Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

I really don't think the best way to provide information about a religious group, especially one very interested in proselytism (no offense intended, but they are), is to refer people to the spokesmen for that group. It doesn't begin to provide a NeutralPointOfView.

Totally agree, Josh. Moreover, the information below just doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article!

"Jehovah's Witnesses - What Do They Believe?" (tract published by Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Pennsylvania). This tract and further information can be obtained from their office at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201.

Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society provides free home Bible studies for those interested in a thorough and comprehensive study of the Holy Scriptures. Inquiries for more information and for free home Bible studies can be obtained from the above address in the United States. Information for the same offers in various countries around the world can also be obtained from the address above. Free home Bible studies are one-on-one in your own home, and personal questions and concerns are welcome. Feel free to contact any Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in your city for the same.

The section

The cornerstone of the religion is a translation of the Bible that was made in the early twentieth century, known as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. They are known for their racially diverse, close-knit social community (enforced by a tradition of new converts reducing contact with non-JW friends). They are also known for insistent door-to-door proselytizing.

was changed to

They are known for their racially diverse, close-knit social community. They are also known for door-to-door proselytizing.

My question is: What was wrong with the previous version (#9)? --css

Nothing's wrong with it, if it's true, but it might just be an idle claim. I wouldn't know (I haven't known any Jehovah's witnesses since high school) --Robert Merkel, who wasn't responsible for the edit BTW.
The edit was done by some 24.147.65.xxx. It may very well be a proper edit (I don't know anything about JW), I was just wondering ... --css
I don't understand why it was removed. The New World Translation is the version of the Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses, although I hesitate to call it a translation, as it is generally regarded by Greek and Hebrew scholars to be wildly inaccurate at best. -- Stephen Gilbert
Well, then, the only part of the original bit that we're not sure of is the "reducing contact" bit - which checks out with their reputation, at least. Put it back in.--Robert Merkel

What follows below was previously labeled "Archive 1A"

Removed from article:

The Jehovah's Witness faith unfolds from those two starting beliefs in a mathematical fashion.

This seems unlikely to me.

Would an NPOV alternative be to say:

"The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their faith unfolds from those two starting beliefs in a mathematical fashion"?

Is this an article of faith, or one author's opinion? Is the author a Witness? Is this a common way of expressing the reasoning behind the Witness' faith?

Mathematics is numbers, and so it's certainly the wrong word. I think the core belief is that the bible is true and doesn't contradict itself, and therefore, that where the bible appears to contradict itself in a substantive way, the interpretation/understanding is mistaken (for example, perhaps some passage is meant to be metaphorical rather than literal). So "logically unfolds" would be better. Is the author of that sentence a Witness? -- I don't know. Is that ("mathematics") a common way of expressing the reasoning? -- no. -- Marj Tiefert, Sunday, June 23, 2002


Nevertheless, it is true. Mathematics is a style of thinking and reasoning based on assumptions, where each step in a chain of reasoning follows inevitably from what came before. Numbers are commonly associated with mathematics, but mathematics is by no means limited to numbers. It deals with almost anything that can be dealt with by the mind in a reasonable way, in a logically rigorous fashion that leaves no room for doubts. So I feel it is appropriate to describe the Witness faith as "following mathematically from those two beliefs", since this is exactly how they attempt to develop their religion. -- 209.53.16.55, Friday Aug 23, 2002

If you mean "logically rigorous" then you can say "logically rigorous" -- it's not the same as mathematics (except, perhaps, to a mathematician... ;-) -- Marj Tiefert 22:00 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

I didn't mean "logically rigorous". I meant "mathematically". Mathematics isn't just logical, but demands proof. The style of reasoning in the JW religion is very similar to that used in mathematics when presenting a new finding. However, it has occured to me that many non-mathematicians might have a different understanding of the word "mathematics", so I have put in your suggested "logically rigorous". --Clutch, Wednesday Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

Thanks, and I take it you're a mathematician?  :-) -- Marj Tiefert 10:30 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

I do have a mathematical background, yes. --Clutch, Friday Sep 20, 2002 (PDT)

Henotheistic teology? I don't think so. Their insistence of called God by name (Jehova) is not to distinguish them from other gods, but just to emphasize that its his personal name. AstroNomer 21:38 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)

From the article:

Their theology is Henotheistic.

Please explain HOW their theology in henotheistic, or at least state WHO says it is. Otherwise, this sentence should be deleted.

