Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Doctrinal criticisms

I would like to point out a conflict under “Doctrinal criticisms” with the sentence: “Its publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet[287][288][289] and is gradually leading his followers to a clearer understanding of his will.”

Because this statement is sandwiched inbetween statements about “predictions” this can cause misleading and even contradictory information supplied by the Watchtower articles that are used as references here and what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach. An aveage reader of Wikipedia does not have access to these referenced articles to correct this information.

The Watchtower article states a prophet can be a people who are, “telling them of God’s will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities.” The discussion has nothing to do with predictions. Watchtower Society has written in their Insight book under the definition of Prophet, “the fundamental meaning of the word is not that of prediction.” And also stated, “Again it should be remembered that prophesying does not mean solely or necessarily predicting the future. The apostle Paul stated that “he that prophesies upbuilds and encourages….”

Since critics desire to include this information, this subject needs include the meaning of the use of the word “prophet” that these few referenced articles listed discuss. --Saujad (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticism that JWs have predicted things that did not happen should remain in the article. However, I don't object to removing the sentence in question for the reasons stated above. The sources for "[287][288][289]" cited above do not specifically mention modern day JWs prophesying in the sense of predicting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the WTs mentioned at the moment, and I'll check them tomorrow, but in the context of accusations of false predictions, reference to the WTS's claim to be a prophet organization at that point is fair and accurate. Most of the actions of this self-proclaimed "prophet organization" were indeed telling followers of "God's will at that time" (that he was judging all humans based on their attitude towards the anointed, was calling the saints to heaven, was requiring a worldwide witnessing campaign) and "warning of dangers and calamities" ("false" religion about to be destroyed, earthquakes and natural calamities to crush the business system and destroy governments, that people would turn on each other in violent rage). It was the failure of just those claims, which were said to be beyond doubt and approved by God, that led to many Witnesses abandoning the organization. The Watch Tower Society has always believed that it "builds up" people by warning that God is about to wreak terrible vengeance on wrongdoers and end the present "evil' world. LTSally (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources used don't support the implied context of being 'prophets' in the sense of predicting. If the statement is retained, it needs to be either clarified, moved elsewhere, or given more relevant sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The January 15, 1959 WT specifically deals with earlier predictions of the demise of the League of Nations and repeats the prophecy that God will destroy the United Nations (para 21). It prophesies that "all the inhabitants of the earth" will be punished with God's sword (para 22), that God will punish specific blocs of nations with his executional sword (para 23) and that God will "slaughter" humans from one end of the earth to another (para 24). The May 1, 1997 WT predicts that "Christendom" and the global political system will be destroyed (para 15). These are messages pronounced by a group that considers itself to be God's "messenger" and "prophet", declaring his will to the world. That section on criticisms deals with claims that the WTS made bold assertions, claiming to be speaking in God's name, of events that did not take place, and the direction from the WTS that members should not question its assertions. I have reworded the section to make more clear the point of the criticism. LTSally (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Many articles in JW literature state their eschatological beliefs as noted above; but the article doesn't state predictions similar to the context that the previous wording implied, in relation to specific timing of events. However, I think your new wording in the article should be ok.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This section is much clearer. But again to make a statement at the beginning about a "prophet" with articles of reference and then in the next sentence begins a discussion of predictions is much the same as the original wording. This is misleading about the use of the word "prophet" as used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the few paragraphs when "prophet" is mentioned it is referring to "a work of being witnesses to all these nations concerning God’s kingdom of good news" (1959 article) not specifically used concerning any predictions. I would think an additional sentence to what the Society's statement of what a "prophet" is nowadays might clarify this. --Saujad (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have highlighted above what the Witnesses regarded as the witness they were bearing to the nations. Much of it, like ancient Jewish prophets, comprised dire warnings of imminent death and destruction. You may not consider these predictions, but they clearly were forecasts of what they believed would soon happen as part of "God's will". Some were attached to specific dates, some were not, but the absence of specific dates does not alter the nature of them as predictions of what they believed lay ahead. LTSally (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have made predictions, but to use articles that are not about making predictions, to make the point that they make prophetic predictions, is still dishonest. Unless we can cite a source in which they claim to be a prophet in that sense, we have no business stating in this context that they claim to be a prophet, (unless we explain that that isn't what they mean by a prophet). I don't believe we're going to find one, because, as the wording now suggests, every time they make a prediction, they point to a biblical prophecy that already exists, and claim some understanding of it.

In order to state that they make prophetic predictions, it may be necessary to obtain such a POV statement from some other source; one that doesn't take Watchtower statements out of context for that purpose, and then allow for an opposing POV - assuming that those POVs can be found in reliable sources. Downstrike (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is clear enough. The Watch Tower Society claims to act as a prophet. It has made predictions, including specific dates, for things that did not eventuate. Critics have thus accused it of being a false prophet because some of those predictions did not come true. It's unclear what you mean when you speak of "prophetic predictions" as if they are something else altogether. A bunch of books are cited, currently at source No. 291, that identifies those false predictions. The current sources No. 287 are not dishonest attempts at anything. They simply support the statement that the WTS claims to be God's prophet for modern times. LTSally (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My explanation was clear enough too, and so was Saujad's. If the article is to say, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet", in the context of making predictions, we must cite sources in which they made that claim in that context. If we don't have those sources, including that statement in the context of making predictions serves the purpose of disinformation, and no other. Downstrike (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Prophet prophecy prophesy

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Jehovah's Witnesses claim what they explicitly do not. It is true that JW publications have applied the terms "prophet", "prophecy", and "prophesy" to modern figures in a manner that has (at best) confused others, but the JW sense of the terms has been maintained consistently for decades. Here are references from Witness publications showing how they use these loaded terms today:

• Jehovah's Witnesses' reference handbook defines "prophecy" thusly: "Prophecy may be a prediction of something to come, inspired moral teaching, or an expression of a divine command or judgment."–"Prophecy", Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 295
• Jehovah's Witnesses' reference "encyclopedia" article on "Prophecy" has this in its first paragraph: "Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come. As shown under PROPHET, prediction, or foretelling, is not the basic thought conveyed by the root verbs in the original languages"–"Prophecy", Insight on the Scriptures-Volume 2, ©1988 Watch Tower, page 690-691
• "Today, prophesying would apply to any Bible-based teaching that a Christian minister does."–Keep Yourselves in God's Love, ©2008 Watch Tower, page 209
• "Those who teach that God’s Kingdom is achieved through political action are false prophets. [Context shows that no attempt at predicting is necessary for one to be called a prophet.]–"False Prophets Today", The Watchtower, February 1, 1992, page 6 [Dozens more examples like this have no hint of predicting in the context.]

How is that not a prediction??? Whether there will be "God's Kingdom" at all, or methods that will or will not result in it are all predictions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to show that the Watchtower recognizes that a prophet can be someone who makes a prediction. However, considering the content of the first 2 items, I don't believe that was in question. It's only appropriate that this aspect of being a prophet be included among all the others listed. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Jerusalem’s false prophets, or teachers, were doing “horrible things” in God’s eyes. ...Yes, these prophets, or teachers, set very bad moral examples themselves and, in effect, encouraged the people to do the same."–"Jehovah’s Judgment Against False Teachers", The Watchtower, March 1, 1994, page 8 [Dozens more juxtapositions like "prophets, or teachers" intended to equate terms.]
• "True Christians are prophets in that they teach others God’s Word"–“Would That All Were Prophets!”,Awake!, ©Watch Tower, June 8, 1986, page 9

Wikipedia must be more concerned with intellectually honesty, and Wikipedia must avoid distorting a religion's theological definitions toward some third party's agenda. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to make a statement such as, "Watch Tower publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) as a prophet", this information should be included, to clarify the statement. Downstrike (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The definitions you provide above support my argument. When the Bible Students and Witnesses were warning the world that it was being judged by God and that he was about to end the system, that is a prediction of what is to come. I'm not suggesting that the WTS was predicting something not contained in the Bible (a meteor is to hit the earth in 2012), but its interpretation of Bible scriptures to claim that God is about to act to bring about widespread slaughter, and that he is about to establish peace on earth in 1925, and that he is to take the anointed to heaven in 1914, and that he will destroy all religions in 1918 and that the Jews would be restored to the Palestine and assume world government are predictions and are thus inextricably linked with prophecy. A more comprehensive list of unfulfilled predictions are contained at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions. LTSally (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the definitions, but I didn't provide them. The historical background is interesting, but apparently not relevant to current beliefs. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another point. You seem not to have read the article I mentioned above, "Down with the old, up with the new" in The Watchtower of January 15, 1959. The article initially poses the question of who God is using as his prophet in the world today. Answer: Jehovah's Witnesses. It then goes on to state how God has used the Witnesses (and previously the Bible Students) to declare events in advance, including the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 (which it somehow links with the onset of World War I) and the demise of the League of Nations to which the article declares: "His Word through his witnesses on earth did not fail." You raise the claim of intellectual dishonesty: do you still claim there is no connection between the JWs as a self-proclaimed prophet and their long history of predictions based on their belief that God "put his word in their mouths" (paragraph 14)? I'll say this again. The Witnesses claim to be God's prophet, telling of events in advance. The frequent failure of those predictions has led to claims they are a false prophet. The WTS defence of its actions ("Never ... did they presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’" -- a curious denial in the face of the 1959 claim that God put his word in their mouth) is also included in that section. I don't see any merit in your objection. LTSally (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I hadn't gotten to reading that, because a source that old seems more like historical background than a statement of current belief. I was under the impression that the Criticisms section, and particularly the Doctrinal criticisms subsection should be about current criticisms. However, upon examining it more carefully, I see that it has little, if anything, to say about current doctrines. At this point, I'm inclined to question the relevance of this entire subsection, as anything more than a historical footnote. Downstrike (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old "ancient history" justification for a sudden loss of interest. The Watchtower is quite content to reach all the way back to 1877 to show how reliable it is, but when an encyclopedia reaches back just 50 years to show how wrong the organization is, the dutiful Witnesses decide that's ancient history and not worth reading. You may have a very short focus, but when examining the reliability of an organization that's more than 130 years old, it's helpful to delve back a little further than the last decade. The WTS's habit of burying its mistakes is part of the reason I've delved into the old volumes to dig up all those inconvenient truths so it's all out in the open and people are fully informed. You may choose, like most Witnesses, to question the relevance of all criticism of your religion. That's your business. The criticism, however, remains. LTSally (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical criticisms are certainly germane to the main article here, but should be clearly identified as such. However, the current doctrines, practices, and criticisms should be emphasized, in my opinion. Downstrike has a legitimate point. Always be cautious when making statements about what JWs believe, and make sure that each statement has solid and clear (and preferably current) JW quotes supporting it. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 08:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

