Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Template:FAOL

How to archive JW talk pages

I'm putting this at the top of the talk page to help preserve it, hopefully it won't be another year before the talk gets archived. Our system is a bit different from the normal WP:ARCHIVE. Here's how:

- Create the page: Search Wikipedia for the archive you want to create (even though it doesn't exist yet e.g. "Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 26") or click on an existing archive link, then enter the number of the archive you want to create in the URL (Change: ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_25 to ...//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_26)

- Add the text: Wikipedia will indicate that the page does not exist and provide you with the option: "Start the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 26 page". Start the page, copy/paste (ctrl + c for copy, ctrl + v to paste) all the material from the current talk page that you want to archive.

- Add the templates: Before you save it add the following three templates to the very top of the page: {{talkarchive}} {{JWArchiveNav}} {{JWArchiveNotice}}. Preview, then save the page.

- Edit the {{JWArchiveNav}} template: (By now the archive page is already created, now we just need the link to archive page "26" to display on the main Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses page). Wiki search for Template:JWArchiveNav (or click the link here), then go to "edit this page". Add another line of text (copy/paste an existing and just change the number to 26, don't forget the comma) e.g. From [[Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive 25|25]] to [[Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive 26|26]] (you may or may not need a comma at the end of the new line, just preview it first to make sure that the Archives 1-26 all display in one row). Save it, you're done. Duffer 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributors Credentials

I find it questionable that the main contributors to this article are a Roman Catholic and an Atheist (who I won't name directly due to WIKI policy, but just look for yourself), two of who belong to ideologies that are in direct opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. It also appears they have almost total control over the content in this article. They diligently revert any contributions to this article that are not made by them, claiming that those opposing entries are biased (hmmmm). They also regularly make entries in the talk section to each other, which seems like a collaboration. They propose that this is balanced.

I'm wondering how balanced the views of these individuals are. They cite source material, but their presentation of it seems negative. Do you also contribute to other religious articles, say on Mormonism or Judaism? If so, I would like to read those balanced contributions.

I'm not saying that a rabid pro-JW should write this article. I'm just saying that contributors who are clearly from groups historically opposed to JWs should not have total control over the content either. Rodbender2001 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have contributed in a small way and my edits have not been "diligently" reverted. All statements in the article are backed up by authoritative sources. If they seem negative to you, perhaps you have an issue with the Jehovah's Witness religion, and not with the Wikipedia article. --Sungmanitu (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have no issues of any kind with "the religion." It is a fact that the tone of the article has changed over time. When I first read this article over a year ago, I was impressed with it's fairly neutral stance. I even recommended the article others. Not any more. Since then, it has been edited almost exclusively by people who do not seem to be using balanced material.

Since your edits were small, they may have slipped under the radar, or were not in contradiction with the two or three people who seem to have control over the content. Also, by your comment, I take it you are not a JW, so therefore your edits would not be rejected by other non-JWs. There is a comment on this page from a contributor who argued about her edits being immediately reverted by particular editors because she contradicted them, as if they were the foremost experts on JWs. Look for yourself at all the comments on this page and the history and see who has the most control over content, then look at their backgrounds. Just for fun, also look at other articles in WIKI about religion and see how slanted they are. Do those articles have edits made by JW's, for example or by people from other religions that don't know anything about that particular religion?

As far as "authoritative" sources go, they are obviously slanted as well. Can we honestly believe that material written by those who are extremely opposed to the Witnesses (extremely opposed is an understatement in many of these cases) is going to be balanced? Many of these people are sworn opposers of the Witnesses, using any means possible to do so. Maybe there is a spec of truth somewhere in their writings. But how would anyone know which is truth and which is biased opinion? Do other articles on religion in WIKI have material quoted by opposers of that religion? Again, I'm not saying Witnesses should have all the say either as that would also be biased. Maybe there is no way to keep things totally balanced. But at least there should be an effort to quote from sources like encyclopedias or other sources that are neither pro or against the witnesses, but just state the facts in a logical and neutral tone.Rodbender2001 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sungmanitu's edits have not simply "slipped under the radar". If you continue your accusations and insinuations, and violation of WP:AGF, you will be reported. If you have a specific instance in the article that you think should be changed, discuss it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has far more balance than it had a year or two ago. I have worked hard to add material referenced from the few serious studies of the Witnesses and their beliefs and history. Penton is excellent, Holden is very good, Rogerson has its merits and Franz provides some very good insights from a unique perspective. Despite the trashing Franz gets from some Witnesses here -- on the simple grounds that he was disfellowshipped (ostensibly for dining with his employer and landlord, who had disassociated himself) and is therefore evil, biased and untrustworthy -- his book is one of the most diligent studies of the origin and consistency of Witness teachings. It's a great pity so few Witnesses will read it! The inclusion of sources separate to Watch Tower literature in an encyclopedia is vital. Material that is critical of Witnesses does not indicate bias, but I can appreciate that some Witnesses, in their closed-off world, are disheartened by the inclusion of such material. I don't see any cliques editing the article or forcing their view on it. If you see material that is biased and non-neutral, by all means change it or raise it in discussion. LTSally (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to argue that, even assuming good faith, there does seem to be a bit more interest in siting the controversies of Jehovah's Witnesses then there is for some other religious organizations. I'm not suggesting that because of X, there should be Y. But I'm just wondering if it's necessary for there to be five articles related to child abuse and JWs, with almost dozens of references from sites that would hardly be considered neutral, much less pro-JW. I'm not saying it's deliberate, or shouldn't be mentioned. It just an example of how the things people would consider weird or wrong about them is where the article and others are most likely to expand upon.

Sally, I would submit that it's biased to suggest that Witnesses live in a closed off world, just because a few of the less articulate ones have found their way to this talk page. As they say, "It takes all kinds." Add to that, it's just as much an assumption that Witnesses haven't done a great deal of research before they decided to hang their hats, religiously speaking, with the Witnesses. It's those kinds of comments from editors that might lead one to become suspicious of the article's slant. Intended or not. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspicions about "the article's slant" would be better based on the article itself rather than my comments on the talk page. My suggestion about Witnesses living in a closed-off world refers mainly to their choice (and restriction) of reading material about their own religion, but my comments were't biased -- they were just my opinion. Can an opinion be anything other than biased? Look, I want the article to be fair, balanced, neutral and accurate. I'm curious about the reference to "five articles related to child abuse and JWs". I can see Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, which needs a lot of work, and Silentlambs, which is more about the organization than the issue, but no others. Why do you query "the necessity" of the sex abuse article? Is it any less "necessary" than articles on My Book of Bible Stories or Regional Building Committee? If they pass the notability test, they have a place, if anyone can be bothered creating them. I can't see that the existence of those two articles about sex abuse implies any conspiracy of anti-Witness sentiment among Wikipedia editors. Want evidence of articles critical of other religions? Try Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Scientology controversies and their spinoff articles. LTSally (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, particularly in reference to the to these comments. You accuse me of making accusations, then you make them yourselves about Witnesses living in a "closed off world" and being "inarticulate". And isn't it interesting that I didn't originally name the particular people I was talking about, yet as I predicted, they have responded immediately and are threatening to "report" me? Obviously you feel you are the only one allowed to police this article, so you bully anyone who dare defy your "authority."

Steven Colbert made the funny, yet accurate observation about WIKI in his Word of the Day "Wikiality" in which he made the case that anyone can make up any "fact" they want to, and if enough people support it, it becomes "Wikiality." This article is what he must have based his spoof upon. Yes that was comedy, but comedy is a reflection of our world as well.

And here you people are making prejudiced comments about me because you think I'm a Witness? Does that not show your bias against this subject? You obviously think ALL JWs are closed off and never leave their houses, only talking amongst themselves and only reading their own literature. That is not the case. In fact, they are the exact opposite. They are encouraged to LISTEN to the hundreds of people they talk to every year. How many people do that today? Is that closed off? Some of the most intelligent, articulate, and talented people I know are Witnesses. Just because you don't like the belief system of a religion doesn't make those people stupid.

So you know what? I'm going to leave you all to this article. You just keep watching it for any edits that might be contrary to yours, and making sure you report people to WIKI for daring to defy you. Do not expect me to return with my ignorant, closed-off world, inarticulate comments. Scum like me should not be allowed to even view the hallowed pages of this grand Wikepedia. Jeffro, you can just go ahead and report my "accusations" to WIKI. When the WIKI police come knocking at my door, I'll invite them in for coffee and we'll have a grand time. Rodbender2001 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, a Wikipedia article is not some baseless rant by a clique of like-minded editors. If you don't like the factual statements that come directly from accredited sources, do the research and find credible sources that contradict them. Vague condemnations of the article as prejudiced and biased mean nothing unless you can point to specific instances and suggest a specific remedy. In short, be bold! --Sungmanitu (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rodbender2001, you come to the Talk page, complain that only certain editors make any changes, but you make absolutely no suggestions for any improvement to the article yourself. The purpose of Talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. If you have a problem with something a particular editor has included in the article, there is absolutely no benefit in saying so unless you indicate what in the article that they have inappropriately included. (Edit: This would also include indicating any reliablely sourced information that has been removed from the article that you believe should be in there.) Even when explicitly requested to indicate what in the article you believe to be inappropriate, you continue to malign the editors instead. It therefore seems evident that your purpose is simply to cause trouble. But if you actually do have anything to say that might actually be for the improvement of the article, please prove me wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes 3 & 4

Footnote 3 says Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian-based, not Christian. Footnote 4 might use the word "Christian sect", but the article has to do with psychology, not with comparative religion. Poor sourcing in my view, some sort of pseudo-attribution. --82.103.240.167 (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: If you believe the references are not suitable, this can be discussed. However, please note that identification of the group as Christian has been thoroughly discussed previously. Most arguments for not calling the group Christian are to do with non-trinitarianism, but it has been thoroughly established that Unitarian Christians are Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the exhaustive debate about this recently, I strongly doubt you'll succeed in removing the description of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, if that's your aim. If you have a suggestion to make, let's hear it. LTSally (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is that those references should be removed, or at least that the idea of removing them should be discussed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Footnote 3 says "Christian-based", therefore it seems that it shouldn't be used as a source for the description "Christian". Footnote 4 seems better but it seems to me that a more fitting source would be an article about comparative religion, not psychology. But actually, if self-identification is the sole criterion for determining if a group should be described as belonging to a particular religion or not, then shouldn't the description also be attributed to the group in question? If there's no need for an external authority in the content of the article, then I guess not in the footnotes either. --212.54.25.15 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't know my IP had changed. --212.54.25.15 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So what I'm proposing is that both references be removed and replaced with something more appropriate. In my view the more appropriate reference would be some official text of Jehovah's Witnesses that states they are a Christian community (since their own understanding of themselves is what matters in this question). --82.103.239.21 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (The same who started this.)

