Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

External links

I don't know what status quo is here these days, and I don't want to stir up trouble by removing content. However, there have been a handful of external links added recently by anonymous editors that I would tend to view more as promotion than useful resources. Most of these links are critical of JW doctrine or the WBTS in some way, so I think it would be a conflict of interest for me to remove them myself. The ones I'm most concerned with are the last three; the video, the "defense of Orthodox Christology", and the statistics. Could one of the regular non-JW editors review these and give input on whether they should stay? It's always good practice (no matter what the article's subject) to have a very minimal external links section containing high quality resources and avoid linking sites for purely promotional purposes. Pursuant to that I have removed one recently added link which I believe most of you will agree is out of place on a Wikipedia article.

On any other page I tend to remove external link additions by totally uninvolved editors because they are nearly always added simply for promotion. However, I realize this can be a touchy issue for this subject and would rather get your opinions first. -- mattb @ 2007-03-27T23:49Z

I'd say, go ahead and remove inappropriate ones as long as you provide a justification in the edit summary. If someone reverts you with a valid justification, either leave the link or talk about it here. I removed two just now, myself: to a forum and to an essay. The rest I found mostly okay, some borderline, but I have no problem with them. -Amatulic 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so some feel that the critical video link should stay. I watched about half of it (skipping around), and didn't see anything that was factually incorrect, but I do feel that the video borders on misrepresenting a lot of our doctrines. Perhaps this is just my bias shining through and they are representing JW doctrines through the eyes of those who promote "patriotism, traditional values, family values and the 'biblical worldview of the founding fathers' of the United States", as the Wikipedia article puts it. Still, the film makes no effort to be balanced, and as far as I can tell doesn't cover any territory that this and other WP articles do not (but in a much fairer manner).

I won't press this issue, I'm just explaining why I thought to remove the video. The only other concern that we should consider is whether that video is legally on Google video. Per WP:C, if it was uploaded there without the copyright holder's consent, then we should not link to it (this was a big debate over at WP:EL). Would someone like to email Jeremiah Films to make sure that they consented to the video's upload? -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T17:06Z

The description of the film says it's critical so it's obviously not balanced. But, being balanced is nearly impossible on this sort of subject. To be honest, having watched "Knocking" recently (which is also well done), I'd say it's not balanced also. I think the article benefits by having a wide spectrum of views presented on such a controversial subject. I linked a trailer that was uploaded to YouTube from "Knocking" to help balance the links. I assumed it was a legal upload there. Perhaps that should be checked too? Dtbrown 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the YouTube trailer for Knocking is on the up-and-up; I know some of the people involved with making that documentary (it's been in production for a long time, too) and I'd heard smackings of a trailer being released like this. However, if there's a question in your mind, it is equally important to make sure that clip isn't copyright infringement as well.

I somewhat disagree that it's impossible to produce a reasonably balanced presentation on JWs as I've read some secular sources that do a pretty decent job, even if they do have a hint of bias either way. The Jeremiah Films video, I dare say, is well into lambasting territory, and I tend not to agree that one may find a balanced view through consideration of opposite extreme views. However, as I said, I won't make any fuss over this link, I'm just providing my thoughts for your consideration. As far as Knocking is concerned, I don't have much of an opinion. I thought it was well done and generally fair, definitely with a bit of an amiable tone towards JWs. I haven't actually seen the final cut of it. The version I saw was nearly finished, but still had some things that were going to be edited, but the indication was that the final cut will be pretty similar to what I saw. Still, from what I've seen, I would venture to say that it at least attempts to be fair. Anyway, I'll leave this alone now unless you'd like to discuss it further.

I'm going to add a link to the Wikipedia article on Jeremiah Films next to the link to their video. I was surprised that an article on them exists, but since it does I think it's relevant to link to. Also, would someone else be so kind as to email Jeremiah Films to inquire as to the legality of the clip on Google video? For personal reasons I'd rather not ask them myself (I will if I must). -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T22:06Z

I went to the Jeremiah Films website. They sell other films about JWs but apparently do not handle this one anymore. I know the video has been sold by many other outlets for nearly 20 years.Dtbrown 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article on Jeremiah Films. Not exactly NPOV, I'd say, though there appears to be some valid criticism in it. I'm not wanting to discuss the merits of either film other than to say that bias is extremely hard to judge when it comes to religious issues. Dtbrown 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That it's no longer sold by them doesn't mean that they've relinquished copyright... -- mattb @ 2007-03-31T04:24Z

Eh, bias isn't hard to spot, but it may be difficult to fully quantify. Anyway, I don't feel the neccessity to open that can o'worms. :) -- mattb @ 2007-03-30T02:06Z

Thanks for replacing the statistics external link, by the way, I wasn't aware that article existed on Wikipedia, but internal articles are always preferred over external links. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T17:09Z

I've added an invisible (only visible when editing) note to the books and links sections. This is commonly done in other high profile or controversial articles where there is a high tendency for anonymous editors to add links to resources as their only contribution. This is often interpreted as a violation of Wikipedia's WP:SPAM and WP:EL policies, so the note asks people to discuss the reasons for their wanting to include the link here before doing so (hopefully this will help us weed out actual good resources from editors simply seeking promotion for their book or site). The text of the message reads as follows:

Please discuss any books you wish to add to this list on this article's talk page
before adding them.  To avoid spam, link creep, and keep the resources in this
section of high quality, we want to discuss any external resource inclusion before
it is added.  Thank you!

I also removed a couple of book resources which I could not determine to be valuable or simply promotional. If any of our experienced editors knows these to be good references, feel free to re-add them. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T03:10Z

Good idea! Thanks for adding that! Dtbrown 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions for changes for the external links. Jwdom.org appears to be offline. I suggest we replace it with Jwfacts.com. I also think the Theocratese Glossary ought to be listed as well. It's a little dated but still quite informational and entertaining. As an aside, I think we should think about developing a page that explains JW vocabulary. Dtbrown 15:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

JWdom.org is now back online. April 23, 2007

When can JWdom.org be added back?

Personally, I would like to retain Jwfacts.com instead. What do others think? Dtbrown 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about JWdom.org. JWfacts can stay. Who deleted JWdom.org after I posted it back online few days ago? April 27, 2007

One or the other seems sufficient. You guys make the call since I'm not really able to fairly judge which is the better resource. -- mattb 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

JWdom.org.

I see much of the old gang is gone. Just wanted to see what others thought of the sections ("other sites" and "further reading") as they stand now. Dtbrown 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown External Links?

I don't think I like the idea of breaking down the external links category into "Further Information" and "Criticism" as that can imply to some people that the only "unbiased" information is in the "Further Information" section. We could (and this has been tried before) have "Positive," "Neutral," and "Critical" Resources but the judgment calls on that are all subjective. How to rank the BBC and Knocking links, for example? I think we should go back to the way it was and have all external links merged together. Dtbrown 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd keep it as before, just lump all the external links into one section and let the reader sort it out. As long as we clearly mark each link (they already are) it will be fine. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T21:52Z

I put it back the way it was and re-titled one. Objections? Dtbrown 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, naturally I object. I'm the one who originally made the change. There is ample precedent for this elsewhere, to organize external links into subsections that indicate the point of view of the link. This is appropriate for any article having a subject that elicits varying biases and points of view. Having a subsection titled "criticism" doesn't imply that other subsections are unbiased.

To me, it made no sense to have a mish-mash of external links all collected together in one group. I recommend restoring my edit, but re-titling the "Further information" section to something else. I didn't want to label it "pro" versus "con" because articles like the BBC are simply what I called it, further information, but not an "official source" of information about JW. -Amatulic 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this was tried before and people kept arguing over whether a resource was neutral, pro or con. There are some people who'd consider the "Knocking" link not to be neutral but pro, even though it has a few critical points in the movie. The decision was made quite awhile ago to merge the links. Of course, that can be revisted but I think that would be a bad idea. Dtbrown 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mstare88's edits

WHY ARE MY EDITS ALWAYS DELETED! ALL I DO IS SPEAK THE TRUTH! Please resopnd. anyone can respond.Mstare88 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at your contributions, it's either because your edits are misleading, wrong, simply out of place in the article, or push a point of view. This latter issue is a rather sensitive one, especially on controversial articles. I encourage you to read WP:NPOV to get a handle on how point of view is (supposed) to be handled on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if the removal of your text is discouraging, but that's the nature of Wikipedia. It might be a good idea to suggest an edit you want to make on the talk page (here) before making it in the article, that way we can give you feedback on it. Of course, you aren't required to do this and are still welcome to edit the article directly, but realize that "your writing [will] be edited mercilessly [...] by others". -- mattb @ 2007-03-30T13:40Z

It seems you've made only 2 edits on this article (unless you're also editing anonymously). Of those edits, one was unnecessary, and the other was blatantly POV. If you make any worthwhile edits, they won't be removed.--Jeffro77 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination"

I'm sure many of you are thinking "Oh no, not again". Well, not "again" in the sense that this topic has been discussed and beaten to death above. I do not propose to rehash all of the debate on this topic solely for the purpose of debating it to death again.

However, I note that there is and probably always will be a continuing controversy about this question and that new editors show up from time to time wishing to assert that JW is not a Christian religion/denomination/sect/whatever.

For example, User:Matt Britt recently reverted User:Mejohnson34's edit replacing "Christian denomination" with "religious denomination". In doing so, Matt justified his revert with this edit summary "JWs do not deny the divinity of Christ, they deny the Trinity doctrine. The assertion that denial of this makes them non-Christian is discussed in detail on the talk page".

I looked on this Talk Page and "discussed in detail" is a gross understatement. The detail is overwhelmingly long and I have no desire to read all of it. I think it is unreasonable to ask a new editor to read the entire debate in order to come away with an understanding of the issue and the consensus (if such exists).

