Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania

[Untitled]

The Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania and The True Faith Jehovah’s Witnesses Association‎ are distinct groups. The page was created in response to an article request. -- Leonardo Alves (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, just because someone requests an article doesn't mean we have to create it. More importantly, the splinter group may exist (not that there are reliable sources to prove it, necessarily), but that doesn't imply there's enough independent coverage thereof to warrant a separate article. Plus, the text there is essentially a duplicate of Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've undone some of Jeffro77's recent edits, and I'll explain each one in turn. Let me also thank him for taking the time to work on the article and make positive changes.

• I see no reason to remove the statistics on the Witnesses' current numbers.
• I smoothed over the issues with the early history.
• I re-emphasized that the Witnesses' pacifism and anti-Communism were even more worrisome than their eschatological doctrines.
• I see no reason to remove mention that the Communists were worried about the movement's growth, or that the Witnesses found urban converts.
• I rearranged the Plămădeală interview, as it is negated immediately afterwards.
• I rephrased the "deprivation of civil rights" bit to adhere more closely to the source.
• The "authoritative American source" is reported by Pope in a peer-reviewed work. We need not question who it was.
• No need for a micro-paragraph at the end. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The statistics are trivial. No one needs to know that there are exactly 569 congregations of JWs in Romania.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are reported by a reliable source, and we say what it has to say about the subject. Of course, we should keep things within reason; it would be absurd, for instance, to list every single Kingdom Hall. But a few general numbers help give readers a precise sense of the community's dimensions.

Just because a source says something doesn't automatcially make it notable; it is entirely trivial to indicate an exact number of congregations, and the exact number is most likely subject to change with some regularity. Also, WP:MOSNUM states "Avoid excessively precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored chronological order. It is not necessary to skip over the way officials monitored JW activities, quote a later interview, and then jump back to how they were monitored.

It does actually make sense, as the interview refers to the same period and then is debunked by scholarly claims ("in reality..."), but I won't press this point.

I have no problem with the separation of the paragraphs that you've changed, however it is not merely "Jeffro77's chronology".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An original quote might be needed for claims that the communists were "worried".

Readers may certainly question who the "authoritative American source" and it is entirely reasonable to be more clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll cover these last two points together, as they raise a related concern. The way I understand it, on Wikipedia we say what reliable sources say, but once it's established the source itself is reliable, we don't go and question that source's sources. Earl A. Pope, author of the source I drew on for those passages, taught religious studies for 30 years at Lafayette College, has a BA and an MA from Wheaton College, a BD from Yale Divinity School and a PhD from Brown University. There's no doubt he knows what he's talking about. The book itself is published by Duke University Press, an academic publisher that has "a commitment to the highest standards of both critical scholarly review and professional publishing judgment". Again, the very definition of trustworthiness.

So if Pope says the Communists were worried, we can assume they were, and paraphrase him to that effect (which has happened). And if he cites an "authoritative American source" and that made it past Duke's peer review process, there's no need for us editors to investigate who that might have been. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If Pope quotes an unspecified "authoratitive source" it would best to quote Pope's actual description of that source (i.e. if he specifically said "an American authoratative source", put those words in quotes) to avoid ambiguous wording that may or may not refer to Pope's actual description of his source. If Pope names his source, it should be stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Duke University Press may or may not be the best publisher in the universe, however self-praise by the organization is not "the very definition of trustworthiness."--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have to agree the number of kingdom halls or Congregations are subject to fluctuations, so why don't we do something like "the number of Jehovah's witness was estimated at # splint between # of Congregations/Kingdom halls in 'year of source" So we have a snapshot of time when such figure where accurate. If a more recent source differs then not only do we have the snap shot but something to compare it by. User:Biruitorul is correct that we should trust the source and Jeffro77 is right that we should follow the source closely but in this case we should trust the source without the "quote marks" because some one could treat them as if the "quotes" mean is to be "doubted" or "questionable." I am still open to hearing and discussing more as i find movements like this interesting—Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

.

