouping branching from Judaism, just like it wouldn't be wrong to show Jehovahs' Witnesses as a branching from Presbyterianism which in turned branched from Catholicism. This would locate Jehovah's Witnesses firmly within the Christian branch of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus: "JW are wholly within the Christian tradition".

How do you know? According to whom? That's how the Christian tradition self-identifies?

Alastair Haines (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels' comment ("Jehovah's Witnesses are not another name for the same thing (as Christians), but rather the same name (Christians) for another thing (Arians, semi-Arians, something else perhaps -- but not run of the mill [run of the mill = "orthodox"] Christians).") and Alastair's reply are both red herrings. We have established long ago that JWs are not orthodox Christians, and we are not (or should not) be interested in defining JWs based on their biased POV of other Christian religions. Arius, from whom Arians (which JWs are not) arose, was a (heretical) Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I know? By the consensus of the only kinds of source that is able to establish objective classifications of religous groupings and their traditions: secular scholars of religion. Whence the need to keep parading anti-JW POV sources? We know they exist. We also know that they cannot be used as reliable sources to anything other than their own viewpoints. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, and now the text acknowledges those viewpoints, we have achieved neutrality, an excellent response to L.R. from Alberta. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The aritcle Messianic Judaism states that "All denominations of Judaism, as well as national Jewish organizations reject Messianic Judaism being a form of Judaism". The situation is different for JWs, since only a minority of Christians dispute that JWs are a part of Christianity.

Furthermore, the basic premise that "denomination" means "another name for the same thing" is flat out wrong. It means "another name for a different thing (but maybe with some similarities)". There would be no need to name something differently if it were not different. The denomination (aka, name) in question is "Jehovah's Witnesses". The categorization of said denomination is "Christian". So we're not talking about JWs being part of "THE Christian denomination", we're talking about "The denomination named 'JWs'" and then specifying that it's Christian. See also, #BIA. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly which denominations of Christianity officially hold that Jehovah's Witnesses are a fellow denomination? And exactly which publication of Jehovah's Witnesses hold that other denominations are acceptable forms of worship in the same Jehovah's approved religion?

A "denomination of [blank]" involves the same thing in the [blank]. Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination of nontrinitarian Christianity, but not a denomination of [disambiguated] Christianity. As I said below, "nontrinitarian denomination of Christians" is a problem, while "denomination of nontrinitarian Christians" is not. There needs to be SOMETHING in the [blank] which is unambiguously shared. This really doesn't have to be that complicated.EGMichaels (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of denomination is incorrect in this context. See the dictionary definition at Merriam Webster. You seem to be using definition 2, which refers specifically to money. The definition that applies here is #4. See the article Christian denomination, particularly the first sentence. Brad 18:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm using definitions 3 and 4. Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination of nontrinitarian Christians. They are not a nontrinitarian denomination of Christians. And they are certainly not a denomination of [unmodified] Christians.EGMichaels (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But...they are. Calling them a 'nontrinitarian denomination of Christians' or 'Christian denomination of nontrinitarians' is exactly the same as calling them a 'denomination of nontrinitarian Christians'. I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "[for the statement 'denomination of (blank)'] there needs to be something in the (blank) which is unambiguously shared." Shared by whom? And what are the requirements for putting a word before 'denomination'? ...comments? ~BF izz 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk Archival

This page is getting way too long, and MiszaBot is nowhere to be found. I propose that we archive all sections above #Christian v Christian-based. In those sections, there is only one comment within the past 2 days; the rest is 4-5 days stale. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The bot seems to have trouble when the existing target archive page plus the length of the oldest current thread already exceeds the maximum size for the archive. I have manually incremented the target archive number.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We are at 458 kilobytes and counting. If the bot doesn't get to it tonight, then tomorrow I'll carry out manual archival as proposed unless anyone objects. ...comments? ~BF izz 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit

EGMichaels (talk · contribs) has once again changed [2] the lede from Christian denomination to Christian religion. As stated many times previously by several different people, Jehovah's Witnesses are not their own religion. They can be considered a sect of Christianity or a Christian denomination, but not an independent religion. Jehovah's Witnesses self-identify as Christian, they are commonly known as a part of larger Christianity (although not mainstream or Nicene Christianity), and all of the sources given in the article lump them in with other Christian denominations.

I'm not sure what the objection is to the term denomination, but it appears that EGMichaels is confused as to what that word means. Please take a look at a dictionary, and refer to the article Christian denomination for its definition given in the first sentence. Thanks. Brad 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confused with the term denomination, but have gone to great lengths to explain the precise nature of the problem. I'd have no problem with "sect", but I think other people would.

In any case, a "denomination" is a smaller classification than you are trying to present. Protestants and Catholics are not different denominations, but larger units of Western Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox are not different denominations of Christianity, but different branches of the great schism.

I'd have the same problem if you said that Presbyterians and United Methododists are different denominations of Catholicism. First, "Presyterians" are not a denomination. They are a larger unit. Second, although Presbyterians (of different denominations like Associate Reformed, PCA, etc) DO confess to one catholic and apostolic faith, they do not mean "catholic" as a denomination.

In the same way, Joehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be members of any branch of Christianity other than their own. They are not classifiable in either side of the great schism, do not adhere to either side of the reformation, and do not demarcate themselves as mainline or evangelical protestants. They are their own group, by mutual acknowledgement of themselves and Nicene Christians.

While I DO want to use the term "Christian" in the dictionary sense, let's not confuse it with the internal normative sense. Those are two different things.EGMichaels (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

EGM, I'm afraid I agree with Bradv here. If the JWs are being classified as "Christian" in a comparative religion sense, rather than us using "Christian" in the Oxford sense of the word, then we also need to use the terminology of classification for units within "religions". If we use the word "Christian" in the lead, then we have to use the word "denomination" (or "sect"). It is precisely because the JWs fit best into the basket of the "Christian religion" that they can be classified as a "Christian denomination" in studies of comparative religion (like Operation Mobilization).

Yes, "denomination" is being used in a technical sense that doesn't imply having mutually acknowledged peers. But that's what we get when we choose to use the name of a heading in a database rather than common usage. If we use the word "Christian" we are best off using the phrase "Christain denomination". Mr Fizz has a very clear grasp of this and has patiently explained it several times.

EGM, we have neutrality by making distinction from mainstream Christianity explicit in the text. We have responded to L.R. from Alberta. How about we put our energies into improving mainstream Christianity rather than quibbling over one final word? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity.

No one is suggesting that Jehovah's Witnesses are part of a different denomination, or that Protestantism is a denomination of Catholicism, or even that the PCA is a denomination of Catholicisim. Any identifiable religious body that is part of Christianity is a denomination, not a "religion". Brad 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, the problem is the unit they are denominating. I'd have less of a problem with "denomination of nontrinitarian Christians" than with "nontrinitarian denomination of Christians". We need to go from the smallest unit to the largest, rather than just wander about.EGMichaels (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "sect" as a neutral classification within the Church-Sect typology framework instead of denomination.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that too, but there are several problems with this word. The sect article claims this terminology is too perjorative. Secondly, none of the sources given in the article support this designation. Thirdly, the articles Christian denomination and List of Christian denominations both include Jehovah's Witnesses and other nontrinitarian groups as denominations within Christianity. In order to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles the word sect should be avoided (in fact, Sects of Christianity redirects to Christian denomination). Brad 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I updated #BIA to include the list. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with "sect" in the lede because Jehovah's Witnesses would not use that term for themselves. My tongue in cheek "heresy" suggestion notwithstanding, I really do want the lede to reflect ALL points of view, including Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses.

A Jehovah's Witness would have no problems with "nontrinitarian Christians" and most Christians wouldn't have a problem with it either. As I've said a number of times, when two groups share the same name but both don't agree the other is a member, the group most commonly associated with the term gets the unmodified use of the term, while the less commonly known group gets a modifier.

Thus:

Messianic Jews vs. Jews (correct)
Jews vs. Rabbinic Jews (incorrect)

In the first example, you KNOW who is being discussed. In the second example, you have no way to tell (without reading all the context) who is being discussed.

And:

Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Christians (correct)
Christians vs. Trinitarians (incorrect)

Please note that this is the case whenever you have two groups claim the same name -- you default for the better known group and modify the lesser known group.

So:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of nontrinitarian Christanity (correct)
Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian denomination of Christianity (less correct)
Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of Christianity (incorrect)

This is true even if Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely 100% correct. We are merely modifying the lesser known group in use of a term that is claimed by a better known group.EGMichaels (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, EGM's first example might be better expressed as

"Messianic Judaism contrasts with Rabbinic Judaism in that..." (although, admittedly, I'm not an authority on either).

The second example would be better expressed as

"Jehovah's Witnesses contrasts with Trinitarian (or "mainstream") Christianity in that...".

Consider the inferior wording, "Jehovah's Witnesses' Christianity contrasts with others in that...".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

While I suggest you disambiguate the lesser known group, in terms of THIS article which is ABOUT Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd be okay with some kind of disambiguation for both groups, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of nontrinitarian (i.e. disambiguated) Christians who disagree with mainstream (i.e. disambiguated) Christians" etc, etc. But you'd need to disambiguate the entire article (which might not be that big of a deal). My only real concern is that we not lump two mutually excluding groups in the same ambiguous grouping in a way neither of them would permit. That's not NPOV, but rather ANTI-ALL-POV.EGMichaels (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

EGM, the reason I separated 'trinitarian' from 'Christian' was to help further emphasize the gap between Witnesses and mainstream Christianity. The gap is emphasized. Anyone who reads the entire first sentence will see that. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair's position and further discussion

I'll keep my position simple. The IP-address who started this questioned Wikipedia's neutrality in asserting JWs are Christian.

I think the IP is correct. No secular source asserts that JWs are doctrinally Christian. They don't care, and they're not competent to judge.

What secular sources do is simply classify all groups claiming the New Testament as authority for their doctrines into one basket called "Christian". Our navigation bar is correct.