JW literature (e.g. the Revelation Climax book and others) still claims that their 'predictions' about 1914 and the League of Nations as a precursor to another international body [the UN] were accurate and are still promulgated in their literature as such (though the first never actually happened as they originally predicted, and the second was indeed fairly predictable). 1914 is stated in JW literature as something they had proclaimed long before the event, without actually mentioning that what they now believe is quite different from what they had predicted. These are therefore not purely issues of historical criticisms.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The point in this case is that critics claim that on the basis of its past record Jehovah's Witnesses are a false prophet. They claim that because of its record of grandiose prophecy, clear error and avoidance of blame, newcomers ought to be very wary of its current predictions. In that context its historical record is entirely germane to the criticism. LTSally (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Jeffro's comment isn't entirely accurate. "...without actually mentioning that what they now believe is quite different from what they had predicted." I'll grant you that it's not exactly something mentioned each and every time 1914 is brought up, but it's covered several times in their literature, not the least of which is the Proclaimers book. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of not mentioning the earlier beliefs, but the issue of deliberate misrepresentation. As in, (1) "Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ's return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah's witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur." - The Watchtower, 15 June 1954, page 370, para.4. (2) "His rule would be from the heavens. This was a new revelation of great importance to God's people who had been anxiously awaiting his second presence toward the end of the nineteenth century." - The Watchtower, 15 July 1965, page 428. (3) "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence…that Jesus’ presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914. Events since that year testify to Jesus’ presence." - The Watchtower, January 15, 1993. p. 5. (The latter statement published the same year as the Proclaimers book). Each of those statements was a blatant lie, because from the start of Rusell's writings until 1933 the WTS taught that his parousia, or coming, had taken place in 1874. How did the Watchtower get away with it? (a) The woeful ignorance of Witnesses about the history of their own religion and (b) the smug knowledge that no dutiful Witness will ever stand up and correct such a lie publicly for fear of being branded a murmurer or fault-finder. LTSally (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Digital Jedi Master, it was not my intention to imply that JW literature never mentions that their views of 1914 changed. It was that they do not usually mention that those views changed when they claim that they had predicted events that would occur in 1914.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be related to the point, but it is not the point in this case. The point in this case is whether Jehovah's Witnesses claim to make prophetic predictions.

On that note, this subsection would be much more relevant if it contained some current information. You mention current predictions. What are their current predictions? Downstrike (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Do they currently make prophetic predictions? What are the criticisms of their current predictions and other doctrines? Downstrike (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As a (presumed) member of the religion, you obviously know the answer to that. There are a host of expectations, repeatedly stated for decades, about the United Nations, the collapse of religions, Witnesses becoming targets of hostility, Christ's intervention, divine rescue, mass slaughter, mass resurrections, a final test etc etc etc. As a sequence of predicted events, these are predictions unique to your religion and are based on your religion's distinctive interpretation of different parts of the Bible and their subsequent synthesis into an eschatalogical doctrine. They are well covered in other Wikipedia articles.

So is interpretation of prophecy the same thing as making the prophetic predictions? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:16, 30 March 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? ~BFizz 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)

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

1. All groups must be allowed to claim their own terms.
2. All groups must be allowed to claim their own membership.
3. 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)

Monastic...

I just added that the Witnesses are Monastic. I myself am a Jehovah's Witness, and I say it is quite Monastic... Most of us spend all our time devoting ourseves to the religion, if that does not make it Monastic... What does? And I must say people may have gotten away with calling Jehovah's Witnesses a cult in the begining,Infact, I myself think of the early days as "cultish" But it is now a MAJOR christian denomination, such a lable is Invalid.210.185.5.180 (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Got a reliable source??--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Source? For what, The fact we spend all our time devoting ourselves to the religion? The deffinition of Monasticism? That we are a major denomination? I do not see anything in my statement that requirs a source... Please enlighten me?210.185.5.180 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your personal definition or opinion is not sufficient for the article to state that JWs are 'monastic'. Please read WP:RS.

JWs are not a "major denomination" in any meaningful sense. In almost all countries, they make up less than 1% of the population, and they only exceed 2% on two small islands (http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/worldwide_report.htm). They are certainly fairly well recognised as having a presence worldwide, but not a "major" one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

JW's sense of devotion to their religion is not monastic in the sense usually ascribed to the term, and the term does not belong in the lead of the article, and certainly not without qualification of the term in the abstract sense you're suggesting. Additionally, JW literature specifically denounces monasticism (e.g. The Watchtower, 15 November 1980, p. 7: "Never would we want to isolate ourselves to the extent of taking up a monastic life.")--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro said it well. Spiritual devotion is not the only element of monasticism. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A neutral lead

I've provided a neutral lead to this entry and look forward to developing it in consultation with other editors, especially Witnesses.

The current draft, sourced on Witness material reads:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures according to the New World Translation.[1] Legally, they are incorporated as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.[1]"

Rather nicely, I think, the very first descriptive term is "Christian", albeit of the scriptures Witnesses testify to, rather than descriptive of our friends themselves.

Alastair Haines (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take the trouble to read archives 41 to 46 of the article talk page to see the extent of discussion before consensus was reached on the current wording. Your wording is wrong and unacceptable. LTSally (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as they read SIX!!! archives first, and do as LTSally tells them?

Sorry, Sally, the first sentence of the article was PoV and based on poor sources that didn't even establish the claim they were making.

If you wish to defend that sentence and those sources, do so, here and now. It shouldn't be too hard since you have all the information in archives 41 to 46 at your fingertips.

I removed no information from the article, I have merely added sourced material.

Stop removing sourced material without consensus, that is edit warring, you have reverted twice (within 2 minutes each time!), please don't make me give you a 3RR warning.

It is completely irrelevant, but I'm personally very happy to consider JWs my brothers and sisters.

The thing is, this article is to be written from the neutral point of view, it's not here as a coatrack for people who want a one line answer to whether JWs are Christian or not. There is a simple answer: it depends who you are and what you're talking about.

I'll spend the next 30 minutes scanning the archives, before restoring my contribution to the article.

In that time, I'd appreciate you explaining how the BBC calling JWs Christian-based = JWs are Christian. And how the online Almanac for Kids is a source of any consequence regarding the issue. The awful third reference was best, but still an article citing another article citing yet another one, and essentially only a JW claim about themselves which is contested. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, therefore, anyone can undo your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! Now for my opinion on the matter:

The proposed first sentence is a bit sketchy; the only descriptive word relating to the Witnesses in the sentence is "followers", and all the sentence tells us is that they follow some Scriptures. The second sentence is good, but the concept is covered well in the second intro paragraph. The following clause, "Doctrinally, a synthesis of some sources might classify them as...", was wordy and unnecessary. It's obvious that they are restorationist, millenarian, and that they are a religions denomination. That they are Christian is qualified by "restorationist" and "millenarian". ...comments? ~BFizz 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a reply.

Actually, sourced text should not be removed, unless clearly off track, and the Witness self description could hardly be that.

When describing a group of people who are defined by their beliefs, the issue is describing their beliefs.

So the first sentence targets precisely the right issue. As indeed the PoV synthesis that caught my attention does also.

The first sentence doesn't tell us they follow just "some" scriptures, it specifies exactly which ones, and specifies precisely how the Witnesses describe those scriptures.

The cute thing about it is, the Witness description accords with precisely the description any other group would give also, so avoids being PoV.

I'm glad you agree that the second sentence serves well as a summary style topic sentence for the second paragraph, I hadn't thought of that.

The third sentence is wordy, because I'm deliberately weasling the PoV synthesis that follows rather than deleting it.

But, I agree, it is wordy, so I'll delete it as I restore the other two sentences, since no substantial content objection has been raised.

What do you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Haines, your proposed opening line is meaningless and wrong. You wrote: "Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures according to the New World Translation." As the source you cited says explicitly, they base their beliefs on both the old and new testaments. I doubt you will find any Watch Tower source that suggests they are followers of their translation of the Bible. They clearly, repeatedly, claim they are Christians; the other descriptors come from external sources. Their legal incorporation is not so important that it needs mentioning in the second sentence before explaining that they are a Christian denomination. You might like to add WP:BRD to your reading list and then consider that your views do not outweigh a consensus of a community of other editors. Show some courtesy and fully discuss your proposals before making such big changes. LTSally (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection to proposed first sentence: it's not good enough for a first sentence. If you want to stitch that sourced material into some other location in the article, I see no problem with that. But as a first sentence, it just doesn't cut it. Working the second sentence into the second paragraph seems fine to me, though I'd really prefer to see the intro trimmed down rather than bulked up. Your accusation of POV ignores my argument that the qualifier "restorationist" correctly indicates the potential for significant difference from mainstream and/or traditional Christianity. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, I have taken a look at your proposed lead...

Jehovah's Witnesses are followers of the Christian Greek Scriptures according to the New World Translation. This first sentence doesn't say much, and what it does say is misleading. Like any translation, the NWT can be interpreted in various ways, so stating that the JWs follow the New Testament (should use the more common term, especially in the lead) is not neutral. Additionally, JWs believe (their interpretations of) the whole Bible, not only of the New Testament.

Legally, they are incorporated as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. This is inaccurate. Not all JWs are part of the Watch Tower Society corporation.

Doctrinally, a synthesis of some sources might classify them as... Wordy and weaselish, to avoid classifying JWs as Christian. Basically, there are two arguments against acknowledging that JWs are Christian, and neither are neutral. 1) Many Trinitarians don't believe non-Trinitarians can be Christian (however, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that non-Trinitarians are Christians[1]). 2) Some people make a value judgment that 'Christians' are 'good', and that JWs are 'bad', and conclude that JWs therefore cannot be Christian. Neither of these arguments has any bearing on a plain dictionary definition of 'Christian'[2][3][4][5][6][7][8].--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@LTSally Thanks for a reply and a genuine claim of a content error.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the New Testament. The New Testament claims the Old Testament must be followed in very many places. Are you aware of any groups (other than Marcion long gone) that claim the New Testament does not imply following the Old? I'd appreciate a source for that.

But lets add the Witnesses' own expression "Hebrew Scriptures" in also, how can we be against that reliably sourced datum? I agree that's an improvement, so I'll add it.

You seem not to have read the first sentence closely. It doesn't say JWs follow the NWT, it says they follow the Christian Greek Scriptures (which they can't do directly unless they know Greek) as available in the NWT.

I'm sure literally thousands of Witness sources are available, and dozens online, that make the point that the only reliable translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is the New World Translation. And good for them being so fussy! I'll source it with say three when I restore the text, improved by discussion here.

