Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses

Disfellowshipped for not preaching

The article states under Coercion,

those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism (currently around seventeen hours per month in the United States) soon lose the respect of their co-religionists and may even be disfellowshipped

I wonder where Holden got this information from. Can someone point to the JW publication that state that a person can get disfellowshipped for not preaching? If not it should be removed or explained correctly. A person can get disfellowshipped on the grounds of apostasy if he is vocally critical of the requirement to preach, but not simply by the act of halted preaching. (they are labeled inactive). An accurate statement would be, "those who stop evangelism and don't consider preaching to be Biblical requirement for Christians may even be disfellowshipped. -- ShaunRex (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read Holden's book but my understanding is that he interviewed people and attended JW meetings as part of his research. In any case, it's a suitable source. It is not necessary for points to be verifiable in a "JW publication", particularly where there may be a motivation to not clearly tell members something that may be unfavourable. The JW definition of 'brazen conduct' is also kind of a 'catch all' for someone who does anything the elders don't approve of, so if someone adamantly refuses to 'preach', even if they are not otherwise 'teaching contrary to JW teachings', it could result in disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel bad for people getting disfellowshipped for not preaching. Enlightening. No problem in keeping it. --ShaunRex (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

“I haven't read Holden's book but my understanding is that he interviewed people and attended JW meetings as part of his research. In any case, it's a suitable source”

If one hasn’t read or is vaguely informed on a subject, keeping quiet or research are the better options. I have read Holdens book and it’s several hours (of indulgent long winded pontification) that I’ll never get back. It’s littered with incorrect statements about jw’s due to his acknowledged naivety in the intro of the book. In Holdens defense his book’s primary purpose is not to be a thoroughly researched, factual analysis of the beliefs, procedures and policies of jw. His chosen methodology invites a measure of factual errors as any reader of his book would know.

Jeffro you write ”The JW definition of 'brazen conduct' is also kind of a 'catch all' for someone who does anything the elders don't approve of, so if someone adamantly refuses to 'preach', even if they are not otherwise 'teaching contrary to JW teachings', it could result in disfellowshipping”

Total nonsense. I’m surprised ShaunRex conceded to an altogether shallow and uninformed response. Ignorance rarely results in enlightenment. What Jeffro describes above is at best defined as brazen “non-conduct” and substantially irrelevant to the falsity of the quote anyway.

Of greater relevance than the uninformed response to a legitimate objection re the inclusion of an untrue quote, both the objection and response miss the serious degree of the error of the quote.

The quote reads “those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism... and may even be disfellowshipped”

The quote mentions an “amount of time” (quite evidently not zero), but it’s unsatisfactory, and therefore the claim that an amount of time below 17 hours per month may result in disfellowshipping. The quote is bogus and should be removed. Jeffro, just because an academic writes a book it doesn’t mean an editor switches off his brain and accepts everything written therein as factual. Because sometimes even nonsense walks on stilts.

Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You are, of course, incorrect. JWs consider 'preaching' to be a 'scriptural obligation', so if someone "adamantly refuses" to preach (note that I did not just say 'doesn't preach'), openly contradicting the claim that 'preaching' is a 'requirement', it is no great stretch at all for elders, particularly but not exclusively if they have a dislike for someone, to say the person is "spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth" (Shepherd the Flock of God, 2019 revision, page 90), which is specifically listed as an 'offence' for forming a 'judicial committee', which may result in disfellowshipping. Holden does not simply assert that 'those who preach less than 17 hours may be disfellowshipped', which is your own selective misreading. Instead, 17 hours is simply given as the US average at a particular time, and Holden's main point in the sentence is that those who preach less than the average lose respect of the group (demonstrated by the use of pejorative jargon such as 'irregular' and 'inactive'); Holden then only adds afterwards that it "may even" result in disfellowshipping, indicating that to be an extreme case rather than typical. The JW biblical encyclopaedia, Insight on the Scriptures, associates refusal to preach with their pejorative use of the term 'apostate' (volume 1, page 127, "While still making profession of faith in God’s Word, apostates may forsake his service by treating lightly the preaching and teaching work that he assigned to followers of Jesus Christ"), so it is not just some novel conclusion I (or Holden) have made up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Holden, in fact, made no such claim. The original statement correctly attributed to Holden (although with a spelling error) was added in May 2017. The words "and may even be disfellowshipped" were added in August 2017 by a different editor. That editor also added the reference to "17 hours" being reported in the US, which seems quite high and in any case is irrelevant. I'll remove those words for which Holden is wrongly cited as a source. BlackCab (TALK) 11:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the extended quote introduced by PaleoNeonate does reflect the original source.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. You've provided a link to what seems to be the 2003 edition of the book. I have the 2005 edition, which does not include those words. It's quite possible Holden himself considered the statement inaccurate and removed it. BlackCab (TALK) 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The additional wording also appears in the 2012 revison.[2] On closer examination, it appears that Routledge republished the 2002 version in 2012. Please update the Holden citation at the bottom of the article with the correct ISBN for the 2005 version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear whether it is actually a "2012 revision" you're linking to or simply an e-book release of an outdated edition. Amazon offers a download to an edition dated 12 November, 2012, but if that's the same version we are looking at online at your link, the opening page of the book says "This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003." My physical copy of the book, which I bought around 2009, states that it was "first published 2002, reprinted 2002, 2004, 2005," which tells me it's a more recent version. It would have been nice if Holden had noted somewhere, either in the printed or e-book version, that it was updated. Either he added or removed those words. BlackCab (TALK) 12:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see previous comment. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that a JW who outspokenly refuses to preach may indeed be 'disfellowshipped' for 'apostasy'. However, I have no problem citing a more recent version of Holden. It is entirely possible that Holden later considered the statement to be potentially misleading without elaboration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that you’ve replaced adamantly with outspokenly, brazen (non)conduct with apostasy. Even turning a blind eye to such slow of hand argumentation and it’s irrelevance to the Holden quote (now appropriately removed after some quick fire edit warring to keep it in), the stretch of dominos/hypothetical scenarios required to fall in causative succession are misaligned and at considerable distance from one another to land anywhere near such a preformulated conclusion. This author lives for needless elaboration. He writes: “Babies who persistently cry are taken out of meetings (usually by the mother, unless she is absent).” And elsewhere: “In fact, without these aids it would be impossible for the Society to hold its meetings in their current format.” That’s right, without the watchtower, the society couldn’t have a watchtower study.. Try the Occamian approach - Holden removed it because it was wrong. Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

“It is entirely possible that Holden later considered the statement to be potentially misleading without elaboration, further speculation about why it was removed is pointless” Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just ranting, which is not helpful. The statement has been removed as it does not appear in a later version of Holden's book. Your misleading juxtaposition of two separate statements of mine is plainly disruptive. As previously stated, Holden may have removed the statement because it may have been misleading without elaboration, but further speculation about why it was removed is pointless, and your dislike of Holden's editorial style is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This persistent need to be right is both embarrassing and entertaining to watch. Deleting, moving, revising content and order of comments on talk pages and whining on mine. Placing your two statements together accurately represents your written view, theres nothing linguistically mysterious going on. Your revised sentence (which was not "previously stated", another undesirable editorial style) above, if we’re all writing & reading English, says it too - any further speculation apart from your own is pointless.

You have my permission to move this comment wherever you like in the thread so that yours resounds finality. IC (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting someone else's text without elaboration or response is unconstructive, and demonstrates that you either intended to prove some irrelevant point for your own amusement or simply goad another editor. In either case, this is inappropriate as Wikipedia is not a forum. Article Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to articles. If you have a disagreement with an editor, contact them at their user Talk page, or use Wikipedia's various avenues for dispute resolution where appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ivan Cedrovi, Just noted you comment on my response. I knew that the statement was wrong for sure. I left that comment telling in my mind "if that would make you happy". I don't have the interest, time or energy to outlast critical editors with a burning zeal for their personal views. I prefer to stay away from conflicts. Thanks for your work on this. ShaunRex (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This kind of comment belongs at the other editor's Talk page, not here. Also, referring to other editors has having a "burning zeal for their personal views" is verging on a personal attack, and is in any case inappropriate here.