A lot of people dislike Jehovah's Witnesses' theology. I'm not a big fan of it myself, but this is an encyclopedia. We have to describe things accurately, or not at all. 208.246.35.242

If the definition of henotheism is accurate, then they're not. If the definition of henotheism can be changed to other gods may exist, not that they do exist, then it's probably OK. People can make a god of anything - a rock star, a statue, even their stomach - but that doesn't mean these things really are gods. ($0.02) -- Marj Tiefert 17:11 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

The definition of henotheism is accurate, and Jehovah's Witnesses are henotheistic. The Bible says several times that the Devil and the Christ are, not just gods, but powerful ones; but the JW religion restricts worship exclusively to Jehovah, who they hold to be a separate entity from Christ. Since the JW's believe in the whole Bible, it follows that they believe Christ and Satan are gods, although they don't worship them. One of their main beefs with other denominations is the taking parts of the Bible out of context. The JW definition of "a god" is "a powerful being, one who has power over the lives of others". As such they acknowledge that even other humans can be gods, as the Roman emperors were. --Clutch, Friday Aug 23, 2002

Vaccination hasn't been an issue for more than 80 years. It is not generally known except by people who make vaccines whether vaccinations are made from blood or not. If they are, that is the only possible reason a JW would refuse one, or if the particular vaccination was known to have possible harmful effects. --Clutch, Sunday Sep 8, 2002

Who said it was current? Doctrine has now changed, with vaccinations left to individual conscience but it was an article of faith that distinguished Jehovah's Witnesses from other groups. Seems to me like it still deserves a mention. Someone else 22:09 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Doctrine didn't change. Understanding of the doctrine did.

This is intellectuall dishonest. Doctrine by definition is a form of understanding! If their understanding of an issue changes, then by definition their doctrine changes. That is what these words mean. Look, if you approve of the fact that their beliefs changed, then fine. And if you don't approve, that is fine as well. But stop playing word games.

The doctrine under discussion here is that a Christian should not defile their body, nor partake of blood. Understanding evolves over time, but the doctrine remains as strong as ever. In your bit about vaccination, I noticed that it wasn't stated anywhere that the different understanding about vaccination was almost a century ago; the distinct impression was given that it was a current status. This could be construed as misleading. I hope that you agree with me that an encyclopedia should be accurate and informative. --Clutch, Sunday Sep 22, 2002 (PDT)


Then it should accurately report that the publication The Golden Age, published by the Watchtower Society, declared that "Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood" on January 4, 1931. It has been asserted that disfellowshipping of Witnesses occurred when they were vaccinated, though I have not seen this documented. Obviously the interpretation of Genesis 9:4 has changed now: and just as clearly, right interpretation is a matter of doctrine. So the article might state that vaccination was banned from 1931 to 1952, but is now permitted; organ transplants were banned from 1967 to 1980, but are now permitted and that blood transfusions have been banned from 1945 to the present, and that ban remains in effect. (BTW, the comment you answered was from an anonymous third party, not me... so it wasn't 'his' bit - not that anyone really owns bits here anyway <G>). Someone else 21:19 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

Removed from article sentences about controversy over Shunning.

The controversy over Shunning is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, but also applies to the Mennonites, Old Order Amish, and other groups who practice it. If you wish to talk about the controversy and bad effects of shunning, the NPOV would be to make a separate entry on shunning, instead of applying the information only to the Witnesses. --Clutch, Friday Sep 20, 2002 (PDT)

Haven't other groups practiced "shunning", like the Amish? The concept was dramatized in Witness, when the woman who falls in love with the Harrison Ford character is warned not to have an affair with him lest she be shunned. --Ed Poor

Also, let's not start an edit war on shunning -- in effect shunning the topic! Some people strongly object to the JW practice, on the grounds that it's "un-Christian", while others feel it's their Christian duty. It's not our place as contributors to judge shunning as right or wrong.

We should describe the practice as well as people's reactions to it. If some object, we should describe why they object. If other insist on it, we should explain why they feel it's so important. --Ed Poor

That is exactly what I was hoping for. But shunning, which is practiced by many groups, and in modern sociology is talked about in terms of "in-groups" and "out-groups", belongs in it's own entry. I made a link to shunning in the main article, which I sincerely hope will be used appropriately for such discussion. --Clutch, Friday Sep 20, 2002 (PDT)

What I disagree with isn't the redirection of shunning to its own entry, but the editing out of each suggestion that the Jehovah's Witnesses are "controversial." Quite simply, they are. Whether or not they deserve it is a matter for theologians and others to decide, but the Witnesses are not welcomed with open arms by many religious groups. This is a fact worthy of mentioning, whether they agree with it or not. --Modemac

Singling out the Jehovah's Witnesses as "controversial" does not reflect the NPOV that wikipedia is trying to achieve, especially when the controversy is over issues that are not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. This is your third attempt now to single out JW's as a controversial group; first it was vaccinations, which are an issue with other groups, not JW's. Then shunning, which is just as controversially done by the Amish. Now you added in the evangelizing, which is no more controversial than when other Evangelical groups, or the Mormons, do it. I don't see you going around to the wikipedia entries for those groups, and inserting the bit about controversy. I suggest if you wish to write about the controversy of these issues, the proper thing to do is write up a separate page on evangelism, vaccinations, and shunning, where it is certainly appropriate to go into detail on the controversy. You can even link to these keywords, as shunning already is, in the main article so people can investigate these controversies for themselves. From your modifications so far, I get the feeling that you, Modemacs, are more interested in presenting a negative portrayal of Jehovah's Witnesses, than in a neutral, informative article. --Clutch, Sunday Sep 22, 2002 (PDT)