When JW sources call themselves "Christian", they do not mean they belong in the same basket as denominations also classified as "Christian" by scholars.

The word "Christian" is being used in two different ways. It is the JW usage that most readers are likely to be familiar with, indeed that usage is shared by people in all Christian denominations. Indeed, the other usage is probably only found in academic literature.

I hope that makes it easy. I don't care what words are or are not used. I think it would be easiest simply to find a definition that doesn't involve the word "Christian" ("Christian-based" still uses it, only hinting a negative rather than a positive). Alternatively, we disambiguate and neutralize the word explictly: "Jehovah's Witnesses is considered by secular scholars to be classified as Christian because it claims adherance to the doctrines of Christ as the JWs interpret the New Testament."

That approach looks like a disaster, but might be able to be tweaked. It attributes points of view to the sources of those points of view, without committing Wikipedia to anything.

The word "Christian" can most certainly be included in the definition, but there doesn't seem to have been much exploration of alternatives. Russell must have defined the group without reference to Christianity, why can't we use something like that? And why can't we use the JW web-site approach: "followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures"? Alastair Haines (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"nontrinitarian Christian" resolves all of the faux objections that you raise. The core of the problem is that you simply don't like associating the word Christian with JWs, because of your theological bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I might have a theological bias, and you might have an anti-Christian one Jeffro, but those things address editors not the issue at hand. Please make those accusations at my talk page, not here. We are nearing consensus and personal comments disguise that.

The points I raise above have all been demonstrated from sources. They are not my opinion, but the opinion of significant reliable sources. WP:NPOV says it is "non-negotiable" that such opinions be reflected in content, and explicitly acknowledged.

Please provide a source if you have an objection, rather than an assertion and an accusation. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We are no nearer to consensus than we were. All the other editors who have commented have accepted nontrinitarian Christian and you are lone voice fighting consensus. As Maunus suggested earlier, and as I noted in the present ArbCom, and subsequently noticed in the history of your previous ArbCom, you have a tendency to claim there is a greement when there actually is not. You cite Catholic doctrine intended for Catholics as a definition that must apply to JWs, but I have shown that the Catholic Church does not actually do this; you are inded asserting your own POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not nearing consensus and you're biases are so blatant that not mentioning them would be a crime towards wikipedias foundational principles. We have provided sources all along - that you choose to disregard them instead flaunt your irrelevant theological sophistry is not our fault.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rudeness doesn't silence the Oxford Dictionary, the Vatican, and a sourced example of a non-JW Christian point of view.

I've shown no bias, because I've not offered my opinion, I don't know enough about the JWs to have one. I am a Christian scholar so I know Christian sources. I happen to agree with them, but that's irrelevant.

Certain people here are insisting that Wikipedia can assert "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian" without breaching WP:NPoV.

I've demonstrated that's simply false. Instead of accepting that, or seeking compromise, personal comments are being made.

If consensus is not close, it is because of those who are insisting on making a statement that is not necessary.

It may also be because there is only one Christian defending the Christian point of view. Since there's no-one else presently doing that, it is my unfortunate responsibility. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is clearly visible from the fact that you are not also suggesting that "christian" be removed as a neutral descriptor from the article about the roman catholic church - there are equally many faiths that would contend that what the catholics belief is not christianity but paganism in disguise. The point then is not that one should not use descriptions that are possibly contentious but rather thatyou think that the viewpoint of one religion is more important than those of others, and that one religion has more of a right to define who is christian than another. If that is not bias then I don't know what is. As for rudeness I usually don't take it much to heart when kettles are telling me that I am the black pot. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair again claims that the Vatican says JWs are not Christians. The only source he's cited with reference to the Vatican says nothing about JWs being non-Christian, and instead discusses the issue of whether certain 'sects' should be called 'religions'. Conversely, I have provided specific information from the Catholic Encyclopedia which states that 1) Unitarians are Christians and 2) their definition of Christianity does not apply to "[heretical] non-Catholic Christian sects".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, without intending offense, though no doubt it will be taken, I recommend you reread the Vatican statement closely,

"Sects ... should not be too quickly identified with any religion in its proper sense."

The Cardinal believes Jehovah's Witnesses "should not be too quickly identified with" Christianity, because of their "confused understanding ... of the original [religion]".

This speaks decisively to our issue. Having found that source, it changed my mind and I had a stronger view on the subject of our current discussion. If we don't settle this matter here, it will be taken elsewhere, and others will read that Vatican statement. Before escalating things, though, I'll be inviting people from WikiProject Christianity to join us. I find it extraordinary that people felt they could claim "consensus" without the support of representatives of WikiProject Christianity. And I find it amazing that when a Christian theologian shows up, instead of welcoming access to the sources he might provide, I was treated extremely rudely.

All this high quality article needed for stability was input from competent contributors from WikiProject Christianity. But then, you don't think I'm competent, as you so often repeat. Funny how I don't back down and compromise on that original research, don't you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you are competent, very competent at wordgames especially. As for the rudeness with which you were received as I have hinted that a modest amount of introspection might lead you on to why that might have been. I for one had no quarrels with you untill I experienced your editing style first hand. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, you are hanging quite a lot of significance on a very vague phrase: "should not be too quickly identified with any religion in its proper sense." Too quickly? Is further consideration required before a determination? Or has he minced words about actually having already made his determination? Proper sense? Who knows? In any case, the cardinal is addressing Catholics on how they should approach interreligious dialogue, not providing a general definition of religions.

The other issue is that the Catholic POV is not the final word on who is or is not Christian. Indeed, Christians should recognise the authority of Jesus, and, according to Matthew 23:9 (NIV), Jesus, no less, said "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." That seems much more straightforward than interpretations of the Trinity, and yet Catholics everywhere call their local priest 'Father', not to mention the etymology of 'Pope'. The point is, there is a great degree of latitude in how Christians may interpret the scriptures, and it is not for one Christian religion to dictate interpretations to another. And indeed, the Catholic Encyclopedia rightly does not seek to classify other Christian religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is at this page, nothing wrong with my "style", and there isn't anywhere else, either Maunus.

What this page demonstrates is that your first post addressed to me was rude, and you've dug yourself deeper and deeper.

It's still not too late to pull out, I don't hold grudges. But your comments and my response only distract from the issue.

It is others who keep playing with words. Christianity is the religion that worships Christ.

Ultimately, all reliable sources agree with that. Usage associated with classifying diversity is tangential to the main issue here, and there is no disagreement about it. As an organization, JWs are classified as Christian, but both a "dissenting" and "unorthodox" one. (Your sources Maunus).

It is irrelevant to keep asserting that there is a usage that permits us to say "JWs is Christian".

What matters is that there is another point of view.

I have never argued that RC terminology should be used, only that we cannot say something contrary to it, without acknowledging its contrary opinion.

It is Jeffro who keeps arguing that the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Unitarianism is decisive for our usage, not I.

Jeffro, I can't understand a word you're saying about the Cardinal's clear statement that JWs cannot be "identified" with Christianity because of their "confused understanding" of the religion from which they originated. I presume you're still asserting the Vatican recognizes JWs as Christian. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Unitarianism doesn't tell us what the Vatican thinks about JWs. Please show me an explicit endorsement of the JWs as Christians from the Vatican, or any other non-JW Christian group. It won't prove your point, because we need all sources to agree. Even if you could show the RCC endorsed the JWs, do you really think other denominations accept the JWs? Where on earth did you get that idea? I've not seen any sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, you said "I'll keep my position simple." By creating the survey, I was trying to simplify the presentation of one's position by identifying the core questions that were being asked. Please take the survey. You too, Manus, if you would. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and what was that position Mr Fizz? The definition doesn't require the word "Christian".

I observe that your survey presents three options all using the word "Christian", which is precisely the word L.R. from Alberta thinks is "not entirely true".

With all due respect to L.R., he is technically mistaken. "Christian" is indeed admissible as the name of a category into which Operation Mobilisation and all sources (to my knowledge) place JWs in the context of comparative religion.

However, definition of the JWs doesn't require comparison outside the Christian relgious tradition, but within it, if it needs any comparison at all.

"Christian" has been associated with worship of Christ in ordinary language for 1,900 years (Pliny the Younger to Trajan: carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).[3]

L.R. from Alberta did, and many like him will, read our use of the word "Christian" in the ordinary sense it has had, unchanged for almost two thousand years. Those who are not Christian themselves will assume JWs worship Christ, like all other Christians. Adherants of 30,000 denominations who know nothing of the Witnesses will assume the same. Those who do know that JWs do not worship Christ will believe Wikipedia to be in error.

So, should we attempt to take L.R. from Alberta seriously, since his opinion reflects that of a large constituency of readers who might be surprised. Since he and others may also become of editors at Wikipedia, not only reader surprise, but editorial harmony encourage us to consider options like avoiding a word ambiguous enough to prompt controversy.

Should those attempts prove to be impossible, then we might consider ways of reworking things with the word "Christian".

But, since it is so easy to provide definitions without use of the word "Christian", it would be perverse to contribute to a survey that is based on the presumption that we do use the word.

If those of us here do not have the creativity to find such a definition, it would make sense to ask for help from WikiProject JWs and WikiProject Christianity. I'm happy to wait a bit before drawing others into the discussion, since we've yet to spend much time considering any proposals without the word "Christian". Alastair Haines (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand the survey. "Rate the following statements from 1 to 10 [based upon how much you agree]". Statement 1: "Wikipedia should describe JWs as Christian". So if you utterly, absolutely feel that 'Christian' should not be used, you would reply '1'. The other options weren't really trying to ask about 'Christian' so much as the accompanying words, 'denomination' and 'restorationist'.