Articles about other religions in various countries do not typically give a breakdown of the number of congregations or further administrative divisions. It is sufficient and consistent to indicate the approximate number of members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, a Featured Article, gives such statistics in the first paragraph. Churches_of_Christ#Demographics, a Good Article, has a detailed statistical breakdown. So do GA International_Pentecostal_Holiness_Church#Recent_history and GA Orthodox_Church_in_America#Membership (parish estimate in the first paragraph). So in fact, articles that have undergone review by other editors do include a breakdown on congregations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule to say we can't! Each artilce is different in subject matter and content. Rough outlines between artilce is good to have but data will differ between artilces. So let not be too rigid. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Only one of the article that Biruitorul links to provides such detailed information in the lead, and the need for the degreee of detail in the one that does is arguable; also, the Catholic Church is a bit more notable than JWs. If JW activities in Romania were more significant, a longer article might reasonably contain a demographics article, however with the article's current length it would probably constitute undue weight. JW statistics per country are already indicated at Jehovah's Witnesses by country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I was made aware of this by Biruitorul as he mentioned the IPHC's use of statistics. It is common in articles on churches to note the numbers of members and the number of congregations. I'd agree that noting that there "are 265 Kingdom Halls in Romania and 111 spaces rented for religious services" is too detailed especially for the lead. However a sentence such as this to my mind would be quite appropriate in the lead: "In 2008, the association claimed 38,000 adherents who meet in over 500 congregations." Perhaps I could ask where these statistics are taken from. On the web the latest I've found is from a Jehovah's Witnesses press release from 2006 which says that in Romania there are "over 76,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses and associates, who meet in more than 500 congregations". Is there a source for the 2008 estimate given in the article? Ltwin (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem with your suggestion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is; have a look right near the end and you'll see the numbers. Would transferring the information toward the bottom of the article alleviate concerns about it being too specific? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated, in an article with more content, a brief demographics section might be relevant however the article as it is now doesn't warrant that degree of detail. It is not necessary to supply the exact number per WP:MOSNUM. The apparent disparity in the figures from different sources indicated above (38000/76000) relates to the fact that JWs only count 'publishers' (members involved in preaching); the higher number includes 'associates' which would include children of JWs, 'inactive' JWs, and others interested in their beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've undone AuthorityTam's recent good-faith edits, and I'd like to explain why.

• The template is clutter. Yes, at some level this is subjective, but consider that this article is not linked in the template (where normally that should be the case if a template is to be included), and that if a reader wishes to know more about the Witnesses, Jehovah's Witnesses is conveniently linked in the first sentence, and the template linking to still further related articles can be found there.
• A four-paragraph article body probably doesn't need two paragraphs in the lead, including a whole one summarizing the body. Again, this is debatable, but see Wikipedia:LEAD#Length for a possible indicator of what we should do.

Your thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There also seemed to be some emotionality shining through the sentence, "From the 1930s through the 1940s the government imposed successive periods of restriction, ban, seeming tolerance, and then outright ban again."--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

The information in this article is primarily historical content detailing the relationship of the JW religion with the government in Romania, and is not really a general article about JW activities in Romania as the title of the article might otherwise imply.

Contemporary JW activities in Romania would appear to be typical of their activities in most countries in the world and do not seem to be especially notable.

The basic statistical information in the lead is already covered at Jehovah's Witnesses by country.

For these reasons, I recommend that this article be merged to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - first, because the content is too long and well-developed to merge as a section in another article, particularly a poorly-sourced one like the suggested target. Second, because reliable secondary sources amply cover the topic as a standalone subject. And third, because Witness activities in Romania derive additional notability from their official recognition by the Romanian government, a distinction only awarded to some 18 bodies, all of which are notable in their own right. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The existing History section is four paragraphs, and it seems unlikely to be expanded. The target article is divided by country, so the current material in the History section, including sources, of this article would not need to change substantially. However, some of the general information—such as changing their name in 1931—would no longer be needed. The content of the new (merged) section would not be impacted by poor sources for unrelated sections, but would set a higher standard for sources for those other sections.
2. It is indeed admirable that this article is well sourced, however the notable content is properly suited to the scope of the target article.
3. JWs have been banned and then eventually granted recognition in many countries, so this is not something that is especially notable about their activities in Romania.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• • In various Eastern European countries, one finds this sort of system where the Culture Ministry grants "top-tier" recognition to a fairly small group of religions, and "second-tier" recognition to a larger group, or to a group of less notable ones. For instance, Romania has 18 top-tier denominations, Poland 15, the Czech Republic 25 and Serbia 24. I think it's generally safe to presume notability for all of these, and in this particular case that has been shown through reliable sources. The burden of proof as to why this particular entity is not notable (for in Romania's case at least, all 17 other groups will eventually have articles) lies on those calling for a merge.
  • Besides, couldn't one create a brief section at the target article titled "See also: Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania" or "Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania"? That seems like a neat solution: preserving this as a better-developed standalone article, while linking it from a relevant location. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It could. But the implied scope of this article—JW activities in Romania—simply does not match its primary content—historical difficulties between JWs and the Romanian government, and a more general article about JW activities in Romania would constitute undue weight for reasons previously stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge RFC