Okay.ShaunRex (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It remains the case that if a JW refuses to preach, it could lead to them being disfellowshipped, and as previously stated, this is not the same as what would happen for simply not preaching, and the suggestion that a JW would be disfellowshipped for simply not preaching (without advocating that it is not required) was a false characterisation by other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I read your response, but my reply would be pointless since the disputed text appeared to be removed already. ShaunRex (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. BlackCab and I discussed the sources and it was determined that Holden's later edition of his book omitted the statement so it was no longer necessary to include. Ivan Cedrovi's comments were counter productive to the thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Status as "Christian" Denomination

As this is the specific page pertaining to JWs and critisms, would it be appropriate to include a section explaining criticisms that it is classified as a Christian Denomination despite its development and holding of a substantial number of doctrines and beliefs that are at odds or so different from the rest of Christianity? Some of these even seem to blatantly differ with the definition and very criteria for being considered part of Christianity, such as the Divinity of Jesus. Another would be the organization's belief that Jesus was not physically, that is to say "bodily", resurrected. These two examples alone are fundamental to Christianity. If nothing else, perhaps an analysis of where and how they are at odds with "mainstream" Christianity? It's analogous to Christianity and Judaism. Christianity may have been part of Judaism and developed from there, but there just came a time when the differences in doctrine and basic belief between the two meant they were no longer part of the other. That's pretty much the point reached here. Jehovah Witnesses may have been part of Christianity and developed from there, but the differences now seem to indicate that the organization has developed into a unique group that is no longer part of Christianity. Thoughts? Thetruchairman (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nontrinitarian Christians are Christians. This is even acknowledged in the Catholic Encyclopedia, though that acknowledgement is not a requirement under the definition that Christians are simply people who purport to follow Jesus as the Christ. JWs are a Christian denomination. As always, if you have reliable sources supporting your position, those may warrant further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion in this section on criticisms of Jehovah’s witnesses is already quite low, so your intuition leading you to this section is well tuned. Personal research, heavy preconceptions, generalisations, wild equivalence and a presumed benchmark for what constitutes a Christian however, provide adequate flexibility to limbo under it which is no small feat.

One assumes that transubstantiation, prayer to saints for intercession, infant baptism, papal authority, papal infallibility, purgatory, limbo, apostolic succession, the deuterocanonicals, sacred tradition, immaculate conception assumption and intercession of Mary, and the magisterium are also needed to be considered “mainstream”.

Save the pious elitism for discussions with them on your doorstep.-- IC (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The additional criteria you have listed for identification as 'mainstream' are primarily Catholic doctrines that do not predate the origin of Christianity. These criteria are not a requirement for identification as 'Christian', and that usage here would not be neutral.

It is not appropriate to use article Talk pages to tell editors how to engage with others outside of Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that “Christian” doctrines do not predate the origin of Christianity. Your corridor monitor reminders of what’s helpful and appropriate are appreciated. IC (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "do not predate" was not the most accurate wording as I was in a hurry. It should be obvious that I meant that those Catholic-specific doctrines were developed many years after the origin of Christianity. It remains the case that Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination, and further discussion about tangents is not required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Attempted collusion with Hitler

I was just about to delete a new section, "Attempted collusion with Hitler" on the basis that it is not presented in a neutral form. And Jeffro beat me to it.

The Declaration of Facts has certainly attracted criticism, but the wording of this section injects editorial opinion throughout ... "singing a song clearly intended to appease Hitler" .... "While the lyrics may have been different, the message was clear" ... "Rutherford left Germany before the convention, choosing to allow Balzereit to take the heat for the debacle that followed" ..." Among the most disturbing statements the declaration contained "

The final statement in this section is quite blatant in presenting the author's opinion: "Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that their leadership attempted to collude with Hitler under the pretense that the religion shared a world-view with the Nazis." BlackCab (TALK) 11:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have advised the editor at their Talk page that the sources might be suitable and that they are welcome to discuss further here. However, too little of what was presented seemed usable, so it seemed better to simply remove it at this stage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

u/YayVideoGames

I think you guys should add a section here relating to the Reddit user u/YayVideoGames, who was a Jehovah's Witness, who, due to his upbringing, suffered from trauma and pain, and posted various repetitive threads on Reddit under different usernames. He committed suicide in 2015, and this would be a good example of a Jehovah's Witness fallen flat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:637F:FD87:694D:2FF4:C0A7:410B (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Not without a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't meet any of the reasons (notability, RS. etc) for inclusion. Vyselink (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of "the last days"