Let's get down to the word Christ. Equivalent to Messiah, "the anointed one". To quote the Christ article: "Followers of Jesus became known as Christians because they believed that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah, prophesied about in the [Old Testament]". So the basic and classic meaning is not rooted in whom one worships, but rather, what one believes. The belief-in-Christ definition is supported by basically every dictionary ever. The worship-of-Christ definition, while it applies to most modern Christian denominations, is asserted by only few, and is a no true Scotsman fallacy. ...comments? ~BF izz 10:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd submit that a person could believe the historical Jesus of Nazarene was desribed in the Torah/New Testament as the Anointed/Messiah/Christ, but the person could still be of a different religion; my understanding is that many Agnostics, Deists, Scientologists, Buddhists, and even some Hindus and a few Muslims believe Jesus is the Anointed/Messiah/Christ in a somewhat "less than son-of-God" way but have no intention of becoming Christians. The key characteristic is an intention to follow Christ, which really means... a Christian is one who self-identifies as Christian. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

By all means use their self identification, but don't do it halfway. "a disambiguated Christian is one who self-identifies as a disambiguated Christian." These two groups definitely disambiguate from each other. Disambiguate in a neutral way, but disambiguate.EGMichaels (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

#Problem Solved! ...comments? ~BF izz 21:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no -- your "problem solution" isn't a complete solution so long as you are open to calling them a Christian denomination. They are a nontrinitarian Christian denomination. Keep the modifier with the contested term, and if you wish modify both groups, but your solution was incomplete and I would appreciate actually engaging in discussion rather than being flippant about it.EGMichaels (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A big red car is a car, and it is a big car, regardless of whether I retain the word red. If all other cars in the world were black, I still would not need to always specify that this car is red, regardless of how incredulous it might seem to the 'black car' populace. Similarly, JW is a nontrinitarian Christian denomination. Though nontrinitarian properly describes the manner in which they are (almost but not entirely) unique, they are still a type of Christian denomination and a type of denomination. As stated elsewhere, their self-identification is unimportant, because they are being described based on available sourced facts, not theological opinions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong analogy. This is a "big red three-wheeled car" instead of a "three-wheeled big red car". You put the most significant and unorthodox modifier with the word being modified.EGMichaels (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I ordered the words for what reads best in English. However, the analogy remains valid, because it specifically addresses the absense of the most unorthodox modifier, making its position ultimately redundant. If it is absolutely any kind of car, however unorthodox, it is still a car. The modifiers are included to help identify what makes this car different from other cars, but it remains a car.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I kept your sequence of words, and merely substituted one word that reflects the actual content of the article. It's not sufficient to have pretty prose -- it needs to reflect the content of the articleEGMichaels (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And that's perfectly fine. But your big red three-wheeled car is still some kind of car.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. But just calling it "a car" doesn't really reflect the vehicle. It's a "three-wheeled car." Jehovah's Witnesses, as Arians, are indeed "some kind of Christians" (specifically Arian Christians; less specifically nontrinitarian Christians; and even less specifically unorthodox Christians). But just calling them "Christians" misses the whole point of what they hold for themselves and for what others hold for them. This is a very specific group. I think that you were trying on the lede, and I think the sequence of words read very well, but I have a problem with some of the connotations involved. To anyone for whom "Christian" has a normative meaning, your lede contradicted itself. And while we shouldn't bow to one POV, we shouldn't ignore it either. The lede has to make sense to all POVs equally. And while a normative Christian COULD decipher your sentence, he would -- as you say -- have to read through to the end. But even then there would be the nagging contradiction of something being a "Christian denomination" that is incompatible with "mainstream Christianity." Even worse, Jehovah's Witnesses would equally be troubled if you called them just another denomination. Let's look at the lede...

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian religion with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from mainstream Christianity. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents... "

As I noted, the term "religion" is ubiquitous in the article and the word denomination does not appear in the main body at all. There's good reason for that -- two in fact: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses do not regard themselves as just another Christian denomination, and 2) Christian denominations do not regard them as just another denomination.

As a general rule of thumb, if I'm trying to convert you, I'm probably representing something different from what you already are. Thus Messianic Jews are not merely a Jewish denomination. They are Jewish, certainly (or some of them are). They use all the same formats and symbols, worship in synagogues, wear kippot and talisim, pray in Hebrew, etc. etc. etc. They walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and have six inch fangs by which they track down and eat lions in Africa.

In other words, you start with the significance of this particular subject. You give the reader a reason for this article to even exist. Jehovah's Witnesses are just another Christian denomination? Why read further?

Now your lede:

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian Christian denomination with nontrinitarian and restorationist beliefs that separate it from mainstream Christianity. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents... "

As I've noted, a "denomination" is a subset of a set. A denomination of Judaism represents Judaism. A denomination of currency represents legal tender. A denomination of Christianity represents Christianity. But in the second half of your sentence you removed them from the mainstream group without giving them any other group to belong to. You just leave them hanging there. It's like saying "this denomination of US currency is different from US currency." In other words, "this subset of the set is not part of the set." That just doesn't work. The only other term to use is the one used ubiquitously in the article: "religion." Well, they are a "Christian religion." They claim that. Others claim it. Using the term religion resolves the contradiction of "this subset of the set is not part of the set" inherent in the "denomination" wording.

My insistence on "denomination of nontrinitarian Christians" is so that you can give it a set to belong to, so it won't be orphaned by your removal of it from "mainstream Christianity." Or, "this subset of set A is not a part of set B -- although both A and B are part of superset X" -- translate "this denomination of nontrinitarian Christians is not a part of mainstream Christianity, although both are historically types of Christians."

In the end you and I are trying very hard to say the same thing, so I think this is resolvable. If I don't like your specific wording and you don't like mine -- but we're both trying to say the same thing -- then it's just a matter of tweaking.EGMichaels (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears you may have missed the point. I'm not at all suggesting that we call them 'just Christian', and the current lead doesn't do so. I'm saying that they are 'a type of Christian' and we supply the additional modifiers to show just what kind, incorporating the manner in which they are unorthodox. In 'removing' them from the mainstream group, we don't need to give them any other group beyond what we have already done - the current wording already identified them as restorationist and nontrinitarian, specifying the manner in which they are not mainstream Christians. (Your issue about colloquial use of the word religion is addressed elsewhere.) Imagine one dollar notes/bills were taken out of circulation (perhaps replaced with a dollar coin) - the one dollar notes/bills are now quite different to the other denominations of currency, yet they remain a denomination. In spite of their belief that they are somehow special, JWs are just another Christian denomination, albeit an unorthodox one - a biased POV does not trump a technical definition. I have stated elsewhere why the comparison with "Messianic Jews" is dissimilar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, my response to the survey is: "I have no opinion". I pass.

Regarding question 1, though, which is the one L.R. from Alberta is interested in, to me, it's ambiguous.

In the context of comparative religion, JWs are Christian. They are not Hindu. I think reliable sources of all kinds would vote 10. I think a lot of readers will not understand this usage, and people from Trinitarian backgrounds will object to it. The Trinitarians will be wrong, and Operation Mobilisation is the source to give them to settle their doubts (not the BBC, Kid's Almanac and the JWs).

However, regarding common usage of "JWs are Christian", many people won't have clear ideas, simply because they don't care much (until, perhaps, a JW knocks on their door and they check Wikipedia afterwards). Other people will have more or less clear ideas, people from Christian traditions having very clear ideas indeed, even to the point of thinking the word should not rightly be applied to other groups who call themselves Christian.

One thing almost everyone will know about the word "Christian", though, in it's common usage outside comparative religion is, that it is defined doctrinally by those who claim the name for themselves. Almost everyone knows that whatever the true doctrine might be, Christianity is not merely inherited, not simply a matter of practice, it also involves beliefs. Indeed, beliefs that are so central to the meaning of "Christian" to believers, that they do indeed dispute among themselves about whose beliefs entitle them to consider themselves to be "authentic" Christians.

What that means is even a Buddhist could say: "what constitutes a 'real' Christian depends on a point of view". Secular scholars can and do say exactly the same thing. Designations of who is or who is not Christian in a real, common usage sense are assertions of a PoV. Neutrality demands we don't make them.

So I contend that the Scotsman fallacy applies here in yet another way

Speaker B: Everyone worth listening to knows JWs are Christians.

Speaker P: But I'm the Pope and I know they are not.

Speaker B: Well, you're not someone worth listening to.

I'm not sure we're meaning "no true Scotsman" in the same sense. I mean it in what I believe to be it's usual sense: dismissing counter-examples by conveniently narrowing the scope of quantification. In which case, if counterexamples to "everyone knows 'Christian' means followers of Christ" are found, the Scotsman fallacy will become a temptation to people who don't want to surrender their universal. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Response refactored to #B Fizz common responses. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Arianism may be the solution here

I apologize for yet another thread, but I realized that I made a conceptual omission earlier that I would like to correct.

In an earlier thread I stated that "Messianic Judaism" is not classifiable as a "Jewish heresy" because this is actually a subset of "orthodox Christianity."

What I omitted was the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses really do align with a known theological group: Arians.

How about, "Jehovah's Witnesses is a modern form of Arian Christianity which emphasizes the imminent destruction of the present evil age."

Since there is a PRECISE theological category they fall into, we do not need to use loose terms like "denomination", but can link directly to their theological predecessors.

Further, there are MANY forms of "nontrinitarianism" (tri-theism, unitarianism, Arianism, modalism, etc.), and so the term is not precise enough to identify this group. However, Arianism is absolutely precise enough.

I don't think Jehovah's Witnesses would mind this category either, since it more directly identifies the teaching that they wish to "restore."

Thoughts?EGMichaels (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read sources that take exactly that approach. It would help to source it, especially from the Witness POV.

As you say, Arianism is a more specific form of nontrinitarianism.

In searching for sources Nicene Christianity would often be found in complementary distribution with Arianism.

I seem to recall sources that describe the difference between JWs and the rest in precisely this way. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs explicitly disclaim being Arians in The Watchtower of 1 September 1984. Though I'm unmoved by their self-identification, their article states: "Although Arius did not accept Athanasius’ theory that the holy spirit was of the same substance as the Father, he did consider the spirit to be a person." In contrast, JWs believe the holy spirit is an expression of God's power rather than an entity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, Jeffro. I've adjusted the lede to reflect the fact that it is only similar to Arianism.EGMichaels (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a very helpful source thanks Jeffro.