But now we get to the heart of the matter. If the Witnesses claim to be Christian it needs to be stated that they claim it, not asserted that they are. If others claim they are not—are there any reliable sources of that?—then NPoV requires that be noted also. But do we really want such pain in the lead when it's simply unnecessary to assert Christianity in the first place.

Who knows what a Christian is, certainly not Wikipedia, the word means different things in different contexts in common usage, and very specific things in theological usage.

If you insist on retaining the Witness claim to "Christianity" whatever that is, I'll consent of course, but I'll source say another three counter-claims. For the time being though, I'll leave existing text as it is, just flag it as PoV, which neutralises it.

Finally, since the text I'm contributing to the article is completely new, there can hardly be any consensus against it! LoL. Having modified, and indeed, improved the new contribution via discussion I'll now enter it. I suggest you reread BRD before reverting (or colluding) to make a 3rd revert. I'd appreciate a little more courtesy than being reverted without discussion after two minutes, twice!

Please work at finding a reliable non Witness reliable Christian theologian who describes the Witnesses as Christian if you really want to push that PoV. I happen to know that they do exist, but they're a bit fringy. My suspicion is we needn't open that issue in the lead, where it can't be handled at sufficient length to be managed peaceably. If you do want to take that line in the body of the article, I can help you source it and phrase it, so non-Witness Christians won't keep complaining, as, at the moment, they have every right to do. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

May I reiterate a third time that the claim in the lede is not merely that the religion is "Christian", but that it is "restorationist Christian" (with "millenarian" thrown in there as well). I think I said it best in my second comment here. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Jeffro the NWT does include the OT, and as per my comment to Sally, I'll modify the first sentence accordingly.

You can't expect readers to make an ambiguous connection to draw some implied conclusion. Additionally, the statement remains entirely subjective regarding scriptures that are subject to interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I expect you could be right, that the legal structure of the organization is opaque to many believers. Nearly all denominations exist as legal entities, with official activities having insurance cover via those entities. However, in practice, all denominations have activities which members would consider part of membership, yet are not covered by an legal structure. This can be true in Presbyterianism, for example, if a church member runs a home group bible study. Street evangelism can also fall into the same category. So I'll not restore the second sentence.

Regarding the third sentence, I think it's best we don't delete what was already here. But since it is obviously PoV it must be neutralised i.e. policy demands we weasle it, as is standard in all articles.

It is difficult to imagine you're serious. Wikipedia is quite clear that weasel words should be removed, not added.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As an alternative compromise, however, I'll delete the BBC who actually wisely shy away from saying outright that Witnesses are Christian (making them an excellent source that popular, non-expert opinion exists contrary to the view that JWs are entitled to claim the "Christian" label), and the Kids Almanac, which is providing simplified categories, leaving only the JW claim to the (essentially meaninglessly oversimplified) label "Christian". I'll try to find two better sources to add to it, though I think the Witnesses themselves are shy about claiming it, since they don't want members thinking it's OK to join just any group that calls themselves "Christian". And, I might add, they are absolutely right to do so, from their perspective.

Go back to the dictionary definitions. Your battle against a simple definition of 'Christian' is absurd. If you believe there is actually anything contrary to those definitions about JW beliefs, present it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input people. We have some improvements already.

Sally's already used 2 of your reverts, I'm afraid I'll need to issue 3RR warnings to all three of you if any of you withold the modified text from wider comment than yourselves over the next 24 hours. I've decided I want to join the team at this article for two reasons: firstly to be a non Witness Christian supporter of their PoV, and secondly to correct the unhelpful attempt to publish a definition of Christianity which is unnecessary and provocative. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you do not have a proper understanding of the 3 revert rule. LTSally hasn't used some of other editors' '3 reverts'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Fizz, sorry I didn't interact more directly with you the first time. Let me make it clear that I hear what you're saying. You are saying that JWs are "Restorationist Christians" not simply "Christians". Who on earth could think that "National Socialists" (Nazis) implied "Socialists" a much more general term refering to quite a different kind of politics. I take your point.

However, much more normally in English (approximately 99% of the time, I would imagine), a "red car" implies a car. This is all the more true when adjectives are being used substantively, as they are in the case of "Christian". In fact, "Restorationist Christian" is short-hand for Restorationist, Christian person: a person who is both Restorationist and Christian, the intersection of two sets of people, or even a subset relationship according to some understandings--Restorationist being intended in the sense of Christian of the Restorationist type. What other kind of Restorationist are we talking about?

Anyway, here's the first of the genuinely reliable sources I've found for the point of view that Jehovah's Witnesses are classifiable under the broad label "Christian" without modification. He's an ex-Witness, and so knows the faith, yet disagrees with it sharply. He is still happy to use the label "Christian". Now there's a source that beats the Kids Alamanac, wouldn't you agree?

• "No major Christian sectarian movement has been so insistent on prophesying the end of the present world in such definite ways or on such specific dates as have Jehovah's Witnesses".

— M. James Penton, Apocalypse delayed: the story of Jehovah's Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1997), p. 3.

I'll be back soon to make the changes we've discussed, and give them 24 hours to garner comment. Want to watch telly with my wife first. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how you may have interpreted what Mr Fizz said, the fact is that, by basic dictionary definitions (as cited earlier), JWs are Christians (which says nothing at all as to whether JWs, or Christians, or non-Christians, or any other group, are 'good' or 'bad', or 'right' or 'wrong', or any other irrelevant subjective value judgment). They are only considered to be not Christians when non-neutral subjective rules are substituted for or added to the basic definition. JWs are indeed restorationist Christians, and while it is true that restorationist does inherently identify them as Christian, they are also in the general unqualified sense, based plainly on their beliefs, Christian. Your allusion to Nazis (see also association fallacy) is irrelevant, because the definition of Christian stands on its own to define the religion in a general way (refer to dictionary definitions), and the identification of the religion is further qualified by restorationist.

You have not received agreement for the changes you have proposed. If you proceed to edit against consensus, your changes will likely be reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is clear opposition to many of your proposals. Rather than provoking edit wars and threatening to report multiple reverts, a more constructive approach would be to lay out your proposals here and they can be discussed first. LTSally (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

@Sally: Rather than edit-warring by reverting without discussion twice, each after only two-minutes, you would be better advised to seek consensus regarding new sourced material. Please stop addressing editors and process rather than issues, and slow down. Opposition is normal and healthy and should be conducted on the talk page, not via reversion. Your objection regarding including the OT will be accommodated. So you have no outstanding objection.

@Jeffro: There is no consensus as yet, how can there be when only four people have been talking over a few hours? One dictionary definition is still only one point of view, and a very inadequate one when it comes to a complex word with many usages, including technical usages, as in the current case. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is not restricted to giving single sentence definitions. Even the BBC, who were free to use an unqualified designation of the Witnesses as Christian (supported by some dictionaries perhaps) did not consider it prudent to use that unqualified designation—"christian-based" was their expression.

Since the objections that have been raised have all been met, and the remaining issue—whether Christian is a helpful or even meaningful designation to use in the lead has not been adequately discussed—I expect the new material to stand, while we continue to discuss the matter through to consensus.

I must say, I'm rather disappointed with the unwelcoming attitude. Reversions, threats and insults are pretty unfriendly.

Anyway, here's another source, that's no authority on theological belief, but at least beats the Kid's Almanac.

• "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a Christian group that does not allow blood transfusion."

— Douglas R. Migden and G. Richard Braen, "The Jehovah's Witness Blood Refusal Card: Ethical and Medicolegal Considerations for Emergency Physicians", Academic Emergency Medicine 5 (2008): 815–824.

And an extremely good one, from another ex-Witness.

• "About the same percentage among Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians as in any other church".

— Raymond Franz, In Search of Christian Freedom.

Alastair Haines (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually provided links to definitions from six different dictionaries. You are welcome to provide additional definitions as found in other sources, as technical as you like, but subjective definitions from 'anti-JW' sources will be considered on their merits. That said, the definition of Christian as found in dictionaries is actually not "complex" or "technical". The complexity comes in when additional subjective theological restrictions are imposed on the definition about what a Christian 'really' is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"The objections have been met"? Met by what? You haven't validly rebutted the concerns I raised.

But the most curious part is that you to dispute that JWs are 'Christian', and yet provide sources that say they are Christian, though you provide them in statements that include negative insinuations about the group that are not relevant to the definition as Christian. Specifically, for the two you've given immediately above, the first gives a negative connotation about rejecting blood, and the second suggests a 'no true scotsman' fallacy about a 'percentage' of JWs being 'true' Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, you are taking a strangely combative approach to editing this article. You arrive out of nowehere and seem to believe that you can change a delicately worded intro that has been hammered out through much negotiation and discussion, and then demand that everyone else discuss that change, as poorly conceived as it is, on the talk page. Your claim that "Reversions, threats and insults are pretty unfriendly" misses the point that others who have worked long and hard on this article don't sit back while another editor comes along to impose his own rather odd and poorly argued beliefs on the article. You also seem to be having one-sided conversations with yourself in which you conclude that the objections of other editors to your proposal have been "met" and that editors including me "have no outstanding objection". You're wrong. My advice is stop, take a deep breath and lay out your suggestions here. Your proposed changes will clearly not last. Save everyone the trouble of unwinding your work and make your points here.

You claim the article expresses a point of view. You have yet to properly explain what that view is, apart from the suggestion that the article is wrongly claiming Witnesses, your "brothers" as you call them, are Christians ... a suggestion you later contradict with other sources. I really have no clear idea of what you're trying to achieve. LTSally (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And you won't gain any idea if all you do is revert, make accusations and get defensive.

There's something wrong if text is so fragile, basic sourced facts can't be admitted.

Providing sources is hardly combative, reverting without discussion within two minutes twice is.

Anyway, drop it, I've decided myself that nice as the idea was, defining JWs as followers of the Bible in the NWT does have two valid problems that I've seen myself: 1. it does not work prior to 1950 and 2. it does not acknowledge the place of other WT publications. Frankly, I think that's a bit technical and a bit disappointing, and it would still be a far better place to start than recondite words like "restorationist" and "millenial", which also seem arbitrary. "Hierarchical" (like Catholic and Anglican) or "non-Trinitarian" (like Christadelphians and Mormons) are far more standard classifications. "Restorationist" is arguably a PoV replacement for the equally PoV "Arian". "Millenial" isn't PoV, afaik, but it is arbitrary, why not "pacifist"?