Primary sources are not sufficient per Wikipedia guidelines.[1] --Sungmanitu (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

.

Actually, self-description as Christian is appropriate for most Wikipedia purposes; see Christian#What_is_a_Christian.3F.

How about the original name of their principal journal, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence?

How about the name of one of their principal corporations, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses?

How about their website FAQ? here, quote:

"Are you Christians?

"Yes. We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and put faith in the ransom sacrifice he provided for the salvation of mankind. We imitate his example in preaching and teaching and in our dealings with fellow humans. We also look forward to living in true peace on earth under his heavenly Kingdom."

If doubt remains about what they think of themselves, you could look at their 1992 brochure entitled Jehovah’s Witnesses—A Christian Community.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sungmanitu. What we have now is preferable to primary sources. The BBC's use of "Christian-based" does not mean that it is not Christian.

Anon, did you read "Status as a cult" in archive 38, to see how we arrived at the present wording? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The matter at issue should be stated plainly.

Is the argument that these two footnote references are not useful?

Is the argument that some non-JW reference is needed before Jehovah's Witnesses can be called "Christian"?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-JW (i.e., secondary or tertiary) reference is needed per Wikipedia guidelines. --Sungmanitu (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

These two footnote references are useful; and yes, non-JW reference is needed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please state plainly what point should be supported by non-JW reference.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That they're Christian. Did you bother to read the discussion I referenced earlier, that provides the context for the present wording? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is self-evident that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian from their beliefs, and claims that they're not Christian tend to revolve around them being non-Trinitarian, which is an application of theological bias. It has been previously demonstrated that even the Catholic Church acknowledges non-Trinitarians as Christian. Additionally, there is also no reference for stating the Roman Catholic Church is Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a satisfactory answer. It being "self-evident" that they're Christian is clearly only an opinion when there are dissenting views. The citation policy requires that material likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable source. Jehovah's Witnesses attract controversy and there are obviously many people who dismiss their claim of being Christians, for whatever reason. I think the last of those citations provided by A-Tam, from the JW website, was enough to show that Witnesses themselves believe they are Christians, and another third-party source would be helpful. LTSally (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro77, where has it been demonstrated that the Catholic Church acknowledges non-Trinitarians as Christian? --212.54.16.42 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the heading, Unitarians, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian; in its present specific use it is applied to that organized form of Christianity which lays emphasis on the unity of the personality of God."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, must do some research on this topic. Thanks. --212.54.16.42 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The third footnote doesn't call them Christian, therefore it shouldn't be used as a source for that. It doesn't matter that the wording in the BBC page "does not mean that it is not Christian"; it doesn't mean either that or the opposite, so why should it be used as a source for either? I don't think the 4th footnote is good either. Concerning the rule that JW sources should not be used: does it really apply to this question? I mean, is it really forbidden to quote JW's on a matter of their own doctrine? Because it is their own understanding of themselves that dictates whether they are called Christian or not in the article, not some extra-JW source. Basing the text factually on JW doctrine and then just attributing it to some selected non-JW source agreeing with JW doctrine seems to me like putting the carriage before the horse. I mean, there are non-JW sources claiming the opposite than the 4th footnote, but now it seems that the article is taking stand which position is correct. If it was clearly shown that the classification in the text is based on JWs' self-identification, then there would be no problem. --212.54.16.42 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A tertiary source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570056/jehovah’s_witnesses.html --Sungmanitu (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the footnotes have been replaced with that, there is no more problem with the 3rd footnote. But I think my problem with the 4th footnote (see above) still applies. --212.54.16.42 (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what 212.54.etc might want but http://religions.pewforum.org/reports could be used too. But it is confusing. OR if one has "The World Almanac and Book of Facts" under Major Christian denominations it has a nice chart about JW's. Johanneum (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that Johanneum put back footnote #3, which Jeffro77 took out, I have to repeat my argument: 1) The BBC page should not be used as a source for "Christian" because it does not call JWs "Christian". No, it doesn't call them "non-Christian" either, but that is not the issue here. Yes, the BBC page is "informative" - but footnote #3 deals with only words "Christian religious movement". Other information on the BBC page is not essential with regards to that. 2) Concerning both footnotes #3 and #4: If the reason why Wikipedia is classifying JWs as Christian is their self-identification, why cannot the description also be attributed to the JW understanding? I mean, since some non-JW sources classify them as Christian and some do not, now it looks like that the article includes a statement about which sources are correct. And it anyway seems silly to just pick and choose a source that agrees with JWs' own definition, leave any disagreeing sources out, and then make the article look as if the classification was based on the non-JW source, when factually it is based on JWs' self-identification. So is it really forbidden to refer to JW sources on a matter like this, and if it is, what is wrong with my argument above? --212.54.9.91 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not forbidden to refer to JW sources. Primary sources are usually not sufficient, however (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources ). Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and must refrain from involving itself in religious disputes. Secondary or tertiary sources which claim that JWs are not Christian are generally biased claims by religionists. We must use secular, dispassionate references. --Sungmanitu (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-removing the BBC reference. Are you sure about what your second-to-last sentence says? It's pretty natural that sources don't use the word "non-Christian" (or non-anything, in any article about any religion), but we should have a look which sources refrain from calling them "Christian" and/or call them something else (e.g. "Christian-based").--212.54.9.91 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources besides the BBC? --Sungmanitu (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming anything, just asking if you are sure about what you said. --212.54.9.91 (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside that this thread could have been resolved in a few minutes if only the matter at issue had been stated plainly, such as: "Two references (footnotes "3" and "4", which say JWs are Christian) are not sufficiently unambiguous. Can someone provide better references for the point?"

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

COULD or WOULD 1975

Year Book of JW's stated 1975 p. 256 "This certainly raised questions. Does this mean that Babylon the Great will go down by 1975? Will Armageddon be over, with Satan bound, by then? ‘It could’ acknowledged F. W. Franz, the Watch Tower Society’s vice-president, after posing similar questions at the “God’s Sons of Liberty” District Assembly in Baltimore, Maryland. However, he added, in essence: ‘But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975."

You will not find a WOULD for 1975. Johanneum (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please DO NO SHOUT on the talk page or in the edit summaries. You're splitting hairs. Page 29 of "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God contains multiple uses of the word "would" in regard to 1975 ... How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to act .... this would be most timely for mankind ... it would be fitting on God's part ... that book, plus the additional references in Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Unfulfilled predictions, plus the later apology by the Watch Tower Society, all amount to support for the claim that there were strong expectations that Armageddon would take place that year. LTSally (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the word Please would have been more fitting. Sorry if I came across as shouting. The point is there is a difference between saying something WILL happen and stated that it may, could, even should. One can be taken as dogmatic something the WT has done with other dates. However to say it would be fitting if God were to act is not the same as saying GOD WILL act. There is no solid evidence to say "WOULD or WILL" as the article lead our readers to falsely conclude. The "would" applies to Armageddon as the article stated not about other issues. I did not even find the word Armageddon on pg 29! Johanneum (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I will added a little to the context of the above quote in the Yearbook. "Just think where we are in the stream of time! Its importance was deeply impressed on our minds back in 1966. God’s people then received the absorbing book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God. It did not take long for most of them to note the chronological chart in it that identified 1975 as the “end of 6th 1,000-year day of man’s existence (in early autumn).” This certainly raised questions. Does this mean that Babylon the Great will go down by 1975? Will Armageddon be over, with Satan bound, by then? ‘It could’ " Johanneum (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'could' is a better term with relation to the statements about 1975 (if the choice is only between 'could' and 'would'). The instances of "would" quoted above are subjunctives relating to a conditional event ('would be appropriate', 'would be timely', 'would be fitting'), not a statement of prediction ('this would happen'), and therefore do not add weight to making definite claims for 1975 in themselves. Of course, other statements such as 'endorsement of people selling their homes in the short time left' etc, as well as the strained 1980 admission of raising such hopes (see Watchtower 1980 ref added to article), do indicate that high expectations for a 1975 Armageddon were certainly raised by the Watchtower Society.