Unfortunately, it puts us the position of having to discard a top-notch secular source on the basis that he only expresses a point of view contrary to the religion he is describing. Although secular sources and Nicene Christian ones agree JWs are Arian, the JWs deny it. We could only use Arian if all three groups agreed. We could still state both POVs, but not in the first sentence, would we all agree?

"The radically millenarian Jehovah's Witnesses are avowed followers of Arius. Modern orthodoxy in all the established Churches, both in the East and in the West, accepts the Nicene ruling and is thus both dyophysite and anti-Arian"

—Sir Edmund Leach, "Melchisedech and the Emperor: Icons of Subversion and Orthodoxy", Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1972 (1972): 5–14.

Alastair Haines (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated above, it is not because JWs simply deny that they are (or claim not to be) Arian, but because they do not believe the Holy Spirit is a (spirit) person. Edmund Leach is wrong, as JWs are not "avowed followers of Arius".

The new lead has replaced a definition with a statement that JWs [are an unnamed thing] that seeks to restore [stuff]. It is not an improvement on the previous wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can fairly say that it is "similar to". If needed we can adjust even further to something like "Jehovah's Witnesses seek to restore a unique theology with some similarities to Arian Christianity". That way we have their claim to uniqueness and everyone else's tie in to Arianism in the same breath.EGMichaels (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, they are similar to Arians. But reading the opening sentence, it seems like... "[read]: Jehovah's Witnesses seek to restore... [pause] [think:] hmmm do they?... who are these Jehovah's Witnesses?"--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If others are happy with "similar to Arianism", I am also. By others, I mean especially JWs. If there are any self-identifying JW editors around, I think their opinions would have to carry a lot of weight here. That is, if we can get busy and help them source that opinion on reliable JW sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Already supplied JW source on Arianism above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not only nontrinitarianism (or 'thing similar to Arianism') that it is they believe they are restoring about first-century Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Most (all?) articles about religions (in fact, most articles about anything) start by saying "[article topic] is 'something'" but here you're going with "Jehovah's Witnesses 'does stuff'". It is not a suitable opening sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point on the "does stuff." I'm trying to translate unfamiliar terms like "restorationism" into more managable "restore [blank]". The problem is that there were so many specific terms in there already that a person couldn't make it through the first sentence without looking up four articles to figure out what the heck it was saying.EGMichaels (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, let him be Jeffro. There's no absolute rule. I usually prefer definitions with "is" too, but I'm not going to badger the poor chap about it.

I do agree though, that although theology is broad, doctrine is broader, including praxis. Perhaps EGM would consider substituting "doctrines" for "theology". Alastair Haines (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of "theology proper" (i.e. the doctrine of God) -- but there's no article to link it to.EGMichaels (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, so I'll check on the progress (hopefully) tomorrow. I won't revert the lead for now. It will be interesting to see how other editors respond to it though. I can tell you now that it won't have support from JWs, or for its tone as an opening sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Found Theology Proper and linked it.EGMichaels (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at how things stand, I agree with you EGM, that "theology" is better than "doctrines". You've captured the idea of "Restorationist" in more ordinary language, likewise "Millenarianism" is there. Personally, "Arian Christian" does just work for me, because I know something of the historical context of Arianism. I can't speak L.R., nor for readers and editors who might be more sensitive, and might have a point against it. I think Jeffro's point is the key one though, will JW's agree it represents their views adequately? We might finally be agreeing that the views of the groups refered to need to be taken into account. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely sensitive to the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses feel they came up with their theology independently, and if that's so they would merely be similar to Arianism instead of actual followers of Arius. It would be much the same as the first stage of Dispensationalist soteriology when compared to Arminianism. Although the "eternal security" aspect of Calvinism is retained, the process of salvation itself is accomplished with almost Pelagian ease. That is, you have a choice UNTIL you are saved by not after. That being the case, Dispensationalists are not strictly speaking Arminian or Pelgagian (certainly not when it comes to eternal security), but they do have similarities. Sometimes that's the best you can do. Orthodox Christian theologians would be rather uniform in classifying the JW conception of the Godhead in an Arian category, and would do so even if they granted that the two systems (Russell and Arius) were derived independently.

I think "similar to" retains the Jehovah's Witness independence with some intelligible associations for orthodox Christians and neutral bystanders.EGMichaels (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources please. In order to mention Arianism we would need to have sources explicitly comparing JW to Arians and we would have to establish a consensus ythat such a viewpoint is significantly notable to deserve a place in the article (and then whether it deserves a place in the lead). You are being very creative in trying to sneak in the "JW are not christians" POV, but as long as there are objective sources for "is christian" and none for "similar to arianism" and only biased catholic POV sources for "is not christian" wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:OR leaves us no choice about which wording to include.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I included one source, and could supply more. Exactly how many would you like? Also, the "creativity" is not to make them nonChristian, but rather to find a way to shoehorn the word "Christian" in the lead without creating a theological oxymoron. Yes, you are interested in non-expert (i.e. secular) sources that don't differentiate between orthodox and heretical "Christians", but we need to make our articles agree with sources that are actually expert in the subject matter itself -- in this case theologians. Even the Arianism article mentions Jehovah's Witnesses, so I'm not sure what you are looking for.EGMichaels (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am interested in neutral expert (that is secular academic) sources, not musings by different theologians about exactly which kind of heresy Jehovah's witnesses represent. Argue your point, create consensus, then insert the consensus version. We are now at the D in a BRD cycle. Per WP:LEAD a comparison of Jehovah's Witnesses to Arianism does not belong in the lead unless we decide that it is worth exploring in the body of the article. I for one would argue against such a comparison since Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim any affinities with Arians, but rather claim separate origins. Russell also was not an Arian but sprang from a protestant background. Comparing with Arianism obscures more than it explains since it focuses on only one point of theology but disregard all the others - we might as well compar tem to Joachimites since they are also Millenarians. We need to describe what is characteristic for JW's not by comparing them to others or by adopting other religions descriptions of them. We should use the common secular characterization found in works by scholars of religion and simply call them restorationists, millenialsists, non-trinitarians AND Christians.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The comparison with arianism is completely valid, but the proposed lede, as Jeffro has noted, is much weaker prose. It has the same words, but loses the strength they used to possess. After the first sentence, there's no word to tell us if Jehovah's Witnesses is a facebook group, a botnet, someone's college thesis, or a t-shirt company. [fun game: insert "is a <one of the above terms> that" into the lede right after "Jehovah's Witnesses"]. There should be a concrete 'is a [organization/denomination/religion]' to solidify the concept of what it is.

The proposed sentence isn't bad, but I feel the other ones are so much better. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be valid if it could be sourced to sources that were not trying to expose Jehovah's Witnesses as heretics.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, Paul was a heretic. Jesus was probably a heretic. Moses may have been a heretic. Abraham certainly was a heretic. A "heretic" is merely someone who creates something different from the mainstream group he grew up in, and tried to change it from the inside, rather than make a clean break to a pre-existing religion (in which case he would merely be an apostate). These are neutral terms which sometimes have negative connotations among non-specialists. As for "exposing" them for heretics, I would think that they are quite PROUD to not be a part of the satanic Christendom which Jehovah will soon destroy. Their "heresy" is their main selling point.

Raymond Franz could similarly be considered a "heretic" from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Certainly to mainstream Christians that would be a good thing. "Heretic" merely indicates a person claiming the name of a mainstream group while not holding teachings within the boundaries of that group.

While I'm sensitive to avoid the term in the actual wording of the article, you can't eliminate sources which merely recognize this simple fact. Yes, they are "heretics", but that doesn't make them "wrong." If the Trinity is a false Christian teaching, then EVERYONE should become a heretic, and that would be a very good thing indeed.EGMichaels (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see "heretic" doesn't have a pejorative meaning, then why don't we begin the lead with "Jehovah's Witnesses is a dangerous heretical cult working to subvert True Christianity, as valiantly defended by his Holyness the Roman Catholic Pope, Heir of St. Peter"....·Maunus·ƛ· 05:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Avoid#Religion re 'heretic'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arianism Sources

Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Ron Rhodes, p. 74 "their [Jehovah's Witnesses] Arian view of the son" and 431 "their [Jehovah's Witnesses] Arian theology". (admittedly a popular book, but an example of what can be found at the top of an Amazon search)
Christian Theology, Millard Erickson, page 28: "In attempting to evaluate the implications of the Jehovah's Witnesses view of the person of Christ, one might examine the view taught by Arius in the fourth century and see where it actually led in that case." (a better source, and an example of what can be found with slightly more searching)

Not sure how many we need here. I could certainly go on, but do I really need to? Surely we can agree that there are similarities, and I know of no other article for a historic doctrinal group to link their view to on this site.EGMichaels (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ron Rhodes is not an admissible source - he is an advocate against Jehovah's Witnesses associated with the American Anti-Cult Movement and cannot be used to give anything remotely resembling a neutral opinion about them. That would be like letting Luther describe Catholic theology.

I know less about Millard Erickson, but as he is a Baptist theologian he also cannot be used as a a source of an objective definition. My suspicion was confirmed like Ron Rhodes he has published partisan books with titles such as "Refuting the Watchtower". That you would present such obviously partisan sources and suggest that they might be useful in defining the witnesses is amazing and frightening at the same time. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, I merely showed the first source found on Amazon and told you so. I also stated it was a popular work instead of a scholarly one. You can pretend to be frightened, but I presented the caveats when I threw that out there. Erickson, on the other hand, is a scholar and noted systematic theologian. The fact that you find an expert in Christian theology (and theological history) to be inadmissible shows that your bias is bent toward burying notable and reliable points of view.

My goal here is to include all notable and reliable points of view, and to fairly express them. Those points of view include secular sources who are not experts (i.e. not reliable), but notable. But they cannot exclude reliable points of view which represent Jehovah's Witness views (i.e. the Watchtower's own publications) as well as noted scholars of Christian theology (e.g. Erickson).