What I saw in the archives looked like a good discussion, there were a good number of editors and at least one Witness. But it didn't look like there was close to a quorum from all interest groups, nor from all fields of expertise. This article looks like good work to me, but not perfect work. I really do hope you'll back down from presenting things as if it were, and that goes for the lead as well.

Anyway, the objections I've raised are simple and have not been answered, in the clamour to demonize and demean my contribution.

The BBC distance themselves from calling JWs "Christian", calling them "Christian-based".

That seems wise given three significant facts: 1. defining Christianity is not simple, 2. JWs themselves distance themselves from broad Christianity, and 3. the bulk of Christian denominations do not acknowledge JWs as broadly Christian either.

The BBC modify the Christian designation, Wikipedia currently is not modifying the designation at all, indeed, it is underlining it by using words that have meaning only in a Christian context.

• "Published annually since 1996 and with more than 3 million copies sold to date, The World Almanac for Kids provides kids with the information they crave on thousands of subjects."

— "About Us", The World Almanac for Kids Online.

I still haven't heard the defense of this source as adequately dealing with doctrinal issues. Regardless, it expresses just one point of view, an exceedingly popular and even appropriate one at a low-resolution approach to classification.

Finally, the Watchtower frequently publish text that assumes Christian is the natural way for Witnesses to think of themselves. Providing a source quoting another source quoting the Watchtower is a good deal of redundancy. JWs consider themselves to be true Christians with very good reason and we can quote their materials to that effect. It is perfectly neutral and unchallenged, everyone knows and acknowledges this is the JW PoV.

But, conspicuous by its absence, is the PoV of broad Christendom. Since before the early 4th century, broad Christendom has understood Jesus to be divine. Before that, both Jewish and pagan Roman writers made note of people who worshipped the Nazarene or Chrestos. That PoV is still repeated in the doctrinal positions of tens of thousands of denominations, representing hundreds of millions of Christians. You will find it in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, The 39 Articles, The Westminster Confession, and thousands of other documents. These PoVs do not assert that the divinity of Jesus is a belief exclusive to the denomination, but the teaching of the New Testament, and held in common with all Christians in any place or at any time. It is not a PoV polemical against Witnesses, though it has been applied to them in countless sources, and not just Witnesses, any group, including atheists, agnostics, Judaism and Islam, which have their good reasons for rejecting the alleged divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have Islamic friends, with whom I share spiritually. How much more I share with my Jewish friends, and how much more with Witnesses, who are closer still in values and aspirations than the others. And who knows? Maybe they are right and I am wrong, but our relationships are based on what we share, not on what divides us. (Does that answer your question Sally?)

That the name "Christian" is still applied even by ex-Witnesses to the members of the denomination, is an excellent source to establish how appropriate the name is in many ways. Not only do Witnesses consider themselves to be Christian, even those who fall out with them, still often apply the name both to themselves and to the people whose company they have left.

The word Christian and what constitutes a true Christian are relevant and sensitive in this article. It is flagrantly insensitive to sit in judgement on the issue and cast a vote either way. There are many ways to be neutral, choosing just one of them shouldn't be hard, which is just as well, because we have no choice.

The Kids Almanac, and dictionaries, are all that's needed to place Witnesses on a Christian navigation bar, but text permits greater subtlety and so brings greater responsibility. If Witnesses fall within the scope of Christianity, then Christian sources must be represented in documenting this particular community of faith, shouldn't they? All Christian points of view (including the majority PoV), from the neutral point of view.

Tell me again why the Kids Almanac trumps the Nicene Creed and the Catholic Catechism? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this right. The term "Christian" is too point of view to be attributed to JWs. If the terms means, as you say, "different things in different contexts in common usage", do we also remove it from every other article that leads with text to the effect of "...is a Christian religion..."? After all just because other religions may attract more adherents does not make their point of view more valid? Jamie (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What great questions Jamie. Thank you.

Calling a group "Christian" expresses a PoV. (PoV is "yes" or "no" not "more" or "less", and every source is a PoV)

Example: "Pluto is a planet" is a PoV. The current official position is also a PoV: "Pluto is not a planet."

I'm not proposing to remove "Christian" from this article or any other, just to use it in the specific senses required by context.

Example: "It is not Christian to bear false witness against one's neighbour."

Example: "In the first crusade, the Christians aimed to capture Jerusalem."

Example: "The New Testament is the collection of Christian scriptures."

The three senses of "Christian" are different, but all well-defined.

But I take your point: "religions may attract more adherents".

It might be a good idea to have leads like the following:

The Roman Catholic Church is a religious denomination claiming its leadership preserves direct decent from the Apostle Peter himself.

Protestantism encompasses a collection of denominations historically decended from protests against the Roman Catholic Church.

The Greek Orthodox Church is the branch of the Eastern Orthodox traditions, that historically developed in Greece.

Undoubtedly those leads would be unsuitable to the actual articles, they are only intended to illustrate the possibility of definition without appeal to a contested category like "Christian".

However, in an article like World Religions, it would be odd not to gather all the denominations historically descended from the early Christian church under a simple heading like Christian.

So, yes, I think it would be most unfair to permit large denominations to claim the designation "Christian" while denying it to smaller ones. Wikipedia would lose neutrality by adopting the PoV of the largest or several large denominations.

And, yes, I guess that does mean avoiding using "Christian" in the leads of articles indexed by the Christianity template.

It is quite a different matter to apply the word "Christian" within the context of a broad system of classification (based on history), which is unambiguous in the case of a navigation tool, category or summary article, than it is to apply the word "Christian" in running prose, especially if definitional, and especially if there is any indication that doctrine (rather than merely history) might be involved.

By using terms like "restorationist" and "millenial", the current lead aims to define JWs doctrinally, rather than historically, organizationally, or in some other standard kind of approach to definition.

Doctrine will always be covered in the body of religious articles, there will always be critics, so that is the place for material that can only be neutral by providing statemens from each major PoV (without evaluating them).

Very likely there will be some genuine counterexamples to a preference for non-doctrinal definition. Those are not counterexamples to the general observation that Christian is a term that can be used with quite different senses in different contexts.

I hope I've answered the questions, Jamie. Please feel free to question the thinking some more. I've hardly got a whole policy worked out in my head. I'm just noting that the lead in this article violates WP:NPOV, explaining how it does so it can be addressed, and offering a range of different solutions so something can be done. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling a group "Christian" expresses a PoV? What rubbish. And can you please desist from your stream of consciousness comments? Be brief. Stick to the point. LTSally (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of "Christian" that don't include JWs

Possible definitions include:

1. The group of denominations that accept each others' baptisms and/or clergy ordinations, or those whose baptisms/ordinations are, for lack of a better word, "pope-approved"
2. The shared heritage/history of the Catholic church
3. The base theology that emerged from early Christian creeds (300-600 ad)

The second and third are soundly handled by using the term "restorationist Christian". By definition, restorationists do not identify with the heritage/history/theology of traditional Christianity, which they feel has gone astray. The first is the only sort of definition that could with any sort of legitimacy reject the current lede's first sentence. But I don't think any reliable source has ever defined Christianity as #1 does. Are there any possible definitions that I'm missing? ...comments? ~BFizz 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for interacting on this, let's take our time, because I don't know what the answer is, but we need one. Also, I like your brainstorming, those are three pretty good definitions. Let me brainstorm some more, I'm not seriously proposing these for this article or for Wikipedia, just brainstorming. Also, I'm not going to restrict definitions to those that exclude JWs, that would be the wrong place to start, imo. The following definitions are not mutually exclusive, and I'm sure they can all be sourced.

Definitions of Christian (this list is not exhaustive, numbered only to keep count)

1. people chosen by God for eternal life with him (wherever that might be)
2. people who have received God's Spirit (Trinity not necessarily implied)
3. people forgiven sin on account of Jesus' death
4. people who publicly declare their personal commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as God's own Christ
5. people who have been baptised (a) by denominational authorities (b) by authorities in related denominations (c) by anyone
6. people who acknowledge the New Testament as God's word (a) in whole (b) in part
7. people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by a denomination
8. people who actually live according to the New Testament (a) in sinless perfection (b) with sin covered by confession or repentance (c) without deliberate sin (d) at least involving bible study, church, prayer and evangelism
9. people who avoid committing the (a) "unforgivable sin" (b) any "mortal" sins
10. people who attend church (a) only one denomination (b) any authorized denomination (c) any church they like
11. people with Christian parents (including unborn children and infants, 1 Corinthians 7)
12. people who are citizens of "Christian" countries
13. people who indicate "Christian" on census forms, or have it registered on identity cards (as in Indonesia)
14. people who self-identify as "Christian", accepting whatever they mean by that term, even if they are not even clear themselves
15. people who have never apostasized (renounced "the Faith") (a) except under duress or persecution (b) under any circumstances
16. people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by the Oxford English Dictionary
17. people who have characteristics as described in literature about Christianity (a) denominational literature (b) Christian academic literature (c) secular academic literature
18. people who have any kind of association with any of the above definitions

I'm absolutely sure I've left out plenty of popular, simple definitions that can be found in reliable sources. There are, of course, dozens of others. Are there any that stand out to anyone else as being missing? Alastair Haines (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of where you are trying to take this. Are you saying that Witnesses are a Christian denomination, as stated in the intro of the article, or that they are not? The Wikipedia article on Christian defines such a person as one "who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who they believe is the Messiah (the Christ in Greek-derived terminology) prophesied in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, and the Son of God." That definition is drawn from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the BBC (the latter which includes a trinitarian belief as part of the definition). The Witnesses conform to such a definition, with the obvious distinction of being non-trinitarian. They also themselves claim to be Christian. I don't see that a list of 18 dot-points, drawn from your own ruminations, is necessary to make a ruling on whether they are or not for the purposes of this article. LTSally (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair raised what he called three "three significant facts":

1. defining Christianity is not simple, - False. I previously provided links to several dictionaries that give non-theological definitions of Christianity. Those different sources all give a simple primary definition of Christian.