Actually, it's the fourth statement that the Jehovah's Witnesses are controversial, because that is the truth. I am certainly not singling out the Witnesses for anything; Mr. Poor here will note that I have also added links to opposing sites for the Unification Church. Why? Because it is true, it deserves a place in Wikipedia, and I don't like whitewashing by organizations or people who attempt to use this place (or others) to portray the truth only as they see fit. Modemac

It is very imporant to note that Jehovah;s witnesses are controversial. After all, every single classical Christian denomination (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant) views this group as both heretical and non-Christian. Outside of their own community, no one in the world believes that they are Christians. This is a major issues, and needs to be noted. Secondly, Jehovah's witnesses have been attempted to be prosecuted for murder, because their religios practices are what many non-Witnesses say is tantamount to manslaughter, at the very least. This may make Witnesses uncomfortable, but it is true, and it is a very significant issue. Conversely, Witnesses believe that certaiun medical practices -what the rest of the world calls "saving lives" - are in fact sins against God. Thus they teach that the rest of the world is engaged in a controversial practice! Surely it is legitimate, and necessary, to note these issues. Covering up controversial issues is not what NPOV means. NPOV only means that controversial issues must be covered fairly. RK

In regards to your comment on their views of medical treatment, and I assume you are talking about their stance on blood transfusions. I find NO EVIDENCE that they are trying to keep people/children from life-saving medical care. All I see in news articles is how they believe that they should "Abstain...from blood" from Acts chapter 15. JShadow

Your claims are just plain wrong. Doctors all over the United States, for the last 50 years, have stated clearly and loudly that Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed threatening the lives of themselves and their children by refusing to provide the medical treatement known as blood transfusions. Please do not insult us by glossing over this well documented fact. Its a consensus position, not a personal attack. And by the way, that section in Acts is referencing a law from Leviticus, in which the Bible says that Jews should not eat blood as food. I can't imagine what kind of person would twist this priest rule into a law that Christians must forbid blood transfusions to themselves, or even their own dying children. That's terrifying. RK

And after stating this scripture, they search exhaustively for those who would perform these surgeries without blood (link shows one boy who flew from SOUTH AFRICA to UK!!). In fact, because of their persistence in this issue along with other non-witnesses, the medical community begun to explore this new frontier of totally bloodless surgery. You can find a whole institute devoted to the study of eliminating blood from surgery here JShadow

No, you are confused. You are talking about modern day medical innovations that did not exist in 1914, 1934, 1954, 1974 or even in 1984. Many people have died before these new blood-substitute technologies have existed. Unless you are unable to tell the difference between past and present, I can only conclude that you are trying to confuse the issue, to get people to stop thinking about the specific statements being made. RK

In addition, you say correctly that there have been ATTEMPTS to prosecute them, but from what I've seen the witnesses have won these cases. In fact, it seems that these are brought to trial out of fear and an unwillingness to even TRY to comply with the patients requests! So I've removed this sentence " for dying children. Witnesses admit that these actions occur, but hold that these actions are the will of God." since it implies that "they are responsible for a wrong but say that God says it's ok". That's your viewpoint of this issue, and is not a NPOV. JShadow

Yes, I understand that some fundamentalist Witnesses have on occasion actually gone to the extent of killing their own children by witholding necessary medical treatment. I agree with you that they do this because they think that this ritual murder of their children is God's will. However, their beliefs don't make such murderous actions any less illegal or horrific. It just makes them sad and pathetic. RK

Here is some source information (not public domain? pd? I don't know.) about the relationship between JW and the Nazis, to substantiate the changes I recently made. RK

Hitler had just come to power, and the Nazi part was flexing its muscles against all other groups. The Watchtower Society had made large investments in Germany, which were threatened by Nazi suspicions of them as communists. In an attempt to salvage the situation, and avoid the seizure of property, the President of the Watch Tower Society (WTS) made a trip to Germany, and arranged for a statement to be produced, adopted at a convention of German JWs in Berlin, and distributed to senior Nazis. Portions of this "Declaration of Facts" were reproduced in the JW English language YearBook of 1934, and are reproduced below. In reading them bear in mind the climate in which they were written, in which the Nazis were winning power by using the grievances of many Germans over war reparations, combined with nebulous claims about an international Zionist conspiracy, acting by means of England and the USA to attack Germany. The 1934 Yearbook of JWs beginning on page 130 said:

"In June, the president of the Society visited Germany to take some action to get the Society's property restored to our possession and to carry on the work further. Knowing that the enemy has misrepresented the facts to the government, a Declaration of Facts was prepared, and on the 25th day of June, 1933, more than 7,000 of Jehovah's witnesses assembled at Berlin and unanimously adopted the resolution, millions of which were printed and distributed throughout Germany. That resolution is as follows, to wit: "

" Declaration of Facts" ... page 134 ...