(As a side point, whilst I'm aware of the analogy, the seriousness of the weak metaphor of a string of capital letters being equated to 'shouting' has always escaped me. Though lengthy prose in all capitals results in reduced reading comprehensibility, a couple of words in all capitals certainly won't cause any permanent damage. However, the preferred method for emphasizing text is to place it *between asterisks*, or to make it bold or italic. But why aren't strings of numbers, which are also all the same height like capital letters, not also considered shouting??)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro that sounds reasonable. I will have to think further about being "subjunctives relating to a conditional event." Johanneum (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When only one or two words of a sentence or phrase are in all-caps, that's emphasis (not shouting).

IMHO, the actual references much better support "could" rather than "would".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In accord with what I previously hinted at above, ("if the choice is only between 'could' and 'would'"), I have reworded the sentence to remove either word as the argument is tedious and unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Adventist?

Jehovah's Witnesses are not "an Adventist sect". I submit that only a tiny minority of "sociologists of religion" would classify them so, certainly not enough to warrant having this idea leading the article.

No early congregation left Adventism to become Witness; no early "founder" was ever a member of any Adventist congregation. Yet the first paragraph of this Wikipedia article begins, "Jehovah's Witnesses... Sociologists of religion have classified the group as an Adventist sect.[4][5]"

The so-called reference "[5]" never calls JWs "an Adventist sect", and actually draws stark distinctions between Adventism and Jehovah's Witnesses, noting, "While the Witnesses increased their intransigence and endured considerable persecution, Adventists increasingly compromised their original positions, prizing governmental approval."

The so-called reference "[4]" is published by "Hartford Seminary".
These are the two best references for this point? The "Adventist sect" point should be dropped, or at least dropped from the lead and then properly discussed.

Jehovah's Witnesses have always conceded that their early thinking was influenced by Adventism, and in a general sense they're perhaps (lower-case) "adventists" themselves. However, neither Bible Students nor Jehovah's Witnesses described themselves or their predecessors as "Adventist"; quite the contrary:

"Happy Are Those Found Watching!", The Watchtower, December 1, 1984, page 14,

"Russell wrote: “From 1870 to 1875 was a time of constant growth [for Bible Students]... We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists, who were expecting Christ in the flesh.” Russell and his associates quickly understood that Christ’s presence would be invisible. They disassociated themselves from other groups and, in 1879, began publishing spiritual food in Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence."

"Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)", Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 49,

"Russell stated: “...various prophecies we use were used to a different purpose by Adventists”"

“Here Is the Bridegroom!”, God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, ©1973 Watch Tower, pages 185-186,

"Bible study continued on. Thirty years later found a small group of men, not associated with the Adventists or affiliated with any of the religious sects of Christendom, studying the Holy Scriptures at Pittsburgh (Allegheny), Pennsylvania, U.S.A. They studied independently so as to avoid looking at the Bible through sectarian spectacles. Among these men was one Charles Taze Russell, just entered into his twenties."

"Priest Apologizes for Lies", The Watchtower, February 15, 1954, pages 125-126,

"Toma y Lee, meaning “Take and Read.” This periodical, dated January 25, 1953, said that Jehovah’s witnesses were a branch of the Seventh-Day Adventist faith... On February 9, 1953, we (two of Jehovah’s witnesses) decided to call on [the one] who was responsible for these articles, to ascertain the reasons for these misrepresentations and falsehoods. ...[Later, a Jehovah's Witness public] speaker quoted the assertions, misrepresentations and bold lies made in the periodical, and then, step by step, clearly and logically refuted them. He showed that Jehovah’s witnesses are not and never were Seventh-Day Adventists"

Admittedly, some Bible Student connection with adventism and early Adventism exists, but it should be described accurately. Recommend dropping "Adventist sect" from the lead unless and until it can be better supported as representing a majority of scholarly (rather than seminarian) assertion. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Jehovah's Witness publications are not always the best guide to the religion itself. Watch Tower publications denounce hierarchical religions, yet the Witnesses themselves are a hierarchical religion. They denounce dogmatism in doctrine, yet are very dogmatic in their assertions on scriptural interpretation. They condemn speculation, yet much of their eschatology is based on pure speculation, as Gruss has explained at length.

Alan Rogerson, in his "Millions Now Living Will Never Die - A Study of Jehovah's Witnesses", notes, "In the Witnesses' 'official' history 'Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose' and also in 'Faith on the March' the authors evidently wish to emphasise the differences between Russell and the Adventists – how they were wrong and he was right. In fact nearly all of Russell's beliefs, and certainly all the important ones, were thought up by other people – most of them Adventists." (page 7). Penton's study of the religion's origins devotes many pages to the strong connection between Russell and his Adventist mentors and on page 22 refers to the early movement (c 1877) as a "small band of unnamed Adventists". This goes far beyond your suggestion that there was "sdmittedly, some Bible Student connection with adventism". So there are a couple of scholarly sources. I'll add them if you wish. LTSally (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Though some people actually may have stated Jehovah's Witnesses so, calling Jehovah's Witnesses an offshoot of the Adventists would be misleading. It would be far more correct if the article said: "They share some background with the adventist movement". Summer Song (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is probably accurate to say Russell's group did begin as an Adventist sect – they were part of the Adventist movement, but diverged with their own flavor of doctrines. In other words, they hived off and formed a sect, as defined in the dictionary. That said, it's probably not helpful to describe them as that now; no more than it is to describe the Lutherans, or Protestants in general, as Catholic sects. The claim that "Sociologists of religion have classified the group as an Adventist sect" is actually poorly supported by references provided here. I'd suggest deleting the second sentence referring to the Adventist sect and saying in the second sentence, "The group emerged from the Bible Student Movement,[6] which was based on Adventist teachings and founded in the late 19th century by ..." or something similar. LTSally (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The theological views of George Storrs, an original member of Russell's bible study group, were strongly influenced by William Miller (who started the Adventist movement), and Storrs only broke with Miller regarding issues other than the 'Second Advent'. Nelson Barbour, an Adventist, collaborated with Russell in the 1880s, after the start of Russell's study group. The Bible Students were certainly influenced by Adventism, but the Bible study group itself that was started wasn't a break from any Adventist group, so it was not truly a sect of Adventism. I'm mostly happy with LTSally's suggested wording, though I think I'd be more comfortable with 'influenced by' rather than 'based on'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LTSally, except in that it is more helpful to describe the Witnesses as an Adventist sect than to describe Protestants as Catholic sects, since the latter is universally known while the former is not, and in fact the Witnesses efforts to cover up their sectarian roots speak to the importance of shining a light on their origins in a balanced article like this one. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Society is a credible source and should not be removed. --Sungmanitu (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also necessary to describe the Witnesses as a "sect" from a sociological standpoint (the sentence which appears later on in the first section is not sufficient as it attributes the designation to members of other churches). See Apocalypse Delayed, page 3. --Sungmanitu (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The early movement was in fact influented by various traditions. Russell himself was originally raised a presbyterian. Later he followed congregationalism, before he went through various speculations and then followed Wendell. The Watchtower literature states that the early Bible Students may have been influented by the congregationialists in some issues. Wendell was, if I understand right, a member of Advent Christian Church. However, Russell actually began to critisize the adventist movement after leaving it. Storrs was also some sort of adventist, bur Russell and his companions were never affiliated with his congregation. In fact, the Bible Students followed various traditions in the early times. Stating that they were, and even still are, an offshoot of adventism, is clearly misleading. Summer Song (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand right, Russell was baptized in Wendell's congregation and reckoned this baptism as valid the rest of his life. But he clearly distanced himself from the adventists and said that they did not satisfyingly understand the Biblical truth. He looked upon his own movement as something of its own. The Bible Students can really be said to have been influented by adventism, as well as various preacher movements and nontrinitarianism. They can also be called a restorationist movement. Summer Song (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some points to keep in mind. 1) Some sociologists still view the SDA movement as a sect. "Religion". 2) Generally their definition of sect has to do with separation from the world. (this can be stated without using the word "sect" 3)Sometimes even Catholics will call JW not a sect but a denomination. IF they can do it, can not a NPOV encyclopedia do it? "Religion". 4) Not all sociologist agree. Some will prefer the term "group" "Religion".others will say they are not a "sect". See pg 110 "Religion". 5) JW are often classified as a denomination. "Religion". and "The World Almanac and Book of Facts" Johanneum (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now going to try out a minor change in the text. I am hoping for comments. Summer Song (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some of the thoughts of the Adventists" is wordy and vague. "Influenced" misspelt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Predictions

The so called predictions of the end by Jehovah's Witnesses were not supported by the organization. Rather radicals guessed these dates on their own. It was writen in the Holy Scriptures that this day would come as a thief in the night. That not even Jesus knew. 1914 was not the predicted end of the world but the year when Jesus Christ was to recieve the throne from his father Jehovah/Yaweh and rule as king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hempman, the claims you have made here are entirely false. 1914 had been given entirely different significance, and that significance was assigned by the Watch Tower Society, not by (other) "radicals". JW's current views about 1914, which you present above, were only formed much later.

The Watchtower, January 15, 1892, p.1355: "The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874."

The Time Is at Hand, 1907 ed., p. 101: "The ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced."