2. JWs themselves distance themselves from broad Christianity, - Irrelevant. JWs' application of special conditions for being 'true' Christians to exclude other religions from the term Christian is a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

3. the bulk of Christian denominations do not acknowledge JWs as broadly Christian either. - Irrelevant. Other Christian indidivuals/denominations' application of special conditions for being 'true' Christians to exclude JWs from the term Christian is also a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk)

Alastair also provided a non-exhaustive and largely subjective list of Christian definitions:

1. people chosen by God for eternal life with him (wherever that might be) - POV - God's existence unproven, but JWs satisfy their interpretation of this definition.
2. people who have received God's Spirit (Trinity not necessarily implied) - POV - Existence of God and Holy Spirit unproven, but JWs satisfy their interpretation of this definition.
3. people forgiven sin on account of Jesus' death - POV - Event's of Jesus' death not historically proven, theological significance unproven, but JWs satisfy their interpretation of this definition.
4. people who publicly declare their personal commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as God's own Christ - Complies with basic definition of word. JWs satisfy this definition.
5. people who have been baptised (a) by denominational authorities (b) by authorities in related denominations (c) by anyone - POV, but JWs satisfy this definition.
6. people who acknowledge the New Testament as God's word (a) in whole (b) in part - POV, but JWs satisfy this definition.
7. people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by a denomination - POV, but JWs satisfy this definition.
8. people who actually live according to the New Testament (a) in sinless perfection (b) with sin covered by confession or repentance (c) without deliberate sin (d) at least involving bible study, church, prayer and evangelism - extremely vague & subjective POV, but JW ideals satisfy the principles of this defintion.
9. people who avoid committing the (a) "unforgivable sin" (b) any "mortal" sins - POV - Existence of "unforgivable sin" unproven, but JWs satisfy this definition.
10. people who attend church (a) only one denomination (b) any authorized denomination (c) any church they like - JWs satisfy this definition.
11. people with Christian parents (including unborn children and infants, 1 Corinthians 7) - POV, but JWs satisfy this condition
12. people who are citizens of "Christian" countries - Highly contestable POV.
13. people who indicate "Christian" on census forms, or have it registered on identity cards (as in Indonesia) - not definitive, any individual of any religion may or may not state this correctly.
14. people who self-identify as "Christian", accepting whatever they mean by that term, even if they are not even clear themselves - Highly POV, though JW doctrine is very clear on the subject, and JWs satisfy this definition.
15. people who have never apostasized (renounced "the Faith") (a) except under duress or persecution (b) under any circumstances - Highly POV.
16. people who acknowledge the doctrines specified by the Oxford English Dictionary - No access to definition. Definition supplied by Alastair. Vague, but JWs satisfy this condition. (However, Alastair only provided a secondary definition. If the 7 other dictionaries I have considered are anything to go by, the primary definition is likely much more general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
17. people who have characteristics as described in literature about Christianity (a) denominational literature (b) Christian academic literature (c) secular academic literature - Broad, vague POV. JWs satisfy aspects of this definition.
18. people who have any kind of association with any of the above definitions - so vague as to be meaningless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! Jeffro, since you bring it up. You are the best example of a proponent of the True Scotsman I've encountered at Wikipedia.

Jeffro: All sources agree that the Tritinity is irrelevant to the definition of Christianity.

Alastair: But 30,000 denominations, and the JWs themselves think the Trinity (or its denial) are absolutely relevant

Jeffro: But no true (read neutral) source thinks the Trinity is relevant to the definition of Christianity.

Excuse me, I have to clean my monitor. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your attribution of the above statements is intellectually dishonest. I never stated that all sources discount the Trinity as relevant to the definition of Christian. I stated, correctly, that non-theological sources that give a general definition of Christian, as you will find in dictionaries, do not indicate any relevance to the Trinity. And feel free to present the official statements of denominations (rather than individual members) that state that JWs are not Christian and their reasons for it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, in case you are genuinely confused rather than patently dishonest, I have not seen any secular dictionary that states or implies that the Trinity is relevant to the definition of Christian. But feel free to present some.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you are still confused, your own statement in your imaginary conversation above is irrelevant here, because what those people think is relevant is inherently their own point of view, which Wikipedia specifically avoids. (Though it is highly unlikely that you have accurately surveyed the official views of 30,000 denominations regarding their attitude regarding JWs' status as Christians.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Loosen up! Laugh! Graciously concede! Otherwise you just look like your wriggling. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Concede to what? You've presented very little in the way of specifics. But thanks for the one sourced definition you did supply, which does not preclude JWs. I have invited you to indicate any sources for definitions that endorse your claim that Christian excludes JWs, but you have presented none. Nor have you supplied any source for your claim that 30,000 denominations (officially) exclude JWs from their definition of Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Back. Jeffro, how can I respond to your assertion that "Defining Christianity is simple: lots of dictionaries do it"?

Allow me to quote an example of your understanding of the Scotsman fallacy from the Oxford, no less:

Christian B substantive: "2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety." [Emphasis added.]

Of course, there's no fallacy, and also, of course, the Oxford doesn't claim to know just which particular people or groups would fit the definition, since that depends on whatever can be understood by the "spirit", "precepts" and "example" of Christ—a matter of New Testament interpretation regarding which the Oxford is well aware it is not expert.

Please don't assert I'm wrong on your own authority Jeffro. I know a thing or two. You paint yourself into a corner. Question the issue, don't try to combat someone more familiar with the sources than yourself. This is a complex question with issues I've not even started to consider. I'd like friendly company as we take the adventure of working it through together. Gathering sources for others who can follow in our footsteps, once we've summarised it all nicely.

I've offered only 17 of many verifiable definitions of Christianity. You are insisting that precisely one of those can ever apply, in any context at Wikipedia. Sorry Jeffro, that got to be bollocks. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the definitions you supplied exclude JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, I've got serious work to do elsewhere. I suggest you take a 24 hour break before posting here again. Come back when you're relaxed and happy to laugh at yourself. You assert the falsity of my statement "Defining Christianity is not simple". That's a universal, in this context: "in any Wikipedia article the definition of Christianity is simple". I provide 18 verifiable definitions of Christianity, providing many counterexamples. In true Scotsman fallacy style, you not only dismiss one counterexample, but do it repeatedly with a long list! To put icing on the cake, you then accuse me of intellectual dishonesty on the grounds that my first example didn't show your style of argument. Actually, my first example was absolutely valid. But, the funny thing is, you provide an even clearer (and repeated) example of it in the very post in which you deny being guilty of the fallacy.

Jeffro stop! Stop trying to win! Stop trying to imply a complex question is simple and settled. It is neither of those things. And it is obviously neither of those things. You're only trying to trick others into thinking things are settled, so you can keep your precious PoV in the article. Stop it!

If you're willing to take an idea on board. It's simple: from Wikipedia's point of view no source is neutral. How could we ever verify neutrality? Because the source claims to be neutral? Certainly not! Because an editor deems a source neutral? Obviously not. Because a bunch of editors vote that a source is neutral? No way!

When people claim a source is neutral, they are often saying more about themselves than the source. They simply share the PoV of the source. Jeffro doesn't know or care about Christian doctrine, the Oxford doesn't know or care about Christian doctrine. Case closed ... for Jeffro.

Come on Jeffro, these are plain basics of Wikipedia! Come back tomorrow and pretend you know nothing, and I'll do the same. The basis for all progress at Wikipedia is people working together on the basis of assumed ignorance, seeking to resolve questions (rather than conflicts) by appeal to reliable (not neutral) sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll post when I have time, which at the moment is now.

Your long list of definitions only demonstrates that none of those definitions precludes JWs, but by all means feel free to indicate any that you think do. And please note that I did not contend that your definitions were wrong (though some pre-suppose the existence of entities whose existence is unestablished).

On non-denominational websites such as Religious Tolerance.org, BeliefNet, BBC Adherents.com etc, JW is invariably included within the category of 'Christian'. (The Adherents citation also indicates that both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia include Jehovah's Witnesses within the term Christian.)

When you come back tomorrow, perhaps you will supply the elusive alternative definitions of Christian that support your claim that the term excludes JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here, thanks to Jamie's excellent questions, and I'll stay a bit thanks to your decent post.

The first definition—chosen by God—might exclude the JWs, alternatively it might exclude everyone else.

Wikipedia is written from the scientific point of view, i.e. the position of ignorance.

Applied to God, that position is known as agnosticism (as I'm sure you're aware): God might exist, or he might not exist.

There is no consensus in reliable sources on that particular datum, and indeed none is likely, because it is rather hard to perform experiments that would exclude the possibility of there being a God.

But that's just Wiki basics, so let's return to the substantial issue.

We have perhaps the most primary definition of Christian: God's chosen.

But how can we know whom God has chosen? It seems impossible.

Oddly, however, it is not hard in the case of Judaism.

The criterion, in the Old Testament, for God's choice (rather simplified) is descent from Abraham.

Indeed, that very idea is also in the New Testament, and the metaphor of gentile Christians being decended by faith from Abraham is used (however that is supposed to work).

In fact, just how faith (whatever it means) and God's choice work, is discussed at length in the New Testament.

It is hardly surprising that it is also much discussed by Christians (in the sense of "believers in the New Testament").

These Christians (in the sense I've just mentioned) are concerned to learn, from what they consider to be a reliable source, just what it means to be a Christian (in the sense of God's choice) and what it means to be a Christian (in the sense of how to live).

(Please forgive me labouring the point that there are many senses of the word Christian.)

Now, all this worrying about what the Bible says makes no sense at all if you don't believe in God, unless perhaps you are a Christian (in the sense of having Christian parents or living in a "Christian country").

In that case, you might be interested in just precisely what point of view the Bible has.

But, finding that some parts of the Bible might possibly be taken in different ways, you decide to see what reliable sources might say about which reading or readings might be preferable.

Now, you might want reliable sources for the point of view that the Bible is incoherent, in which case you'd not consult any Christian (which sense?) scholars. Alternatively, you might want affirmation of some kind of hope or faith you feel, and consult tracts and sermons. Or, you might be pretty scientific, wanting to compare different scholastic Christian (which sense?) points of view with different scholastic non-Christian (which sense?) points of view, wanting to judge their merits and demerits for yourself.

Wikipedia serves the interests of all these readers, documenting all the points of view.

It doesn't tell them "there is no God", and the only meaningful sense of Christian is classification according to historical association.

Or rather, it does in this article. Is that because it's the point of view of half-a-dozen editors willing to fight to insist on it? Please tell me it's not. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apt demonstration of why I struck out the POV definitions that pre-suppose the existence of supernatural deities. As you correctly point out, we aren't to presume in the article whether those entities do or do not exist, so the definition you've considered here is not particularly important for a secular article. Since god has 'decided' to remain silent on the matter, those definitions that presuppose supernatural entities are of no benefit to establishing whether or not JWs are Christian. 'God's chosen' ultimately fails as any reliable definition of Christian because 1) it has no relevance to the base word, 'Christ', and 2) it is impossible to verify. However, it is a mistake to assume that a person doesn't necessarily understand biblical subject matter in the absence of belief in god (whether that be me, or other readers).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is obviously not secular, it is neutral.

In Christian doctrine God is presupposed.

So, if doctrinal definitions are being offered, as they must be, if an article purports to document a Christian group, God becomes part of the picture.

In Christian doctrine God is not silent.