For this reason, I propose that we create a page called Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/JW as a Christian denomination wherein a succinct and NPOV exposition of the issue is presented along with a definitive statement of the consensus that has been developed on this issue. If no consensus exists, then let us work to develop one. If we have to, let us open an RFC on the issue. But let us resolve this by creating an NPOV consensus that can be defended going forward.

Once this has been done, any edits that depart from the agreed upon consensus can be reverted with reference to the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/JW as a Christian denomination page.

--Richard 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of work to do simply to be proactive for the rare editor who understands this issue thoroughly and wants to debate it. You guys are welcome to start working on such a thing, but I can think of better ways to spend my editing time. I think that the issue is pretty clear as is; the regular editors of this page agree on the current phrasing and most of the dissenters' arguments would have to be applied to every other "Christian"-related WP article to make them valid here. I don't see any particular reason to jump into the mire of bureaucracy that is RFC. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T18:06Z

You might also want to look at Talk: Christianity. It gets pretty ugly over there on this subject too. Even when JW's are not involved in the debate. The consensus has been to be inclusive of JW's since the majority of reference material is. George 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been involved in the discussions at Talk:Christianity although I am not one of the more prolific contributors. The experience that I'm sharing comes from working on other articles such as Aztec and United States where there are repeated controversies and where it is easier to simply document the consensus and the rationale behind them. If the explanation is short, it is done as an "in-line" comment in the article itself. If it's long, it's done on a subpage of the Talk Page. Once that's done, it's easier to mention the explanation than to re-explain things to every new editor that comes along.

--Richard 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to mention this at Talk:Christianity. George 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, then again, I'm starting to see that there may be utility in such a thing... Perhaps a modified bulleted list version of the summary response I gave in a section below might be a starting point. It seems that this does come up often enough to have an easy-to-digest explanation of why the page classifys JWs as Christian. I don't really think this will stop people from wanting to debate it, but it would give us something to point to and ask that people understand before presenting their arguments. -- mattb 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links Suggestion

I had mentioned this earlier but I think it may have been missed:

A couple of suggestions for changes for the external links. Jwdom.org appears to be offline. I suggest we replace it with Jwfacts.com. I also think the Theocratese Glossary ought to be listed as well. It's a little dated but still quite informational and entertaining. As an aside, I think we should think about developing a page that explains JW vocabulary. Dtbrown 00:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been a few days since I brought this up, I decided to "be bold." If this was premature on my part, please chime in! Dtbrown 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian

Jehovah's Witnesses have historically rejected the tenets of the Christian Faith and are classified as a cult. There is no credible Christian source that would recognize Jehovah's Witnesses as a Christian organization.

Except for most secular sources and by their own self-identification. How would you respond to the assertion of, say, a devout Protestant that the Catholic faith is not Christian? Regardless of inter-denominational bickering about "what defines Christianity", it's best to use a broad secular definition of Christian for our purposes. I encourage you to scroll up on this page and peruse some of the previous discussions on this topic. Consensus is to continue to use the secular definition of Christianity in this article, which JWs fall under. -- mattb 01:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement, "no credible Christian source" employs "weasel words".--Jeffro77 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words or not, Jehovah's Witnesses have always been recognized as a cult and not Christian. Let's say I assert that I am a parrot...does this make me a parrot? All cults are a bad counterfeit of Christianity, so of course they will state they are Christian as it lends more credence to their claims. Ironically, in another article on Wikipedia about the Jefferson Bible, Jefferson is labeled as a Deist when he himself claimed to be a Christian. This shows that Wikipedia doesn't always use simply what the person or organization claims about themselves. How on earth can you label a group as Christian that rejects virtually every foundational claim of Christianity? Jehovah's Witnesses are not just a "denomination," but a completely different animal from Christianity.

This was discussed in length earlier. By the most basic, secular, and unbiased definition of "Christianity", JWs qualify. It's totally untrue that JWs "reject virtually every foundational claim of Christianity", just a handful of later doctrines. Hyperbole doesn't make your point. I'm sorry, but as I stated before, Wikipedia uses a secular definition of Christianity, not one that caters to the doctrinal views of any group. -- mattb 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, your assertion that you are a parrot does not make you a parrot. Your repetitive 'parroting' that JWs are a cult makes you a parrot. JWs believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The definition of Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is what makes them Christian. It doesn't get any simpler. Beliefs superfluous to the teachings of Christ may identify an individual as a subset of Christianity, but none of those subsets precludes them from the broader definition.--Jeffro77 07:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Just a handful of later doctrines?" That is spoken like a true Jehovah's Witness. It is not hyperbole, whatsoever. The doctrines to which we are referring are the most important to the Christian faith and always have been. They are not "just a handful of 'later' doctrines." Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus to be the archangel Michael and a created being. Christianity asserts that Jesus is God, the son. Christianity teaches that Jesus has been eternally co-existent with God the Father. JW's believe Jesus was created before His existence on earth. Christianity teaches that Jesus "created all things and without Him was not anything made that was made." JW's believe that Jesus was the very first creation by God. Christianity as a whole is and always has been Trinitarian. JW's reject the Trinity. JW's are, by nature, not an orthodox Christian organization. The definition of Christianity from Dictionary.com states (definition #1): "the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches." From Merriam-Webster: (definition #1): "the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies" The definition of Jehovah's Witness from Merriam-Webster? (definition #1): "a member of a group that witness by distributing literature and by personal evangelism to beliefs in the theocratic rule of God, the sinfulness of organized religions and governments, and an imminent millennium" Ironically, no mention of the word Christian or Christianity...Again, from dictionary.com (definition #1): "A member of a religious denomination founded in the United States during the late 19th century in which active evangelism is practiced, the imminent approach of the millennium is preached, and war and organized governmental authority in matters of conscience are strongly opposed." Again, no mention of Christ, Christianity or Christian. The Encyclopedia Brittanica??? "an adherent of a millennialist sect that began in the United States in the 19th century and has since spread over much of the world; the group is an outgrowth of the International Bible Students Association founded in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell" Again, no mention of Christianity or being a Christian organization. It seems that only Wikipedia wants to insert Christianity into the JW cult and yet, with something like the Jefferson Bible, where Jefferson actually claims to be a Christian, they want to label him a Deist. Seems like there is quite the anti-Christian bias here at Wikipedia since we are on the subject of bias. Might i suggest an article? http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-05-27

If you read some of the earlier talk you'll see citations from standard encyclopedias (such as the World Book Encyclopedia and others) that refer to JWs as "Christian" as they also use a secular sense of the word, not one defined by a particular religious view. Dtbrown 04:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I wrote the following while Dtbrown wrote his own response. I suggest you review Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and the previous discussions on this page which address all of your objections. In short, by secular definitions, Christianity isn't necessarily synonymous with the Holy Trinity doctrine. None of the secular definitions of Christianity you quoted preclude JWs since they profess belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings. Omission is not comission; I can point to several more "mainstream" Christian denominations (like Lutheranism) which are also not explicitly called Christian by a handful of dictionaries I have. Rather than engage in a neverending theological debate over what constitutes a "true Christian" (the answer to which will be very much disagreed upon by those of the aforementioned Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox faiths), we use a simple secular definition that errs on the side of inclusion. Suggesting that the Trinity doctrine has always been a part of the Christian faith completely ignores history and is nothing but an endorsement of a particular doctrinal view. I'm not interested in engaging in the same debate that played out earlier, so I again ask you to read that text before posting again as I won't respond any further to arguments that have been brought up before. I've only responded here to summarize the position and perhaps save you some lengthy reading. Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude, just avoiding unneccessary re-hashing of dialog.

Please stop removing the text you disagree with from the lead of this article as it will only be restored to conform with the version that is most agreed upon. Wikipedia works by editor consensus, and consensus led to the current article's text. You're welcome to continue discussing this here if you like, but continuing to revert an article to a preferred revision is rather disruptive and is highly frowned upon. I further ask you to look at the copyright policy. Inserting text into a Wikipedia article that is directly copied from Encyclopædia Britannica violates their copyright and is against our rules. Thanks. -- mattb 04:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently actually being factual and correct must also be against Wikipedia "rules." To label a recognized cult as a legitimate Christian denomination does absolutely no one, except the Jehovah's Witnesses in this case, any good. One wonders how you can define something such as Christianity from no particular religious point of view. JW's fall outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. To equate them with denominations that fall within the pale of orthodoxy is senseless at best and heinous at worst. There is no justifiable reason to label them as Christian. You say the JW's "profess belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings." This is true only insofar as they believe what they have rewritten in their own Bible (The New World Translation) which is rejected as being an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew texts. Simply put, when a JW talks of Jesus, they are not talking about the same Jesus that Christianity embraces and worships, much like the Mormons/Latter Day Saints use the same language as Christianity but mean something far different when referring to Jesus. There has been no good reason given, except some phantom "secular definition of Christianity" to accept the JW's as anything but a cult. As far as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I apologize. However, it is far more egregious to call JW's a Christian denomination than it is to copy an accurate definition from another source. In addition, to claim that the Nicene Creed does not teach from a Trinitarian view point is just plain wrong. The Nicene Creed stands in stark opposition to the teachings of the JW's. I would also add a suggestion....that would be that the JW's are treated like the Mormons are on Wikipedia. It is informational and much less controversial to show how they disagree with mainstream Christianity rather than simply call them Christian because they claim to be so.