Please know your subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you have anything to say about the actual article??--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

improve style

The article needs a linguistic overhaul. In the second paragraph, for example, "most well-known" should be "best known" (no hyphen), and "subsequently" should be changed to "consequently." These are very minor edits which I would have been glad to take care of on my own, but it was not possible to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.242.20 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the minor edits you've suggested. This article is semi-protected because of frequent vandalism. You can edit the article yourself if you create an account and become a confirmed editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Proselytize/evangelize

I disagree with changing the subhead "Proselytism" to "Evanglism". The Witnesses do avoid the use of "proselytize", which the dictionary defines as activity aimed at converting persons to a religion. Yet authors such as Holden and Penton prefer this word, which is more objective. What is the primary aim of the Witnesses' door-to-door activity if not to attract members — place literature, start Bible studies, attract persons to meetings, make them acceptable to God by means of baptism? "Evangelism" is defined as preaching the Gospel. I'm not sure that accurately defines what Witnesses do when they trudge around neighborhoods with the WT literature in hand. LTSally (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proselytism generally seems to include the provision of material benefits or services in order to induce a change of 'belief'. Evangelism seems to be a better fit, and its modern usage refers to attempts to convert a person to a religion rather than exclusively preaching the 'gospel' (literally 'good news').--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Proselytism generally seems to include the provision of material benefits or services in order to induce a change of 'belief'"? Where did you learn this? Online dictionaries such as [2] and [3] give no such suggestion. Russell's intention from the beginning to was to gather members of "the church" in a "harvest". Rutherford certainly wanted to boost membership. The basic aim was to win recruits, as the dictionary definition says. LTSally (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Evangelism#Evangelism_or_proselytism.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Evangelism#Evangelism_or_proselytism is not a well-researched article. No references, reads like opinion. Try Proselytism for a more succinct definition and better argued, though again without references. LTSally (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Proselytism" describes the "disciple-making" work that Jehovah's Witnesses engage in better than the more vague term, "evangelism."--Sungmanitu (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Witnesses widely use the term "disciple-making", which is more accurately defined as "proselytizing". It's about gaining recruits. Nowhere in the section under this heading is there a reference to evangelizing. The wording refers only to them "spreading their beliefs". LTSally (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary defines Evangelize as:
transitive senses:

1. : to preach the gospel to
2. : to convert to Christianity

intransitive senses

1. : to preach the gospel

Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry has this double meaning.

*** w03 2/1 p. 22 par. 14 “Keep Bearing Much Fruit” ***
The first Kingdom proclaimer mentioned in the Gospels is John the Baptizer. (Matthew 3:1, 2; Luke 3:18) His primary purpose was “to bear witness,” and he did so with heartfelt faith and with the hope “that people of all sorts might believe.” (John 1:6, 7) Indeed, some to whom John preached became disciples of Christ. (John 1:35-37) Hence, John was a preacher as well as a disciple maker. Jesus too was a preacher and a teacher. (Matthew 4:23; 11:1) Not surprisingly, then, Jesus commanded his followers not only to preach the Kingdom message but also to help individuals who accept it to become his disciples. (Matthew 28:19, 20) Our work today is thus a combination of preaching and teaching.

*** w97 1/15 p. 23 pars. 1-2 Helping Others to Learn God’s Requirements ***

JEHOVAH has good news for mankind. He has a Kingdom, and he wants people everywhere to hear about it! Once we learn this good news, God requires that we share it with others. This is a twofold work. First, we must proclaim the good news of God’s Kingdom. In his prophecy about “the conclusion of the system of things,” Jesus said: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”—Matthew 24:3, 14.

2 The second aspect of this work involves teaching those who respond favorably to the Kingdom proclamation. After his resurrection, Jesus told a large group of his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And, look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 28:19, 20) The ‘things Christ had commanded’ did not originate with him; he taught others to observe God’s commandments, or requirements. (John 14:23, 24; 15:10) Teaching others to ‘observe the things Christ has commanded’ thus involves helping them to learn God’s requirements. Honesthearted people must meet God’s requirements in order to become subjects of his Kingdom.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

POV at the introduction

Medical ethicists have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses as an authoritarian group for coercing members to reject blood transfusions.[20][21][19] Studies of the religion have claimed it demands unquestioning obedience from members,[20] with the consequence of expulsion and shunning facing any who oppose its doctrines.[21][22]

Is it logical an article about a religious group to begin like that???

Imagine:

Prologue for Catholicism: "Academics criticize it because of the Holy Inquisition and its involvement in thousands of wars".

Prologue for Orthodox: "Academics criticize them because of the vast use of idolatry and mysticism".

Prologue for Protestants: "Academics criticize their clergy because they supported racial discriminations and colonization".

Prologue for Ancient Greeks: "They are widely known for pederasty".

Does any of this articles have such introductions? Why, when it is for Jehovah's Witnesses, should the prologue say whatever negative possible to prepare mentaly the reader to hate them?

SHOW ME ONE PROLOGUE OF A MAJOR RELIGION THAT HAS NEGATIVE STATEMENTS!

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misuse the talk page by inserting inappropriate font sizes. The inclusion of the sentences on unquestioning obedience is appropriate because Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion that attracts controversy. A simple Google search will demonstrate this. Their system of disfellowshipping, the application of which is quite unusual among Christian religions, is one of the most controversial points about them. It is therefore appopriate (and logical, if you like, since you used that word) to include a brief summary in the introduction of the article of the aspects of the religion that attract controversy. The Wikipedia guideline on article introductions states that the lead section "should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies.". The article on Scientology refers in the introduction to controversy, but ultimately the presence or otherwise of controversy in the intro to other religions is irrelevant. You have tagged the page for a breach of neutrality, but the article is overwhelmingly neutral. The bulk of the article discusses the history, beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. All information is presented fairly, accurately and with balance. The issues of controversy are well sourced from reliable textbooks. There is no undue weight given to the negative aspects of the religion. It may be that, as a Jehovah's Witness, you simply don't like to see a criticism of your religion in the article. LTSally (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not with criticism, but with the focused and unparalleled criticism on JWs and to your constant effort to realize your empathy in Wikipedia.

I repeat. All major religions have controversial aspects, and with much more serious disputes than those of JWs. In none of their prologues in WP criticism is employed. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants didn't only shun people as we do, BUT THEY KILLED PEOPLE for reasons of faith. Do you grasp the difference?