Again, ALL notable and reliable points of view should be fairly represented: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses, 2) Christians, 3) secular sources. The lede should be worded in such a way that contradicts NONE of these sources.

And I'm glad you freely admitted your bias against experts in theology, since that will save me time otherwise wasted reproducing the numerous sources that are out there.

Finally, the popular POV is certainly a notable one. There are numerous books by the Watchtower which hold Christianity ("Christendom") to be a Satanic apostasy. This is a notable view and must be included. There are numerous books written by people such as Rhodes to refute them. Again, this is a notable view and must be included. We have direct statements from both sides that neither regards the other as a peer, and scholars holding Jehovah's Witnesses to be modern Arians.

These are simple designations, but essential ones to demonstrate that this group does not and cannot regard itself or be regarded by others as merely a "Christian denomination." They are not. They say they are not. They insist upon it, and will knock on your door to verify it if you ask them to.EGMichaels (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am biased against using sources that are clearly biased against Jehovah's Witnesses to provide objective definitions of them. Everybody who has understood wikipedia's policies should have that bias. You may find Erickson to be a wonderful theologian, but having published advocacy against Jehovah's Witnesses he is simply not a neutral source. Also you say "popular" sources, they are not popular they are advocacy sources and express a partisan point of view that is not the popular viewpoint but the viewpoint of the particular group they represent. Just like the Pope's view point is not "popular" merely because he is the head of a large religion - the Popes viewpoint is the Catholic viewpoint and would obviously be biased against JW. Your logic would remove "democrat" as a definition of Barack Obama because a notable and vocal viewpoint is that he is in fact a Marxist. Please, please, please read the policies about Neutrality and Reliable sources and what partisan sources can be used to and what peerreviewed academic sources should be used to. There is a huge difference.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses INSIST they are incompatibly different from Satanic Christendom, but you want to tell them otherwise.
Satanic Christendom (i.e. Christians) INSIST they are incompatibly different from Jehovah's Witnesses, but you want to tell them otherwise.
I even quoted Webster's Dictionary regarding Arianism, but you were unmoved.

I do agree that we disagree about neutrality. To me, neutrality means that you accept people's self definitions, note when they clash, word ledes in a way that don't violate those mandates, and call it a day.

You, on the other hand, want to use the dictionary for "Christian," ignore it for "Arian," ignore distinctions BOTH groups demand, and claim neutrality. You cannot be neutral to all views by contradictiong most of them.EGMichaels (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The current lead specifically indicates that JWs are different from mainstream Christianity. (The specific POV that mainstream Christianity is Satanic is of course irrelevant in a neutral article.)
The current lead specifically indicates that mainstream Christians are different from JWs.
JWs do not believe the holy spirit to be an entity, which is incompatible with sourced definitions of Arius' specific teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Awake!, ©Watch Tower, January 8, 1973, page 19, "As we note what history has to say about the political activities of the Trinitarians and of the Arians, we cannot help but be impressed with how accurately both Jesus and his apostles foretold what would happen to the Christian congregation. ...Paul foretold these events: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness.” Included among those packs of wolves were both Trinitarians and Arians, the former being the fiercer of the two!"
The Watchtower, September 1, 1984, page 25,28, "Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that they are not Trinitarians does not make them Arians. ...Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him “the name that is above every other name.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Far from being modern-day Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the Bible says."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While there are similarities to Arianism (even well described in reliable sources!), there are also differences. So I don't see what makes "similar to Arianism" any better than "nontrinitarian", in terms of vague/specificness. Plus, the average reader is more likely to recognize the term 'trinity' (and, consequentially, 'nontrinitarian'. see #Problem Solved!) than he is 'Arian'. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz common responses

I find myself coming back to the same basic arguments. Please do not modify each subsection, but rather, discuss in the comments section if you wish.

EDE

The Every Dictionary Ever response, may also be referred to as the TSF response. Refactored from above.

A tongue-in-cheek not-quite no true Scotsman fallacy (TSF):

Speaker B: Every dictionary ever defines Christians to include JWs

Speaker P: I'm the Pope and I don't.

Speaker B: Well, you are not a dictionary.

Now, the actual TSF...

Speaker P: All Christians worship Jesus

Speaker B: JWs are Christians, but they don't worship Jesus

Speaker P: All true Christians worship Jesus.

Conclusion

According to Speaker P's biased opinion of what constitutes a true Christian, he is correct. According to every dictionary definition ever, he has committed a TSF. ...comments? ~BF izz 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem Solved!

The Problem Solved! response. Many times the objection is raised that "Calling JWs Christian is POV because they deny mainstream Christianity and vice-versa". While the EDE response suits this well, there is a further problem with the logic. We've already solved that problem. We simply need to include, in their plainness, the following adjectives:

With those two adjectives up our sleeve, we have every right to call JWs a Christian denomination.

Objection: "but they don't self-identify as one among peers of other Christian denominations, and are not so considered by other Christian denominations!" Solution: Restorationist

Objection: "but they don't worship Jesus / believe the same things about Jesus as mainstream Christianity!" Solution: Trinitarian

Any reader familiar with the term "Christian" has probably also heard the word "trinity". Any basic level of education would tell said reader that "trinity" has something to do with God. So when basically anyone sees "nontrinitarian", it should be immediately obvious that JWs have special views about God. Problem(s) solved! ...comments? ~BF izz 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you are missing comments elsewhere, I'll repeat it here. "Nontrinitarian" SOMEWHERE in the article doesn't solve the term "Christian." They are "nontrinitarian Christians." Keep the modifier with the contested term -- at all times -- and THEN the problem is "solved."EGMichaels (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In general terms, it is unnecessarily repetitious to explicitly state nontrinitarian every single time the word Christian might occur in the article once such has been stated at the outset. Additionally, and more importantly, there are currently no instances of Christian elsewhere in the article in a sense that requires this disambiguation, as it is only used elsewhere to refer to a) what JWs believe, or b) other Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I did a quick search and you are quite right. I also discovered that the religion is CALLED a "religion" throughout the body of the article and never once called "denomination". Note this line under #Separateness: "They believe that only their religion represents true Christianity". It appears that I accidentally stumbled upon a term "religion" which DOES reflect the entire body of the article, while "denomination" does not. Your prompting about usage in the body of the article was very helpful.EGMichaels (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BIA

The because it applies argument. The term Christian denomination applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Read it, and see for yourself. They're even on the List of Christian denominations.

The objection is sometimes raised that "Christian" is a meaningless term, or a term that is too broad. But when used in conjuction with other adjetives (see #Problem Solved!), it just works. The use of the term "Christian denomination" as a categorization certainly applies. And, imho, it is essential to accurately describing the JWs. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on common responses

If you have comments about these arguments, leave them here. I reserve the right to add to this list, or modify the arguments, at any time. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fizz, you have a few fallacies here.

First, your "EDE" argument fails on the fact that you ignore specific dictionary terms in factor of terms so generic that they are nearly meaningless.

However, there's a worse problem, and that simply has to do with collaboration. I've been trying very hard to get "Christian" in there in a way that's acceptable to EVERYONE. I want Christian in there for several reasons.

"Nontrinitarian" is basically meaningless without "Christian" since basically everyone on the planet is "nontrinitarian" EXCEPT "Christians."
Historically Arianism was a Christian movement until Nicea more specifically defined mainstream Christianity in such a way that excluded them.
Jehovah's Witnesses self identify as Christians.

However, you can't just throw words in there in ways that none of the affected groups use them. Jehovah's Witnesses insist that they are not just some "Christian denomination" and "Christian denominations" wholeheartedly agree with them.

We aren't talking about a dictionary. We are talking about people -- real people with real views. While we must remain neutral, we can't create some kind of pleasant fantasy either.

Jehovah's Witnesses have labored, suffered, and were even martyred in Nazi camps precisely because of their insistence that "Christian denominations" were wrong. You do them a disservice, and as a Jew who's people also suffered and died in those camps for precisely the same problem (i.e. not wanting to be lumped in with "Christian denominations") I have to tell you that I am very sympathetic to their desire to maintain their distinctions.

Yes, we MUST use the term "Christian" in the lede, but no we must NOT use the combination "Christian denominations." It robs mainstream Christianity of its self definition, it robs Jehovah's Witnesses of a distinction they have died to defend, and it robs Wikipedia of encyclopedic usefulness.

Please stop imagining bias (and I'll try to do the same), and work WITH me here to make a lede that's factual, rational, intelligible, and relatively non-controversial.EGMichaels (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, see the 'restorationist' part of #Problem Solved! Second of all, in response to "you can't just throw words in there in ways that none of the affected groups use them." Yes, we can. Wiktionary does it. So can we. Others have also pointed out how JWs acknowledge statements by outside sources calling them a "Christian denomination". I really don't see any controversy in this. People [read: Reliable Sources] aren't as opposed to calling JWs Christian as ya'll are making it sound like they are. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, your argument against 'denomination' flies in the face of the definitions presented both at Christian denomination and Religious denomination. Not to mention, every dictionary ever. You're pulling implications from the term that are POV and unobjective. I'm not trying to fight against you, but I'm tired of trying to satisfy demands that are satisfied. ...comments? ~BF izz 21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite my manifest support of the phrase 'Christian denomination', my newly edited wording replaces it with "religion", which seems to maintain the flow and style of the sentence just as "denomination" would. ...comments? ~BF izz 22:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr Fizz, you need to modify the first section a little. As I trust my additions below will illustrate.

Speaker B: Every dictionary ever defines Christians to include JWs

Speaker P: I'm the Pope and I don't.

Speaker B: Well, you are not a dictionary.

Speaker D: I'm the Vatican dictionary and I don't.

Now, the actual TSF...

Speaker P: All Christians worship Jesus

Speaker B: JWs are Christians, but they don't worship Jesus

Speaker P: All true Christians worship Jesus.