I don't want to get into an edit war with Junkönig here, but in the "Changes of doctrine" section he/she has reverted my edit that clearly shows that the year 1799 was still cited as the beginning of the last days in 1928. The evidence is in the 1928 edition of The Harp of God, which is downloadable here. That edition is clearly dated 1928. Junkönig has reverted to an edit that cites the 1927 edition, which is of less value. My edit, done in haste, wrongly included a quote from pages 234-235 of Harp in the citation for Creation, although the wording in Creation (p.294-295) is remarkably similar. BlackCab (TALK) 05:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Another adjustment is needed too: the "Date of Christ's invisible presence" had previously cited Franz, Penton and the Watchtower itself (August 15, 1974, p.507 fn) with the claim that the move from 1874 to 1914 had taken place in 1943. Junkönig, in good faith, edited this to say the change had actually taken place in 1930, and he cited The Golden Age (1930, p. 503-504) and Rutherford's book Light, Book One (p.74). In fact as early as the September 1922 ISBA convention at Cedar Point Ohio Rutherford had introduced the idea that although Christ had been invisibly present since 1874, he had taken power in 1914. That belief was enshrined as point 2 of the 13-point resolution passed at Cedar Point. (See Watchtower Nov 1, 1922, pages 325, 334.) That was repeated in subsequent Watchtowers (Feb 15, p.60; March 1, p.67; April 1, p.103; October 1, p.294) and was included in the book Deliverance (1926, pgs 255, 257, 306).

By 1930, when Rutherford wrote Light, his comment at p.70 finally seems to throw the 1874 date out the window: "Prior thereto the church had been applying the prophecy of Matthew twenty-four to the events that came to pass from 1874 to 1914. Not until after 1918 was it understood by the church that these events apply after 1914." (All books and magazines accessible at Watchtowerwayback.org).

It confirms what author Robert Crompton stated — that is difficult to trace the development of JW doctrines because explicit changes are often not identified in Jehovah's Witness literature, leaving readers to assume which details have been superseded. That difficulty was presumably also why the Watchtower editors in 1974 made the erroneous claim that it was only in 1943, in The Truth Shall Make You Free, that the organisation "also fixed the beginning of Christ's presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 CE." BlackCab (TALK) 08:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you're correct in regarding 1928 as the last year in which the Watch Tower Society taught the "last days" began in 1799. Whilst Junkönig claims that there is no 1928 edition of the book The Harp of God, such edition can be easily found on the internet (for example, here). The digitalised document clearly has "1928" printed on one of the first pages. This is further confirmed by a sentence on page 260, that reads: "No one will attempt to gainsay the fact that just now, in the year 1928, all the nations are in distress ... " (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, the last edition of the book Creation seems to have been published in 1927. — Zenadix (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the article with the 1928 edition of The Harp of God. It now states, "As late as 1928 Watch Tower publications were still claiming the last days had begun in 1799." However, the table titled History of Eschatological Doctrine under Changes of doctrine may also need some tweaking to reflect this change. — Zenadix (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I did not know about the reprint from the year 1928. I also improved the template by including the line "1929-1930". Also, I changed the line "1930-1933" to "1930-1966" in the above template because the line "1933-1966" was deleted because there was no change in 1933. — Junkönig (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Coercion - ECHR Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and others v. Russia

The comment below is a misrepresentation of the statements of the ECHR and is personal research.

However, the court acknowledged that coercion by the group to reject blood transfusion may be involved, stating "even though the Jehovah's Witnesses whose opposition to blood transfusions was cited in evidence were adults having legal capacity to refuse that form of treatment, the findings of the Russian courts can be understood to mean that their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community. The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern.

The court certainly did not acknowledge that coercion by the group to reject blood transfusions may be involved, that statement belies their conclusion. The statement of the ECHR in section 138 is simply an acceptance that when health and life is at stake the genuineness of the patients refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern. The patient here is not a Jehovahs Witness patient but the patient referred to under Russian law - The ECHR states in the preceding section 137: "The Fundamentals of Russian Legislation on Health Protection explicitly provide for the patient's right to refuse medical treatment or to request its discontinuation on condition that they have received full and accessible information about the possible consequences of that decision. Patients are not required to give reasons for the refusal." After referring to a few court cases not involving Jehovah's Witnesses (England & Wales, Greece) ECHR specifically returns to the baseless conclusion of the Russian courts regarding their judgement (iii) Encouragement of suicide or the refusal of medical assistance. They state in section 139 "Turning to the instant case, the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied."

Read the opinion https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{

IC (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The statement about concern of coercion is supported by the quoted text, but it is not necessary to include what might be very loosely construed as 'personal research'. I have restored the quote from the court document, which stands on its own merits without the need of additional interpretation. The court document directly acknowledges the possibility that Jehovah's Witnesses' "refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community". The claim that the document was taken out of context is blatantly incorrect. The fact that the court did not find that coercion was specifically evident in the Russian court's findings in a specific case does not contradict the court's acceptance that coercion may occur. The claim that the document arbitrarily switches from talking about JWs to patients in some entirely unrelated sense is bizarre.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming from your comments that as per usual you haven't bothered reading the source material before furnishing an opinion.