"The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: 'The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.' We have no fight with any of these persons mentioned, but, as the witnesses for Jehovah and in obedience to his commandment set forth in the Scriptures, we are compelled to call attention to the truth concerning the same in order that the people may be enlightened concerning God and his purpose."

... page 135 ...

"The present government of Germany has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nation. Such is exactly our position; and we further state in our literature the reason for the existence of oppressive Big Business and the wrongful political religious influence..."

... page 136 ...

"To know Jehovah God and his gracious provision for humankind is of most vital importance to all persons, because God has declared in His Word that where there is no vision or understanding of his Word the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18) We have devoted our lives and our material substance to the work of enabling the people to gain a vision or understanding of God's Word, and therefore it is impossible for our literature and our work to be a menace to the peace and safety of the nation. Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest heart."

The following quotes are from the 1974 JW yearbook. This book, unfortunately, out a historical revisionist spin on matters; however, what remains is still fascinating.

"Brother Rutherford, who, together with Bro Knorr, had come to Germany just a few days before in order to see what could be done to ensure the safety of the Society's property, had prepared a declaration with Bro Balzereit to be presented to the convention delegates for adoption. It was a protest against the meddling of the Hitler government into the preaching work we were doing. All high government officials, from the Reich's president on down, were to receive a copy of the declaration, if possible by registered mail. Several days before the convention started Rutherford returned to America. Many in attendance were disappointed in the 'declaration', since in many points it failed to be as strong as the brothers had hoped. Bro Muetze from Dresden, who had worked closely with Bro Balzereit up until that time, accused him later of having weakened the original text. It was not the first time that Bro Balzereit had watered down the clear and unmistakable language of the Society's publications so as to avoid difficulties with governmental agencies."

Personal comment: One can only wonder at what the original English text of Rutherford was like before being 'weakened' and 'watered down' by Balzereit! What worse things would it have said about America, or England, or "the Jews"?

"A large number of brothers refused to adopt it just for this reason. In fact, a former pilgrim brother by the name of Kipper refused to offer it for adoption and another brother substituted. It could not be rightfully said that the declaration was unanimously adopted, even though Bro Balzereit later notified Bro Rutherford that it had been. The conventioners returned home tired and many were disappointed. They took 2,100,000 copies of the 'declaration' home with them, however, and made fast work of distributing them and sending them to numerous persons in positions of responsibility. The copy sent to Hitler was accompanied by a letter that, in part, read:

'The Brooklyn presidency of the Watch Tower Society is and always has been exceedingly friendly to Germany. In 1918 the president of the Society and seven members of the Board of Directors in America were sentenced to 80 years' imprisonment for the reason that the president refused to let two magazines in America, which he edited, be used in war propaganda against Germany.' [Original Italics]

Calling for prayers for Allied victory in it's pages, and encouragement to buy War Bonds, doesn't count as 'war propaganda against Germany'?!?

The section ends: "Even though the declaration had been weakened and many of the brothers could not wholeheartedly agree to its adoption, yet the government was enraged and started a wave of persecution against those who distributed it"

In regards to the edits relating to the witnesses and the holocaust:

The fact that the witnesses were heavily persecuted in Nazi Germany was WELL documented. The links and comments from RK seemed to try to say that these people were actually in league with Hitler and his regime. I find this a-kin to people saying that the Jews weren't really persecuted, and hardly any people(Jews, Roma, etc.) died in the Holocaust.

You misunderstand; No one is rewriting away historical facts (like the pseudo-historical revisionists) and no one is denying that the Nazis murdered many Jehovah's witnesses. You are rebutting a claim that is not being made. Rather it is being pointed out that the official leadership of the JW's tried to negotiate a relationship with Adolph Hitler, based on a common belief that "the Jews" are responsible for evil in the world. I understand that this makes you uncomfortable. But isn't your displease being aimed at the wrong place? RK

While the witnesses did seek to have peace with the Nazi government in the beginning they did not seek to ally themselves with the nazis. This is documented at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and also in a little more detail in the book "THE NAZI STATE AND THE NEW RELIGIONS: FIVE CASE STUDIES IN NON-CONFORMITY" by Professor Christine Elizabeth King page 147.

You are putting a very positive spin on some very pro-Nazi literature. Just read the actual letters sent to the Nazis from the leadership of the Jeohavah's witnesses. These letters are clear about their beliefs and intentions. RK

As was stated earlier, a NPOV will present both sides of a subject EQUALLY and FAIRLY. However, I do not see any EQUALITY in some of the "controversial" statements made at the end of the page. I have looked through articles here on wikipedia on other religions claiming to be christian, and I see no equal treatment of them in this way. JShadow Monday September 23, 2002

Instead of saying what you think is wrong, offer a proposed revision. We'll all listen with seriousness and respect. RK

A lot of very negatively biased things were thrown in over the past few days. Accusations and suppositions are not the same thing as "facts".