I linked the Nicene Creed to point out that the Trinity doctrine was not always a part of Christianity, counter to your claim. That creed was the point at which most of Christianity "officially" adopted the doctrine that had been developing in the years prior. Again, I've asked you to stop changing the article against the consensus we've established here. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Your arguments are not novel and have been addressed in detail above. What's more they are full of your own opinion, which isn't any basis for argument. It's absolutely fine that you reject the JWs as Christian on theological grounds, but Wikipedia isn't obliged to endorse that point of view. -- mattb 03:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased anonymous editor, your rant is replete with weasel words and baseless claims. The lynchpin of your claim is that JWs do not believe the Trinity. However, it was previously demonstrated in this talk page that even Catholic sources do not preclude non-Trinitarian groups from being Christian. Though there are a small number of differences in the JW translation of the bible (and though some of those differences are significant), it is essentially the same as any other translation, and cannot honestly be described as "rewritten". The comparison to Mormons is therefore also invalid, as they do not introduce additional writings that they regard as inspired. Their beliefs are just as tenuous as any other Christian religion, and there is nothing in their belief system that is outside of a secular definition of Christianity. The fact that JW doctrines can be disproved from the Bible is irrelevant to their claim of Christianity. This issue has already been thoroughly discussed.--Jeffro77 08:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this keeps coming up, and I've seen the existence of consensus on this matter challenged, I've brought it up on the Christianity talk page. I feel there is plenty of consensus to merit keeping the current text, but getting the opinions of a broader group of editors will hopefully clarify this further and invalidate claims of insufficient consensus. -- mattb 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two sides to this debate. One side says that Christian means a person who believes the teachings of Jesus Christ, which actually is the definition of Christian. The other side says that Christian is synonymous with Trinitarian, which is simply unfactual. It has already been established that even Catholic sources acknowledge that non-Trinitarian groups are Christian. There really is no debate.--Jeffro77 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Christian' means someone that does not twist extremely pertinent parts of the bible; eg. saying that there is no Gehenna, saying that there is no sheol, saying that only 144 000 will go to heaven, saying that this quota is already full, misusing the word YHWH, and perpetuating the mistranslation of the word into 'Jehovah', practising polytheism, denying the deity of Jesus by rewriting the places where he is worshipped in the bible, in the NT where the word Kurios pertains to God rewrite it to say 'Jehovah', where it pertains to Jesus write it as 'Lord', say that every single other religion (without exception) is the harlot riding the scarlet beast (revelation 17/18), etc, etc. Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. BMurray 12:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the things you list, along with a myriad of other doctrines held by various other Christian religions are subsidiary to being 'Christian', and are a subset thereof. Your definition of 'Christianity' is flawed. Refer to Christian.--Jeffro77 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, for whatever it's worth, items number 1, 2, 4, and 7 are not correct. Most of your other issues are your own spin and constitute your opinion why JWs are not Christian, not any solid tangible definition. -- mattb 13:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are only about 8,500 JWs alive today who make up the final part of the 144000 who will go to heaven; therefore, the "quota for heaven is full" (according to JW).

'Yahweh' is scriptually used in reference to God's covenant with Israel. JW believe themselves to be 'Israel'. JW are highly literal in many areas except this area, which they take idomatically to denote themselves (JW). Paul hammers home in the book of Romans that God is still zealous for Israel and has made provisions for a 'remnant'. BMurray 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether JWs are Christian.--Jeffro77 08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If one says that the only prerequisite of being under the Christianity heading on Wikipedia is to believe in Jesus Christ and follow his teachings, then Islam would have to be placed under Christianity, because they too believe in Jesus Christ as one of the greatest prophets and they see his teachings as something everyone should live by.

Muslims profess no belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God nor do they view him as their savior or the center of their religion (all criteria mentioned in the first few sentences of Christianity). More importantly, Muslims do not self-identify as Christian or claim to believe in all of Jesus Christ's teachings. JWs do. Again, trying to push one's own theological definition of Christianity could easily exclude other more mainstream denominations depending on where the lines are drawn (e.g. is a Christian one who believes in Papal primacy?). -- mattb 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. Therefore let the article take no position at all rather than demanding it assert your theological (or other) definition as fact. There is no good faith reason to object to neutrality here. A.J.A. 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the Christianity talk page, many secular sources explicitly call JWs a Christian denomination. The good faith reason is that Christianity is not fundamentally defined by the Holy Trinity doctrine any more than it is fundamentally defined by belief in the Pope. The definitions of Christianity that have been adopted by and large by Wikipedia and most (relatively) unbiased sources I've seen easily include JWs. -- mattb 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand you: it should advocate your definition because your definition is right. Is that it? A.J.A. 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Matt's comment needs clarification. The context suggests that there is a missing "no" as in "we see no reason to suggest..."

Second, assuming that I understood Matt's intended meaning correctly, I object strongly to the assertion "we see (no) reason to suggest that Christianity is fundamentally defined by the Holy Trinity doctrine any more than it is fundamentally defined by belief in the Pope." It sure as hell is. Let's not get carried away by an overzealousness for neutrality.

The fact remains that secular sources should not necessarily be preferred over Christian sources in defining Christianity. While I support the Wikipedia solution of classifying JWs as Christians, I think we go too far in saying that there is "no good faith reason" to object. The truth is that, within mainstream (Trinitarian) Christianity, the majority opinion is that JWs and other non-Trinitarians are not mainstream (Trinitarian) Christians and the minority opinion is that they are. Any assertion that JWs are Christians needs to be counter-balanced somewhere with the majority opinion otherwise we risk giving undue weight to the minority opinion.

NB: I admit that this last set of assertions starting with "The truth is..." is based on my personal opinion and I would have a tough time backing it up with sources if challenged. However, I believe that my assertions are based on fact even if I can't support them at this time.

--Richard 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK, maybe what I wrote needs clarification. I assert that "Christianity is more fundamentally defined by the Holy Trinity than by a belief in the authority of the Pope". That is to say "Christianity is defined as a belief in one God whose promise to send a Messiah is fulfilled in Jesus Christ". This is the best and most economical definition of Christianity that I can come up with. Everything is layered on top of that core statement like layers on an onion. HOWEVER!!!... the doctrine of the Trinity is far closer to the core of the onion than the doctrine of Papal primacy. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Note that my "core definition of Christianity" does not include the divinity of Jesus Christ which most Christians including (I believe) JWs would insist upon. However, upon reflection, it occurred to me that we need a definition of Christianity that includes not just JWs and Mormons but also various Christian heresies such as the Adoptionists and the Ebionites who, even though they were heretical, were nonetheless Christians in some sense. It is, however, an extreme minority that would consider them to be Christians. When does a Christian heretic stop being a Christian? Where is the line?

--Richard 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A further clarification. I wrote "secular sources should not necessarily be preferred over Christian sources in defining Christianity". I did not mean this to imply that "Christian sources should be preferred over secular sources in defining Christianity". What I intend is that all reliable sources should be represented and give due weight. To rely only on secular sources is as much a mistake as relying only on Christian sources (whatever that means... Catholic? Reformed? Orthodox? JW?)

--Richard 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

All of this assumes that Wikipedia actually should decide who is Christian, which gets us here. Not taking a position is by definition more neutral than taking one. A.J.A. 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this presumes that neutrality is the only goal or even the highest goal. Our job is to describe what a Christian is to those who may have no idea or an incomplete idea of what the term means. If there are different competing definitions, then we should present them all and give one its "due weight". We are not required to lower ourselves to the "lowest common denominator" of neutrality. Our goal is to present the "sum of human knowledge" even when there are differing competing perspectives of that knowledge. The "sum" of human knowledge, not the "lowest common denominator".

Unfortunately, the yes/no nature of the "Category" feature of Wikipedia requires that we take some position on deciding who is Christian. Articles allow for a much more sophisticated and nuanced treatment of complex issues such as this one. We should seek to present these nuances in articles rather than retreating to a black/white yes/no decision.

--Richard 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please pay some attention to the issue at hand before you say things. They are demanding that the article lead, not a category, state that they're Christian. Not that we should "present" it as one view among others (which I never objected to), but that we should "present" it as fact, no nuances or sophistication at all. A "black/white yes/no decision" is what they're demanding. A.J.A. 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be gentler in your style of discourse. Yes, I understood that this was not a discussion about categories but I used categories as an extreme example of a situation where a yes/no decision was necessary. The lead could clarify the issue by not saying "JWs are a Christian denomination" or it could just say "JWs are a Christian denomination" with explanation of the opposing view elsewhere in the article or in Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses. In any event, it is clear that there are two opposing viewpoints, both of which must be presented in order to conform with NPOV guidelines. The only question is how best to present each viewpoint. Debating whether or not JWs are Christian is outside the scope of Wikipedia editing. Our job is not to decide the debate but to describe it. --Richard 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An intro that says JWs are Christian decides the debate (or attempts to). If you say "X is Y" and then later on say "some people dispute that X is Y", you're saying they believe something that isn't true. That's POV. If you can't see that... here I break off in the interest of gentleness. A.J.A. 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we agree to a point. See my comment dated 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC) below. In my view, we should neither say "JWs are Christian" nor "JWs are NOT Christian". Instead we should say something along the lines of "JWs self-identify as Christians. Some non-JW Christians accept them as such. Others do not." Whether we need to stick this in the lead is a secondary question. --Richard 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:A.J.A. wrote " If you say "X is Y" and then later on say "some people dispute that X is Y", you're saying they believe something that isn't true. That's POV. "

Sorry, I guess you're going to have to club me over the head with the less gentle approach because I can't see it.