So what God may, or may not, have said about things, is frequently a matter on which it is worth expressing a PoV.

In JW doctrine, who, pray tell, chooses the 144,000?

On what basis have millions accepted this doctrine?

The definition of "awful" need have no reference to the base word "awe" and does not preclude me saying, for example, "your arguments are awful." Alastair Haines (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

At last I've got it! Sorry it's taken so long. Finally, I can see the bind you're in, Jeffro.

Jeffro wants a definition of Christian that doesn't involve God.

Stated that simply and accurately it sounds like you've got no hope whatsoever.

Two unfortunate co-incidences have tripped you up, though.

Firstly, you think you have found such a definition, not just one, but two: dictionaries, and classifications of religions.

Secondly, some groups use the name Christian, but don't think the Christ is God.

Bingo! A recipe for disaster.

Misunderstanding the difference between neutral and secular makes things even worse, but I've explained that most clearly and briefly in a reply below to LTSally who has the same misunderstanding.

I don't have time now, but I think I can help you Jeffro. "Christian" always connotes reference to God. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Alastair, can you succinctly explain which definition(s) of "Christian", if any, exclude JWs, and what reliable source(s), if any, asserts such a definition for the word? Throwing up the smokescreen that "'Christian' is hard to define" is not a good excuse for changing the lede's first sentence. I specifically started this section with the title "Definitions of 'Christian' that do not include JWs", but you went and added a large bundle of definitions that don't meet this criteria. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Haynes, you confuse me. Regardless of what definition of Christian is correct. By stating that the word Christian means you accept Christ is God is POV to the groups that believe that Christ is God. They may be a majority but nevertheless the stance is POV, biased towards the majority.

There is a conflict here. You are happy accepting the doctrinal stance of a majority, I.e. Christ is God. Essentially a consensus. But you are not happy with group consensus deciding Wikipedia article content? Does that not seem somewhat conflicting to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieStapleton (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, the one thing which you have stated excludes JWs from being Christian (i.e. "don't think the Christ is God") is disqualified by the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of Unitarians as Christian, because the premise of your argument is based on a definition that does not have consensus among Christians or even among Trinitarians. That said, you are yet to provide any suitable definition of Christian that precludes JWs. It appears that your objection to the classification is based on a biased value judgment about Christians, JWs, or both.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All of these definitions are completely irrelevant. Provide a reliable source written by an objective observer (i.e. not writing form the point of view of a particular denomination) and expert in the histpry or sociology of religion that defines JW as something other than christian - then we can discuss whether that view is sufficiently notable to be incluided in the lead. This is all Original Research and Synthesis. When reliable sources say that they are Christian it needs better sources to include the opposite viewpoint - and that still would only mean including BOTH viewpoints appropriately weighted against eachother.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, people that write about religion tend to be religious, and therefore quickly lose their "objectivity". If there is significant dispute about whether or not JWs are Christian, then perhaps we should include a section in the article documenting said disputes (very carefully avoiding OR). ...comments? ~BFizz 16:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Avoid controversy in the lead

I notice that all three editors above belong to the Jehovah's Witness Wikiproject. I can only wonder whether they consider me a brother or not, I guess time will tell. But to business.

I think it a little unwise to apply unnecessary adjectives, both regarding the denomination, and regarding the New World Translation. If adjectives are needed, we can use them in the body of the article, where there is room to express the major schools of thought both pro and con.

I've added a source, from a published PhD.

"The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern or scholarly."

— Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1983), p. 93.

I'm not game to write it in yet, but I will do so if necessary. My recommendation is that we leave well alone, and let the New World Translation article do most of the work of documenting the scholastic commentary on the NWT. The lead here needs no evaluations of the NWT. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A few things.

1. Jeffro, LTSally, and I all self-identify as non-JWs (or in LTSally's case, an ex-JW). Membership in the wikiproject does not imply membership in the religion.
2. The adjectives in the lede first sentence are absolutely necessary.
3. The adjectives in the lede regarding the NWT are appropriate and illustrative.
4. The quoted source would work fine in the criticism section, but what's it doing in the lede?

We're kind of at the "Discuss" part of BRD, so I for one would appreciate if you would break your arguments down very clearly. Start by quoting a currently standing chunk of the article, then explain what you think is wrong with it, and optionally propose a solution. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. State clearly and specifically your objections and proposals. And please be concise in your comments. Rambling observations about friendship with other faiths reduce the likelihood of other editors reading your comment and absorbing your viewpoints. LTSally (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You guys really like to communicate that you feel in charge don't you?

So far, instead of providing good reasons for glaring issues in a couple of places in the lead, you simply assert: "a few of us have already got it all worked out", and direct criticism at the editor who is pointing out the issues.

I'd say we're still at the ownership and obstruction stage. But you have your opinion, I have mine.

The first sentence would read much better as: JWs are an exclusive, pacifist and evangelistic denomination arising from the Christian tradition.

"Restorationist" is a PoV term claiming Arianism is an authentic branch of Christianity, although it denies Jesus is God.

Good for Arians! They might well be authentic Christianity. But the claim is still only one PoV.

"Millenial" is an arbitrary doctrinal category. The Millenium is inferred, by some, from Revelation 20. JW doctrines interact with the Bible much more comprehensively than that, including many distinctive teachings which have adjectives to describe them.

I'm proposing "pacifist" because it's one of the most famous (and positive) things about the JWs (see Pacifism#Jehovah's_Witnesses). It's also an ordinary English word, as is "exclusive". I'm placing "exclusive" first, because that is more general, less arbitrary and provides scope to explain the relationship between JWs and Christian tradition.

Evangelism is another well-known distinctive of the JWs. It also connects with the "Christian tradition".

Instead of blinding people with science, start with what they know. Instead of provoking controversy with a PoV claim, state what can't be denied. It is in the sense of broad Christian tradition that JWs can be called Christian. As far as doctrine goes, either JWs are the only Christians (JW PoV) or they are not in fact Christians (PoV of almost all other denominations).

Other issues that have still not been addressed:

1. the BBC source does not assert that JWs are Christian
2. the reliability and suitability of the Kid's World Almanac have not been explained
3. the third source for JWs as Christian is a JW source, one PoV deserves another
4. the NWT is "literal" and "conservative" according to one scholar "biased" and "dishonest" according to another, the first scholar's PoV cannot be admitted without the second's also

You got problems here dudes, get to work! Alastair Haines (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Restorationist (in the context used) isn't a POV term, it is a term that describes groups of people who have a particular POV, and the term is quite important with regard to JWs.

I don't have any specific problem with simplifying the lead by leaving out Millenial, provided that it is still dealt with in the article. The word wikt:exclusive is bit vague, because the term may imply either to the exclusion of others in the genereal sense, or of superior quality.

It is generally better to avoid mixing adjectives that describe the religion (restorationist, etc) with those that describe its attitudes (pacifist, exclusive) in the same sentence.

Because "Jehovah's Witnesses" as an organization functions as a proper noun in the singular (like the trademarks 'Corn Flakes' or 'X-Men'), it is proper grammar to state that "Jehovah's Witnesses is a ... denomination".

Your preferred wording of "denomination arising from the Christian tradition" is circumlocutory. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and by all secular definitions I've seen, JWs are Christian (and you are most welcome to present secular definitions that suggest otherwise, which until now you have not done). Because Wikipedia is not censored, we don't need to avoid acknowledging that JWs are Christian on the basis that people of other religions might disagree (though the official positions of those religions is also largely unclear/unstated). By all means feel free to add better references. (You have already cited some you believe to be better for acknowledging JWs as Christian.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On just point, they are not pacifist. William Whalen, in Armageddon Around the Corner notes that point; Hoekema in The Four Major Cults identifies them as adopting a stance of political neutrality rather than pacifism. In the Watchtower of August 15, 1964 they specifically reject the suggestion they are pacifists. LTSally (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sally. Three excellent sources. Witnesses deny it themselves (that would be enough for me). Hoekma provides a more precise description, that's helpful for me. I really appreciate this. There's a lot I don't know about the Witnesses, and I'm hungry for what sources can tell me. Experts, who know the sources, like yourself, Sally, give me just what I'm looking for.

I guess it's back to you to come up with a proposal for how to remove the PoV from the lead. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In 50 words or less, what POV precisely? And there is no need to provide sources for the claim that they are not pacificists, since the term is not mentioned in the article. It was you who proposed its use. LTSally (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You do need a source Sally, I'm not your disciple. Both your opinion and mine are irrelevant. Only sources matter. Not just for what goes into articles, but for what stays out.

I've given short explanations of the PoV, long ones, sourced ones, to you and now four other people.

Are you actually listening? I can't see how repeating myself will help.

In 100 words or less, please summarise my objections to the current lead. Alastair Haines (talk)

Thanks for your comments Jeffro. It's nice to hear you take my point about the arbitrary nature of the "millenial" designation, it's no big deal, though. Take it or leave it is fine by me too.

I take it you are American, because it's only in US English that speakers feel collective nouns should be singular. So you're wrong on grammar, but as JW history started in the US, it is US usage that should be adopted per Wiki MoS.

There are Exclusive Brethren and Exclusive Baptists, and a number of other denominations where "exclusive" has the sense applicable to the JWs. It is unquestionably easier to understand than Restorationist, which apart from being PoV, is also vague: what is being Restored? But I'm not set on any of the words I've proposed, the main thing is removing the PoV, just how we do it is only secondary.

Circumlocution is one methodology frequently recommended in style guides for avoid commitment to a PoV. Again, I don't care how it's done, but the PoV must go, and it's over to you to provide some alternatives. There are many circumlocutoray options, so that might help you come up with something.

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia in the sense that it is not committed to any particular religious point of view, and that includes atheism. Instead it is eclectic, all points of view without editorial preference. "Jeffro prefers secular sources" is merely making explicit the PoV implicit in the current lead, it is not an argument in defense of it, nor is it any help to correcting it.

But the secular sources argument is even more impotent in the case of doctrinal issues, for two reasons. Firstly, secular sources do not state that JWs are "Christian" in any absolute sense, they merely classify JWs with other denominations that have a common ancestry based on the New Testament. I have already made clear that I support classifying JWs as Christian, they belong on the Christianity nav bar, and that bar belongs in this article.

However, the second reason the secular source argument is impotent is because secular sources, unless explicitly doing so, cannot be presumed to be addressing matters of Christian doctrine, it is not a matter they claim to be expert in, nor to have any claim to expressing an opinion on, mostly because they have no stake in the issues. They are not invited to adjudicate, because they are not competent to do so. Since secular sources claim no authority in speaking on Christian doctrine, and since they are not invited by the involved parties, it is inappropriate for us to co-opt secular sources to play a role they do not themselves pretend to play.