Speaker Athanasius: JWs never fitted my definition of Christian in the first place. Speaker B, you're proposing a new definition, not showing any exceptions within mine.

Conclusion: According to Speaker P's biased opinion of what constitutes a true Christian, he is correct. According to every dictionary definition ever (except Vatican ones), he has committed a TSF. (TSF: Vatican dictionaries are not real dictionaries.); And, according to B's biased opinion of what constitutes a true Christian, he is correct. According only to Athenasius, the Pope and their dictionaries, he is committing no logical error, he's simply offering a new and different point of view.

Alastair Haines (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Need I mention that which Jeffro has said several times? The Catholic Encyclopedia (aka the 'vatican dictionary'?) defines Christianity to include JWs. What I should probably change then, is my example's identity of Speaker P. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Need I repeat that a 1917 article on Unitarianism is the basis of original research, not a source.

On the other hand, we have a recent statement from a cardinal involved in interfaith dialogue, published at the Vatican website, excluding the JWs from the Christian religion.

Let's add:

"When a Catholic becomes a Jehovah's Witness ... the Catholic's total faith and beliefs are utterly destroyed and replaced by a series of so-called 'truths,' many of which are not even Christian."

— Louise D'Angelo, "The Catholic Answer to the Jehovah's Witnesses: A Challenge Accepted", (Franciscan University Press, 1994).

But we do have a dictionary: Davis, A Catholic dictionary of theology]: a work projected with the approval of the Catholic Hierarchy of England and Wales, (Nelson, 1962–1971). Alastair Haines (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, Alastair claims that the Catholic Encyclopedia, which specifically declares the existence of Unitarian Christians (including, explicitly, the general sense of Unitarian), is "original research". He then counters (poorly) with his own synthesis of a cardinal's words to Catholics about whether Catholics should view sects as religions in the context of inter-religious dialogue, where he claims the cardinal is actually stating that JWs are not Christian. He then presents an opinion of some Catholic guy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine Jeffro. You don't think the Cardinal says what I think he says and I don't think the 1917 CE says what you think it says. At least the Cardinal uses the name Jehovah's Witnesses. Do I understand you correctly, you think I can't find a Catholic source that denies JWs are Christian? How about a friendly challenge, you find a second Catholic source saying "JWs are Christian" and I find a fifth that says they aren't. Last one back is a rotten egg. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the cardinal doesn't say what you think he does. You've decided to twist the cardinal's vague statement (about how Catholics should view sects in the context of interreligious dialogue) into a declaration about JWs, just as you twisted the words of "L. R. Alberta" into something entirely unstated. (And even in that context, the cardinal merely seems cautious about making such a determination ["should not be too quickly identified"]) In contrast, the Catholic Encyclopedia directly states that there are Unitarian Christians (including, specifically, Unitarian "in the general sense"). You can dig up all the opinions of individual Catholics (or members of other denominations) that you like, but if 1) they don't specify why JWs are not 'real' Christians, or 2) their supposed reasons conflict with available facts, then they're just opinions. Just like JWs have their own opinion that all the other Christian denominations aren't 'really' Christian. But go gather your sources if you must.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro -- I'm about halfway between you and Alastair here, I think. "Christianity" has several different "religions" claiming the name. Granted, the demarcation of "religion" is somewhat of a moving target. During the reformation both Protestants and Roman Catholics claimed the name "catholic" (and both continued reciting it as part of the Nicene creed), but they certainly considered each other at that time as different "religions" and not merely different "denominations."

And even today "Catholic" and "Protestant" are not different denominations of Christianity, but rather different branches of Western Christianity. A "denomination" would be something like "Roman Catholic" and "Southern Baptist."

I do want to be clear, again, that I am not trying to be prejudicial against Jehovah's Witnesses or prescriptive about what a Christian should be. Rather, I'm trying to untangle some word problems that we have. Part of the problem is just religion itself. I keep trying to swear off editing on religious pages and keep falling off the wagon. In any case, a "denomination" is just above the "congregation" level in my table below, rather than representative of a branch, or a schism, or a religion. Although "denomination" COULD be used differently than the way I expressed it on the table, I tried to reflect the common way people tend to use that term.EGMichaels (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, Mr Fizz, the thrust of your first argument is not really to do with Scotsmen, but dictionaries. Really you're arguing that dictionaries trump self-identification, and sometimes indeed they do. Not in this case, imo, but I'll get to that.

Your second argument is very cute, it's actually a genuine Scotsman, but a valid one in many cases.

B) All modern Christian denominations descend from Nicea (Bart Ehrman)

C) We're a Christian denomination and we don't descend from Nicea

B) All modern Christian denominations except restorationist or nontrinitarian denominations

Yet again, B is changing the definition, rather than being illogical.

Your final argument makes the others work, imo. "Christian denomination" is a phrase that refers to descent from the NT. JWs fit. The modifiers place them in particular subcategories of the same definition.

But the issue L.R. raised is an issue of common usage. In other words, it's a totally different kind of issue. It's an issue of reader surprise.

The Oxford describes L.R.'s understanding exactly: Christian = "follower of doctrines of Christ". L.R. does not register that a formal classification is being used, so "Christian" has a different sense in "Christian denomination". "Restorationist" and "millenarian" are too arcane for him to recognize that any distinction is being made from the Christianity he knows.

"Nontrinitarian" really helps (as you keep pointing out), coupled with some explicit indication of due weight, L.R. and those like him might not be surprised. I'm not sure. I'm happy to try it and see. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

the thrust of your first argument is not really to do with Scotsmen, but dictionaries. Correct. Its purpose is to set the stage for the second "cute" argument. As for common usage, my implied statement, which I should have made explicit, is that we should trust dictionaries to define common usage of words, since that's what they do. The usage by L.R. is uncommon. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanity Check disambiguation

Okay, I think I have the answers I need to untangle this.

Here is a cladistic heirarchy (or an attempt at one). I'm not providing this in a prescriptive way, but rather a descriptive way to disambiguate where I think everyone is coming from:

Theism (general)	Theism (proper)	Faith	Religion	Orientation	Category	Communion	Association	Denomination	Congregation
Monotheism	Unitarian	Judaism (dictionary)	Judaism (normative Rabbinic)	Judaism (normative Rabbinic)	Judaism (normative Rabbinic)	Orthodox	Hassidic	Chabad	Beit Menachem
Monotheism	Trinitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (normative Nicene)	Western	Protestant	Evangelical	Baptist	Southern Baptist	Maple Grove Baptist Church
Monotheism	Trinitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (normative Nicene)	Eastern	Orthodox	Orthodox	Orthodox	Russian	Holy Cross Monastery
Monotheism	Trinitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (normative Nicene)	Western	Catholic	Catholic	Catholic	Roman	St. Mary's Catholic Church
Monotheism	Modalistic	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (modalistic)	Oneness Petecostal	Oneness Petecostal	Oneness Petecostal	Oneness Petecostal	Oneness Petecostal	Park Street United Pentecostal Church
Monotheism	Trinitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (normative Nicene)	Western	Protestant	Evangelical	Messianic	Messianic	Beit Yeshua Synagogue
Monotheism (note, Metzger's charge of polytheism does not apply to their honorific use of "god" in John 1:1)	Unitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (Arian)	Jehovah's Witness	Jehovah's Witness	Jehovah's Witness	Jehovah's Witness	Jehovah's Witness	Kingdom Hall (down the block)
Monotheism	Trinitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (normative Nicene)	Western	Protestant	Mainline	Methodist	United Methodist	Barnwell United Methodist Church
Monotheism	Unitarian	Judaism (dictionary)	Judaism (normative Rabbinic)	Judaism (normative Rabbinic)	Judaism (normative Rabbinic)	Reform	Reform	Reform	Sands Point Synagogue

All this is rather loose, of course, and open to interpretation. In any case, I think that the differences we are having has to do with normative internal boundaries and external classifications of "religion". Certainly the dictionary is a useful place to start, but if we stop there we won't be writing an encyclopedia, now will we?

Here are some of the classification issues we are having:

Alastair (and myself) place the type of theism you have as a top category. That is, a Trinitarian, a Unitarian, and a Modalist could all call themselves "Christian" but they actually have a different deity.
Maunus and Jeffro place the type of theism you have as a sub category to the dictionary definition.

While I'm fully willing to grant Maunus and Jeffro their classification system on the generic term level, I do have a problem classifying someone as a DENOMINATION of a group that 1) they do not claim and 2) who does not claim them.

Can we simply drop the denomination term out of the lede? While Baptists and Eastern Orthodoxy are both "orthodox", Baptists are NOT a "denomination" of Eastern Orthodoxy. While we disagree about whether an undifferentiated "Christian" refers to the (external) dictionary term or the (internal) normative term, surely we can agree that external and internal classifications do not translate well into "denominations."

Again, let's by all means call them some kind of "Christian" as per their own claim to the term and the dictionary use, but "denomination" is a level much further down the cladistics than we really should go.

Arians and Trinitarians are not different "denominations" of Christianity but much further apart as different "theisms" (proper).EGMichaels (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

EGM this is a very nice piece of work, and it does explain difference of opinion in prior discussion. It could form the basis of later revisions to the lead. However, I really don't think there's enough common ground or good vibes for us to work it all through. Besides, perhaps some of us need a break, and we should leave the text for more reader feedback.

I disagree about one thing, though. The Oxford hands the meaning of "Christian" over to scholars of biblical literature.

Christian one who believes or professes the doctrines and precepts of Christ and his apostles [i.e. NT-believers]

The Oxford provides an objective standard by which Christianity can be "measured": adherence to the text of the NT.

The science of that is now explicitly reflected in the neutrality of the current lead.

There is still room for reader surprise, imo, but only readers can tell us about how surprised they are.

Can we leave it be for a while? Alastair Haines (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. There probably needs to be a religious categorization guideline that's fair to everyone -- but that's beyond the scope of this article and affects a number of others equally.