One: did the people that added the stuff about JW's not being Christians, actually read the Wikipedia entry on Christianity? I don't think they should be allowed to make any further modifications on that score until they have.

Two: the evangelising work of the JW's brought them into no more conflict than did the evangelizing of numerous other denominations who send out missionaries. Why single out the Witnesses like this? Where is the neutrality there?

Three: JW's do not rewrite historical facts, although their understanding of history does change. This is not some hidden secret, as some of the "contributors" here seem to believe.

Four: JW's do not reject the Nicene creed at all, except the portion that declares God to be triune. The link on the Arian heresy is the appropriate place to mention that it was rejected by the first and second ecumenical councils. The Arian doctrine was exactly that there was no Trinity; no need to repeat that.

Five: It is a historical fact that JW's did not collaborate with the Nazis. They do their best to practice their religion within the limits of the law of whichever land they are in, in accord with the mandates of whichever government is in power at that time. Trying to be lawful, upright citizens, and maintain a peaceful, non-confrontational relationship with whichever government is in power, even though it was the government of Nazi Germany, is no reason to call them collaborators.

Six: JW's were never anti-Semitic. To take a comment about the evil actions of some Jews as an attack against all Jews is illogical, and definately not neutral or unbiased.

Seven: JW's believe the majority of humans who ever lived will be "resurrected". Why then did someone put in that JW's believe only a small number of people will ever be resurrected? That is a falsehood.

Eight: It has always been a matter of doctrine with the JW's that only God himself, and his son Jesus Christ, knows when Armaggedon will occur. To interpret the expectations of some groups that splintered from the main body of JW's as being official doctrine is blatant falsehood.

Nine: JW's are taught to cooperate with duly appointed authorities wherever possible. While the church does not get involved with reporting of crimes, individual JW's who know of crimes, such as murder or child molesting, are expected to do take action on the basis that if they take no action, and people are hurt as a result, they themselves are blood-guilty before God. Information given to congregation elders falls under the same privilege as that given to priests in confessionals, or attorneys with regard to their clients.

Ten: even cursory research into the Amish practice of shunning reveals it is a FACT that the JW practice of shunning is milder. Why then, did someone alter the text to read "the organization states that"? Is there some doubt? Or did someone just want to create doubt, straying from the principle of a neutral point of view?

Eleven: all this controversy over shunning, and noone has seen fit to edit the entry on Shunning? It seems some recent copy-editors are more interested in putting negative things in the article than in neutral, balanced information. In fact, Modemacs even removed the link to the shunning article.

Twelve: why was the link to the German language version of this page removed?

--209.53.16.55

As said before, I'm not supportive of whitewashing history to deny the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses, or anyone else, are controversial and distrusted in certain areas. On the other hand, piling every conceivable charge against the organization in an encyclopedia entry that tries for NPOV doesn't accomplish much, either. Better to point people in the direction of the various web sites for more details, after offering a summary of the most pertinent facts here. (One link to the Watchtower Observer site should be enough; there's no need to include three or four separate links to different parts of the same web site.) --Modemac

Your use of terms like "whitewashing" seems like a fairly clear indicator of your bias. The edits you made to restore your previous text shows a lot of spelling errors, perhaps indicating haste and emotional turmoil. Modemacs, why do you feel that it is important for the JW entry in a neutral, factual encyclopedia to describe the JW's in a way that they find offensive? Further, why did you restore the innacuracies in describing their doctrines, which were described at the top of this talk page? Why do you equate neutrality with "whitewash", and why did you remove neutral language and replace it with emotionally loaded language to describe the same things? 209.53.16.55

I'm taking out the reference to abortion--refusing to have an abortion isn't a particularly controversial position, and there's enough real controversy here. (As far as I know, the JWs aren't trying to outlaw abortion--that would be a controversial position.) --Vicki Rosenzweig


Abortion is still considered controversial by many, so I have put it back in. 209.53.16.55

User 209.53.16.55: You're not "restoring neutrality." You are deleting the additions made by other contributors to this article (including myself). Advice from a third party is needed for this issue here. How do we resolve this issue?