You say: Their system of disfellowshipping, the application of which is quite unusual among Christian religions, is one of the most controversial points about them. This is your own conclusion, but I don't care about it. It is not your personal experiences or the personal expiriences of your friends and your Google search that determine that. Shunning is legal and for the law uncontroversial. The great disputes have to do with MILITARY SERVICE and BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS to the children. These are the cases of the courts world-wide.--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the points I raised. Your opening comments suggest your issue is more with me than the content of the article. I'm still waiting for you to explain where the article fails to maintain neutrality. If you can't explain this, I'll remove the tag. LTSally (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether something is "for the law uncontroversial" is not the benchmark for determining whether any notable controversy exists. However, for a controversial issue to notable for the lead, it would generally be a current controversial issue, which is the distinction between the cited JW controversies and those you cite for other religions above. I'm not convinced that there has been "unparalleled criticism of JWs", though such is a specific JW teaching and therefore a typical reaction by members when faced with any opposition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the introduction but it could/should be cleaned up. 1) it now appears as if 'all' Medical ethicists teach they are an authoritarian group which coercing members to reject blood transfusions. This is not the case. see: [4] and [5] and [6] 2) "unquestioning obedience" could be debated since their publications make it clear they can believe as they wish as long as they do not 'Promote' something that is against what is in print. eg. "Of course, these people certainly had the freedom to believe what they chose. But anyone who publicly or privately advocates views that are divergent from what appears in the publications of an organization, and who does so while claiming to represent that organization, causes division." JW Proclimers p.629 3) The statement that "expulsion and shunning face(s) any who oppose its doctrines" once again is not true, even if quoted. At length we have been though this before. It should say, "any who "prompt" other doctrines." see: archive #22 under "Disfellowshipping for belief" So anyway, it does need to be cleaned up to be NPOV but it appears that the fact that it is a controversial religion can appear. Johanneum (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Vassilis78 has something of a point when he argues that articles about other religions do not mention anything critical in their lead sections. However, some criticism is acceptable in the lead section as long as it is NPOV. I think the bit about "medical ethicists" is too negative. It would be more straightforward to say "JWs are known for their teaching about blood which includes a controversial prohibition against blood transfusions." Such an approach simply states that the "teaching about blood" is considered notable primarily because it prohibits blood transfusions. I also object to the bit about "medical ethicists" because it cants the sentence against JWs because "medical ethicists" presumably are experts on ethics and know what they're talking about. The sentence also asserts that JWs are authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a subjective phrase. Some say the JWs are authoritarians, the JWs see compliance as voluntary. We should not presume to judge who is right. "Studies of the religion have claimed that it demands unquestioning obedience..." This seems to be a bit extreme. How many studies have drawn this conclusion? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. I would not even support "Some studies of the religion have claimed..." What I would support is "JWs are known for their methods of congregational discipline which include expulsion and shunning of those who openly oppose its doctrines." Leave it for the reader to judge whether this is authoritarian and demanding of unquestioning obedience. JWs will argue that people are free to leave and those who stay are simply advised to avoid those who are no longer members of the flock. Once again, we should not sit in judgment but should objectively report the facts. --Richard (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Advised to avoid"? I'll correct you on that point, Richard. Witnesses are certainly "free to leave". Someone who chooses to resign from the religion may simply withdraw, but will remain forever subject to the organization's judicial system and may be formally expelled and shunned by family members and friends if they one day breach a JW edict (attend a different church, perhaps, or celebrate a birthday or Christmas). A Witness who chooses to resign, thus indicating they are no longer subject to the religion's judicial system, generally does so in writing. An announcement is then made to the congregation they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This, as spelled out in WT literature (Watchtower, July 1, 1984, September 15, 1981), is a coded message to all members, including close family, that they are henceforth to shun that individual, not even saying "hello" to them. Any Witness who disregards that edict is himself subject to punishment, including expulsion and shunning. Many Witnesses may insist that everyone is "free to leave", but departure carries a heavy price. It's not for nothing that researchers use the words "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". LTSally (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) The reference to the claim by medical ethicists is quite clear. It by no means implies all medical ethicists "teach" anything. (2) The reference to studies claiming the religion requires unquestioning obedience is well supported by reliable sources, This is, again, a notable fact about Jehovah's Witnesses that distinguishes them from most other Christian denominations. The quote you provide from the Proclaimers book does not support your contention that Witnesses are free to believe anything they want as long as they do not promote it in print. It is a hollow and cynical claim that a person can hold a personal view if it is clear they must not voice it if it diverges from the official doctrine. What freedom is that? (3) The statement that Witnesses who oppose the religion's doctrines are liable to be expelled and shunned is also well supported by reliable sources. Your claim that this is not true despite the presence of those sources, is your personal opinion. There are many documented examples of Witnesses being expelled and shunned for precisely that. I wonder what you seriously believe would take place if a Witness repeatedly gave answers in a Watchtower study, or included suggestions in a public talk or student talk, or freely speculated with friends that, say, the 144,000 of revelation is a symbolic figure only and not literal, or that all Christians go to heaven when they die, or that the Governing Body is not being used by God as his sole channel of communication, or that Jesus did not return in 1914, or that the requirement to go witnessing regularly and report it monthly is the product of a pharisaic religious attitude, and not actually a commandment of the Bible for the last days ... would their viewpoint be tolerated? The article is balanced, accurate and well supported by reliable sources. It reflects no point of view. LTSally (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording about medical ethicists was previously even worse, and I flagged the wording as an inappropriate appeal to authority on 10 January 09 but no one discussed. I prefer the new wording over the weaselish statement about medical ethicists. Regarding the comments about shunning, I agree with LTSally's response about the 'freedom in silence' (mentioning divergent beliefs privately to elders and not accepting 'readjusment' is sufficient for 'judicial' action regardless of whether such views are 'promoted'). However, I agree with Richard's comments regarding presentation of shunning in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard you could show a suggested change. What you say would again still allow the bear facts without the negative twist that it presently has based on some outspoken critics. 03:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sally, Sorry I was in a hurry. Perhaps I need to be a little clearer. First what Richard has suggested has the controversial information with out the negative twist, thus it is a NPOV. I venture to say that most medical ethicists feel they need to treat the whole person including respect for their personal beliefs. Thus while not endorsing abstinence from blood they do view it as a "rational" decision based on their personal religious convictions. Dr. Osamu Muramoto is/was an outspoken person promoting the "coercion" view which has been debated by others. As far as the disfellowhipping, my point was that a JW can believe differently than what appears in print from the WT society, with out any problem. The issue is advocating, promoting, teaching, then and only then, does it become judicial! I encourage you to read my old comments from the archives mentioned above. Johanneum (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice Work!!!! Johanneum (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal from the lead section of the information regarding claims that the religion demands unquestioning obedience from members, and the threat of expulsion and shunning facing any who oppose its doctrines, does nothing to address perceptions of bias and deserves no congratulation. That sentence contained a fact, not a point of view as has been claimed. Its removal and replacement with the statement that they "are also known for their methods of enforcing congregational discipline which include expulsion and shunning of those who openly violate their strictures and refuse to recant" is simply an attempt to delete material that many Witnesses would find unpalatable, and therefore aimed at not removing bias, but removing a claim they dislike. It is couched in terms thoroughly supportive of Witness methods. No, they are not known for this, they have been criticised for it. And there is no bias in stating that.

Richardshusr referred to the use of the word authoritarian as "subjective" and asks who is to judge whether this is correct. He says the reference to the religion demanding unquestioning obedience is "a bit extreme" and asks, "How many studies have drawn this conclusion?" Wikipedia articles properly rely on reliable sources such as academics and authors of books published by reputable publishers to present its information. You may be interested, then to note that Andrew Holden's Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement refers to the movement's "totalitarian" structure (p.32), an "autocratic" administration (p.22) and "authoritarian" principles (p. 173). H. and G. Botting's The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses refer to "tyrannical application of justice" (p.78), an administration that requires "absolute obedience" (p.92), a demand for "absolute conforimity and obedience" (p.95), the Governing Body's "totalitarian" exercise of power (p.157) and the organization's "dictatorial" nature (p.180). James Penton's Apocalypse Delayed refers to "totalitarianism" (p. 124, 245), "police-state controls" (p.250), authoritarianism (p.295, 300), "iron-fisted discipline" (p.296), "tight control" of members (p.306), coercion (p.306) and the "domination" of members by the Governing Body (p.318). James Beverley's Crisis of Allegiance refers to the "unrelenting emphasis on obedience to the organization" (p.100). Raymond Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom discusses how the organization "seeks to silence any difference in viewpoint" (p.110). Alan Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die compares the organization to "totalitarian states, in particular China" because it "directly controls the life of every Jehovah's Witness" (p.68). Penton, the Bottings and Franz make repeated reference to the swift and severe punishment meted out to those who question or dissent from the official teachings. These are not offhand, rare or incidental comments, but observations contained within serious studies of the religion by reputable authors. You may still regard these claims as subjective, but given the number of reputable authors making them, they gain the validity to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic profile of the religion and, as per WP:LS, in the lead section.

Though Richardshusr and Vassilis would like to remove "negative" comments, they are presumably quite happy to allow "positive" observations about the religion to remain in the article. Is this bias? WP:NPOV demands the expression of both sides, positive and negative, in order to achieve balance and neutrality. This article doesn't exist to advertise Jehovah's Witnesses, but to contain facts about them for members of the public wanting to learn more. I am going to restore the information about the claims re unquestioning obedience and of authoritarianism, because they are fair, well sourced, and belong in the intro as a brief summary of some of the points of controversy contained within the article. LTSally (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They are also known for their methods of enforcing congregational discipline which include expulsion and shunning of those who openly violate their strictures and refuse to recant.[22][23]

This sentence should be totally removed from the prologue. For every topic we can find critics, believe me. But this issue has never been publicly controversial so that it may deserve such a prominent position in the prologue. There is enough space in the "criticism" section and also, not to forget, in the main article about controversies on JWs.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sally says: Wikipedia articles properly rely on reliable sources such as academics and authors of books published by reputable publishers to present its information

How does this really apply to the Raymond's Franz books? Really, who runs Commentary Press?--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Witnesses' shunning policy is one of the paramount criticisms of the group. See [7]. The fact that their is no way to gracefully exit the sect is one of the reasons they are so widely criticized. --Sungmanitu (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How does this web-page proves that "the Witnesses' shunning policy is one of the paramount criticisms of the group"?--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the wrong link. See [8]. --Sungmanitu (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No way to "gracefully exit"? Members are free to gracefully exit simply by not attending meetings or professing to be a Jehovah's Witness for a short while. There is no discipline, no "shunning". It is only when members continue to attend meetings, associate with the congregation, profess to be Witnesses, while continually carrying on wrongdoing (such as immorality, alcoholism, etc) that there is any cause for action. 70.70.148.83 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's true. My parents are in this situation. But you see, on the contrary apostates always want to make a "loud" exit...--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from speculative pejorative JW generalisations on Wikipedia Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread has gone off-topic. It would perhaps be better to create a section for each example of supposed NPOV rather than a blanket accusation. I have one! See next section:

Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Intro POV - "demands unquestioning obedience"

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro POV - "demands unquestioning obedience"

Like others, apparently, I've been surprised at instances of what has passed for scholarship in this article. I've been disappointed at the occurrence of what seems nonneutral POV in a frequency greater than could be expected to occur coincidentally.

For example, the introduction (!) contains this statement:

Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members,[22]

That statement doesn't seem accurate to those familiar with the religion. JWs don't demand that members do anything 'unquestioningly', or 'without question'. Still, the statement uses the weasel word protector, 'studies say'... Let's look at that.

The statement says "studies" as though there are multiple "studies", yet there are not multiple "studies" cited, or even two. The only so-called "study" given for the reference is:

Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. pp. 10. ISBN 0415266092.

For now, let's proceed on the assumption that Holden is objective... Does the citation from Holden's work actually say what the Wikipedia editor repeatedly pretends it says? No. The citation says,

"When people convert to the Watch Tower organisation, they defer unquestioningly to the authority of those who are appointed to enforce its doctrines."

A sidebar seems necessary to note that Holden's own words seem poorly chosen; "Watch Tower Christianity" or even "Watch Tower theology" would have been more accurate than "Watch Tower organization" in this sentence. The matter of "converting" refers to a mental process which requires the resolution of questions. JWs are hardly unique in recognizing the steps between interest and Christian baptism: understanding, faith, repentance, conversion, dedication, baptism. The baptizand should have "converted" his way of thinking well before he dedicated himself and even longer before he requested baptism; in three sessions with three elders, a JW baptizand must have given evidence of having performed this process. It's difficult to imagine it could occur without any questions.