That Wikipedia is uncensored is a good point. The article absolutely must take note that the JWs are Christian (in the doctrinal sense) and other denominations are not, according to the JW PoV. It must also take note that the doctrinal difference is reciprocated, according to the PoV of other denominations. The censorship here is against denominational views other than the JWs.

So, I guess our question is nicely clear. Should we fix the PoV problem by:

1. including the mutual anathamatization in the first sentence of the lead (i.e. adding the view of the 30,000 censored denominations); OR
2. by circumlocution, or other standard methods, defer the undisputed fact of mutual anathamatization to the body (i.e. follow the example of the BBC and avoid declaring the JWs as "Christian" in the doctrinal sense.

Surely it's got to be the second option doesn't it? We can't define groups by mutual anathamatization, or, fair's fair as Jamie pointed out, mutual anthamatization would end up in the definition of every Christian group. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a secular encyclopedia. The casual reader needs to be informed in a sentence or two what Jehovah's Witnesses is. Answer: it's a church, a denomination of Christianity with its own distinctive beliefs and doctrines. The definition you seek is for another encyclopedia entirely, one that deals only with religious minutiae. LTSally (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything that claims knowledge is a point of view.

The neutral point of view never claims knowledge of anything except other points of view.

Wikipedia is written from the neutral point of view, not the secular point of view.

The secular point of view is a point of view, because it claims knowledge, or there'd be no point sourcing it.

It is not neutral, it is a point of view.

Regarding the designation "Christian", the secular usage is one of classification, not doctrinal definition.

Christian doctrinal designations like "millenial", "premillenial", "postmillenial" and "amillenial" can only be established on the basis of Christian sources.

Those are non-negotiable basics. Arguments based on contradicting them all fail. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Another rambling 'reply' (though not really replying to anything anyone really asked). As with many of your assumptions, and though it is really none of your business, you are wrong about your guess that I am American. And you are wrong about the grammar, because we are talking about a proper noun (being the name of an organization), not a collective noun (referring to a bunch of people).

Your reference to 'Exclusive Brethren' is irrelevant, because 'Exclusive' is part of the name of the group, irrespective of opinions of whether they are actually 'exclusive'. 'Restorationist' is also a specific term with a well-defined meaning—the opinion of whether Restorationist groups are actually a "restoration" of 'first-century Christianity' has no real bearing on the suitability of the term itself.

You have repeatedly ignored requests for any definition of Christianity that, in any measurable way, excludes JWs, and the closest you've come is hypothetical rambling about who a deity might have 'chosen'; however, your red herring about atheism is also irrelevant, because the secular definitions of Christian, as found in dictionaries, are not incompatible with theism. And if as you claim, there simply aren't any specific secular sources, then we fall back on basic secular definitions, which brings us back to you explaining in what manner JWs do not comply with basic secular definitions of Christian, or indeed with the definitions you provided.

As far as presentation of facts about JWs, it is a fact they are a Christian group, because such is plainly obvious from their teachings, and supported by their inclusion as Christian by third parties—including the Catholic Encyclopedia's inclusion of Unitarians as Christian—and the distinct lack of any remark on just how they are not Christian.

Further, the JW POV that other religions aren't Christian, is not a fact, just as the theological opinions of members of other religions about JWs are also not facts (and their theological opinion of other religions is appropriately covered elsewhere in the article). You again state that '30,000 denominations' all have the view that JWs are not Christian, but this too is your unsourced opinion.

So, given that you're wrong on quite a many points, at least do this:

• State which definition(s) of Christian that you believe JWs do not satisfy. (Unverifiable opinions such as 'chosen by God' are not suitable, because none are verifiable by such criteria.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

OK your use of the word "rambling" and your continued committment to falsified assumptions shows you still haven't understood.

It's odd to hear someone being confidently critical of logic they admit they can't follow, but I'll leave you to shoot yourself in the foot on that one. I can concede at least one more triviality to you, that it is true I find "Jehovah's Witnesses is" such a very awkward expression, grammatically correct as indeed it is, that I instinctively read it the wrong way. "The Jehovah's Witnesses denomination is ..." or some other expedient would avoid this reader surprise.

I've answered all objections clearly (as can be seen above), I'm right about the awkwardness of "is", right about "exclusive" as being applicable to denominations (even within their name as was sourced), and yet my simple challenges continue to be ignored: BBC "Christian-based", Kids Almanac, JW source for JW designation (neutral?), "biased" and "dishonest" translation.

It's rather obvious that answers are not being offered because they can't be. Instead, insulting red-herrings are posted.

Still, I'll plow on. You rightly understand that Restorationist is questionable, that's a helpful concession. But I do take your point, that if it's a sufficiently standard term for denoting a classification rather than asserting a historical affiliation, that would render it acceptable. As I keep pointing out classification is the key. Nice to see things are getting clearer.

Instead of answering my simple objections, you continue to assert I hold positions I've never put forward. Of course dictionary definitions of Christianity are consistent with theism! But not much more! That's the whole point! The dictionary attempts to be comprehensive in describing usage, which is very broad. The dictionary does not exclude more specific definitions of Christian, including say the JW claim about true Christianity being exclusive to their own denomination, or a similar claim by Roman Catholicism (salus extra ecclesiam non est)—yet another sourced PoV, this time with 17 centuries of currency, and one of many which is offered outside the JWs as excluding them from being inside doctrinally defined Christianity. (Not my own opinion, just an extremely well known PoV.)

Since it is clear that I'm right on all these things and that you are wrong (you are even contradicted by text in the body of the current article). I suggest you give up the insults and side-tracks and answer the challenges I've posted again and again. Thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not right. And it doesn't matter whether you are right. It matters what sources say. As is now the only reliable, academically published sources (Beckford and Holden both sociologists) support the current version of the lead. To challenge any of it you will have to provide equally reliable sources. Opinions of theologians from other christian branches are not to be considered reliable in this case.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said it matters that I'm right?

But since I am, what are we going to do?

The lead currently expresses a point of view regarding Christian doctrine: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a ... Christian denomination."

Christian B. sb. 1. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

Christianity 2. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.

OED

No problem so far, well defined PoV and Wiki is all about documenting every PoV we possibly can.

But we have to verify them of course.

Any claims regarding Christian doctrine need reliable sources of Christian doctrine for verification.

We need to verify JWs "believe or profess" the "system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles."

Unless Beckford and Holden have theological qualifications, they're simply not reliable sources on the teaching of Christ and his apostles.

Still no problem, though, because we do have one reliable source for the PoV: a JW source.

But there is something missing ... other points of view!

What we want is opinions of theologians specialising in Christianity.

(They're not all Christians, by the way, not that it's relevant.)

I want to finish copyediting a Hinduism article, so we can nominate it for FA.

How long do you think you would need, Manus, to confirm no significant portion of theologians of Christianity deny that JWs teach the "doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles."

For example, that the apostles did not teach that Jesus is God.

I'll save you some time. Here's but one.

• "The full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the essential doctrines of historic, orthodox Christianity."

— Don H. Howell, "God-Christ interchange in Paul", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (1993): 467–479.

So, in case anyone got lost along the way there. To state that a person or group is Christian means (according to the Oxford) one who believes or professes doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles. Howell (and rather a large contingent of scholars, not all Christian) express the point of view that Christ and his apostles taught the "full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ". On the other hand, JW scholars, express the point of view that Christ and his apostles taught no such thing.

If the JWs are right about what Christ and his apostles taught then they are Christian and others are not, and vice versa.

As Howell said, and JWs will agree, "the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ" is an "essential doctrine" to affirm or deny. Essential means not optional to professing the religion of Christ, i.e. without it one is not, in the Oxford's terms, a Christian.

My recommendation: kill the word "millenial" in the first sentence so "Restorationist Christian" reads as a technical categorisation of affiliation and history, which historians and sociologists can talk about, rather than a doctrinal expression which puts us at the mercy of theologians.

Alastair Haines (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, your thread is headed "Avoid controversy in the lead." It may be early days, but it seems that you are the only person who takes issue with the current wording. You are convinced you are right, but for all your windbaggery, you have yet to attract any support. Just a thought before you launch into your next sprawling commentary. LTSally (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Windbag" eh! How does that explain your point of view on the article?

Thanks for the invitation to attract support, I'll widen discussion shortly, if necessary. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If your recommendation is to use "Restorationist Christian" as a technical categorization, then we could simply swap the position of "restorationist" and "millenarian" to read "millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination". Or the categorization might be "Christian restorationist", and it might be OK to say "millenarian Christian restorationist". But the millenarian element of the Witnesses is a big deal, and deserves its position in the first sentence. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Fizz, great idea. I'd certainly be able to join you in defending the phrasing "milleniarian Restorationist Christian denomination". I'm struggling to verify the usage "Restorationist Christian", though. I did find it applied to the International Churches of Christ. Any help you can give in pointing me to other sources would be greatly appreciated. I'll check the current reference at my own college library. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objections to "millenarian Restorationist Christian denomination". ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of this was discussed in September 2009 at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 46#Restorationism / Millenarianism.
I'd written there:

Jehovah's Witnesses have described themselves and early Christians as "Millenarians". The term is hardly a pejorative! [... See] "Christians and the Millennial Hope", The Watchtower, April 15, 1981, pages 13-14, "Roman Catholic Church and...Protestant religions never mention the millennial hope to churchgoers. They speak disdainfully of that hope as “millennialism,” and of those who share it as “millenarians.” But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not ashamed of this belief ..there is cumulative evidence that the early Christians were “millenarians,” insofar as that name was applied to those who were hoping for the 1,000-year reign of Christ the Messiah. --AuthorityTam (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tam! :)) Good for you! I'll check out that archive, and especially anything you have posted.

I'm glad "millenarian" is not pejorative. My personal experiences of JWs have been too rare and all positive. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A further thought regarding your logic, Alastair. You've identified one of many "teachings of Christ and his apostles" (the full deity of Jesus). Its fairly safe to say that JWs follow and propogate many other (undisputed) teachings of Christ and his apostles. The definition you point out does not say all teachings, it just vaguely says "the system of doctrines and precepts". Admittedly, many find the trinity doctrine to be a big deal, but its still only one of many doctrines and precepts, and excluding JWs from Christianity based on that one doctrine certainly does sound like a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr Fizz, you are a sharp mind! I can find little to disagree with in anything you post. Indeed, the possibility of the very weakness you mention did occur to me. So, I selected, not the Trinity, but the divinity of Jesus as a doctrine, and for several reasons. What the Oxford cannot say, theologians do say. That is, not all "doctrines and precepts" are alike within Christianity. So a 90% hit rate on a checklist may, or may not, indicate "belief in the teachings of Christ".

