Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Disclosure of UN affiliation
GermanWriter removed the statement: "The Watchtower Society did not inform members of Jehovah's Witnesses of its NGO status during the period of association, or after it was terminated", which I have restored. GermanWriter claimed that the statement was analogous to an omission of going to the moon. Unlike the irrelevant concept of going to the moon, failing to declare affiliation with the UN is an important part of the controversy regarding that association.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the article I read they had no NGO status. So what do you speak about? On the other hand I don't understand why you prefer to write about something that maybe (sources?) never happened. In Wp. we write about what happened, what exists, no phantasy, no suspicions. As a result I have to remove it. --GermanWriter (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are denying that any NGO status ever happened? The fact that they had such status was on the UN website, and the UN DPI directly confirmed it to be true; a letter directly from the UN DPI states, in part: "Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992." Therefore if 'the article you read' said otherwise, then it is wrong, and your allegation that such association may actually have never occured is not only irrelevant, but also absurd. Given the fact that they did have NGO status, their failure to tell JW members of that affiliation, when such presents a conflict of interest with what is taught to those members is a significant aspect of the controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does anyone else agree with GermanWriter that the Watchtower Society's failure to inform members about its UN affilication is not relevant to this article???--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are denying that any NGO status ever happened? The fact that they had such status was on the UN website, and the UN DPI directly confirmed it to be true; a letter directly from the UN DPI states, in part: "Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992." Therefore if 'the article you read' said otherwise, then it is wrong, and your allegation that such association may actually have never occured is not only irrelevant, but also absurd. Given the fact that they did have NGO status, their failure to tell JW members of that affiliation, when such presents a conflict of interest with what is taught to those members is a significant aspect of the controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In answer to GermanWriter's unnecessary question, the question "Did JW members know that their religion was affiliated with the UN in view of their view of that organisation?" is pertinent to the article, and it is appropriate to answer that question in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses and the UN.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)