Are you saying that we need to take sides on this question? That we cannot say "X is Y" unless it is universally accepted as true? This would argue that we must say "Group X is asserted to be Y by group X however people in other groups B, C & D assert that X is not Y". Is this what you are arguing for? If so, we agree. If not, then please explain. --Richard 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of exaggeration. We're asking that this article be given the same treatment as all other denominational articles on Wikipedia. The Mormonism article calls the LDS church Christian without much beating around the bush. So does the Seventh Day Adventistism article. The Millenialism article calls the subject a belief held by some "Christian denominations". The Nontrinitarian article starts out by defining the subject as a "Christian belief that rejects the doctrine of the Trinity". Other articles label some controversially "Christian" denominations as such, as well as some of the most controversial beliefs of JWs themselves. What's so special about JWs that requires that Wikipedia avoid calling them Christian is beyond me. It has been demonstrated that several reliable and non-partisan sources call JW Christian, and even a Catholic source doesn't take issue with calling non-Trinitarians Christian. I don't see why this article should put such a restrictive fine point on the definition of Christian when neither Wikipedia in general nor other sources do. -- mattb 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad practices on other articles do not justify bad practices here. A.J.A. 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but it is a limited indicator of how other editors uninvolved in this conflict tend to view this matter. If you wish to change the pages I linked to a more complicated description to avoid an overly broad interpretation of "what is a Christian", be my guest. -- mattb 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But are there reliable sources that say JWs aren't Christian? Seems to me that is what we need to provide verifiable sources for the viewpoint that they aren't. --Richard 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There are reliable sources for the fact that there are different definitions of Christian. That being the case, we cannot explicitly or implicitly side with one over the other, even if you can find someone to cite who expresses his opinion. It's still only opinion. The only issue an appeal to reliable sources can settle easily is whether JWs fit a given definition, but this is not the issue being disputed. A.J.A. 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If we "cannot explicitly or implictly side with one over the other" then the lead to this article needs to indicate that not everybody agrees that JWs are Christian otherwise we have taken an implicit stance. Removing the statement that JWs are a Christian denomination would take an implicit stance on the other side of the issue. Saying something like "JWs self-identify as a Christian denomination although many Christians dispute this self-identification." would probably be the most neutral phrasing.

I happen to disagree with the premise though. We simply cannot be neutral when there is a majority opinion. We have to indicate what that majority opinion is and whether we're talking 60/40 or 90/10. Jumping to "secular sources" and ignoring what the majority of Christians think is just as problematic as relying on "Christian sources" and ignoring the secular sources. The question is... do we know what the majority opinion is? Are there reliable sources that assert that the majority of Christians think one way or the other about this issue? Also you have to differentiate between the majority of the laity, the majority of the clergy and the majority of the scholars.

--Richard 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The "self-identify" text has been used before, and it's one viable alternative. My qualms with it are simply that no other Wikipedia article on controversial "Christian" (whatever that means to you) beliefs and groups that I have seen use this phrasing, instead opting for a more inclusive position. If you wish to change some or all of those instances as well, this discussion needs much wider exposure. Also, I think the addition of such a qualification does in itself imply that there isn't sufficient reason to use the simpler text, so I think it's inherently loaded wording.

The lead text should be kept simple, so I propose the footnote solution. After the first sentence we add a footnote that reads, "Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christian. Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' Nontrinitarian stance."

I suggest this wording since it keeps the lead simple and free of potentially loaded phrasing, but also gets right at the heart of why many people come here and disagree with calling JWs Christians outright. I will not keep going in circles in futile debate, so please seriously consider this compromise or propose some alternative wording. -- mattb 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I really like Matt Britt's proposed compromise. Any chance of forming a consensus around the footnote solution? --Richard 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Text removed by author. George 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

George, the caps aren't necessary. Please consider removing them. -- mattb 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

YEAH, BECAUSE SOME IDIOT MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO SHOUT BACK! :-O ;^)

Seriously, George threw down the gauntlet and I have picked it up.

How's this for a reliable referenct to the contrary? Do I need to go find some more?

Here's another one

Trying to find reliable sources on the web is made more difficult by the numerous Christian websites which I am passing up because, although they assert that JWs are not Christians, they don't qualify as reliable sources.

It would be easier to cite books if I had them. Just go to Amazon and search on "Jehovah's Witnesses" and you'll find a bunch of books whose titles seem to indicate a negative characterization of JWs as cults. I can't verify at the moment that they explictly say that JWs aren't Christians as clearly and explictly as is stated in the two sources that I provided above.

And here is a really good "neutral" summary of the two sides from the BBC.

So... if "traditional Christian Churches, for their part, do not regard the movement as a mainstream Christian denomination ", what do they consider it to be? The word that comes up over and over on the web is "cult". NOTE: I don't want to get wrapped up in a discussion of whether or not JW is a "cult" whatever that means. I'm just saying that many Christians consider JW to be a cult. --Richard 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And try this one also.

--Richard 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally something to actually talk about

Richard, thank you. First let me comment as to your first reference. It does not state why JW’s are not Christians. It makes statements like:

“Russell came to the conclusion that Christianity was not the correct way to understand the Bible.”

The article does not source any material to back up that claim. When did Russell calim tha Christianity was not the correct way to understand the bible? It does not give a definition of Christian, which encyclopedias that have been used as source for calling JW’s Christian do. They also have references, the paper does not.

The second source you listed says:

“In the orthodox sense the Witnesses are not Christians…”

Do I even need to point out the lack of strength here?

It also says:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses are not true Bible Christians. They reject the only authority there is in the world for the Bible, namely the Catholic Church. Russell and Rutherford have no means of knowing that the Bible is God’s word, apart from the Catholic Church. Rutherford actually wrote that Russell found "no Christian denomination teaching what the Bible contains." “

So it is just he said she said. Also, there are other catholic references which refer to JW’s as “sect.” (sect of what?) [1] [2] so until they get their story straight how can we use catholic references?

”The Witnesses contradict almost every basic Christian teaching.”

It only lists three teachings blood, the trinity and immortality of the soul two of which are not unique to Christianity. How many basic teachings of Christianity are there?

The BBC document calls JW’s Christian-based - if it is a rewrite of the former article I wonder if they were pressured to change the wording a little because I looked up the BBC information a few months ago and it said that JW’s were a ‘Christian’ group.

And then there is the old argument that all religions are cults by the very definitions given by those calling JW’s a cult. Cult references are unreliable for the most part as there is a lot of conflicting information out there on what a cult is. But you did find four references. From my replies it should be obvious I read them and then some. George 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite a rant session while I slept. I see that some (read, 'Richard') are still trying to assert that 'Christianity = Trinitarianism'. That is of course, absolute drivel. The grass-roots plain simple truth is that JW core beliefs are inextricably Christian, particularly first-century Christianity, as defined by their interpretation of the 'New Testament'.--Jeffro77 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "absolute drivel, eh?" Gee, when I call other people's ideas "nonsense", I get tagged for being uncivil. I guess everybody has different standards for civility. No problem by me. I'm not so thin-skinned.

However, both George m and Jeffro77 miss the point. I am NOT trying to argue that JWs are not Christians. That is not what I personally believe. However, I do believe that there are many Christians who do argue that JWs are not Christians and, even if they are wrong, you cannot make them go away by arguing that they are wrong. Would you deny the existence of anti-Semitism just because anti-Semites have their heads up their butts? Wikipedia's job is not to arbitrate these kinds of debates but to document them. --Richard 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your own analogy quite aptly supports the fact that the article should say they are Christians. Just as it would be inappropriate to pander to those who believe that antiSemitism does not exist simply because biased individuals believe that to be the case, so too, JWs should not be labelled as non-Christian simply on the basis of adherents to different subsets of Christianity.--Jeffro77 07:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

POV = JW's are true Christians. NPOV= Jw's are Christian. It is that simple! This has been going on way too long!Johanneum 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "that simple" but, yes, it has been going on way too long. (although not in the sense that you are asserting) --Richard 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no set definition of Trinity, so how could it be a guide on what to consider Christian or otherwise. Some groups believe in 3 Persons as 1 God trinity (3 entities that make up one God), and others believe in a 1 God with three expressions (same entity appearing in different forms). How minute are we to get in how Trinitarianism is to be applied to defining what is Christian and what is not? Many Christian groups do not consider the Catholic Chruch as Christian (POV: this claim is normally by people who have a very poor understanding of history). Are we do have this debate on the Catholic talk page too and refer to the same sources sited above to justify removing references of Christianity from the Catholic article? I agree there is no good faith in arguing that JW's should not be labelled as Christian. Fcsuper 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A decision

Should a conclusion be reached? If so what? I vote we put a cave troll near the edit button. George 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave JW's are Christian Religious opinions are varied (contradictory?) and based on emotion as much as fact. They are for these reasons unreliable. That leaves secualr sources which resoundingly affirm the statement. George 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you consider my previous footnote compromise? While I'd prefer leaving the text as-is, I think my suggestion is viable and it should cut down on the frequency with which we have this debate erupt. -- mattb 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your compromise is an acceptable solution. One thing, someone will have a problem with it eventually and want to change it. We'll be back here going over it agian from the other angle. At one time the lead said "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international religion..." which is perfectly acceptable. I don't remember why but that was scrapped. It is correct without getting into the issue of who is right. George 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A footnote could work, provided it's worded right. It has to specify which sense is being used, and disclaim any statement on whether JWs actually do follow the New Testament. A.J.A. 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

JWs do follow the New Testament as they interpret it, so no such disclaimer is required there. It is the inherent right of any religious group to apply their own interpretations.--Jeffro77 07:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on my proposed wording above? In case you missed it I'll copy it here:

The lead text should be kept simple, so I propose the footnote solution. After the first sentence we add a footnote that reads, "Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christian. Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance."

Is this wording acceptable? If not, could you propose some changes you think everyone could live with? Let's come to a compromise. -- mattb 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe

According to their self-identification. Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance; this article endorses neither view.