For those versed in the Bible, Romans 14 and other passages include precepts regarding "disputable matters", whereas in Galations we hear that "some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (NIV).

I doubt we'd find any Biblical scholar who'd deny that: "disputable matters" are understood not to divide "believers in the teachings of the apostles and gospel of Christ"; however "perverting the gospel of Christ" is considered to divide believers from unbelievers and so divide Christian from not Christian, in the Oxford sense of the word.

But how could we verify what constitutes "perversion of the teachings of Christ"? Well, ask a JW scholar, ask a Mormon scholar, ask a Catholic scholar. Not surprisingly, they all have very clear points of view on this matter. The source I quoted above is just one of many who notes that "The full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the essential doctrines", i.e. one that cannot be denied without "perverting the Gospel of Christ", hence denying the "teachings of Christ" rather than "believing or professing them", hence falling outside the definition of Christian, as defined by the Oxford.

The argument that Branch Davidians are Christians because they believe some of the teachings of Christ, doesn't actually fit the Oxford definition. The Oxford does not say what subset of doctrine makes one a Christian, only experts can tell us. Consider the simple reductio ad absurdum: Buddhists are Christians because they believe one should "love one's neighbour as oneself". If a subset of the teachings of Christ suffices to make one a Christian, then everyone is a Christian and the word is meaningless. But the Oxford makes no such error, and nor should we. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said theologians are not a reliable source for categorizing or characterizing the beliefs of other denominations than their own - theology is not a scientific discipline, but a religious one. There is of course any number of catholic or lutheran theologians who would volunteer their opinion that only faithes that follow the nicaean creed are christians - this is of course irrelevant, just like the opinions of sunnis and shiites do not reliably tell us whether the ahmadiyyas are muslims or not. Only historians of religion or sociologists of religion objectively classify religions based on their practices and their histories and their selfidentification. In this case sociolgists of religion agree that JW is best described as a group of Christians holding millenarian and restorationist beliefs. Untill better sources show up or consensus changes the lead stays that way (the order of restorationist, millenarian and christian I don't care about particularly). The "other points of view" you are talking about do not belong in the lead but in a discussion about how other religions view the religion if such a discussion is within the scope of the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Maunus, but you don't decide matters, nor does democracy, only sources and policy do.

But thanks for supporting my proposal anyway, doctrinal views do not belong in the lead, so the current text must change.

Thanks also for acknowledging that sociologists can only offer classification not doctrine.

I'm not aware of any views other than classifying JWs as in the Christian tradition, just as we do in the nav bar, so it doesn't really matter whether it's historians or the Kids World Almanac Online that we use to verify the point. Readers might have just a tad more confidence in Beckford and Holden than in the Almanac, though.

I detected an error in your post, though, Maunus, Theology and Sociology are both scientific disciplines. Theology is no more "religious" (whatever that means) than Sociology is "political". But you're entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, it's not relevant. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing that sources and policy decides what to include - Now I can't wait to see you stop filling this talk page with rambling nonsense and actually provide arguments based on either sources or policies - or maybe even both. And Thanks for cotinuing in your snide pseudo-civil tone it is appreciated that at least you try to hide your contempt for other editors and the principle of collaborative editing. On the other hand I think we have been extraordinarily fair in our continuing to attempt dialogue with you. Now get in line with policy: present sources and sound arguments based in policy or go find some other talkpage to assault with your nonsensical opining. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Manus, if "sounding civil" is a bad thing, I'm sure that "sounding uncivil" can't be much better. Let's keep things focused on the issues and principles at hand, rather than individual editors. I've actually agreed with editors who annoyed the smack out of me, and disagreed with very pleasant people. It happens. I think we are all aware that Jehovah's Witnesses think "Christendom" is so off base that it will be destroyed. It's fair to note that they do not think they are part of this condemned group.EGMichaels (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounding civil doesn't mean anything unless ones' comments actually ARE civil - Alastair Haines is not civil, he just tries to sound like he is by being sarcastic and snide. That is what I am calling him out on by expressing my sarcastic "thanks" just like he does. Now, on the issue - in my experience JW's do not refer to "christendom" when they talk about who are condemned but to "false religion" which is all other religion. However they do routinely and exlusively rfer to their faith and way of life as "christianity" and to themselves as christians. But again it is besides the point: reliable sources call them a christian denomination with millenarian and restorationist beliefs. No one has presented any reliable sources to the contrary - only the opinions of catholic theologians. AND even if someone did provide sources that would not invalidate the reliability of the other sources and we would have to discuss how to weight the viewpoints against eachother - not whether one of them should be exluded form the lead. Alastair Haines is demonstrating a complete disinterestedness in policy and a complete vestedness in a silly crusade to defend some theological position.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Why would catholic theologians not be reliable sources for catholic opinion?
2. I've read a number of Watchtower books that refer to Christendom as a condemned group.
3. How is arguing for a neutral inclusion of all reliably sourced views in the body and exclusion of all reliably sourced controversial statements from the lede some kind of crusade?EGMichaels (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic theologians are of course reliable sources for catholic opinion - but catholic opinion is not relevant to how other religions should be classified, just like JW opinion is not relevant to how catholicism should be classified. Catholic opinion may be includable somewhere in the article body, if there is consensus among editors about how it should be weighted against other viewpoints. Alastairs struggle for removing what he sees as "controversial" statements from the lead is failed firstly because he is not in fact arguing just contradicting and because there is no policy that controversial statements should not appear in the lead but only that viewpoints should not be given undue weight.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, again I think that you are mistaking the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not trying to establish ultimate reality, but rather to document notable and reliable views. Catholics, as "Christians" have as much right to say what they think "Christianity" is as anyone else. If they disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, that's something to be noted -- not to make Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholics "wrong" but only "different."EGMichaels (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that wikipedia is about establoishing absolute reality buty that relatively objective viewpoints (such as those made by sociologists according to objective criteria) should be weighted above partial viewpoints. I have explicitly said that all notable viewpoints should be given their due weight, you seem to have failed to notice that rather important detail.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a slight disagreement about what Wikipedia is supposed to do. All we do is document notable and reliable views. At no point do we determine absolutely truth or objective reality. We can document that Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics each think that the other is wrong, but we don't care if either is right, or even both wrong. The only reason we're having such a hard time in discussion is because we don't realize how easy our editing job is supposed to be.EGMichaels (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alastair, once again you provide another rambling reply. You start by falsely attributing to me some admission that I didn't understand your rambling; however, I never suggested that I had trouble interpreting your long-winded response. And you have still failed to supply a neutral definition of Christian that excludes JWs... you did supply the theological opinion of Don H. Howell; however, his opinion that Christian excludes non-trinitarians is invalidated (as a neutral definition for the purposes of this article) because the Catholic Encyclopedia specifics that Unitarians are Christians. You are therefore yet to provide a neutral definition that excludes JWs from the definition of Christian. Additionally, Howell's definition makes no statement about what may be the beliefs of unorthodox Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

More rambling insults and continued failure to understand what neutrality means. There is no such thing as a neutral definition. Every point of view is a point of view. No point of view is neutral. The neutral point of view merely documents all point of views without evaluating them.

Can you please stop asking me to provide a self-contradiction. Jeffro asks Alastair to provide "a neutral definition that excludes X". Neutrality cannot exclude. It's like asking for a neutral country at war with Germany in WWII. You got me. I can't give you an answer. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

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? ~BFizz 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? ~BFizz 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)

Changing stance

Having reread and pondered EGMichaels calm explanations of Alastairs reasoning I have hade to change my stance. If what Alastair and EGM is suggesting is that we word the lead in such a way that we do not state that "JW is X" but rather that we circumvent the question by describing their history and beliefs - in a way similar to how Ahmadiya does not explicitly define the Ahmadiya denomination as either Islam or not Islam - then I think it may be possible and I could even support that. For the record I think I would have probably realized this earlier if it had not been for Alastairs obfuscating, confrontational, provocative and arrogant argumentation style - which is clearly counterproductive. EGM however, managed in a calm and civil manner managed to translate his tirades into sound argumentation which (if I have understood it correct) convinced me that it is not necessarily a bad idea to avoid "controversial" claims in the lead. I apologize for letting my feelings get the better of me, and reacting so strongly to the tone of Alastairs argument rather than the message. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. Sometimes two people rub each other in such a way that they have trouble agreeing. Not sure that's anyone's fault, but if we can all work out something we're okay with, that's great :-). EGMichaels (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that the current lede be set in stone, but I feel that its current form is quite good. If you intend to change it, I expect your modifications to be of exceptional quality. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For the moment I figured most folks wouldn't object to a tiny tweak so that the lede quotes the wording in one of its sources. At issue is less whether Jehovah's Witnesses are "Christian" (which they consider themselves to be) or some kind of religious denomination (which they are), but rather the phrase "Christian denomination." Those two words put together probably wouldn't sit well with all mainstream Christians or all Jehovah's Witnesses either. They do believe they are exceptional and not just one of the crowd. I figured while we're talking that little tweak wouldn't be too controversial.EGMichaels (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of WP:OR and opinions about what may or may not "sit well", Wikipedia editors should stick with verifiable refs. JW publications have quoted reliable sources which refer to them as a Christian denomination, demonstrating that both Witnesses and non-Witnesses accept the term as neutral. For numerous examples, see Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 45#Denomination.
See also the Austrian Times and ReligiousTolerance.org.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Tam, exactly how is it OR to quote one of the sources? I'm not trying to get the lede to say they are NOT a Christian denomination (since there are sources that say they are), but rather to word it so that it doesn't INSIST they are a Christian denomination (since there are sources that say they are not). "Christian-based religious movement" is the wording of one of the refs and does not contradict EITHER position (that it is a Christian denomination or that it is not).

Here's the idea:

• If you can find any notable and reliable source that says they are not a Christian denomination, put it in the body.
• If you can find any notable and reliable source that says they are a Christian denomination, put it in the body.
• If you can find any notable and reliable source that challenges either position (i.e. it is not a universal view), remove it from the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's original research to imagine some polling about what may or may not "sit well" with some constituency. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved next paragraph from User Talk to here.

Tam, I didn't contradict the sourced ref. I QUOTED the sourced ref. I figured quoting the ref was the simplest compromise while we worked on the lede.EGMichaels (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, one ref says JWs are "Christian-based", and that one cited ref is not the one immediately following EGMichaels's recent edit. By contrast, we could cite hundreds that say JWs are Christian (period). We don't ignore that just because there may exist (to quote previous editor) "any" disagreement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)