Using the dichotomous senses of 'subjective' and 'objective', the citation is explicit only regarding a new adherent's subjective mindset just before baptism, not the religion's objective ongoing "demands".
The citation doesn't say that deference is demanded.
The citation doesn't say that unquestioning deference is demanded.
The citation doesn't say that unquestioning obedience is demanded.
The citation doesn't say that any obedience is demanded.

The citation doesn't say Jehovah's Witnesses "demands unquestioning obedience from members".
Why would an editor pretend the citation said that?

Such unscholarly and/or dishonest misrepresentations say much about those who foist them consciously or subconsciously. Especially in an encyclopedic context, readers have an expectation that research should be free from agenda-driven misrepresentations. I'd be pleased to see this analyzed 'bad example' removed from the article altogether. How may unquoted references have yet to be honestly evaluated?
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

LTSally has indicated clearly and specifically above that there were in fact several studies regarding this point. Those additional studies can be used as refs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When we make a prologue, we don't just put something we find in a study, or two. Can you imagine how many details we can find to each study? Have you ever found an encyclopedia having this point in the prologue? This is not something that belongs to the prologue. The encyclopedias I have found until now always refer, at the prologue, to the door-to-door preaching, the refusal of military servive and some of them to blood transfusions.--Vassilis78 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

More tedious word-by-word analysis of a simple sentence in order to claim poor scholarship and dishonesty. Wikipedia nowhere requires the parroting of its sources, so there is no requirement for me to locate the exact formula of words, “Studies of the religion have described it as authoritarian, claiming it demands unquestioning obedience from members”, in any of the source material. Yet the phrase certainly reflects, accurately, the claims by multiple authors of studies on Jehovah’s Witnesses, so it is fair and accurate.

But to your challenges.

1. Is Holden objective? He is a sociologist, a researcher in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Lancaster, UK. He claims no background in Witnesses. The book, as he explains, was produced after some years of fieldwork, associating with Witnesses, attending meetings and studying their literature. The book is described as the first major ethnographic study of the religion. It’s amusing that, moments before raising the issue of Holden’s ‘’objectivity’’, you make the comment that “That statement doesn't seem accurate to those familiar with the religion. JWs don't demand that members do anything 'unquestioningly', or 'without question'.” This is an entirely subjective opinion, offered by a Jehovah’s Witness in defence of his own religion. On the basis of that personal opinion, you wish to remove a statement backed by multiple scholarly sources.

2. The sentence does say “studies of the religion have claimed” … because I need to identify the origin of the claim. The wording previously said “former adherents have claimed”, which was wrong. “Studies show” may indeed be a weasel word, but what are the options? State it as a fact? List the studies in the sentence? The phrase is acceptable, I think, if the studies are identified immediately as a footnote.

3. The list of sources, and their observations about authoritarianism and intolerance of dissent or questioning, I have already produced above should be enough to demonstrate that the claim is well supported. There is no requirement to list every source of claims, but I can certainly add some more to support the claim. Holden at p.22 says: “Devotees are expected to adhere to all doctrines established by the Governing Body … There has been no mechanism for contributing to or criticising the canon of official teachings. The establishment of doctrines has been very carefully restricted to, and controlled by, the Society’s Governing Body … an autocratic administration.” P. 33: “When people join the Watch Tower Society, they must adhere to its teachings, which means subjecting themselves the theocratic rule of God himself and to judicial committees that claim the right to function as a literal government.” James Penton, a retired professor of history and religious studies at University of Lethbridge, Alberta, refers (p.107) to the Society demonstrating a “zeal to suppress almost any questioning among the Witness faithful”. p. 124: “Watch Tower leaders seem determined to reinforce their authority at almost any cost. They insist on obedience to all of the various and sundry laws which they establish …” P. 245: “The governing body demands almost absolute obedience from Jehovah’s Witnesses. ordinary Witnesses and even senior Watch Tower officials must not disagree with the society’s policies or doctrines openly.” P. 249: “…The judicial committees of Jehovah’s Witnesses act in a manner similar to the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries when opposition to its decrees resulted in one’s being tried for heresy or apostasy.” Heather and Gary Botting, (she an anthropologist, he a professor of English) refer (p.92) to the Watch Tower Society emphasizing the importance of fighting against “independent thinking” in order to “ensure absolute obedience”. P. 153: “Jehovah’s Witnesses will brook no criticism from within, as many concerned members who have attempted to voice alternative opinions regarding the basic doctrine or application of social pressure have discovered to their chargrin. Individualism is not tolerated, especially where criticism of the power structures of the society itself is concerned. Obedience is the key to the successful retention of power by the Governing Body …” Alan Rogerson writes in his study of Witnesses and their history (p. 178) that “…the newly converted Witness must conform immediately to the doctrines of the Watchtower Society, thus whatever individuality of mind he possessed before conversion is liable to eradicated if he stays in the movement …”

Really, how many more of such references do you need? Am I making "dishonest misrepresentations"? Am I pretending these sources are saying anything they are not? Is this, as you claim, "nonneutral POV"? The claims are so uniform and so remarkable about a religion that exerts such power over its members, threatening with shunning if they question them, that they deserve a brief mention in the article's lead section as a brief reference to the many controversies that surround the Witnesses. When the lockdown on this article is removed I can add some of these references to support the claim, and expand, in a sentence or two, the statement further down the article under Criticism and Controversy. LTSally (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you simply copy the existing text from the article, modify it and then propose your revised text here? The purpose of the page protection is to discourage edit-warring and promote collaborative discussion, compromise and consensus building on the Talk Page. If your strategy is to simply wait out the protection period, there is a significant chance that the edit war will simply resume after the page protection. The next step after that is to block the edit warriors. I probably won't do it myself since I'm an involved party but I will go find an uninvolved admin to do the honors if it comes to that. Please work with the other editors to find a compromise that all can live with. Edit-warring is not in the interest of writing an encyclopedia, no matter how right you may think you are. --Richard (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MSN Encarta does not portray the Jehovah's Witnesses in the way that LTSally insists on doing. Here's what the Encarta articles says on the topic: " Jehovah’s Witnesses stress Bible study and absolute obedience to biblical precepts." I don't think you would find much objection to that formulation. It makes sense to mention congregational discipline in the lead but perhaps in a less derogatory way. The more negative comments can be brought out in the main body of the article. --Richard (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the current lead is "derogatory". It includes well-sourced criticism of JW. How is that considered derogatory? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's "derogatory" because it is criticism. There's no problem in presenting criticism as long as it is presented as such. The real problem is that it is being presented as fact rather than as opinion. We must present fact as fact and opinion as opinion.

What follows was written before Carl's comment but hit an edit conflict and so appears afterwards.

Sorry... until Jeffro77 pointed them out I missed the edit in which LTSally provided more sources. I think the question is not whether the assessment of JWs portrayed in the sources can be inserted in the article (they obviously can be, given the number of sources provided) but how this assessment should be characterized. Is it an objective, indisputable fact that "JWs are authoritarian, etc."? Well, is there an objective test to determine the "authoritarian" nature of a religion? Can you quantify and measure the extent to which a religion is authoritative? No. So, the assessment is a subjective one. Now, LTSally has a point that, if most scholars who are deemed to be relatively objective deem something to be true, then we should consider that it might be true. The problem from an NPOV perspective, is how do we determine if the scholars who are cited represent a truly objective perspective. Perhaps these are just the ones who are critical of JWs who make this assessment. How do we know that LTSally hasn't cherry-picked his sources? Sorry for the aspersion, this isn't meant to be a personal attack but just a rhetorical device so please don't take offense. The problem with "Studies show..." is that it suggests that there are no studies that show the opposite. Also, such wording is usually associated with facts that are more or less incontrovertible such as "Studies show that smoking causes cancer." If there is any doubt about the facts being asserted then "Some studies show..." or "Some studies suggest..." are better locutions to use. Moreover, the phrse "Studies" suggests that the studies are objective and represent the mainstream opinion. LTSally is asserting that this is the mainstream opinion of everyone outside the JW-fold. Given the number of sources cited, perhaps he's right. Nonetheless, it would defuse some of the edit warring if we used terminology such as "Critics emphasize the authoritarian nature of the Watchtower Society's methods of congregational discipline." This suggests that there is a JW-POV and a Critics-POV and leaves it for the reader to decide which POV to credit.

--Richard (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that an academic such as Holden would be pleased with seeing himself described as a critic. He has made an observation as part of an ethnographic study of the religion. Nor have authors such as Rogerson and Penton created works that can be accurately or fairly described as anti-JW. I am trying to collect as many books as I can that present a study of the religion and its history. It seems to me that I am the only editor on this article presenting such sources. I have presented the observations those authors have made. If anyone finds studies of the religion as detailed as those I've presented -- and Watchtower-sponsored "histories" such as Marley Cole and AH MacMillan don't count, nor does the Watch Tower's Proclaimers book, containing a version of history many of those authors have proven to be incorrect, distorted and unreliable -- then let them add them here to gain the "balance" you seek. But I repeat, a sentence or two of criticism in the intro to the article does not produce bias. As to an amended sentence that accommodates everyone's outlook ... I'll ponder it and return. LTSally (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Botting, Penton and R. Franz cannot be considered truly neutral sources. Botting's study has been characterized as "pejorative" by other academics, and as for Penton and R. Franz they are well known for their vendetta against JWs. Especially Penton's book on Nazi regime has attracted much criticism by peer-reviewers, and some historians have publicly mentioned that they don't even take it into account.