Again, any such guideline should be fair to EVERYONE, but not by "fairly" ignoring them.EGMichaels (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you've (deliberately?) fallen for the self-identification trap. It appears that you've also (deliberately?) included only Judaic unitarians for comparison with JWs. What about Christadelphians? What about Iglesia ni Cristo? What about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Your table is not an honest representation. In actuality, the identification of JWs is more like:

Theism (general)	Theism (proper)	Faith	Religion	Orientation	Category	Communion	Association	Denomination	Congregation
Monotheism	Unitarian	Christianity (dictionary)	Christianity (nontrinitarian) not Arianism	Western	Protestant	Adventist	Bible Students	Jehovah's Witnesses	Kingdom Hall

--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

JWs most certainly fit the definition above of "believes or professes the doctrines and precepts of Christ and his apostles". Like all the other Christian denominations, JWs believe and profess the doctrines and precepts of Christ and his apostles". Just like all the other Christian groups who have wildly divergent beliefs about many other interpretations of scripture, JWs also have fundamentally different interpretations of scripture about the Trinity. But all of their beliefs are based on the Bible, explicitly including the New Testament.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Over-citing in the lead

"The first 1 or 2 citations supporting a given point are informative; extra citations after that begin to be argumentative. Keep in mind that the purpose of a citation is to guide the reader to external sources where the reader can verify the idea presented, not to prove to other editors the strength of the idea." -- WP:FACTS

The number of citations in the lead section is getting to be positively absurd. There is no reason why we need 3 or 4 citations per sentence (or per word in some cases). It seems that the proliferation of citations has become something of an arms race between supporters of the church and critics of the church, as almost every phrase of the lead is followed by an official church publication citation and then a citation from a critic of the church. Most of these "dualing citations" could be replaced by a single neutral source (which would be more useful to the reader anyway). We should be using citations to augment the information, not to win arguments. Let's keep the arguments on the Talk page. Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be helped. The current lede contains contested material, and citations are the only solution (other than moving contested material to the body).EGMichaels (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need 4 citations to verify a statement. If there is a dispute about a statement, discuss the relevant sources on the Talk page and then choose 1 or 2 sources (preferably the least controversial ones) to cite in the lead. The lead should not be a venue for the argument, but rather the end result. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaldari -- the lede shouldn't have ANYTHING controversial. It shouldn't need ANY citations. It merely identifies those aspects of the article that all POVs agree on. Unfortunately, this lede does not. If you remove citations from the lede, it will end up disappearing in favor of a NPOV lede.EGMichaels (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels, where do you get your opinion that the lead should not contain anything controversial? Here are a few points from WP:Lead:

The lead should ... define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.
The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more.
The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. - (It doesn't say not to talk about anything controversial.)
Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly informed EGM that his ideas about what a lead should not contain are not in line with policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Maunus, and I've "informed" you that your ideas are not in line with policy. Neither of us is unconcerned with policy. We merely disagree. Here, for instance, we disagree about what constitutes contested material.

It is contested material that Messianic Jews are Christian (Messianics sometimes deny it). It is contested material that Messianic Judaism is a kind of Judaism (mainstream Jews deny it). One cannot therefore say that Messinic Jews are Christians OR Jewish in the first sentence. One CAN, however, say that they combine elements of Judaism and Christianity into a single faith. All parties, Christian, Jewish, and Messianic agree to this. My preferred lede to that article was simply: "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that combines elements of Christianity and Judaism in a single faith." I couldn't get perfection, but I got as close as I could.

NOTING a controversy is another matter. As Jeffro quoted, while we cannot put one side of the contest over the other in the lede, we SHOULD note that there is some kind of contest (i.e. controversy) going on. For instance, "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination which holds that the only true Christian worship must use God's divine Name, 'Jehovah.'" Nothing in there is contested by any party: secular, Christian, or Jehovah's Witness. If you wanted to cram a controversy in there, you could have a second or third sentence which had something about Jehovah's Witnesses and mainstream Christians having a controversy about the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Again, you cite the controversy in a non-controversial way.

It would NOT be okay to say they were a cult in the lede, or that they were the only true faith either. You COULD, on the other hand, state that they regard themselves as the only true Christians and some Christian denominations regard them as a semi-Arian cult, while secular references regard them simply as a restorationist Christian denomination.

In other words, it is not contested material to note that a controversy exists, but it is contested material to use pronouncements in the lede that is not shared by all parties. All parties agree that there is a disagreement about the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Not all parties agree about who is right. All parties agree that there is a disagreement about being in the same [true of false] faith with other Christian denominations. Not all parties agree about who is right. This lede, which crams only a secular definition in the lede, forcing reader surprise, must stay propped up with citations. The citations are merely a symptom of contested material in the lede. Don't like the citations? Simple, move the contested parts further down into the article. Want to keep the contested parts? Simple, keep the citations so people can figure out what the heck you are talking about.EGMichaels (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The current wording clearly indicates the contrast that makes this discussion redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The current wording calls them a Christian denomination. You know what you mean, and I know what you mean. But surely you do agree that 1) not everyone will immediately know what you mean (hence citations) and 2) many Christian denominations will deny that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian denomination, and 3) Jehovah's Witnesses will deny that there are any other Christians for them to denominate. The current wording needs the citations.EGMichaels (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The citations should indeed remain. Your claim that the lead should not need citations is incorrect. 1) Even without citations, the contrast presented in the first sentence is fairly plain. 2) Let's wait and see if legitimate complaints (as opposed to vandalism) are raised regarding the clear contrast in the current wording. 3) We already have the support of a ~~(pro-)JW editor~~ 'an editor who is "likely as or more familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses"' for calling JWs a "Christian denomination"; if other JW editors object, we can re-address the matter if/when it occurs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's two votes for the citations remaining. Hopefully the duct tape will keep the holes patched in the lede canoe.EGMichaels (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the rest of your note -- we disagree. That doesn't not automatically make me "incorrect." The lede should not need citations, but if you do have a lede that contains contested information, or which uses a word with contested meanings (such as Christian -- Jehovah's Witnesses, the dictionary, and Christians all define it differently), then you need the citations. We agree on the conclusion. Let's leave it at that. We can argue theory all night long and waste each other's time.EGMichaels (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But there isn't any Wikipedia policy that endorses your opinion that "the lede shouldn't have ANYTHING controversial". Instead, WP:Lead states that if there is anything that is likely to be challenged, that it have supporting citations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can shoehorn it in there with citations -- but you have to keep the citations (which we both agree on). It needs those citations because it contains points directly contradicted by notable and reliable sources. SUPPORT by any notable and reliable source makes it good article material. CONTRADICTION by any notable and reliable source makes it poor lede material. What happens is that you end up with over-citation, and argument... ad infinitum. It's a huge waste of resources because it is inherently unstable.

Once again, the lede is suppost to REFLECT the material in the article. It cannot REFLECT material that it CONTRADICTS. That's why "Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult" (while a notable POV) is poor lede material. It's also why "Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT a cult" (i.e. they are just another "Christian denomination") is also poor lede material.EGMichaels (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No sources have been provided that contradict the actual technical definition as indicated in the lead. The biased points of view of opposed parties do not alter the actual identification of the group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you get NPOV. First, this discussion is moot for the present article because we agree to the wording of the lede WITH the citations in place.

Now for NPOV. There is no such thing as total neutrality. No source will perfectly express objective reality for the simple reason that we are finite creatures. Is a rock solid? Well, that's one POV. Define solid. How do you express the interactions of atomic spacial gaps (i.e. nothing is perfectly solid). The rock is both solid (from one POV) and entangled spaces of spinning energy (from another POV). Even if both POVs were correct from their frames of reference, one cannot express both perfectly in a single line.

Jehovah's Witnesses really are a "Christian denomination" from one POV, they really are not a "Christian denomination" from another. Both of those POVs are correct based on their use of the terms "Christian" and "denomination." If you define "Christian" as just anyone who claims to follow Jesus, then that Latin American group that worships this fellow who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus is a "Christian" group. Same for the Moonies. If you define Christian more narrowly as falling within early pre-Nicene known groups, then modern gnostics would be Christians, as well as Arians, Trinitarians, etc. If you define Christian according to catholic (i.e. universal) self definition, then Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. If you define it according to Jehovah's Witnesses, not only are they Christians, but they are the ONLY Christians on the planet.

NPOV is not the elimination of everything but some secular source you agree with, but rather the nexus of all known notable PsOV. You accomplish that with the caveats in the lede -- WITH the citations. Without the citations it becomes unstable because the meanings of the terms you are using are themselves contested by the different groups and PsOV in question.

Jehovah's Witnesses are ALL of the following (according to known notable PsOV):

The only true Christians.
Semi-Arian Christians.
Restorationist Christians.
Just another Christian denomination.
A Protestant Christian group.
A Christian sect.
A non-Christian cult.

Which one do you give for the lede? Well, you could select ANY of them as long as you cite the source. But you'd do better to word the lede so that it does not contradict the known PsOV in favor of a statement that identifies the group equally well. I've already given an example:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious denomination which teaches that the only true way of following Christ is to worship God by means of his proper name, 'Jehovah.'"

NO POV on the planet contradicts that statement, and it clearly identifies the group as one which regards itself as Christian, along with the core of their teaching and the basis of their name.

The problem is that you are trying to SAY they are "Christian" from some mountaintop of objective reality that is way beyond our paygrade. We are merely organizers of information, not arbitrators of it, and certainly not supreme judges.

Just for the heck of it what problems do you see with the sentence I just gave? It's safe -- I'm not pushing for it in the lede. I'm merely using this as an example of a lede that does not contradict any known PsOV. Do you know of any POV anywhere that disagrees with the lede example I gave?EGMichaels (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this phrasing ("Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious denomination which teaches that the only true way of following Christ is to worship God by means of his proper name, 'Jehovah.'") But would tweak it slightly for brevity to read, ""Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian religious denomination, teach that the only true way of following Christ is to worship God by means of his proper name, 'Jehovah.'"