Are JW activities in Romania, compared to JW activities in other countries or to other religions in Romania, so notable as to warrant a specific article? Or should the content be merged as requested?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• You never give up, do you? Anyway, I'll try to answer both parts of your question.
  • Clearly, the JW branch in Romania is less notable than the Romanian Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, or the Greek-Catholic Church, or the Reformed Church. That said, like those larger and more significant bodies, it's one of just 18 denominations granted recognition (including clergy salaries, the right to teach the religion in state schools, other funding, and a sort of privileged position) by the Romanian government. Given that, and given the availability of several sources on the topic, I'd say it's notable enough for a standalone article.
  • Again, I'm sure there are far more sources discussing Witness activities in the US, or France, or Germany, and I'm not claiming their history in Romania rises to the same level. That said, there is a decent amount of material on this particular subject, and there's no particular need to fold it all into a separate location. A summary and a link to this page at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments will do just fine. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem unfamiliar with the purpose of raising an RFC. It is for garnering the opinion of other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge. It seems rather obvious that the article is not about individual Jehovah's Witnesses, activities of Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. It is about this particular Association, which has obviously been well-discussed in verifiable references of scholarly interest. I agree with the editor in an earlier thread who notes that this existing wel-developed standalone article on the Association would be a poor fit jammed into any other article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources for this article are not uniformly about the 'Association' as claimed, but are about recognition of JWs as a religion in Romania, and the context of the information is entirely within the scope of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good points. Let me also emphasize the sleight-of-hand involved in Jeffro77's repeatedly labeling the subject of this article as "Jehovah's Witnesses activities in Romania". It is that, but it's also a distinct association with its own structure, governance, etc. By the same logic, we should also merge Roman Catholicism in Romania, because after all, the article is "just" about the Vatican's activities in Romania; Romanian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, because it's just about the Seventh-day Adventist Church's activities in Romania; Islam in Romania, just about the ummah's activities in Romania, and so forth. It's a nice trick, but let's give it a rest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Other articles also created by you are not necessarily an appropriate benchmark for comparison, but those are out of the scope of this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