I agree; we have seen many people try to wipe out the netruality and objective study of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and place it with pro-Jehovah's Witness propaganda. Most of this propaganda is actually contradicted by previosly secret JW documents, which have been made public in the last few years. Frankly, it is of historical and sociological interest to learn how a religion can go thorugh so many changes, work to hard to (literally) rewrite history books about their own origins. I am sure that many scholarly works on this topic already exist, and Wikipedia should attempt to represent the most accurate information available. This cannot happen if pro-JW adherents continually rewrite the entry to make it mimic JW brochures and handouts. RK
For the moment, the unproductive behaviour of the pro-JW crowd is making it difficult to take their suggestions seriously; they certainly not restoring NPOV, as they claim. Thus I suggest that we continue to look for other opinions and views, but we should restore the wholesale changes and deletions which take away the objective analyses, and replace them with whitewashed doublespeak. (That nonsense about their doctrines never changing is a howler.) RK
I consider myself neutral here--not being Christian myself, I have no real opinion on whether the Witnesses are, for example. I'm just trying for NPOV, grammar, and such. Modemac's spelling is fine: the only spelling errors I've come across recently are "supersede" spelled with a c (an extremely common error) and a few Excessive Capitalizations.
I have watched Modemacs changes. I notice every attempt at neutrality is called "whitewashing" by him, and promptly replaced with emotionally laden wordings that have a negative flavor. He actually has been deleting new content in the process of his reversions. None of 209.53.16.55's modifications did anything other than A) change negatively biased statements to neutral statements or B) remove outright falsehoods. Modemacs has made no attemp to address the twelve points listed directly above in this talk page, nor does he even seem to have read them. --Clutch

I am not interested in yet another "debate" (i.e. flame fest) over the idea that just because the Jehovah's Witnesses don't like the truth (as RK pointed out), they can arbitrarily rewrite history. I gladly accept changes to the articles I've contributed to that are indeed unbiased and neutral. 'Nuff said. P.S. Spell my handle correctly, please. Modemac

I'm with Modemac here. The shorter version supported by Clutch reads like it came from Watchtower. I suggest Clutch should read our NPOV policy in this regard - we are here to write neutral articles and part of that requires us to mention "negative things" in addition to the non-negative. Modemac's version has the great majority of info contained in the shorter POV version but with added information on how the Witnesses fit in with the rest of Christendom. However, the opening paragraph does need to state that the Witnesses are Christian. To say that they are not is a POV. I will do this myself. --mav

There's quite a bit of heat generated by this page. I think both sides realize that it is non-productive to go on with mass-deletions and mass-reverts. Let me present a couple suggestions from outside the debate. First let me point out that all of the contributors seem to agree on the basic facts of the issue, but differ significantly in how they wish to present them. This makes the problem fairly easy to solve, in my mind. A good method might be to distance yourself (and your beliefs) from what you actually contribute. That way you can step into your opponents frame of reference and write about how [s]he thinks without it contradicting what you might think.

Try this rule of thumb: The random reader should not be able to tell if a passage was written by a contributor that agreed with or disagreed with the viewpoint being discussed.

Examples for a couple of main isues:

  • Are JW Christians? It sounds like some people belive they are (especially JWs themselves) and some belive they are not (mainstream denominations). It is therefore perfectly valid to say they are a religious organization and then to go on to discuss the two viewpoints. Clutch and 209.53... can certainly agree to the definition as a religious organization, and RK and Modemac can certainly agree that there are disparate categorizations.
  • Do their doctrines change? It sounds like some believe they "rewrite history" and some belive that it is just interpretation that changes. It is valid for Modemac to restore text about critics claiming rewriting, but it is also valid for Clutch to add a paragraph describing the way in which JWs themselves understand the changes in their faith. One does not need to replace the other.

In particular, I suggest avoiding statements like "But this viewpoint doesn't make sense because blah blah blah..." or "A great example to support this critisizm is in John 1:1 where blah blah blah..." and especially "They intentionally kill their own babies by blah blah blah..."

My 2¢: It is NOT whitewashing to include JWs' own thoughts on their religion. It IS whitewashing to remove all mention of controversy. The NPOV is not an eraser, it is a well balanced pen. The NPOV is not a bludgeon to subdue your adversaries, it is a lens to for you to see them through. No one is trying to usurp wikipedia here - take a step back and admire the vast variety of beliefs around you. Take another step and embrace that they are all valid. mimirzero 02:56 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

This article is about JW's, not about the critics of JW's. Those who dislike and disagree with JW doctrine and history are welcome to do so, but in the way that it has hitherto been done, it is very inappropriate for this article. The proper place for the type of criticism that has been seen here is in the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. Have at it. --209.53.16.55 Tuesday September 24, 2002

No. The article needs to be about both what Witnesses see themselves as and what others see them as. That is neutral and that is our policy. However, my main objection was an apparent major revert by you that did not also have an accompanying talk comment. This raises big red flags for me. But I do think I found such a comment here so I will give you some credit. After reading your comment I began to think about some of the statements that are in the version you dislike. In particular I remember hearing many of these ideas expressed in and around my church (recovering Assemblies of God - now an atheist). So perhaps this is a subtle POV on my part. However, this material does need to have a significant treatment here because these ideas are widely held by many Christians and others. But when they are re-inserted these statements need to be qualified, for example; "Many other Christian groups say this". Some other information that is now in the history may be fact, but I don't have the time or interest to do the research (far more interested in science). But is somebody else does the work to truly NPOV this article then I will help them maintain that version. --mav