A.J.A. 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're proposing the same wording, though I'd prefer to use mine since yours contains a sentence fragment and a self-reference ("this article"). It's not necessary to tell the reader what this article does and doesn't endorse when they should be able to ascertain that from the article itself. This is a purely stylistic qualm, though. -- mattb 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect to those trying to resolve this, the suggestions are a bit convoluted. It does not seem appropriate to state JW's views as fact or anyone else's. We are describing their beliefs. The proper description for their beliefs is that they are Christian, not that someone doesn't feel they are Christian. The wording as it stands is most correct. We could easily have this argument on the Catholic article since there's plenty of sources written by people that don't feel the Catholic faith is Christian either. The move to describe JW's as anything but Christian is seeded in bigotry that particular Christian groups feel towards other Christian groups. Fcsuper 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As previously stated, JWs are Christians based on the basic secular definition of the word (people who follow the teachings of Jesus and believe he was the Messiah). This is a secular source. While it may be appropriate to note somewhere in the article that some religious groups dispute JWs' status as Christians, such does not belong in the lead, nor is a footnote required to pander to such groups.--Jeffro77 07:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"people who follow the teachings of Jesus" -- That's the issue, isn't? And Wikipedia does not take sides, no matter how desperately you may want it to take yours. A.J.A. 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, any religion is going to have its own interpretations. And I am being objective and applying a secular definition, not promoting 'my side' in the way you suggest. Since I'm not a JW, the implication is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're playing games. Hiding an endorsement in your "secular" definition (that, far being being secular, is a theological statement) will not change the nature of what is being done. The article shouldn't call JWs Christian without qualification precisely because you understand (and others will understand) that to mean they follow the teachings of Jesus. A.J.A. 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A., it appears it is you who are playing games and projecting your own actions on to others. This has much more do to with bigotry and over simplification employed by dumbing down your view of the opposing arguement to "anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus". These wikipedia articles cannot take sides, as you stated. In part, this means there must be the harsh avoidance of bigotry. Particular Christian groups getting finicky about how the word "Christian" is applied to other Christian groups is bigotry. No one owns the word. One group doesn't have the right to tell another group, "Hey, you aren't Christian because we've come up for this criteria that specifically excludes you!" As stated above, with the narrow definition many employ for the word "Christian", the Catholic Church itself is specifically excluded. In historical context, this is a crazy position, but there are many out their that firmly believe hold to that bigotry too. I cannot support the prejudice that you are trying to promote. Fcsuper 07:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper is correct. It was pointed out in this psuedo-debate long ago that no 'disclaimer' is required in the lead for justifying the statement that JWs are Christians. It was also pointed out long ago that the 'Controversy' section should include a statement that other Christian religions object to calling JWs Christians, and that is already present in the article. Anything beyond that is POV.--Jeffro77 08:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be adviced of WP:NPA. A.J.A. 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole dispute appears nonsensical to me from an academic perspective.

The fact is everyone's religious disposition is self-declared, and no all-knowing all-powerful supernatural being has settled the dispute of who is true to their claim and who is not. Hence the question of who is Christian is entirely subjective.

Incorrect. A person (or group) is Christian if they believe that Jesus was the Christ and they believe that they are following his teachings. Whether Jesus is the Christ is subjective, but whether those persons believe it to be true is not subjective. People who like chocolate inherently believe that chocolate is nice. Whether chocolate actually is nice is subjective, but the fact that those people believe chocolate is nice is indisputable.--Jeffro77 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

What makes it subjective is precisely what you point out. Individual's know what they believe, but you and I have only their word for what they believe, and people do not always express themselves accurately, or even honestly. Even Watchtower doctrine points this out, for whatever that's worth. Objectivity would have academic editors point out what the individual/religion professes as its belief because this is verifiable.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It is the organization that promotes those beliefs rather than merely individuals, and those beliefs are well documented.--Jeffro77 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Yes. This is what I said. Quote, "Objectivity would have academic editors point out what the individual/religion professes as its belief because this is verifiable." We can point objectively to claims made by individuals or organizations. This is the point.

-- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Jehovah's Witnesses, I have a library full of JW and non-JW journal articles, books, et al from a wide spectrum of sources. Among these I can find statements that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, and I can find sources stating Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian. I can find the same thing for every other religion, too. This is because at some point in time every single religion professing its adherents as "Christian" has itself been disputed as Christian by other religionists holding a different view.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I consider myself Christian. I do not consider myself Christian because of my religions affiliation. I consider myself Christian because I have accepted Christ Jesus as my savior and have determined to follow him as best I know how. If my confession here is honest then who can condemn my statement a lie unless they can read my heart, and who here can read a person’s heart?

It is idiotic for a person to assert a purely subjective theological perspective as the/a determining factor in who is Christian and who is not. Were this the litmus test then no religion could lay claim to being "Christian" because there are other religious perspectives that would disagree with the claim.

My recommendation is to let religionists claim whatever they want about their religion. Readers can decide what they think of the claim based on verified material provided in the article, including the veracity of the sources. This is how encyclopedic material should be presented.

--Marvin Shilmer 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Which gets us nowhere. Bring it down to the specific wording you want in the article. A.J.A. 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A:

Articulation and sharing of reasoning is essential to work through disagreements. It provides for measuring veracity and objectivity. It leads to consensus.

In response to your request, I would begin the article with:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international religion professing Christianity. It has origins in the United States with the 19th Century Millerite and Bible Student movements…”

-- Marvin Shilmer 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That wording is unsuitable. The wording as it currently stands in the article is appropriate... unless we are going to go to every single article about a religion "professing Christianity" and change all of those too.--Jeffro77 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current consensus wording is most correct and most neutral from amongst the options presented. Fcsuper 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Consulting dictionaries and encyclopedias

Jeffro77:

Then maybe we should follow the lead of highly regarded encylopedia content (e.g., Brittanica and/or Funk and Wagnalls) and characterize Jehovah's Witnesses as either a millennialist sect or a Christian sect.

We are way too sensitive when we think an accurate presentation in one article should influence presentations in other articles, as though this is some sort of game keeping score. For encyclopedic content accuracy, veracity and verification is everything. I cannot verify that the religion Jehovah's Witnesses is Christian. On that point I only have my opinion, as does everyone else. But regardless of my opinion, we can verify assertion made by any religion, including by the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This assertion is that Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian, as a religion. But this is a professed status and not a verified status. The same is true of other religion's too. But here we are addressing the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses and not other religions. I am not ready to compromise accuracy here because of issues in other articles. Are you?

-- Marvin Shilmer 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying it is a 'professed status' is ponderous reasoning. Their beliefs are verifiably Christian. If they said 'we are Christian' but were really worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then the article should not say they are Christian. Because they believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of God, and they follow his teachings as they understand them, they are indisputably a Christian religion, regardless of extraneous definitions imposed by other groups, or whether their beliefs are wrong. As previously stated, if other religious groups contend that JWs are not Christiain, that belongs in the controversy section, where it already is.--Jeffro77 00:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

What do you mean by “verifiably Christian”? Since theology is purely interpretive then whose interpretive “verification” are you using here, your own?

Resolving the issue in 3 simple steps. 1. Pick up a dictionary. 2. Look up 'Christian'. 3. Stop applying your own bias.--Jeffro77 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Dictionaries do not resolve this issue because of what I already wrote; theology is interpretive.

To illustrate, the undisputed preeminent dictionary of the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines the noun “Christian” as “One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.” So whose interpretation of “the religion of Christ” are we going to apply? Whose?

I cannot respond to your specific query because I don't have the Oxford English Dictionary. If I did have that specific reference work, I would consult the definition of "Christianity" as given in that work. Without that information, your argument doesn't really have a context. But it is toying with semantics, because the basic definition of Christianity is a person who believes in Jesus as Christ; equating it with Trinitarianism is a theological issue, and outside of the scope of this discussion.--Jeffro77 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As for bias, I have no problems with stating “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian,” or with stating “Jehovah’s Witnesses profess Christianity,” or with stating “Jehovah’s Witnesses are professed Christian,” or anything of the like. Hence I have no particular bias for either side grinding axes on this issue. However, from a strictly academic perspective, I have pointed out the subjectivity of claiming any religion (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) is Christian, and I have pointed out the objectivity of stating what any religion (including Jehovah’s Witnesses) professes. We can absolutely verify the objective. We cannot absolutely verify the subjective.

You failed to comment on my recommendation of applying the terminology used by the Watchtower organization's sociologist of choice, Dr. Rodney Stark. He applies the term "Christian sect" to Jehovah's Witnesses. If the Watchtower organization sees merit in this man's perspectives then why should you object? -- Marvin Shilmer 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is on which you base your allegation that Rodney Stark is "the Watchtower organization's sociologist of choice", so there was nothing to respond to. It is strange that you would object to calling them "Christian", and at the same time, be happy to call them a "Christian sect"; it suggests a 'compromise' only in the sense of promoting a biased view that rightly belongs in the controversy section, not the lead.--Jeffro77 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

If we accept the basic definition of Christian is “one who believes in Jesus as Christ” then we must reject the Watchtower organization’s voluminous instances where it denies this usage as appropriate. If we apply your preferred usage then you would have to believe the Watchtower should use (not just quote, but apply itself) terms such as “gay Christians”. Are you okay with this? If not it is probably because of a theological dispute, which only underscores what I wrote earlier about the subjective nature of the usage “Christian”. Whose theology are you going to apply? Whose?

Your repeated use of the superfluous question, "Whose?" has grown tiresome. The preceding question is also superfluous, becuase you are attempting to apply the JWs theological definition of Christian with the secular definition used in the article.--Jeffro77 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

You missed/avoided the point. In this case asking 'whose theology' is asking 'whose authority'. Editors have a duty to express the authority of what they write, particularly for works purported as academic, such as encyclopedic content. I might add that, in the presence of a response, failure to answer the actual, and legitimate, question asked is telling in its own right.