JWs have legal entities in many countries, typically synonymous with their branch offices. An article for a particular one of those branch offices (the 'Association') is undue weight. Additionally, the content of the article is quite clearly about the history of JWs in regard to their relationship with Romania's government rather than simply a general article about that Association as claimed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And whose doing might that be? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear how the removal of minor statistical information is relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment It would be of benefit for uninvolved editors (i.e. not part of the JW WikiProject) to express their opinions on this matter...--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This is already a well-constructed stand-alone article, on a clearly notable standalone topic (whether "historical" or not, the info is best covered here, no question about that). Whether in polemical or neutral contexts, this particular JW branch is considered relevant to Romanian society by third-party sources, and is an institution given recognition by the state. The debate here is sterile. Dahn (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your meaty input, and thanks Biruitorul for soliciting it.[1].--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to kindly ask others to ignore your repeated trolling, and focus on the matter at hand. For the record: I am a highly experienced editor, not a recruited meatpuppet, and have worked on such Romanian religious (though not JW) topics for years, largely independent of anyone's request (Biruitorul's included); true, I was informed of this debate by Biruitorul, but I take a direct interest in all such topics, and have been largely absent from wikipedia in the past months - for personal reasons. I enjoy a great and productive cooperation with Biruitorul, as many know by now, but that has never impacted on my votes, and it is also a known fact that me and Biruitorul have disagreed on many, many topics. His request that I should have a look could have easily ended in my "support" vote, except for this simple fact: the merge request is frivolous, and the article definitely covers a noteworthy, instantly identifiable independent topic. The article is also well-written - eloquent, in fact. Dahn (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My copyedit in July did greatly enhance the eloquence of the article, and I thank you for the compliment.. But aside from that, my point is that the RFC was intended for a broader perspective of editors in the field of religion. I do note though that Biruitorul's solicitation was made before the RFC was posted, and am not suggesting that you have deliberately tried to improperly influence the RFC; simply that it would be better to still get some entirely independent opinions on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the version prior to your involvement was approximately as eloquent, but I'm not going to belittle your contributions. What I am going to do is ask just how "independent" you'd like the editors commenting to be, just who the "right people" for your little endeavor might be. Would you perhaps approve if commenters were flown in from the planet Mars, or would you object if they too supplied an answer not to your liking? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, if you are not familiar with the RFC process, please read the relevant page. The article's main supporter's friend and a JWpro-JW editor, who is frequently disruptive and argumentative however, do not constitute the ultimate in independent editors for the RFC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of scope
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Really, "a JW editor who is frequently disruptive"? It seems that Jeffro77, who elsewhere whined loudly and filed "reports" when others innocently concluded him to be a former JW, now pretends that I must be a JW. Who else would be interested in articles which fairly and scholarly discuss Jehovah's Witnesses, right? My interest is not in pleasing Jehovah's Witnesses or any individual editor, but in moving toward a quality encyclopedia which well serves the Wikipedia community; deleting this article does not serve the best interests of the Wikipedia community.--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I should probably have said 'pro-JW' editor but I was in a hurry, however the distinction for the purposes of this discussion is moot, and was not accompanied by a speculative trail of breadcrumbs as was the case in your 'witch hunt'. This is not an AfD, it is a request to merge information about JW dealings with Romania's government into the relevant article. The only JW-related AfD currently on my Watch List is for Edmond C. Gruss, about which AuthorityTam has been notably silent, probably because it is a poor quality article about someone critical of JWs. Humorously, at that AfD, I've been called biased for trying to remove an article about someone who is apparently a "thorn in the side" of JWs. Go figure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Comment: Jeffro77 is almost laughably disingenuous in criticizing others for selectively soliciting comment. His chumminess with BlackCab aka LTSally has been interpreted as collusion by other editors, and has specifically sought to delete other articles related to JWs ("merge" is a euphemism, see here). Jeffro77 and BlackCab aka LTSally have in the past mentioned their private email communication as well and have demonstrated an interesting pattern of merge and destroy (eg, see step 1, step 2, step 3, or however many nominations it takes).--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC) What are you on about now? For a start, any suggestion of meatpuppetry has absolutely nothing to do with you; however, the meatpuppetry article's description of advertising "Wikipedia articles to your friends ... who agree with you for the purpose of ... supporting your side of a debate" did seem an appropriate description of Biruitorul's solicitation. AuthorityTam's suggestion that I am in private communication with BlackCab is entirely false, and a request for verification of a claimed quote is hardly "chumminess". I vaguely recall that I did once e-mail BlackCab (through Wikipedia's e-mail function) to warn that a comment by that editor about another editor was speculative and inappropriate, however I have no ongoing contact with or private knowledge of that editor—not that it is any of your business. It is of course interesting that, though AuthorityTam is clearly adept at dredging up old edits, he has provided no evidence for his claim of "private email communication". AuthorityTam's bitterness about not 'winning' unrelated AfDs is irrelevant, and the claim of "or however many nominations it takes" is entirely speculative. AuthorityTam has been warned previously about inappropriate speculations about me and my edits. Obviously Dahn will not be impressed by AuthorityTam's trolling.