Alright, I think now we can talk. Neutrality isn't the only criteria for an encyclopedia entry. Objectivity and sticking to facts are also involved. Now, in an entry about a religion, a religions own beliefs may be subjective, but the facts about what it believes are objective. The entry should have facts about the religion itself. Peoples opinions on it aren't the main focus. Thats why I'm adding a link at the top of the article to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses which IS appropriate for subjective opinions. --Clutch Tuesday September 24, 2002

Subarticles are fine for the details, but the major deleted points do need to be at least mentioned here. Again, I would like to get back to things I'm actually interested in. I don't care enough about this to majorly contribute here. But I do care about having a neutral article on this subject and will support what I feel is the more NPOV version. The deleted text needs to be summarized and qualified before it goes go back in here. The minor points and the detail of the major points can go into the sub-article. --mav 05:51 Sep 25, 2002 (UTC)

The only points that were deleted (as opposed to condensed, summarized, and shifted to other parts of the article) were blatantly false, such as "a small number of people will be resurrected" or "members are expected not to report murder". I expect if anything was really overlooked, it will be re-added quickly. --Clutch Wednesday September 25, 2002

I tried very carefully not to remove any (potentially) factual information. The entry needs to be broken up so that it can be edited with any reasonableness. Either discuss here what was deleted or reintegrate necessary text. Believe me, I have no bias against JW. I want this to be a good entry (set of entries). --The Cunctator

I just noticed that you moved the content onto other pages. Sorry about the mixup. Why did you remove the link to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses? A lot of the activity on this article in the past few days arose from the fact that critics of the JW's felt they needed to get their say in. --Clutch Wednesday September 25, 2002

No prob...I figured that's why you were perturbed. Why the removal of the Criticism link? Because I can't see how Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses is a useful entry. Generally the criticism can and should be enfolded into entries about specific topics. Separating out "criticism" should usually only be a temporary measure until it's clear what's going on. A good example is what happened on George W. Bush. There had been a "criticism of his policies" or somesuch section; now the policies are described in a way which makes clear the reasoning of both sides. Thus, unless there's content that clearly merits creation of the page, it's best not to encourage it.
BTW, I'm going to put back a link to heresy because that's by definition what have gotten JH into so much trouble; though current JHers (except those who are ex-Catholics) are heretical schismatics, not heretics. Note that so are Protestants. --The Cunctator

I'm willing to accept Cunctuator's compromise. As stated before, I am not interested in pursuing an in-depth criticism (or "attack" as you may call it) on the policies of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I felt that the previous editing jobs were repeatedly wiping out a legitimate point of view in the article: the fact that the organization is controversial and not welcomed with open arms by everyone. (On another note, the entry for shunning may well be used to note the use of this practice by a number of different religious groups, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.) Modemac

The opposing-view links that criticize the Jehobvah's Witnesses are (once again) valid. As with other groups (Unification Church, Mormons, and Christianity itself), points of view from that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with should not be relegated to a different section, just because the Witnesses don't agree with them.

The purpose of the article is to present facts about Jehovah's Witnesses. Facts are objective. What you seem to be proposing is that the article should contain all the subjective viewpoints of everyone who might have an axe to grind against them, and present them as fact. You may notice I have removed the links again. Modemac, you have edited the Holocaust article. Would you allow a link to the Zundelsite to go in the links section of that page? That is the equivalent of what you are doing with this article. In that case, why may I ask, the double standard? In the case of the Holocaust page, there is a link to Holocaust denial, or some such. I have done the same here, by providing a link to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The links you have put several times at the bottom of the Witness article as "Opposing Views" are, on the whole, filled with bile and spite, often at the expense of truthfulness. It does not help people take Wikipedia seriously when it links to such flawed websites as if they were complementary to the Wikipedia itself. If you can find specific articles at those links that can stand the test of truth and non-bias, you are more than welcome to add them. --Clutch 06:48 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

If the links to the opposing views regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses are lies, then the Jehovah's Witnesses certainly have every right to sue them for libel...instead of trying to get the page booted off the Net for "copyright" reasons, as they tried to do with the Watchtower Observer. Saying these pages are "filled with bile and spite" is a point of view, not a fact. The pages by former Witnesses do indeed present a valid counterpoint. Rather than state that you have removed those links yet again, why do you comment that that your edit is for a "better quoting style?" Modemac

Actually, it is not a POV, it is a fact. The links you present are full of inaccuracies. It doesn't help that they make no secret of the fact they are biased in their descriptions of Jehovah's Witnesses either.
My challenge remains: what justifies you keeping these links here, while you don't allow the Zundelsite to be linked on the Holocaust page? Clutch 03:38 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)
Quite simply: if the links are "full of inaccuracies," then the Jehovah's Witnesses can prove it. Please do so, if you are so adamant that the information is inaccurate. As for the Holocaust page: Holocaust revisionism is a small and largely unimportant subject regarding the Holocaust. The links to the opposing points of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses are valid and quite important, because they present a point of view that is not merely approved commercial material for the Jehovah's Witnesses. QED. Modemac

