Please see JW talk page regarding the controversies section. I think in the interest of brevity of the main article, it would be best to have a summarising paragraph about controversies there, with a redirect to the main Controversies article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. The article is already long and a standalone article, properly signposted as it is, dealing with the controversies is the best way to deal with it. LTSally (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jensenium, thanks for your reply at my talk page. I would like to make it clear that I am not suggesting that controversies about JWs be ignored. I am suggesting that there just be a summary on the main article, to reduce the length of the main article. Please see the Wikipedia guidelines on article length.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jensenium, the controversy section in the introduction of the JW page needs to be removed to the last section. You references are just newspaper articles or books by former witnesses. These are not verifiable or neutral, so they should not be included. The points that you expouse are only opinions, not factual. These accusations have not been proved to my knowledge? Do you have proof other than your own views or that of a newspaper writer, or those of a former witness? If not, I will remove it each day if I have to.--JCL3CLL (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Another controversy handled in a similar manner?
Although I don't know what JW controversies are, it would appear that others favour a similarly formatted, two-part approach as Mdwh has proposed for the controversy at Royal Society involving the institution's former Director of Education, Michael Reiss. --Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)