Not only does this shorten it slightly, but it also shows greater dignity to their faith by identifying them as not merely acting based on their denomination, but based on their collective beliefs. FYI, I am not a Jehovah's Witness but that I don't buy into the POV argument. In fact, I figure JW's are more likely to provide fair and accurate information and should do so as long as their input is qualified and referenced with equal rigor.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Notably, your suggested change includes specifically what EGMichaels suggests that it not contain—acknowledgment that JWs are Christian. However, the current lead is superior because it clearly indicates the reason for a very widely viewed distinction between JWs and mainstream Christianity. This suggested opening sentence raises questions that the current one already answers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not continuing this now hypothetical debate with you if you are not suggesting an improvement for the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay -- NOW I'm suggesting it.EGMichaels (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several flaws in your lengthy statement above; the relative merits of most have been discussed already, and some are so plainly wrong that they don't warrant a response. If you want to suggest something specific as an improvement, it can be discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I already have. I suggested a lede which does not contradict any known notable POVs. I'm quite surprised at your refusal to even address it.EGMichaels (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't consider it a serious suggestion. It is far too general. On the other hand, the current lead specifically identifies both what JWs are, and what they are not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly HOW does "Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious denomination which teaches that the only true way of following Christ is to worship God by means of his proper name, 'Jehovah.'" identify them by "what they are not"?

As for the current lede -- it does not identify them according to universal standards, and ends up using two different meanings for "Christian" with "denomination" hanging out there in a way that neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor Christians would normally consider. Imagine a Jehovah's Witness at your door. You ask, "Are you a Christian denomination, because if you are, I'm already Baptist." Do you think they'll say, "Hey, that's great brother, keep on going to church"?EGMichaels (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your first question indicates a misreading of what I stated. Your second question ignores the fact that the current lead clearly states that JWs are not mainstream Christians and how they differ.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of claiming to know how JWs will react to the lead, why not wait to see how they respond to it?--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you won't engage in the principle of NPOV -- just wait for a complaint. Got it.EGMichaels (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are assuming far too much. About me, and about other readers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, I ask you to discuss NPOV regarding this event. You say you won't, so I'm "assuming" that you won't. Look, if you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to discuss it. But don't tell me I'm assuming you don't want to discuss it WHILE you're refusing to discuss it. Just let it go and enjoy an unstable lede.EGMichaels (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue, please do it somewhere else. You're the only one saying the current lead is unstable, and the reasons for which you believe it to be unstable have already been dealt with in this tedious discussion over the last 2 weeks. You haven't established that the current lead isn't neutral, and you've claimed what other readers will say about it. Rather than purport to know how they will respond, let them. I grow weary of this long-winded discussion. Given that you've said you're "not pushing for it in the lede", I don't see the point of continuing a hypothetical discussion at this time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro -- you just can't let it go, can you? Yes, this discussion has been tedious because you have insisted on cramming "Christian denomination" in the lede, opting for one POV against others. No, I was not pushing for my revised wording because you were unable to see how forcing one POV over others violates NPOV, and until you could do so, it's not worth my effort. And if you adamantly refuse to even discuss how to do NPOV, then you will never be the person to discuss this particular lede with (nor any other lede). You have some kind of need for "Christian denomination." I have neither a need for "Christian" nor "unChristian." I have neither a need for "denomination," or "cult." I don't need those, because those are POV options that conflict with others, and neither contested side belongs in the lede. The LEDE should reflect ALL POVs and not contradict any. Have I established that the current lede isn't neutral? Jeffro -- pause for ten seconds, take a breath, and think for a moment: just the fact that someone is DISCUSSING neutrality in the lede is a good 90% hint that something about it isn't neutral. The other 10% possibility would be that I would be trying to eliminate your neutrality in favor of some POV pushing.

So, let's explore this for a sec: I'm either trying to be neutral or non-neutral. Which is it? Exactly WHAT POV am I trying to push? An evangelical one? I'm not an evangelical, and I'm not arguing for "cult". An orthodox Christian one? I'm Jewish, and I'm not arguing for "heresy". How about a Jehovah's Witness one? No, I'm not arguing for "one true Christian faith." Instead, I'm arguing that ALL POVs be free from direct contradiction in the lede.

That leaves me on the 90% side of the probability coin -- arguing for neutrality regarding a lede that is not neutral.

And if you think "Christian denomination" is neutral, why are you trying to force it so hard? I'm not married to ANY wording because I'm not trying to push a POV. That's why I'm willing to discuss it. What about you? Or should I not bother?EGMichaels (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral does not mean inoffensive. Neutrality does not equal stability. A good indication that the lead and the article is close to neutral is that it is often seen as non-neutral by observers from both sides - while it still expresses the predominant viewpoint within the relevant field of scholarship.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You say, "often seen as non-neutral by observers from both sides". Great. Which side, exactly, do you think I'm pushing?EGMichaels (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically referring to you but rather to the occasional ip editor that either deletes "christian" or inserts some JW jargon instead of the statements sourced to academic publications. Now another semi rhetorical question for you: How informative would you consider a lead that said "JW is a religious grouping which claims to be the one true branch of Christianity although all other branches of Christianity say they are not"... Both of these claims go without saying, just like we don't write about Hinduism that most other religions think that the hindu faith is wrong. That is why the religious definitions of "true christian" doesn't matter but have to give way to the academic classificatory definition - it is informative the others are not.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, thanks for your response. Indeed, simply saying "they think they are right and others are wrong; and the people they think are wrong think they are wrong about thinking they are wrong" -- is to say nothing. However, about baptists one could say that "Baptists believe the only correct form of baptism is immersion of a believer, rather than sprinkling of an infant." In the same way, "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the only correct form of worship is to address God by his proper name." These are neutral statements, not because others don't disagree, but rather that others agree that this is what they disagree about.EGMichaels (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But saying ""Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the only correct form of worship is to address God by his proper name." does not summarise the history or the majority of the doctrines of JW, and in order to describe them we would have to describe all the major aspects of their doctrine (for example they would also fall under your definition of "baptist"). It just so happens that JW clearly stems form a christian tradition, and that they have about 95% of their teachings in common with other Christian doctrinal systems - this means that "Christian" is a way to say alot about JW history and doctrines in a single word. Coupling this with the fact that academics are not in doubt whether to classify JW as a christian faith within an restorationist branch, I don't see any valid reasons to reject that word because it may attract opposition from the believers on either side - because their objections are to be expected and it goes without saying that when WP describes a faith as Christian it does not thereby legitimize the religion as "true Christians", because that is a category that doesn't exist in an objective secular encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The current lead is entirely accurate, it is sourced, and it very clearly indicates specifically what JWs are and how they differ from mainstream Christianity. It seems that you would like the lead to be so 'neutral' that no one disagrees with it because you would have it say something ambiguous. Neutrality does not mean being vague to avoid a dispute, and your assertion that 'the lead should not need citations' is simply wrong. You claim that I "can't let it go", but you are the one continuing to debate a hypothetical issue tendering hypothetical complaints from hypothetical people with hypothetical third-party views. So, I will say again, rather than speculating about how others will respond to the lead, stop arguing for the sake of arguing, and let those others give their actual opinions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The current lede says nothing other than that they are a "Christian denomination" (disputed) which is somehow distinct from Christian denominations. It's like saying I'm a man who is distinct from males.EGMichaels (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It does - it says restorationist, nontrinitarian and millenarian - which in three words explain the few places in which JW doctrine diverges from mainsream christianity. And no, your analogy is not valid because it accepts unquestioning mainstreams Christianitys right to define "christian" and only when accepting that does a contradiction exist. What you are arguing is that we should replace "male" in the article about Liberace with "with an x and a y chromosome" because hardcore Machistas would dispute that liberate was a real male because of his sexual preferences and dress style, and merely referring to him having x and y chromosomes would avoid that dispute.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)rply to EGM twice

EGMichaels, your most recent comment is based on either a misunderstanding of, or unawareness of the presence of, the word mainstream in the first sentence. Mainstream inherently refers to most of something, not all. Your contradictory analogy, a man who is distinct from males, is dissimilar; a man who is distinct from most males would be the equivalent phrase, and makes perfect sense. Additionally, your dispute about NPOV is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. WP:Lead says that information that is likely to be challenged must be cited. It does not say material that is likely to be challenged is 'not neutral', or that it shouldn't be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we've wandered away from the issue -- which is whether or not the lede requires citations. Although ideally a lede shouldn't need citations, there is sufficient controversy about the meanings of terms such as "Christian" and "denomination" to require intense clarification of nuances. Thus, "Christian" doesn't have an expected meaning, but a broader one. "Denomination" does not indicate a subset of a shared set, but the entire set of a superset. All of these are possible, and I've previously agreed to the lede with the citations.

I still consent to the lede with the citations. I merely say that the current lede cannot remain stable without them. All of this is covered in the WP:Lead. So why are you still arguing? Are you now planning to take the citations out? That's what this thread is about. If you consent to retaining the citations, I consent to retaining the wording; and if we both agree to that, our mutual consent is a consensus of at least we three on at least this point.EGMichaels (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We established quite a while ago that the lead needs the citations. There is nothing in WP:Lead suggesting that it would be 'ideal' not to need citations, and given the controversy surrounding the topic, it is clear that citations are in fact needed.

Having a vague lead, such as what you suggested, that attempts to avoid controversy would itself attract controversy because of what you would have us omit. Your suggestion that "Christian doesn't have an expected meaning" is merely a point of view which is itself not neutral, as borne out by the lengthy discussion that arrived at the current wording. Similarly, you are allowing the biases of JWs and of others to colour your application of the word denomination.

You are the only one who has continued to complain about the current lead. Other than your claim that the lead shouldn't need any citations (which I specifically showed was incorrect), no one has suggested removing the citations from the lead. So there is no need for you to continue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between citing and over-citing. We don't need 4 citations for every phrase of the lead section. I'm not asking to remove all the citations, just that some of them be consolidated so that the lead is more readable (and the citations section doesn't read like a debate club filing cabinet). Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)