It is not error to have Watchtower usage impinge the article in question since Watchtower usage is a product of Watchtower doctrine, and the article is designed to address Watchtower doctrine. If you get around to answering the question asked, I am still interested in your disclosure.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Whose authority?" Secular definition. And along that line, please provide the defintion for "Christianity" as given in the Oxford Dictionary in order to back up your previously stated defintion of "Christian" as given in that work. Though the article is about Watchtower doctrine, the article (especially the lead) generally should not be written from that perspective (unless a particular section explicitly states that it is written from the perspective of JW beliefs).--Jeffro77 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Secular definition does not determing "the religion of Christ". Hence even the Oxford English Dictionary is an insufficient authority for determining whether a religions is in fact Christian. I already quoted the OED for you. I suggest you read what you respond to. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may like to read what you respond to. You said: "The OED defines the noun “Christian” as “One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.”" As that definition refers to "Christianity", I indicated that the OED's definition of that separate word should be given. Apology accepted in advance.--Jeffro77 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

Christianity:

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM.

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

2b. with pl. A Christian religious system.

3. State or fact of being a Christian; Christian condition or quality; Christian spirit or character.

The OED entry for Christian is the determining element for its entry on Christianity. Hence I already provided the pertinent OED entry (suffix “ity” et al). The terms are not seperate. The entry is the only thing seperate. Consult your literary guide under "suffix".

-- Marvin Shilmer 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting)

Marvin, if your definitions extracted from the OED are accurately reproduced (and I trust that they are), I think it's time to abandon the OED as being of any value in this discussion. (sorry but it's true) "Christian" is defined as "believes or professes the religion of Christ" or "an adherent of Christianity" and "Christianity" is defined as "The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles" or "being a Christian". That part of the definition which is not tautological sheds no light on our debate because it doesn't tell us what "The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles" is. We have no way of telling whether Catholics, Protestants, Mormons or JWs meet this definition or not.

However, this is not the OED's fault. We have no way of finding a single authoritative source that defines Christianity because Christianity is, in its very nature, a fractious community with diverse beliefs. We can really only make comments about majority and minority opinions. I would argue that JWs are a minority opinion because most of Christianity would question their Christianity on the basis of their non-Trinitarianism. Nonetheless, it is true that JWs not only claim to be Christians, they claim to be the only true Christians. All of this needs to be presented to the reader in order to adopt a truly NPOV perspective.

--Richard 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

What you write is what I have been telling editors. As I said early on to Jeffro77, "Dictionaries do not resolve this issue because of what I already wrote; theology is interpretive." I illustrated this by use of the preeminent English Dictionary, the OED. You have isolated and elucidated the same point I have.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Consulting peer-reviewed articles

You point out that equating Trinitarianism with Christianity is a theological issue, and I agree. However it is equally a theological issue to determine what it means to “believe in Jesus as Christ”.

The scope of this article is specifically on one religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

When we examine vetted articles addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses we seldom find usage stating Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. This is not because the writers are suggesting Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. Rather, the writers (often sociologists) understand when addressing a specific religion it is better to apply a term tailored to fit that religion without making broad characterizations.

Hence, in different peer reviewed articles specifically addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses find:

- Dr. Christine King apply the term “Christian sect”. (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 14 (1979), 21 1-34)

- Drs Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone apply the term “Christian Sect”. (Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997)

- Drs Pauline Cote and James Richardson apply the term “milliarian group”. (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 1, March 2001)

- Dr. Joseph Zygmunt applies the term “chiliastic”. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75, No. 6, May, 1970)

- Dr. Theodore W. Sprague applies the term “sect”. (Social Forces, Vol. 21, No. 3, Mar., 1943)

- Dr. J. R. Hooker applies the term “fundamentalist sect”. (Journal of African History, Vol. I, 1965)

Again, all these are vetted sources.

I have no heartburn over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as Christian, or over referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as professed Christian. But I do admit that the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian” is a subjective statement whereas the statement “Jehovah’s Witnesses professed Christianity” is objective.

Regarding authors cited above, it is perhaps noteworthy that the Watchtower organization frequently cites King and Stark as authoritative sources addressing Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You are apparently unaware of the Watchtower organization’s use and quotation from Dr. Stark in some of its video presentations. At one time the Watchtower had a clip on its Public Information web site of Dr. Stark in a defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But surely you are aware of the Watchtower organization’s many usages of Dr. King as an authoritative source in respect to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

-- Marvin Shilmer 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

JWs as a Christian sect or cult

Editors of encyclopedic content must set aside their own opinion and ask what content can be verified objectively. Objective information is educational whereas opinion is little more than spin.

Here is a suggestion: Since the Watchtower organization uses sociologist Rodney Stark why not use the term he applies towards Jehovah’s Witnesses. Stark states Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect. Why not use the terminology used by the Watchtower organization’s favored sociologist?

Presenting Jehovah's Witnesses as professed Christians is verifiable by objective means. Saying Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian is entirely subjective based on whose set of theological interpretations one wants to apply.

-- Marvin Shilmer 01:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May I interject? The reason 'sect' is avoided here is because it carries in the minds of many passionate readers a negative power. Stark does not intend it to be negative and uses it as an academic term. Many readers and editors here are not academic so we take this into consideration. You also mention that JW's don't think gays can be Christian, while that is true they also don't think Catholics are actually Christians because of their doctrines. At issue is not how JW's view other religions but how they view themselves and how they are categorized by academics. George 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George M:

Encyclopedic presentation cannot stoop to avoiding applicable and correct terms because ignorant readers do not understand the usage? Encyclopedic content intends to educate the ignorant, not keep them in the dark by nurturing their ignorance.

I will take that statement as your acknowledgement that it is entirely appropriate for the article to state that Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian religion.--Jeffro77 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

We are all free to take whatever language however we want. But good academics demands we place meaning within the bounds of context and express statements.

Personally I have no problem stating Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian religion, because this is what I believe. But I have also yielded that from an academic perspective such a statement is not objective, and is less precise than presenting what the religion professes. We can verify what a religion claims. We cannot verify what a religion is when there is no finite and unambiguous authority to substantiate the claim. Hence the objective position is to present what the religion professes rather than what it is.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should the lack of academics among readers and/or editors influence what is purported as an academic work, namely an encyclopedia?

Good encyclopedic content presents information that can be verified. Hence I have edited the introduction according to your very words here because how a religion is acknowledged by academics and how a religion views itself are both important. What I have penned is not only verifiable; it is verified.

-- Marvin Shilmer 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, your argument is fine except that you're missing the point. We absolutely should educate lay people as to the terms used by experts and academics. However, the problem here is not that the lay people don't know what "sect" means. The problem is that "sect" has negative connotations for lay people that it may not carry for academicians and theologians. (I say "may not" because I suspect that there are theologians who use the word "sect" in a derogatory fashion).

JWs have been called a "Christian sect" or a "cult". Both can be considered derogatory and therefore should be avoided.

--Richard 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

The point is that anyone who believes “sect” connotes something negative does not in fact “know what ‘sect’ means” because sect does not connote anything negative.

The preeminent English dictionary is the Oxford English. Nowhere does it suggest a negative connotation to the term “sect”. This does not mean the term—or any other term—cannot be used in a derogatory way. It only means the term is not recognized as negative, or connoting anything negative.

Hence the problem you say exists is nonexistent except for individuals who choose to use the term—or any other term—in a derogatory way. Furthermore, since in the face of ignorance anything “can be considered derogatory” this is no basis to refrain from accurate and proper usage. So what are we talking about doing, nurturing ignorance?

-- Marvin Shilmer 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... I have to confess that "ignorant" probably refers to me in many situations including this one. I keep trying to keep up with people who know more about religion, Christianity and JWs than I do. I can only hope that I have enough wisdom to duck out when the water gets too deep for me.

That said... after reading the above, I was ready to accept Marvin's definition of sect but I figured I'd look around with Google first. For now, I think it's useful to focus only on what Wikipedia has to say about sect and cult. By Wikipedia's definitions, both "cult" and "sect" apply to JWs. And by Wikipedia's definitions have been considered to be pejorative. So, what to do? Do we go by the book and say "Hey, if the shoe fits..." or do we avoid using a word that has pejorative connotations?

I'm at a loss for a way forward. Moreover, I will comment that, at the top of this Talk Page page, this discussion appears to have been held at least once already under the section heading "Sect or religious denomination?". I haven't read the full discussion yet but we should probably all take a breather and read it before going over ground that has been covered already.

--Richard 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

I have already made an attempt to move things forward by an edit I made earlier today to the article's introduction. Take a look and comment. Your objectivity is appreciated.

-- Marvin Shilmer 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Any large volume on the history of Christianity will include some brief mention of Jehovah's Witnesses. Theologically, I disagree with many doctrines that Witnesses teach (some of which are denials of what I believe to be essential Christian doctrine). Having said that, I recognize that other movements which I also believe to have denied essential doctrine are considered to be part of the Christian movement: the Arians of the 4th century, Sabellianism and the Socinians to name a few. Evangelical theologian James White has been quoted as saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian Church because it denies what he feels is essential doctrine. Many other Evangelicals (through probably a minority) hold similar views. Wikipedia cannot become a place where our theological views decide if a particular self-professed Christian denomination is really Christian or not. Rather, we should accept their self-designation at face value and in the article note any necessary controversy. That is the neutral course we should take. Dtbrown 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brown has stated above, "Rather, we should accept their self-designation at face value and in the article note any necessary controversy. That is the neutral course we should take. Dtbrown 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)" Mr. Brown's use of "neutral" is questionable in that it is "neutral" because someone says it's neutral. In this case it could be argued that Jehovah's Witnesses should accept the self-designation of those who leave the organization that they remain Christians and should accept the neutrality of their claim. Francois7 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I think a number of us could agree with this. The question is where should the "controversy" be noted. As a footnote to the sentence "JWs are a Christian organization", later in the body of this article or not at all in this article but in a separate article Criticism of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The idea that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church is discussed in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article. BTW, can you give me a citation for the comment by James White? It would be useful to include in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article.

The proposed compromise was to put it in a footnote to the lead sentence but that has met with significant opposition and so we are searching for an alternate compromise.