For instance, one of your links makes a big deal about the President of Zaire being a Jehovah's Witness, calling the whole organization hypocritical, because JW's are supposed to be politically neutral. Yet in the dozen or so articles they cite as "evidence", no facts are provided more conclusive than that his wife may be a JW. This isn't the woolly-headed type of reporting I wish to see being associated with the Wikipedia. There are standards of evidence, you know. And the Zundelsite is just as (ir)relevant to the Holocaust as your particular Opposing Links are to the JW religion. Clutch 16:16 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

What do you think of the external links at the bottom of the Jesus Christ article? I don't care for them myself, but I decided a while ago not to bother removing them. I think the policy for external links should be the same as for the body of the article: different views of a subject can be presented in the body, attributing the views to whoever holds them, hopefully resulting in an overall balanced article. As for external links, I don't think it's reasonable to expect every single link to be NPOV according to wikipedia standards. I could probably find some non-neutral material in the pro-JW sites and rationalize deleting those too. Better to have some links of each view, so that a reader that takes the time to read through all links will have a chance of learning what the different perspectives are. I think most readers will be able to figure out that external links are not sponsored by Wikipedia, and we can flag any biases in the link description, or the description of the group of links.
Eventually, I might get around to adding some balancing external links to the Jesus Christ and other articles as well. But just like articles, I'm not going to flat out delete the links I don't like because deleting is quicker than adding. Wesley 16:37 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

I have not read all the talk above, but I have met and spoken with Witnesses for over 30 years. They don't seem like sinister people who deserve condemnation. They study the Bible (their way) and distribute their publications in public -- even door to door. What's wrong with that?

They spend their entire life going door-to-door preaching that everyone they speak to is going to be danged to hell, unless they abandon their beliefs and people, and join the Jehovah's Witnesses. Most people find this hurtful and disturbing. --RK

Any criticism of their theology should be respectful and even-handed. Any zany or strange practices should be compared and contrasted with "normal" religious practice -- if you can identify that! -- and taken just as seriously as anything else in the Wikipedia. We don't take sides for against suicide bombing, genital piercing, mind control or hanging around subway stations holding up copies of The Watchtower. --Ed Poor

Agreed. --RK

As an Ex-Jehovah's Witness I think i can say with authority that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not "spend their entire life going door-to-door preaching that everyone they speak to is going to be danged to hell", as they don't even believe in hell. They believe in a Heaven where 144,000 chosen ones are destined to go, the rest of God's people remaining on a restored paradise earth. For those that don't heed God's word, the Jehovah's Witnesses simply believe they die and go to the grave, they cease to exist, there is no hell in their doctrine. -BAS

Actually, unlike "most people" I don't mind being told that I'm going to hell unless I believe X or do Y. I take it with a grain of salt -- consider the source, y'know? The chances that any given evangelist's scary warnings are right, is rather low considering that each evangelist gives the same scary warning to every other evangelist. You get 10 or 20 men in a circle each pointing their finger at all the others, shouting Repent ye! or face the eternal fires of dangation!

What's hurtful about that? It's rather amusing really, or a bit sad if you feel sorry for the poor suckers.

--Ed Poor

Odd that this should even come up, given that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in Hell, or that people will be going there. RK seems to be full of uninformed accusations against the Witnesses. --63.231.52.76 07:49 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

Which opposing links regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses would you consider to be "acceptable," then? A link to Steve Hassan, a former Moonie, is on the front page of the Unification Church entry. Mr. Poor here isn't accusing it of being full of "bile and spite," either. As I've stated, the links to opposing sites are there to offer a valid point of view in contrast to the "official" Jehovah's Witness links. The Watchtower Observer is by former Witnesses; and both the Watchman Fellowship and Apologetics sites are a Christian site. If you'd like to offer any links to opposing sites that you may feel are acceptable, then please feel free to do so. Modemac

I think that Clutch is a really ppor writer with a religious agenda to warp this article to suit his own religious needs. He compounds the problem by writing in a vague and confusing way, and then he gets mad at the rest of us when we can't understand him. Even worse, the biggest problem is that often enough we do understand him, and recognize that his claims are self-contradictory, or factually and historically wrong. He is trying to wrest control of this article away from the rest of us, and he refuses to follow Wikipedia protocol for cooperation. He also has a tendency to censor and hid ematerial that he find inconvenient, which is an outrage. This is vandalism, and needs to be recognized as such. Let's not let him get away with his actions. We can reach out to other experts in religion and improve this article without him. --RK

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_1&oldid=842678934"