Section 139 "Turning to the instant case, the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency situation, which is borne out by the fact that they had prepared for emergencies by filling out “No Blood” cards and carrying them in their purses. There is no evidence that they wavered in their refusal of a blood transfusion upon admission to hospital. Accordingly, there is no factual basis supporting the finding that their will was overborne or that the refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision."

The selective quote promotes the erroneous conflation of opinion between the two Courts as though ECHR opinion conceded the Russian courts judgement on "encouragement of suicide". This part of the ECHR opinion, indeed presented out of context, was unpacking the thinking behind the Russian court's judgement.

I would encourage you to read the entire ECHR judgement. Based on previous commentary from you here, you may unenviably find yourself agreeing with some of the allegations of the Russian prosecution and subsequent judgements of the Russian courts against jw, vigorously overturned by the ECHR. Hopefully will go some distance to mitigating your bias.

The ECHR did not accept that coercion may occur. They said in section 138 "The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern." They proceed with their judgement quoted above (section 139), antithetical to any suggestion of coercion.

IC (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the quote. After reading the decision, the quote, which refers to the JW's (not, as claimed, to some other broader definition of "patients") is appropriate in the context of this page. It is useful to balance out the idea that the court essentially said "Russia was completely wrong", suggested by the opening quotes, with the more accurate picture that the court said that while Russia was in this case wrong, the idea that coercion may have existed is a legitimate excersize and concern of Russia's application of the law. Doing so accords with WP:NPOV: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." While this is just one source, rather than multiple, the same standard need be applied. At the very least, this will need a consensus to be removed. As of now only Ivan and Jeffro (and now myself) have talked about it. We need more opinions before a properly sourced quote is removed. Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm presuming you're aware that this case is the one where the ECHR finds nothing, no form of, no factual basis for coercion. In fact, they find just the opposite, a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfer.

The reason the opening quotes "essentially say "Russia was completely wrong"" is because that's the unambiguous judgement of the ECHR. That may not align with this ed committees preconceptions, but facts - or no facts in this case - don't exist to validate preconceptions. This subjective effort to "balance out" the clear verdict of the ECHR (even based on deficiency of sentence & context comprehension) is grossly disproportionate, and in actual fact irrelevant to jw given the ECHR judgement.

Take another look at the diametrically opposed decisions.

The Russian court decides: "their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community".

The ECHR judgement states: "the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions.... Accordingly, there is no factual basis supporting the finding that their will was overborne or that the refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision."

The Russian court in the opinion of the ECHR, was completely wrong, right? Are you suggesting they were only partially wrong? So, let me see if I understand your non partisan quest for "balance". ECHR determined that the Russian courts reached a decision based on nothing, with no evidence. In fact, they found evidence to the contrary. However, the Court that emphatically denies "any form" of coercion, also suggests that coercion may exist? Nonsense. Characterising this as the view of the ECHR to those unfamiliar with the context is in the interests of avoiding editorial bias? IC (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I imagine it must be difficult to have any actual conversation with you as you appear to believe any form of disagreement implies a bias against you. Regardless, I have said my piece, and will wait for further editors opinions. Vyselink (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would choose not to say anymore either if I had said your piece. I’ve elucidated your confirmation bias whilst you “imagine” what it would be like to answer the source based questions - Was the Russian court’s verdict completely wrong or only partially wrong? Is it “more accurate” to promote a false balance, “However, the Court also stated that”? In parsing ECHR judgement, is it reasonable to assert that the same court that emphatically denies “any form” of coercion, also concedes that coercion may exist? (the general sense no option of course, since both you and Jeffro have already agreed in analyzing the sentence “such circumstances..the patient..refuse medical treatment..legitimate concern” applies singularly to jw) Now, whilst your response is ad hominem, I’ve actually engaged with the source itself to reveal yours and Jeffro’s bias causing miseducation here, and elsewhere where you’ve both taken it along for the ride. I’m on tenterhooks waiting for another member of this very small BOF ed com to surprise me by making up the very low single digit “objective consensus”, so that beyond methodological systemic bias, this committee can flock together to further embed bias into the plethora of superfluous articles on jw. IC (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)