--Richard 07:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Scholars who see JWs as not being Christian

The unnecessary reference in the lead states: "Some scholars and adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance." Are there any scholars who deny that JWs are Christians who are also not basing their stance on their own religious views??--Jeffro77 10:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that with Christian scholars in mind. I don't think their views can be discounted simply because they are following their own idea of what defines Christianity, since everybody has their own definition of Christianity. Again, it's an attempt at a compromise, not a perfect solution for everybody. If you have an alternate wording to propose, by all means do so. -- mattb 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If the scholars are "adherents to other Christian denominations", then mentioning those scholars is redundant, ergo: "Some adherents to other Christian denominations disagree due to the Witnesses' nontrinitarian stance."--Jeffro77 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

Theological scholars who deny Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian are careful to express the bases of the claim. The only ones I've read making this denial have all expressly applied an orthodox definition to Christianity. Scholars know and understand that narrowing a definition necessarily purges what would qualify under a broader usage. But these scholars are writing for theological purposes and not pure academic purposes. Hence why they apply the narrower meanings they apply, when they apply them. I'll add that these same scholars also are careful to express whatever is the self-declared status of a religion. This is the most objective claim because it is verifiable without exception.

Non-theological scholars, such as sociologists, are trained to avoid transposing theological biases onto their presentations. Instead they apply terms tailored to whatever particular group they address, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. Because objectivity is a must for a social scientist to maintain credibility, they write what is verifiable rather than what is subjective.

-- Marvin Shilmer 13:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, it is invalid and inappropriate to insert only references that support a particular view when they are not the only impartial view - POV!--Jeffro77 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial retraction: on re-reading the reference that was there, it was slightly more balanced than I first noted. However it unecessarily employs the loaded term 'sect' (the issue is whether they're Christian, not whether they're a sect), which will be misinterpreted by many readers.--Jeffro77 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, under any neutral and broad catagorization of world religions, JW's are always listed as Christian and are usually lumped in with the Seventh Day Adventists and similar groups. Fcsuper 19:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

I provided three references. One to back your assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered Christian. (Stark et al) One to back your assertion that person’s of other faiths have a very different perspective. (King). And one the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has published itself. This latter reference helps establish what “expert” perspectives the religious organization accepts as valid.

The Watchtower quoting a source does not mean that they necessarily accept it as valid.--Jeffro77 08:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

If you read the reference you will see the Watchtower organization quoted the “experts” in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses and this is why the Awake journal included the statements of the said “experts”. Hence your statement is nonsensical. The Watchtower organization cited the statements because they appreciated the statements. Look it up. Read it for yourself.-- Marvin Shilmer 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't ignore the context. The Watchtower regarded the decision favourable in that their religion was approved as a "religious body". It does not automatically mean that the Watchtower agrees with everything those experts say. Since JW publications elsewhere state that they are not a sect, they obviously don't agree with that part of what was said by the experts. Of course they were willing to accept that compromise on paper to be allowed to continue their activities in Turkey, but that doesn't mean they completely agree with the wording.--Jeffro77 08:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jeff here: The Watchtower regarded the decision favourable in that their religion was approved as a "religious body". It does not automatically mean that the Watchtower agrees with everything those experts say.George 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: The context of the usage (by me) was/is only to demonstrate the Watchtower organization recognizes, acknowledges and has no problem whatsoever publishing characterizations of "experts" that Jehovah's Witnesses are "Neo-Christian" and a "new Christian sect". By the way, a glaring ommission/oversight by both you and Jeffro77 is the fact that the Watchtower Society chose to publish the characterizations as coming from experts; it did not have to do that. But it did.-- Marvin Shilmer 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've ignored the context. They called them "experts" in contrast with the other religious groups that would not acknowledge them as Christian at all. Of course they would defer to the most favourable opinion of those available.--Jeffro77 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What are you talking about? The Watchtower did not have to refer to anyone as an expert; but it did, didn't it. This was the Watchtower's choice; not mine. Also, if you are interested in context, if you want to keep harping on this why not start relating your complaint to what I have actually presented rather suggesting I have contextually misrepresented something I never presented in the first place.-- Marvin Shilmer 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77:

I have not ignored the context. You have. And, thanks for highlighting the reason for my injection of the material, despite you apparently not realizing it.

The context is of a particular legal ruling. The publication quoted that ruling. Stating outright that they disagree with that ruling would be shooting themselves in the foot. However, the religion certainly doesn't accept a characterisation of "Neo-Christianity" because they state outright elsewhere that (they believe) they are a 'restoration of first-centure Christianity'. Obviously they don't really agree with both contradictory statements.--Jeffro77 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The context you suggest is not the only context of the article, though it happens to be the only context you want anyone to recognize. The context of my usage was only to demonstrate the Watchtower organization knows experts have the opinion they do and they have no problem whatsoever publishing that opinion when doing so is in its better interest. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The context of my usage was the recognition and publication of the expert opinion that Jehovah’s Witnesses are "Neo-Christianity" and can be considered a “new Christian sect”. If the Watchtower organization has no problems publishing this far and wide to its benefit then why on earth should anyone here have a problem furthering the Watchtower organization’s own recognition of the opinion? Please remember that encyclopedic content is not to publish spin. It is to publish factual information without making assertions of conclusion. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole point in a discussion such as this is to see where the compromise is for sake of moving forward. The Watchtower organization demonstrated it has no problem with pointing to “experts” when those experts characterize Jehovah’s Witnesses as “Neo-Christianity” who “can be considered as a new Christian sect”. If the very organization you and I are discussing has no problem publishing this “expert” opinion then why on earth should either of us (or anyone else!) have a problem publishing the same opinion from the same experts by quoting the Watchtower organization’s own literature?

As things stand your end note (probably edited by now) makes statements but you have failed to provide any reference material in support of these statements. Hence your end notes stand as nothing more the pure editorial; hence serve no academic purpose. When I added reference material supporting both statements and also added statements the Watchtower organization saw fit to publish you turned around and deleted all reference material except that in support of your favored position. Pardon me in advance for pointing out how this smacks of extremism, bias to be more precise. We should not let our personal opinions impeded academic excellence. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm soon going overseas for 3 months. If suitable references are put in and everyone can agree while I'm away, great. A break from the article will do me good, and if it needs cleaning when I'm back, I'll take a fresh look.--Jeffro77 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Take a look at my recent edit of the introduction. It provides factual statements and avoids making assertions. 1) It states Jehovah’s Witnesses is a religion. 2) It recognizes the declaration of Christianity. 3) It acknowledges contemporary sources characterizing the religion as i) a Christian denomination, ii) anti-Christian, and iii) Jehovah’s Witnesses recognition of contemporary views. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are taking a reference from the Watchtower quoting a single source from an Istanbul university, and from there stating in the article that experts worldwide regard them as a "Christian sect". That is simply unfactual.--Jeffro77 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What are you talking about? The Watchtower is the source who published in over 100 languages and distribute worldwide what it published as the work of “experts” in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses; not me. Not only that, but there is more than one reference verifying the assertion that Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize they are viewed as a sect. So what is the problem? Why do you keep editing this when the reference material expressly verifies the associated statement? -- Marvin Shilmer 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, what JW's believe about their beliefs isn't up for debate. We are not discussing how JW's view themselves. We are only describing them as they are. JW's do have beliefs about what they believe. It's pointless to get into those because that is all just opinion. We have a responsibility to not list JW's opinions about themselves as fact, just was we cannot list others' opinions about them as fact. Describing the verifiable is our goal here. BTW, sourcing an opinion doesn't make it verifiable. For example, some people on this planet believe the world is flat and can be sourced saying so. But listing the world's shape as flat in a wikipedia article based on those sources would be very foolish. Fcsuper 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the future, if you do not want editors to provide reference material in support of what you write then I recommend you refrain from writing without providing references/validation yourself.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore as Christian, could be given copious references, but it is self-evident from their basic beliefs.--Jeffro77 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fcsuper:

What you write is true, and I have pointed it our myself. The problem with it is the published works where this occurs are addressing a broad subject and not a narrow subject. The article at issue here (i.e., the Wiki page on Jehovah’s Witnesses) is a narrow subject addressing specifically one religion. Hence the need to be as specific as possible regarding aspects of this religion. By the way, I have provided a reference to the broad use analysis usage in support of Jeffro77’s statement about Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christianity. Hence I fail to understand how your comments contribute.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a sect? There is no context for that word in a serious discussion about how any religion is being described. It is a word without any value whatsoever because it means so many things to so many different people. Even someone who uses that word freely ends up applying differently each time they attempt to use it. It is pretty much meaningless in a neutral description. It's equivalent to saying "JW's are Christain whatchamacallits." Can we close this discussion now? It seems pointless and circular. Fcsuper 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The article "Jehovah"

There is an editor called A.J.A who keeps redirecting the article called Jehovah into the article Tetragrammaton and the Yahweh article without discussion. what can I do? Ice9Tea 04:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go over and take a look but, in general, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution.

BTW, the same editor has been insisting that a Christian is one who adheres to Christianity.