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC) AuthorityTam's selectiveness of my advising BlackCab of an AfD (the link in his '"merge" is a euphemism' parenthetical claim) is also disengenuous. I advised all of the respondents of the previous AfD about the new one,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] including AuthorityTam[11]. (Also, 'merge and redirect' is an established process, not a 'euphemism'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC) There is no strangeness in an editor who searches others' past edits while whining that others have looked at his. I (AuthorityTam) am not bitter, nor is it I who accuses others of meatpuppetry. When an editor makes such a desperate empty accusation, it is telling... I am well aware that Wikipedia's nature tends to reward those with the circumstances to persistently grind away toward their preferences. Oh, here's some "evidence" of email between Jeffro77 and BlackCab aka LTSally: postings by Jeffro77 on 2009-10-14 and 2009-12-06. Perhaps now Jeffro77 will again threaten to "report" me (see here, 2010-07-23, and 2010-08-19). --AuthorityTam (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC) If you are going to trawl through my edits, I will respond in kind when necessary to reveal dishonest or misleading attacks. But just remember who started it. Whilst I did indicate that BlackCab had the option to e-mail me using Wikipedia's e-mail facility—a feature available to any editor—he did not e-mail on that occasion. The notification that BlackCab could e-mail me was only in response to his earlier query;[12] it was not followed up, and I did not initiate it. Indicating that you will be reported for comments not relevant to the discussion is not a 'threat', it is simply a notice of action that will occur, as is required by policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glossing over the thorny debate above, and only noting that, yet again, Jeffro wishes to present my intervention here as coming from one of "Biruitorul's friends" (which, that much is true, I have become in my many years on wikipedia), and not from the man who either created or dug out from the dirt articles on very similar topics: Roman Catholicism in Romania, Islam in Romania, Unitarian Church of Transylvania. Biruitorul has had significant contributions on these topics, and even more significant ones on topics from the same category. Our common, independent, interest is not in promoting JW ideology, as Jeffro repeatedly hints, but primarily in offering coverage to the diversity of Romania's religious landscape, with at the very least an article on each self-governing religious body that is recognized and sanctioned by the Romanian state. And yes, that includes ample coverage of their activities, why shouldn't it? Dahn (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was never my intention to imply that you are specifically pushing 'JW ideology', and my concern about the undue weight this article constitutes would also extend to the Romanian Seventh-Day Adventist article, because both are minor religions (for example, in contrast to the Catholic Church; this isn't quite the same as Islam as its analogue would be Christianity rather than any specific denomination). Romania-specific articles about JWs (and by extension, Seventh-Day Adventists or other minor groups) would appear to constitute a disproportionate focus compared to those religions' activities in other countries. Additionally, I have not suggested that the information is of poor quality or poorly researched. Nor am I suggesting that the information be deleted. Rather, I have suggested that it be moved into an existing article that is suitable for the scope of this article's content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Concerning your last remarks: I would share your worry if we had been discussing Hinduism in Romania, or any such niche phenomenon. Here we are discussing denominations/churches specifically recognized as independent entities by the Romania state, however minor they may be - by that rationale, everything that occurs in Romania is minor, compared to, say, something that happens at a continental level, but wikipedia by definition allows us a significant level of detail, and even more. Incidentally, your observations leave out the very minor in numbers, but very significant, Unitarian Church of Transylvania, which is a good indicator of how complex the situation is. What's more, even niche phenomena in Romanian religious life, such as the Inochentist Church or the Lord's Host, have been covered enough in scholarly sources to warrant separate articles. And since they are largely independent from all other religious branches, where would we redirect them? Dahn (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Naturally my observations leave out an article of which I was unaware. Being detailed and well sourced, I do see your point that it would be difficult to redirect elsewhere. I maintain that although this article is also well sourced, that there is a suitable target article for it. However, I concede to your point that as part of a well-sourced series of Romanian religious articles without comparable redirect targets, it would be better to leave this article as is.

The fact that this article is part of a series is not a retraction of my original concerns about the article as considered independently, and should not be construed as a precedent for articles about JWs by country that have no (or negligible) third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• • One more thing: Islam in Romania does designate, at least in one definition, a specific denomination. It is indeed Sunni and is ruled by a state-recognized Mufti, and is considered legitimate as opposed to random Shia or Wahhabi mosques, but there you go. The situation is analogous with many Eastern Bloc countries where, in most contexts, Islam = official Sunni Islam, so in fact it is somewhere between the equivalent of "Christianity" and the equivalent of "national church". I do believe this also has to do with the gray area Islam in general maintains between state and religious authority, between individual and religious authority, and between the various interpretations of tradition. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there may only be one denomination of Islam in a particular area does not alter the intended meaning of my statement that Islam is itself not a denomination. It was only a point of semantics in order to acknowledge Islam in my comments while not comparing it directly to denominations of Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• I was asked by Jeffro77 to comment. I'm not going to comment on the proposed merge, rather I am here to remind everyone (including Jeffro77) to comment on content, not each other. Please stop this back and forth about motivations and past form; this is not the place for it and it only muddies the debate. If you are that concerned then raise an RfC/U, but an article talk page is not the place to discuss individual editors. Fences&Windows 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)