But again, I am calling your attention to the fact that you cannot add to the prologue a criticism found in two or three studies. As far as I have checked, and soon I will present my findings, encyclopedias mention three things distinguishable about JWs: door-to-door ministry, refusal of military service and state worship and, some of them, blood transfusions. Some refer to the topic of shunning with few words at the very end of the article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is to start the sentence with

One common criticism of JWs is their use of congregational discipline to enforce conformity in doctrine and obedience. One author has characterized their congregational discipline as "authoritarian"." We could then follow this up with a sentence that says "JW apologists respond that ...." This allows both sides of the story to be presented.

--Richard (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard, in an encyclopedia we don't put something in the prologue just because someone said it. I am asking you this: can we find in scholarly books thousands of criticisms against Catholicism ? Shall we put them to the prologue? If two or three studies say something good or bad, is this enough for this information to be put to the prologue? Would you do that?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would. Perhaps it's time to do just such a thing. I'll raise the issue over on Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Come over and see what the response is. --Richard (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd propose a modification: "One common criticism of JWs is their use of congregational discipline to enforce the obedience of members and ensure conformity in doctrine. Authors of several studies of the religion have characterized governance of members as "authoritarian" (footnote for Holden, p. 173, Penton, p.295) and "totalitarian". (footnote Holden p.32, Rogerson, p.50) Watch Tower literature rejects suggestions the organization practises sectarian regimentation (Awake!, May 8. 1984, page 10) and says subjection of members to the organization results in the peaceful security of theocratic order and harmony within the ranks of members (Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, p. 161-162)." I propose such statements from Watch Tower publications in the event that no books by Witness apologists can be cited that touch on this issue. LTSally (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread has moved along quite nicely; I'm proud of everyone!

This part now moved to Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Source: Holden.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden's book has a lot of oversimplifications and mistakes. I will devote him a good review in amazon. To give you an example of stupidities:

1. The role attributed to the Watch Tower presidency thus carries the same symbolic significance for the Witnesses as the papacy for Roman Catholics (p. 32). !!!!

2. The Witnesses God is the God of the Old Testament, and they reject the Trinity doctrine [as if it were the God of New Testament] (p. 24) (!!!)

And my favorite, in order to have a taste of what "authoritarian" means for Mr. Holden:

3. Two major texts published by the Society for Witness children are Your youth: Getting the Best Out of It [...] and Questions Young People Ask: Answers that Work [...]. The books are presented in readable but authoritarian style [...] One issue of which great deal is made is that of respect to adults, with particular emphasis on the honouring one's father and mother (p. 126). (!!!)

So, Mr. Holder compares the Pope with the President of WT Society, he believes that JWs worship specifically the God of the Old Testament, and that the Young Peolpe Ask book, that promotes respect to the parents, is authoritarian. Oh yes, this is not a typo mistake, Young People Ask book is authoritarian.

Maybe Mr. Holden believes that Pope was instructing crusaders using this specific book before invading to Constantinople... or maybe Pope Pius and Hitler used to read together similar material...

--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear LTSally you said: "If anyone finds studies of the religion as detailed as those I've presented -- and Watchtower-sponsored "histories" such as Marley Cole and AH MacMillan don't count, nor does the Watch Tower's Proclaimers book, containing a version of history many of those authors have proven to be incorrect, distorted and unreliable -- then let them add them here to gain the "balance" you seek."

• If, according to your point of view, the official Proclaimers publication is written by authors that "have proven to be incorrect, distorted and unreliable" (sic!) then what about "the great church historian"/"father of church history" of the orthodox written history Eusebius of Caesarea? According to your point of view, we should stop referencing to his History as long as he is described as a notoriously biased historian. (For the one interested to read more on the subject, I would propose H. W. Attridge & G. Hata, Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, 1992, Wayne State University Press.) Please, be more careful and precise to your evaluations. -- pvasiliadis  21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Source: Holden

I just popped in to add a quote from the ostensibly objective Holden. Readers may have noticed he's quoted in the Criticism section of another JW article, complete with a delighted exclamation mark:

"It could be that many Witnesses have not yet been in the organisation long enough to realise that 'new lights' have a habit of growing dimmer, while old ones are switched back on!"

That seems intended by Holden to tickle some group of readers, and that group isn't serious students of sociology. One of these days I'll get around to reading Holden's book; I wonder if this is the only example of question-raising asides by the author.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden's book has a lot of oversimplifications and mistakes. I will devote him a good review in amazon. To give you an example of stupidities:

1. The role attibuted to the Watch Tower presidency thus carries the same symbolic significance for the Witnesses as the papacy for Roman Catholics (p. 32). !!!!

2. The Witnesses God is the God of the Old Testament, and they reject the Trinity doctrine [as if it were the God of New Testament] (p. 24) (!!!)

And my favorite, in order to have a taste of what "authoritarian" means for Mr. Holden:

3. Two major texts published by the Society for Witness children are Your youth: Getting the Best Out of It [...] and Questions Young People Ask: Answers that Work [...]. The books are presented in readable but authoritarian style [...] One issue of which great deal is made is that of respect to adults, with particular emphasis on the honouring one's father and mother (p. 126). (!!!)

So, Mr. Holder compares the Pope with the President of WT Society, he believes that JWs worship specifically the God of the Old Testament, and that the Young Peolpe Ask book, that promotes respect to the parents, is authoritarian. Oh yes, this is not a typo mistake, Young People Ask book is authoritarian.

Maybe Mr. Holden believes that Pope was instructing crusaders using this specific book before invading to Constantinople... or maybe Pope Pius and Hitler used to read together similar material...

--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part of this thread (above this point) was copied from a previous thread Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Intro_POV_-_.22demands_unquestioning_obedience.22.
I hadn't realized my one line quote from Holden might prompt more, but it now seems clear there will be enough to create a Holden thread. I'll delete most of what I wrote about Holden in the earlier thread, and I'd encourage Vassilis78 to do that too, to keep the threads tight and useful.
Please keep the criticisms and defenses academic rather than personal! Readers should be allowed to decide for themselves if a source is "stupid" or not.
And please keep in mind that there are more pressing matters that must be resolved in the next few days before the article will be reopened for editing.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to lead by example.

Holden: 'WT President like RC Pope'

I don't have the book in question, but I found a scanned page of page 32 mentioned above by Vassilis78. I was shocked not because the pope is mentioned as an example of infallibility, but because the research behind Holden's analogy is so remarkably sloppy! In 2002, Holden writes,

"The role attributed to the Watch Tower presidency thus carries the same symbolic significance for the Witnesses as the papacy for Roman Catholics."

No, it doesn't.

Anyone who has objectively studied Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Watch Tower would know that by 2002 the presidency of Watch Tower has precisely zero theological or organizational significance. Since 2000, no member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has been an executive or director of any corporate entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. Whatever his biases are or are not, a good researcher would at least know the facts of what he discusses; Holden's analogy should have referred to their GOVERNING BODY rather than the Watch Tower PRESIDENCY.

I am now very interested to see what else Holden's work will reveal about his scholarship and leanings.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The numerous mistakes Holden makes on the history of JWs prove that he hasn't made serius study on them. For instance:

1.[Russell] undoubtedly [was] influenced by the Seventh-Day Adventists (p. 18) (!!!)

2. The Witnesses make use of two corporations—namely the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and New York, and the International Bible Students Association (p. 29) !!!

If Holden hasn't study JWs literature thoroughly to have more accurate conclusions, what was the basis of his study and of his frame of thinking? There is an answer:

Loyalty, emotional dependence and a strong sense of community have enabled the movement to survive. Former Witness David Reed (1989a) also suggests that the main reason for the Society’s success is that it is able to impart a certain mystique about the authority of the presidency. (p. 32)

Oh yes, David Reed's speculations and sugestions became a reliable source for a sociological study... If I became an apostate, that automaticaly would make me a reliable source too, and my personal speculations will deserve space in sociological works.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden: ''Watch Tower and Watchtower ONE corporation'

Please, Vassilis78, if you can, post the exact quote from Holden's page 29 regarding the hitherto unknown "Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of Pennsylvania and New York". I think readers will forgive the typo of Track for Tract, but it's far more serious if Holden spends a whole book presenting himself as an authority on Jehovah's Witnesses without his realizing that Watch Tower PA is a separate corporation from Watchtower NY!

--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the passage:

The Witnesses make use of two corporations – namely, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and New York, and the International Bible Students Association. The Pennsylvanian Corporation has voting members who live in all parts of the world. They meet annually and elect or re-elect seven directors of the corporation, who themselves elect officers. The President of the corporation is therefore, elected not by popular vote but by the directors, who choose one of their members for the post. The International Bible Students Association is a London Corporation. It owns property in Britain and is responsible predominantly for British affairs.

Here he makes two serious mistakes. First, he has ignorance of the fact that JWs run scores of corporations world-wide. The second mistake, that you already said, is that he considers the two corporations of PA and NY as one.

The other mistake above about SDAs is also very serious. Holden's failure to distinguish SDAs from Second Adventists proves that he has vast ignorance of the history of JWs.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Holden: 'Russell influenced by Seventh-day Adventists' (rather than Second Adventists)

The matter of JW and Adventism has actually been discussed right on this page at Adventist?. It would be useful if someone can post exactly what Holden's page 18 says about Russell and Seventh-day Adventists. Just how poorly researched is it?

Even casual students of the First, Second, and Third Great Awakenings know the difference between Second Adventists (such as Advent Christian Church) and Seventh-day Adventists. Of course, JWs have always acknowledged being influenced by Second Adventism and specific Advent Christian individuals. For example, Russell himself wrote of an 1870 visit to a basement hall “to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists, the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell".

So Russell was certainly influenced by Second Adventists, which is obviously an entirely different religion from Seventh-day Adventists. But, to be fair, "influence" is hard to disprove. Perhaps Holden correctly states the facts correctly regarding Second Adventists and then Holden's work makes an additional point about some previously undocumented connection between Russell and SDA. Are we sure Holden is so poorly informed that he really has misstated the facts and religions? Does Holden say any more about SDA or Seventh-day Adventism?

It would be a serious mistake for a purportedly scholarly work to refer to a Second Adventist as a Seventh-day Adventist. Pretty basic stuff, knowing that the two religions are different.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just pause for a moment. I'll wipe the foam from the edge of your mouth. Ah, that's better. Now, please carry on. LTSally (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that intended as Holdenesque hilarity?

Or it is a serious accusation; implying that only a rabidly insane person could question Holden?

Does Holden demand unquestioningness from his readers?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A certain level of hysteria is creeping in. What next: a public book burning, with the authors added to the pyre as well? LTSally (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Source: Penton

While Penton's latest book may have been financially rewarding ($79. at Amazon), it diminished his stature among academics. Uncharacteristically, other academics have criticized the book and author by name. In Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich, Penton's Chapter 1 is entitled "The Watch Tower Society's Attempted Compromise with Hitler"!

One doesn't whether to laugh or vomit at such heavyhandedness. I'll see if I can get it from the library, as I'm certainly not going to channel money to the writer.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Source: Rogerson

Source: Botting

Page has been protected due to edit-warring

The edit war has gone on long enough. I have protected the page from edits other than by admins.

It's time that we hashed this out here on the Talk Page instead of arguing it via reverts and edit summaries.

--Richard (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're making good progress on the sentence about the JWs being "authoritarian" in their congregational discipline. AuthorityTam speculates that the protection period is about a week. He's right. However, I'm willing to lift the protection if there is a general agreement not to edit war (usually this requires a consensus agreement to what the wording of the text should be). Resumption of edit-warring will lead to either reprotection of the page or blocking.

In the meantime, I like the approach of picking a single topic which is alleged to fail NPOV and discussing it. Once we can come up with a compromise wording that has the support of a consensus, we can move on to the next topic.

Non-controversial text can be added by means of the {{editprotected}} template.

As an involved editor, it's a little dicey for me to be using my admin powers to protect the page. I deliberately protected a version of the page that I did not agree with in an attempt to avoid charges of conflict of interest. However, if anyone wants to argue conflict of interest, I'm willing to get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation and make a decision.

--Richard (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You call this a brief history of JWs?

From 40 years of Russell's history we learn that:

1. Watch Tower supporters gathered as autonomous congregations to study the Bible and Russell's writings. Russell firmly rejected as "wholly unnecessary" the concept of a formal organization for his followers, and declared that his group had no record of its members' names, no creeds, and no sectarian name.[30]

Nothing else happened then... yes, sure...

For Rutherford's period we learn that:

1. Rutherford's argument was specious because the three officers, Rutherford among them, had not been legally elected either.[35]
2. He then announced the release of The Finished Mystery as the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures; the book was widely advertised to the public as "a posthumous publication ... of Charles Taze Russell", but was actually written by two other Bible Students under the direction of Joseph Rutherford.[36][37] Controversy erupted over Rutherford's actions, and many Bible Students left to form various splinter groups.[38]
3. Rutherford continued to tighten and centralize organizational control of the Bible Students...
4. Significant changes in doctrine were made under Rutherford's leadership, including the 1918 announcement that Jewish patriarchs (such as Abraham and Isaac) would be resurrected in 1925, marking the beginning of Christ's thousand-year reign.[47][48] The failed expectations for 1925, coupled with other doctrinal changes, resulted in a dramatic reduction in attendance at their yearly Memorial, from 90,434 in 1925[49] to 17,380 in 1928.[50][51]
5. By 1933, the timing of the beginning of Christ's presence (Greek: parousía), his enthronement as king, and the start of the "last days", were each moved to 1914.[47][52][53][54][55]

What a selective editor!

From 1942 till now these things happened:

1. Nathan Knorr ... began a campaign of real estate acquisition in Brooklyn to expand the organisation's world headquarters. Frederick #William Franz, became the religion's leading theologian,[66] and helped shape the further development of explicit rules of conduct among members, with a greater emphasis on disfellowshipping as a disciplinary measure.[67]
2. From 1966 ... Focus on 1975 was intensified with talks given at conventions;[72] in 1974 a Watch Tower Society newsletter commended Witnesses who had sold homes and property to devote themselves to preaching in the "short time" remaining.[73] The number of baptisms increased significantly, from about 59,000 in 1966 to more than 297,000 in 1974, but membership declined after expectations for the year were proved wrong.[74][75][76][77] In 1980, the Watch Tower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding 1975.[78]

Aha!

The lesson on JWs is clear and loud. In 120 years of history we have an ongoing increase of strict rulership on the flock, ongoing changes of doctrine, ongoing false predictions, ongoing increase of real estate for the Watch Tower officers and decrease for its members...

Yes, yes, very nice epitome of JWs history.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can be as sarcastic as you like, Vassilis. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, and you have always been welcome to add to the history, although bear in mind it is a summary of a larger spinout article. What's there are the major milestones, all backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. You ignore the positive statements about Witnesses I wrote in, including extraordinarily large attendance at conventions and their legal actions to win the right (for themselves and others) to proselytize. LTSally (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have the time to work with all the articles at the same time. One by one. For someone who knows the history the above is a caricature of a specific agenda.

To give you a small example. The article says that Russell was against the idea of organization. The impression given is this:

1. Russell believed in the invisible church as Luther and as some modern ex-Witnesses.
2. The bad Watchtower has rejected what Russell taught so vigorously!

But...

... the article doesn't say that Russell regretted for that. You also don't say that Russell told people that they should get out of Babylon the Great (false Christendom) if they wanted to be saved.

Ah, now the picture becomes clearer, doesn't it?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not useful to merely remark, "Not good. Not fair."

Far better to be specific in criticism and to offer a specific alternative. You can do that now!

A week from now (I'd guess), any editor who feels that the article or the History section needs editing will be able to do so. Talk is not for complaining, but for explaining one's reasoning when wording etc is disputed or likely to be disputed.

If the article mistakenly includes a non-existent historical milestone, delete or correct it.

If the article's language gives undue weight somehow, correct it.

If a significant milestone has been excluded, include it succinctly. As was mentioned, this History section is NOT the main article. A reader here might be interested in reading or editing Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and/or History of Jehovah's Witnesses

Whatever you write or edit, step back from your point-of-view and present material in an encyclopedic form.

Not here or today, of course, but that's how Wikipedia works. If you're considering performing a major overhaul, you could create a sandbox on your user page of how you'd prefer the article to be, and (here at this Talk) invite other editors to comment there.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My two cents and a half

After a cursory glance at the history section it does seem to be biased against a non-favourable view of the evolution of JW as an organization. Some claims about such as "Russel strictly rejected" are sourced only to Raymond Franz who is not a neutral source about this but a strict POV source - the view he expresses is that what he perceives as growing authoritarianism in the JW organization has led the followers away from russels original teachings. The article currently adopts Franz' viewpoint unquestionedly. The Penton source is equally problematic. I suggest that the two best and most neutral sources to the history of JW is Beckford 1976 and Holden 2001.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Holden has been criticised on this page and would like to express my view here. Holden is a professor of sociology and his book is the only current non-partial scholarly description of Jehovahs Witness organization and beliefs. He is not the only sociologist to have observed that the JW organization is not as non-hierarchical as they profess to be - Beckford also noticed the strictly hierarchical system of the orhganization in 1976. Whethe or not JW is as hierrarchic as the catholic church is an issue of opinion and I suspect that Holden merely included this information as a comparison - and indeed it is a striking and therefore provoking comparison. The objections to this comparison by vassilis78 seem to be mostly non-sequiturs and strawmen - for example it doesn't follow that because the figure of the pope as the head of the catholic church is similar to the president of the governing body as head of Jehovah's organization (after Jesus of course) that he also means the comparison to entail all the ways in which the pope has used his authority historically. I don't know whether it is correct that Holden has mistakenly described second adventists as seventh day adventists when stating who influenced Russel's early thinking, but I disagree that such a mistake should be seen as an aggravating mistake since it is not of any consequence for Holden's approach, arguments or conclusions. The issue of Russell's early thought is not even marginal to his description of the current social organization of the witnesses it is irrelevant. if he has indeed made such a mistake I suggest that you simply email him or Routledge publishers and make them aware of it so that they can change it in subsequent editions. In my view as an anthropologist who has conducted fieldwork among Jehovah's witnesses Holden's book is a very fine and neutral source about the social organisation of the witnesses and to their relation to modernity in society - those are the central issues that he describe.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, furthermore I think the most productive approach to improve the article here would be to pay more attention to atributing statements within the article. E.g. one could write Raymond Franz a prominent critic of JW has critized what he sees as a trend towards a higher degree of authoritarianism in JW since the days of Russel. ... On The other hand JW officials respond that .... Ex-witness and sociologist Penton accuses Knorr of allowing excessive drinking in Bethel, but JW responds that XXXX. This kind of writing would make for much clearer attribution of viewpoints and let the reader determine which viewpoint is most credible. As it is now the article leads the leader blindfolded to specific conclusions without a chance to see where they come from.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)