--Richard 05:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People related to Jehovah's Witnesses

Who are JW and who are former JW? What is the source of the information and can we really trust it in all cases? How should the categories be organized? If somebody really is a Witness, I think they fit in the category Jehovah's Witnesses people. But how should the category Former Jehovah's Witnesses be made up? Personally I think that someone who have only been raised a Witness by one parent for a period, actually do not belong to either category. To be a former JW, I think that a person must clearly have considered himself or herself a JW and not just have had some touch of the religion in their lifetime. Summer Song 15:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you go by the JW definition, one would have had to be baptized to have ever been a Jehovah's Witness. Some people identify as JWs or former JWs but were never baptized. However, I think self-identification is good enough in most cases, provided the person actually did have some significant affiliation with Witnesses. -- mattb 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would highly question that people like Gregg Alexander, Ja Rule, Peter André etc. should be listed as former JW. If they was only influented in parts of their childhood, then sliding away when getting older, I hardly call them former JW. And I would like to ask how much they self-identify as such. I think that at least somebody should have been Witnesses by a personal decision and had a minimum of activity in the religion for being identified as real members. Summer Song 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can always be bold and remove that information from the respective articles if it's not well-sourced. If someone wants to re-add it, perhaps a reliable source showing that they themselves (not just their parents) were JWs at one point, or at least considered themselves to be. -- mattb 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems problematic if some are called former JW if they had no connection to the religion other that their parents tried raising them. I bet that so is not only the case with JW. If somebody are raised in a religion, but never became really devout, I think that they will not state themselves as former members. I think that they will say that they were just raised. Anyway, I agree that the info in those article and categories needs some more references in many cases. Summer Song 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are Jehovahs and former members?

THINGS TO REMEMBER WHO IS CHRISTIAN, WHO IS NOT:

Well, not christian, of course, keep in mind, if a christian group claims:

1. Jesus is Angel, 2. Not God and Man (dualism vs monothelism read St. Ambrose & John Christendom & St. Augustus, all these saints come from this periodhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm ) 3. Not born of a Virgin

IF THESE THINGS are what some "christian" groups adhere to, THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. They may think they are, because of twisted thinking, but they are not. Keep in mind, Christianity comes in the succession of apostles and the wisdom they brought, not thru some prophit Smith or whoever who is detached from Bible or the Apostles for 20 centuries.

Who wrote the above drivel? For one thing, it's not related to this subheading. For another, it's subjective. Whoever wrote it needs to review the definition of the word 'Christian'.--Jeffro77 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All:

It is inappropriate for an editor here to determine who is a Jehovah's Witness, who is not a Jehovah's Witness or who is a former Jehovah's Witness. Everyone self-declares their religious preference. Everyone. To dispute a person's religious preference is deny an inalienable right. No developed society or academic work would do this.

This does not mean a religious organization acknowledges a person's religious declaration. There are plenty of people who self-declare a religious preference whose status the religious organization would be unwilling to acknowledge. Which brings me to a crux of this subject: status or profession. We each profess whatever religion we prefer, whereas it is up to a religious organization to determine if it extends any status to us in the way of an acknowledgement. If editors decide religious acknowledgement is the determining factor in who is, or was, or was never a Whatever, then editing will bog down to a stand still. Furthermore, if any one of us expects other individual's to respect our profession of faith or religious preference then we have to extend the same respect in return.

-- Marvin Shilmer 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree to all that but I don't think we are deciding ~~on the religious affiliation of individuals OR EVEN~~ the religious affiliation of religious organizations.

On re-reading the above discussion, I see that it did start with a discussion of whether certain individuals should be classified as JWs. I think we should rely on the self-profession of the individuals in question as well as the official pronouncements of the religious organization (in this case, the Watchtower Society). --Richard 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When an individual's religious status is at issue then of course for valid informational purposes we should rely on the individual's self-declaration as well as prounouncement by the Watchtower organization. But this latter is only a source for an individual's status on rare occasions. The rest of the time we have only self-declaration by individuals, and in free societies we respect self-declaration of religious affiliation/preference.

As a note of caution, it would be inappropriate for an editor to assert the Watchtower organization does not acknowledge an individual as a Jehovah's Witness based on the editor's interpretation of Watchtower policy/doctrine. Either the Watchtower organization has disavowed an individual as a Jehovah's Witness or it has not. Anything else is speculation.

-- Marvin Shilmer 15:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Our job is to describe organizations such as JW/Watchtower as they are perceived and characterized in "the real world". The primary problem that I have had with the "JWs are/are not Christian" debate is the appeal to "secular sources" as the authoritative arbiters of what is ultimately a theological question. What makes a secular source the authoritative arbiter of a theological question? I don't think we should "decide" whether or not JWs are Christian. However, to ignore the debate as if it didn't exist is equally bad. --Richard 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

Encyclopedic content is neither secular nor spiritual. Rather, it presents extensive information on all branches of knowledge.

From a spiritual perspective the question of JW, non-JW or ex-JW is entirely subjective. Because theology is as varied as there are people then it is possible the same individual could be theologically argued a JW or a non-JW or an ex-JW depending on whose theology you use.

From a secular perspective it is also subjective because it tends to accept self-declaration and self-declaration is nothing more than an individual expression, which may or may not be accepted generally. That is, from a pure secular perspective an individual is generally accepted as they present themselves religiously. But non-religious individuals will tend to accept or reject a self-declared religious affiliation if the individual fails to live up to that particular non-religious person’s impression of what that religion represents or does not represent.

Hence it is more important for an encyclopedic presentation to include the self-declarations (of individuals or organizations) whether anyone agrees with it or not, because this is part of the information about that person or religion.

Objectivity demands that we take a non-theological, non-religious and non-secular position and present whatever information is verifiable for what it is. In this instance it would result in a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses profess themselves as Christian. The body of the article would then express verified information about this religion and affiliates. Readers can then determine for themselves whether the Christian profession is valid or not, which is as it should be.

-- Marvin Shilmer 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have leapt from discussion of individual affiliations to whether or not JWs are Christian. There are marked differences between the two situations. Most notably, unlike the hypothetical situation that I described in which an individual professes to be a JW but Watchtower officially declares him/her not to be one, there is no official body which can make a definitive pronouncement that JWs as a religious belief are or are not Christian. Because of this, neither can we make a definitive judgment on this question... that is, we can neither say that JWs ARE or ARE NOT Christian.

We can say that JWs consider themselves (self-identify) as Christian. We can (and should) also say that certain Christian organizations do not consider JWs Christians but such statements must be based on verifiable statements by reliable sources. I found a few when George m issued an open challenge. The most solid such statement was by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod although I also found a number of similar statements from seemingly reliable Catholic sources. It has been claimed by Matt Britt that there is a Catholic source that considers JWs to be Christian. I haven't seen it but, even if it is valid, it only indicates that there is disagreement within the Catholic Church regarding the status of JWs. Wouldn't be the first time that there were differing opinions within the Catholic Church.

My point is that we must present both sides of the picture - the claim of JWs that they are Christian and the claims of authoritative non-JW sources (both secular and religous) that JWs are or are not Christian.

--Richard 02:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard:

Please note topic of whether the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is Christian is discussed further up this page, in an entirely different section. This section is discussing the disposition of individuals as to whether they are JW, non-JW or ex-JW. Aspects of these two discussions somewhat overlap, but as you note yourself they are distinctive. My previous reply was in the context of characterizing individuals.

As for the individual’s professed religious affiliation, though the Watchtower organization is free to acknowledge or disavow whomever it pleases this is an impractical means of editors here to characterize—or in anyways identify—who is JW, non-JW or ex-JW because except for rare instances the Watchtower organization is not going to stipulate whom it acknowledges and whom it disavows.

As for presenting “both sides,” you’re preaching to the choir if you mean present verifiable information from as many legitimate sources as editors choose to garner. Even opinions based on private perspective is information, and encyclopedic content is all about assembling and presenting information.

-- Marvin Shilmer 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this was already brought up and I missed it, but I think some caution should be exercised in the (probably rare) case that a disfellowshipped person still identifies themself as a JW. In that case I think we should avoid directly calling them anything and use phrasing like "they identify as XYZ". Disfellowshipping is one of those direct circumstances where the powers that be state that a person is no longer a JW. Self-identification rights or not, it's worth noting if a person is not considered a JW by other JWs. Really though, I don't think this issue will come up often. -- mattb 16:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

mattb: As you say, and I agree, the example you pose is possible but rare. Far more likely are the following scenarios:

1. An individual self-declaring (as JW) who is from a Watchtower perspective a practicing JW. (The Watchtower, December 1, 2001 p. 10)

2. An individual self-declaring (as JW) who is from a Watchtower perspective a non-practicing JW who is neither disfellowshipped nor disassociated. (The Watchtower, December 1, 2001 p. 10)

In both scenarios the individual is still considered part of the congregation despite 1) personal divergence a practicing JW may hold or 2) personal reasons the non-practicing JW has for his or her inactivity with the local congregation of JWs. (Ref: Our Kingdom Ministry, February 2002 p. 5) -- Marvin Shilmer 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The JW are considered to be a non-christian cult by almost all of Christianity but they consider themselves to be Christian. In my oppinion we should say in the article that it is disputed if they are christian or not. What do you think? Shalom:)--James, La gloria è a dio 14:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this already. It is already noted in the Controversy section.--Jeffro77 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The lead states that they are a 'Christian denomination'. A JW member may be able to help here, but from what I understand JW consider themselves to be 'non-denominational'. BMurray 07:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They do not regard themselves as a 'denomination' in the sense that they contend that they are a restoration of first-century Christianity rather than something that developed later. However, in the normal sense of the word, they are a denomination, and if laws refer to allowing a "denomination" to be registered, JWs will not object to that use of the term. (See also JW Yearbook 1973, pages 133-4)--Jeffro77 07:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for informational purposes this came from the discussion at the Christianity article:

Justo A. González, The Story of Chistianity, Vol. 2, "The Reformation to the Present Day" (HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 193, 240, 244; Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 230-35, 308, 452, 465-66; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5, "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" (Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1983), 192-93; 197-98.

these references call JW's Christian. George 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: Would you please quote--with some context--the language from these sources you refer to. I would like to consider what you find in these texts in support of your assertion that "these references call Jehovah's Witnesses Christian".-- Marvin Shilmer 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

George M: In relation to the dispute of record, the problem I see with the works you cite is that they broadly categorize religious movements whereas the article we are dealing with focuses specifically on one religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses.