Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Citing sources of criticism in article rather than creating Wikipedia's own criticicsm and then using references to support or prove these criticism

Wikipedia isn't creating its own criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and then proving it, or presenting evidence that it's criticisms are valid, but is supposed to be reporting on significant other criticisms.

In the opening of this paragraph, for example, Although Watch Tower Society literature claims the Society's founder, Charles Taze Russell, was directed by God's Holy Spirit, through which he received "flashes of light",[47] it has substantially altered doctrines since its inception and abandoned many of Russell's teachings.[48]

Wikipedia is making its own criticism. It is not reporting, as a third party, on Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses.

It would be necessary to state, then, that certain critics, including Jehovah's Witness dissenter Ray Frank, this one and that one, criticize JW for changing their doctrine over time, rather than posting a criticism of Wikipedia's own creation, and then trying to prove it with Watchtower literature, which is the case now. Natural (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Natural

The 'example' given above already cites Franz. It is unsurprising that criticism of JWs comes from critics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It cites Franz in the footnote, rather than the text. It would be more honest to say, Ray Franz, an outspoken critic of Jehovah's Witnesses, or former member Ray Franz claims that some of those predictions were truth, or beyond...
The opinion offered by Franz is not beyond questioning or a different interpretation, so it would be appropriate to note who is making that claim.
Additionally, this statement
"The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are founded on the basis of its teachings about the second coming of Christ" might be better stated.
The second coming of Christ is one of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Trinity being false, there being no eternal hellfire, that the soul is not immortal, were other teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, or equal or greater significance than the 2nd coming of Christ and the millenial theme. These foundation teachings had nothing to do with the second coming. It could be said more accurately that "one of the significant beliefs of Jehovah's Witness is founded.... " Natural (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural
It hardly seems necessary or neutral to cite Franz as an outspoken critic (particularly since Franz is dead). Further, Franz didn't merely make claims about predictions made in Watch Tower Society publications, and the original publications are also cited. No one has objected to attributing the criticism to Franz per the source already cited.
Whether or not Franz's claims are valid or not is subject to debate, viewpoint and interpretation. Some of his arguments may have validity or have had validity, some of his complaints have been addressed. The point is, that the argumentation is presented in Wikipedia as an unspoken fact, when the source of argumentation is Ray Franz. The source of argument needs to be referred to in the article. Natural (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Natural


On the second point, the start of the sentence could simply be changed to "Many of the beliefs unique to Jehovah's Witnesses...". On the other hand, JW views about the other things you've listed are not unique to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There is not an argument with the point mentioned here, that many of these beliefs are not unique to JW. However, millenianism is not unique to JW either. Also, while not unique, there seem to be only a handful of Christian religions, all of them with relatively few adherents, who reject the Trinity or hellfire and immortal soul. If there are any other major Christian faiths along those lines I'm not familiar with it. Not that it has any bearing on anything here, just mentioning it. Natural (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Natural
It's not clear why you're mentioning it at all. Firstly, because you're arguing ad populum among minor groups. Secondly, because there's no evidence that either the 'traditional' or the JW interpretations are valid at all. And thirdly, because you're wrong about the numbers anyway.
  • Hellfire: Even the Catholic Church doesn't believe in literal hellfire; rather, it teaches that the 'torment' is the person's 'eternal loss of God'. In the Church's catechism on hell, "eternal fire" is offset in quotes, indicating it to be symbolic. If you want to complain about how they did formerly do so, you must also acknowledge the wrongness of all the so called past truths that are no longer accepted by your own religion.
  • Trinity: For a start, there are more Mormons (nontrinitarians) than there are JWs.
  • Immortal soul: There are more 7th Day Adventists than JWs. And JWs teach that 144,000 are made immortal.
My suggested change made no specific reference to millenialism, or to the other teachings mentioned above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The suggested change is fine, "Many of the beliefs unique to Jehovah's Witnesses...". Except, it doesn't seem like belief in the millenium is unique to JW either, or the last days, even the Muslims believe we are in the last days. What about, One of the central beliefs of JW are founded on the basis of its teachings about the second coming of Christ." How's that sound? Natural (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Natural
You're missing the point. The sentence that states "The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are founded on the basis of its teachings about the second coming of Christ, the Millennium and the Kingdom of God" is the introduction to a section dealing with their failed predictions about those very things. There is no need to introduce issues of trinity, immortal soul and hellfire, because they have nothing to do with failed predictions. Nor is the uniqueness of their doctrinal set relevant. The sentence is pretty clunky, however, making a circular statement that their beliefs are based on their teachings. It would be better expressed as "The central beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are of the nature and timing of the second coming of Christ, the Millennium and the Kingdom of God." The next sentence then develops the point. BlackCab (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Whilst Naturalpsychology correctly points out that other end times groups believe in some interpretation of 'the last days' (etc), it remains true that the JWs' specific interpretations about 'the second coming', 'the millenium' and 'God's kingdom' are unique to JWs. I have modified the sentence accordingly. --Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The emphasis is wrong. The sentence now reads "The beliefs unique to Jehovah's Witnesses involve their interpretations of the second coming of Christ, the millennium and the kingdom of God." It is unimportant whether or not their beliefs are unique to the religion. But it is highly significant that the beliefs about future events (last days, Armageddon etc) are central to their doctrinal set. That is the reason their failed predictions are notable, hence the lengthy section.
Another religion for whom statements about what may lie in the future were a side issue — secondary to, say, a close relationship with Jesus or ministering to the sick – would not attract such close scrutiny of those statements. But since Russell's day the primary focus of WTS publications and meetings has been about expectation of the imminent arrival of the kingdom and all that this involves. The title of its main publication, The Watchtower Announcing God's Kingdom testifies to this; the name Jehovah's Witnesses was to emphasise the witnessing work about the coming end; the primary responsibility of members is to warn the public about the imminent cataclysm and what they need to do to survive; the name of their meeting places draws attention to the coming kingdom; their elaborate doctrines on Bible chronology and prophetic fulfiment are all designed to buttress their belief that Armageddon is just around the corner. Here's my amended suggestion: "Doctrines on Armageddon, the second coming of Christ and the Kingdom of God are central to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses." This clearly throws the emphasis on to their fixation with the future. A discussion of their errant predictions follows naturally from that. BlackCab (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Coertion section

I just reviewed the article. When reading the section on coertion though, it seemed to quickly fall into apologetics for most of the section. It's however common knowledge that pressures such as fear of excommunication play a great role in situations such as accepting a blood transfusion, despite what apologetics and the society may claim. Moreover, hospital visits by other members and "elders", as well a potentially JW family members, make this even more complicated, as they're likely to discover that a transfusion has been accepted, even if the patient decided to privately accept it and the medical personel remained silent as per professional secrecy. I'm aware that I cannot be considered a source, but having personally witnessed this very situation, I'm sure that there is testimony out there of similar cases. Another aspect is how many teens had to resort to legal means to stop coertion imposed by their JW parents (that is at least seen in Canada on a regular basis). I'll try to find sources for these as I have time, but help is appreciated. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And cases where school personel needed to initiate legal action of their own initiative when noticing children subjected to unacceptable segregation levels (socialization being an important aspect of early school, including participation in normal cultural events which the JWs consider inappropriate)... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From memory, that section was the scene of an extended battle over the wording. It obviously deserves balance, and it is appropriate that where criticisms are made, a rebuttal should be provided if it's available. I'll have another look at it, but it seems to me the criticisms are strong enough, though the rebuttals tend to be limited in scope, ie applying to one case rather than the broad criticism. BlackCab (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue of coercion on blood transfusions is covered in more depth at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions#Coercion. I don't know what you're referring to with your last comment about segregation. BlackCab (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I just have read the article on JWs and blood transfusions and you are right, there seems to be enough information there, and the article is also referenced from the Blood subsection here. I still have an impression that apologetic sentences are disproportionate in this article's Coertion section, however, especially that whole paragraphs are about a few particular cases, which cannot serve as generalizations, but it's not a major problem. Thank you BlackCab. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
About the segregation issues, it was at least common in my early school days for a group of JW mothers to organize and visit classrooms interrupting activities, to identify known children of their congregation and bring them to an alternate room, before school events such as a movie presentation or holiday-related decorations (additionally attracting ridicule). In the more extreme case of an alienated child who refuses to integrate to the normal classroom activities, where possible child abuse or mental development issues are suspected by the school personnel, they may need to involve third party consultations and in some cases the local youth and family protection authorities. Unfortunately some such cases can occur because of an unhealthy atmosphere of overzealous indoctrination and isolation in some families (this is not strictly restricted to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and exists in some other cults with strong indoctrination and control). Mention of such scandalous events however obviously require references, which are probably difficult to find considering privacy issues, so it's postponed until I can research about publically known cases (or mention of them) in reliable literature. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Your anecdotal experiences of JW mothers purportedly organizing to 'segregate' JW children from certain classroom activities are neither official practice of the religion, nor widespread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Description as a cult

It is worthwhile and appropriate that this article canvass the widespread belief that the JWs are a cult, but the selection of commentators has the danger of becoming a bit random or arbitrary. Ron Rhodes and Alan W. Gomes are cited for books published by Zondervan, but there may need to be some discussion about whether books published by that author necessarily meet the benchmark of being a reliable source. The film director Joe Engardio, who delivered the very pro-JW doco Knocking may be compromised as an authority; the J. Gordon Melton reference seems to be based on material at this website, although it's unclear quite when or where he made these comments -- the hearing may possibly have been in Singapore in relation to the JWs gaining legal status, but who knows? If Melton is accepted as an authority on cults, his laughable claim that the Children of God and Jim Jones' Peoples Temple are similarly not cults should be included to provide important context. BlackCab (TALK) 08:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Distorting scholarly consensus

A recent edit, since rightfully reverted, attempted to water down the mainstream scholarly consensus regarding the dating of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. There is universal agreement among scholars for the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period within a year of 587 BCE. It would be, at best, quite misleading for this article to imply that the mainstream view is only the view of 'many' scholars. The fringe view of Jehovah's Witnesses has no support from independent secular sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a reference citing Rogerson, who also notes in a footnote (p.201-202): "Secular history supports the date 539 BC for the fall of Babylon, but not 607 BC for the fall of Jerusalem." I have amended the wording to say "Scholars outside the Jehovah's Witness organization," though apart from Furuli there is scant evidence of any bona fide scholars in academia who identify themselves as JWs, possibly because of the contempt directed by the Governing Body at "higher learning". BlackCab (TALK) 04:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Furuli isn't a historian, he's a linguist, and an obviously biased one at that. His attempted rewrites of the Neo-Babylonian period have not survived peer review.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It is not 'non-neutral' to point out that a fringe view is not recognised by mainstream scholarship. As 'scholars outside the Witness organisation' means exactly the same thing as 'Non-Witness scholars', I have restored the simpler wording. It would be quite misleading for the article to imply that there is some broader 'controversy' about the correct dating of the event beyond the discrepancy asserted by a minor denomination in association with their end-times beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

False accusation

Willitell's accusation of vandalism in this edit summary is pointedly false. It is not merely 'many' scholars who do not support the selection of 607 BCE for Babylon's destruction of Jerusalem. JW publications acknowledge that they have no secular support for their dating of the event. There is no doubt that if even a single secular source could be identified as supporting the JW claim, it would be cited in JW literature. But even if that were not the case, the edit still would not constitute vandalism. The editor should refrain from making false accusations.

He should also refrain from deleting sourced statements without explanation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I had actually forgotten about this edit until I saw this. The reason for the edit I made, as stated in the edit summary, was the inflammatory POV use of the phrase "Non-Witness Scholars" as scholars are not identified by their religious affiliation and the only reason to include such a phrase is to create a POV aspect to the article. Jehovah's Witnesses have made it abundantly clear that the reason they associate the year 607 BCE with the fall of Jerusalem is because of belief in the accuracy of the bible over the guesswork of archeologists nearly 2700 years after the fact. The article should reflect that instead of attempting to make inflammatory reference to supposed "Non-Witness Scholars". Also, I have not deleted sourced statements without explanation, however, that does happen to my edits on a regular basis with usually a flimsy excuse that doesn't hold water being given. Willietell (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
JW literature acknowledges that no secular scholars support their claims about 607 BCE; that fact justifies the distinction of "non-Witness scholars" and the use of that phrase in the article. (However, the article now says "non-Witness sources" instead of "non-Witness scholars", which is also okay.) The claim of 'biblical accuracy' is a red herring, as the Bible's references to the Neo-Babylonian period are completely compatible with the secular reckoning of the period. It is only the Adventist interpretation employed by JWs (and other Adventists) that is incompatible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Altered wording in 1 January 1989 Watchtower

Willietell has requested a copy of the infamous page 12 of the 1 January 1989 "Watchtower" magazine. It contains an article in which the wording of one passage was altered between its original print publication and its reprint the following year in the bound volumes (and in the subsequent CD version) published by the Watch Tower Society. The article in question originally stated that the JW missionary work "begun in the first century would be completed in our 20th century"; the altered version said it would be completed "in our day". Willitell makes the puzzling statement that this claim "misrepresents the cited source". His meaning is unclear: either the wording was altered or it was not. He asks to see the "original copy", presumably to compare it with the version the WTS later disseminated. The original and amended versions of that page have been posted online by JWFacts.com and ThinkingWitness.org. BlackCab (TALK) 05:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The copy on JWfacts clearly appears to be photo-shopped as the typeset is incorrect for the O and the letter t, the one on thinkingwitnesses appears cleaner, but noticing the apparent need to photo-shop the one on the other site, it creates a cause for concern & suspicion and makes the other one seem suspect as well. While the possibility does exist that a refinement was made prior to inclusion in the bound volume, which was available early the very next year, the entire thing smells of fish. I think a clear photo of the magazine in question needs to be provided in this case as the sources cannot be trusted for honesty. I will make the adjustment to the article until a credible copy can be produced. Willietell (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't doubt the moon landing by any chance do you? You asked for the original copy and I provided two separate scans of it. To suggest that they have both been photoshopped is ludicrous and simply an act of denial on your part. A Google search of that date of the Watchtower will show very clearly that that change was made. It has been widely discussed. BlackCab (TALK) 02:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We may be approaching a point where Willietell needs to be dealt with as an editor with a conflict of interest. The COI page states: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." (emphasis mine). I get the sense that much of Willietell's editing work appears to be aimed at defending his religion and removing material he deems to show it in an unflattering light. This is not the work of an unbiased editor and it certainly has the potential to undermine this encyclopedia's endeavours to present factual information. It would be interesting to note just how much of Willietell's work here is carried out with that motive. If, as I suspect, it is significant, I will start a discussion on the COI noticeboard and let admins deal with it. BlackCab (TALK) 05:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't take it personally when someone asks for evidence for a statement that may be perceived as controversial, this is not personal nor does it represent a COI as you insist. The anti-Jehovah's Witnesses sites you listed are certainly WP:QUESTIONABLE sources and for me to question them is not demonstrating a COI, but simply an insistence on accuracy. Willietell (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The claim that the scanned images have been 'photoshopped' is ridiculous and unsupportable. There is no basis for the fraudulent claim that "the typeset is incorrect for the O and the letter t". Various independent scans of the page exist, and there is no reason to doubt the previous wording. Another example of the scanned page is here--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The copy of the Watchtower you provided is acceptable, the other to me looked like a PDF editor had been used. Obviously, I didn't have a 27 year old copy of the magazine laying around. Thanks for providing the photo. Willietell (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The typesetting in the later photo is identical to the version provided by BlackCab. It remains unclear why you claimed it appeared to be photo-shopped.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Possibly you need a better monitor, with a higher resolution, as they are clearly not the same. but the argument is irrelevant as you have provided a decent copy. How can it be incorporated into the article as a reliable source? Willietell (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Claims about my monitor are irrelevant. The typography is the same, and your claim was baseless, apparently strongly motivated by personal bias. In fact, the original image provided was clearly not doctored in any way, since there would be no reason at all to 'photoshop' an image to make it 'look like' another image that already exists. As for providing a reliable source, the article already cites the original version; a citation for the bound volume could also be provided for the later altered version. It is not in any case necessary to provide screenshots of the different versions, nor is there any requirement for sources to be readily accessible to all readers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly of interest

In relation to women's rights, mental health and high control groups, perhaps more experienced editors could evaluate if this source is usable: "Cultic Studies Journal, 1997, Volume 14, Number 1, pages 106-144", cited at http://www.icsahome.com/articles/wifely-subjection--mental-health-issues-in-jw-women-csj-14-1 . If it is usable, it may perhaps also warrant a subsection on women's rights... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On the face of it, this appears to be a suitable source. However, if it is on the only source available on the subject of women's rights in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses, it might not warrant a specific section on that subject. Other editors might feel more comfortable having such a section even if this is the only suitable source. In any case, it seems to be a suitable source for supporting some of the existing subsections of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

POV

For each criticism on this article, the current schema is the following:

  1. Claims of the “critics” (generic term used for ex, scholars, media, ...)
  2. Rejection of these claims by the Jehovah’s witnesses
  3. If any scholar backup the Jehovah’s witnesses defense, then he is cited as a conclusion for the topic

This approach is not neutral at all. A neutral approach should be as following:

  1. Facts about the claim, telling clearly who says what
  2. JW’s defense
  3. Neutral conclusion from scholars / courts / historian, or whoever is an authority on that specialized field

Please let me know if you agree with this approach, and I'll try to apply it in the article. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to provide a "defense" for JW doctrines, nor is it necessarily the case that there is a 'neutral' conclusion "from scholars / courts / historian" for every issue. It might be more helpful if you could provide a specific example of how you would like to change one of the sections rather than seeking tacit 'agreement' for adopting the 'schema' you're suggesting, which is fairly vague.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there is not always a definitive neutral conclusion that decides if the criticism is fair or warranted or not. Much of this is simply subjective. The criticisms here are all notable, in that they have been covered by multiple reliable sources, but it has actually been quite tricky writing about them because of the difficulty of striking a neutral balance in covering them. I agree that some specific examples of perceived problems and suggested rewording would be of benefit. BlackCab (TALK) 09:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to make the "Failed predictions" part more neutral, by stopping to call "critic" professors or ex members, but by telling clearly who is who; and not concluding anymore with Watchtower statements taken out of context. This is not yet perfect, but I think it's a little better like this. If you agree, I'll apply this approach to the rest of the article. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I personally see no problem with your current edit. It may still be good for others to comment before proceeding with more changes. Thanks for your work, — PaleoNeonate — 11:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes; the only one of any real import is the assertion that the Watch Tower Society only in some cases 'admits it is not infallible'. No source has been provided to show there are exceptions. Overall, the changes made to that section do not seem as dramatic as this section initially seemed to imply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review Jeffro. I'm now done with the first half of the article, until the section "Description as a cult". May I have your thoughts before going further? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any major concerns. I have done some copyediting on the subsequent section. I'm in two minds about the removal of the European Court Case reference, though it does seem to try to 'answer' a 'question' about 'mind control' that is not otherwise present in the article. The term 'mind control' is itself ultimately a distraction, because many people seem to associate it with obvious and usually fanciful notions influenced by pop-culture rather than the intended meaning of undue influence, which is the term more often used in modern discussions of the recruiting tactics employed by Jehovah's Witnesses and similar groups. (Ironically, The Watchtower of 15 February 1994, page 6 asserted, "Did the Witnesses employ mind-control techniques on you? “No” would doubtless be your frank response.")
My only other concern would perhaps be overuse of the term movement. Strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses are broadly part of the Bible Student movement, but the denomination is not itself really a movement, which to me implies something somewhat less cohesive than a specific denomination. It seems to be analgous to calling a specific labour union a movement when the union is really part of a broader labour movement. However, in the context used, this is complicated somewhat by the term new religious movement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm very satisfied with your last edits and I understand your remarks. I'll continue editing the article and I'll try to take them into considerations. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Coercion - Section to remove?

The section "Coercion" has almost no scholarly material. On the 15 sources available there: 5 are primary sources from JW; 5 are from court cases and are not dedicated to the subject; 3 are from former witnesses; 2 are from newspapers and are also not clearly related to the subject. Therefore, I consider simply deleting this section. What do you think? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The section could be reduced, though I'm not entirely sure about deleting it altogether. I don't think the existence of preaching 'quotas' necessarily equals 'coercion', though fostering a belief about 'bloodguilt' for 'failing to preach' could amount to such. I'm also not sure that a critic being a former member is automatically a reason to delete criticism, where the former member was in a position of authority to know the specifics of how the organisation operated. I also note that the article refers to "Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko, in a dissenting opinion to a report by a panel of experts", which raises the question, what were the other opinions offered, and by whom, and the absence of that information could suggest that the 'dissenting opinion' has been cherry-picked. Medical commentators writing about medical treatments would seem to be suitable sources for such matters, which are not really issues that would necessarily have to be restricted to comments from scholars. But I'm happy to see what other editors think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Notable aspects of coercion that come to my mind: parents forcing children or teens to attend/participate sometimes resulting in government youth services getting involved (especially if physical punishments are involved, possibly out of this scope), the pressure to refuse blood transfusions (and sign cards), the pressure to shun (and maybe the pressure put on the shunned by this behavior), the active/inactive status of proclamators (service report and related counseling if considered suboptimal), the way study is done where comments are usually restricted to ready questions/answers. I'm not suggesting that all of this should be mentioned though, as it also depends on what sources we have, but I think that coercion is a notable enough aspect for the article to discuss it. I also have no problem with sources written by notable previous members (other than self published) or with medical sources if scholar sources alone are not enough. — PaleoNeonate — 17:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say this section needs work, but removing it altogether is not appropriate. PaleoNeonate above me gives some good examples, and I have no doubt that suitable sources could be found. I also don't believe that just because someone is a "former" Witness that their claims need be rejected out of hand. I agree with PaleoNeonate that self-published books give a good indication that they may not be RS's, but that is not a definite end-all for me. If I remember correctly (and I may not) Commentary Press, which published Ray Franz's books, was founded by him to publish those books. And as far as I am aware, while some don't like his books, no one has seriously challenged them as being a non-RS regarding the Witnesses. I also agree with Jeffro about the medical reports.Where they may speak about some other issue, w/e it may be, it may not be appropriate. But if they have been written by medical professionals and speak about medical issues, then that to me seems like a RS in-so-far as the MEDICAL aspect of it is concerned. Whether those reports relate to coercion is another matter. Vyselink (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've finally applied the same schema presented above to this section: 1. Facts. 2. JW's defense. 3. Conclusion by scholars. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
And thank you for your contributions. — PaleoNeonate — 16:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not always suitable to rigidly apply the 'schema' you have suggested. Thus, I have made some changes to the 'coercion' section. I note that some of the 'supportive' statements were sourced to a JW media site (now defunct), raising a red flag as to whether those supportive comments might not have been balanced by other comments by the possibly cherry-picked 'supporters'. I also reviewed the court statement about blood transfusions, as the information provided at this article from that source didn't address coercion at all, but merely emphasised that people have a right to choose or reject medical treatment. In fact, the court source does fairly unambiguously express concern that coercion may be involved in the 'decision' to reject blood transfusions. The court did state that in the case presented, it did not find "that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied" and that "the State does not have the right under the Convention to decide what beliefs may or may not be taught". However, this only goes to the determination that the group's actions are not unlawful, not that admonitions against blood transfusions in JW literature cannot be construed as coercive. Our Kingdom Ministry, November 1990: "First, make sure all in the family have their personal medical directive document thoroughly filled out—dated, signed, and witnessed. ... Then see to it that all keep these documents with them AT ALL TIMES. Check this with your children before they go to school each day, yes, even before they go to a playground or recreational area. All of us should be sure that these documents are with us at work, when on vacation, or at a Christian convention. Never be without them!" (formatting and caps per source). Our Kingdom Ministry January 2010: "Are You Putting It Off? ... Putting what off? Filling out the DPA (durable power of attorney) card that is provided for baptized Witnesses. Since “you do not know what your life will be tomorrow,” it is crucial that you decide in advance and indicate in writing what treatments and procedures you would accept in a medical emergency." (Note that although this refers to "what treatments and procedures you would accept in a medical emergency", the preprinted document "provided for baptized Witnesses" by the Watch Tower Society disallows blood transfusions. The June 2011 Our Kingdom Ministry rather oddly asked, "Why are some procedures [in regard to certain 'blood fractions'] involving the medical use of my own blood a personal decision?", which fairly obviously indicates that it is the Watch Tower Society's view not only that other decisions about blood transfusions are not a 'personal decision', but also implies an expectation that JW members would otherwise consider fewer medical procedures to be "a personal decision".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to complement: I possibly could find the necessary source for it, but I remember of a small scandal in Canada where for such "no blood" cards signing to be considered valid, people first had to be properly informed about the fact that the purported blood analogue replacements were experimental and unusable in most cases of emergency, and that to consent one ideally had to be major; but that card signing events were systematic in "book study" groups and families without any such information being supplied. Moreover, shepherding visits to hospitalized members are routine; despite the professional confidentiality of the medical staff, one risks being visited by family or members while receiving a blood transfusion, with the possible consequences. There are countries where when parents oppose medical staff to transfuse their children, but that it is necessary, personel can file a parental negligence or incompetency report and still proceed legally. I think that it is the case in Canada, although at least one JW-blood related scandal still made the news this year. — PaleoNeonate — 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It may help a reader understanding what's going on to add the sources proposed above by Jeffro, and maybe to show some "real life" cases when blood was required, but refused by the patient. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Labeled as "Apostates" for unrepentantly accepting Blood transfusions

Again the article states under Coercion,

those who unrepentantly receive blood products are labeled "apostates"

I wonder where Marumoto got this information from. Can someone point to the JW publication that state the same. One can get disfellowshipped if they receive blood transfusion willfully. But they are not charged as apostates unless they vocally disagree with official teaching. An act of accepting blood transfusion does not categorize a person as apostate. Similarly an act of willful adultery is not apostasy, unless it is evident that the person considers adultery to be not a serious sin as taught by JWs. While a lot of people would like to extrapolate gray areas to portray things in the most negative light possible (as most ex-JW and yellow journalist articles do), most of the time its not full story. Wiki shouldn't need to follow that. An accurate statement would be, "those who accept blood transfusions and no longer believe in the rejection of blood transfusions" are labeled as "apostates" --ShaunRex (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, the benchmark for inclusion is not 'verifiable in JW publications'. 'Vocally disagreeing' is naturally an obvious conclusion that may result if a JW receives a blood transfusion and then is threatened with ostracisation or other 'discipline'. Also, the word "apostate" is just 'a person who leaves a group', and it is not necessary that Marumoto's use of the term meets the JW's more specific perjorative use of the term, which is jargon. The statement is unambiguously attributed as the view of Marumoto.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
What is a 'yellow journalist'?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
People getting shunned for willfully accepting blood transfusions, good. For brevity, I am not penchant in using proper vocabulary for informal writing. I guess editors would have to just deal with it. ShaunRex (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"People getting shunned for willfully accepting blood transfusions, good"? That statement alone seriously calls into question your ability to conform to a neutral POV in your edits. Beyond that, be as informal as you'd like, can't stop you, but if you do not use "proper vocabulary" expect to be asked to clarify your meaning. Editors do most certainly NOT have to "deal with it". If you want your posts to be answered properly, write your posts properly. Vyselink (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
People 'wilfully' receiving medical treatment! Just shocking.</sarcasm> Did you have any relevant response regarding the article content you initially queried?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Why everybody upset. lol. Vyselink, I am sure any body who know English would've easily recognized what I meant by twisting the words yellow journalism . Jeffro77 didn't really needed to ask for a clarification. So I replied as such. If you are upset that I said 'good' people are getting disfellowshipped for accepting blood transfusion, remember editors have freedom to say what they think (like people who support or oppose abortion for example). Regarding your POV claims, no worries, I am not one of those editors who are desperate to defend or tear down JWs. While I have my own views on the religion like everybody else, I take things cool. This is because I believe everything happens for a reason, and don't put emotions in to the religion. ShaunRex (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ShaunRex: The term "yellow journalism" is over 100 years old, and not commonly used today, though you are correct that a lot of people would probably know what it is. While I can't speak on behalf of Jeffro77 on what he knows or what he meant by the question, your use of it when combined with the author of the work, Osamu Muramoto, who is of Asian ancestry, can appear to be racist. UNDERSTAND THAT I AM IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACCUSING YOU OF USING IT AS SUCH. I am not saying you meant it to be that way. But because words matter, it matters what words you use. This is what I was getting at above, and was the primary purpose for my comment. As for your statement that you "don't put emotions in to the religion", your previous statement that I highlighted shows that not to be true. Vyselink (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of 'yellow journalism', which I have since learned is a term that is, unlike me, American. It is apparently what the rest of the English-speaking world calls tabloid journalism. The knee-jerk reaction to my query about the term was not remotely 'taking things cool'. Since Muramoto writes in medical journals rather than 'tabloid journalism', and adding the admission that ShaunRex was "twisting" the usual use of that term, it does certainly give the appearance of a racist slur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
While we're being frank, referring to ostracisation of people for receiving medical treatment as good is deplorable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I already made it clear that I don't care anymore to change the sentence I disputed, after reading Jeffro77's intial response. I excuse myself out, and dont want to have further discussions on my alleged knee jerk reactions and emotions. I could also say its deplorable that people do abortions, go for war and practice homosexuality. The point is that its all about beliefs and perspectives. My Apologies if I hurt anyone. Good to see other editors. Let me focus on back on citations, which I am struggling to find time for. Thanks and regards. ShaunRex (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe there is much to say about this, because as Muramoto explains in his article, JWs can accept fractions of blood. So the statement of Muramoto saying that "those who unrepentantly receive blood products are labeled "apostates" ..." is incorrect. We may precise that it's only "those who unrepentantly receive prohibited blood products [who] are labeled "apostates" ...". In some cases, the JWs can accept up to a certain percentage of some components, but no more. Moreover, hemophiles can accept some types of blood transfusion. Well, the policy has became quite complex on blood ban, and I'm not sure any JW could follow if without the "help" of the leaders. ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, if a JW accepted a blood fraction prior to 1962 and didn't 'repent', they could be disfellowshipped and deemed an 'apostate' (per Muramoto's usage); that action would not automatically be reversed even after blood fractions were 'permitted'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add that it feels strange to "rebut" Muramoto with a court case, like the article does. Moreover, the court case doesn't say anything about the consequences of accepting prohibited blood transfusion. Shouldn't we better use sociologists to conlude about coercion? ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticisms

We have here in the "Biblical criticisms" section almost the same content as the Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation section. Shouldn't we just keep the link to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures#Critical review article here? Or should we copy and paste the content of Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation here? ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The handling of the NWT seems to be appropriate in the three articles—a brief summary in the main article, a review of common criticism of the translation here, and more detail about critiquing the NWT at the other article. The summary at the main article is only half as long as the content here, and of course the content there can be reviewed separately. It would be clumsy to only have a link to this article without any content at the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
This implies that any development of the detailed article should be summarized two times: here and in the main article. Another point is that the importance given to BeDuhn in the "summaries" seems exagerated compared to other scholars. Why its point of view on the NWT is not put along with the others, like it's done for the ones who criticize the NWT? Is BeDuhn's point of view more important than the point of view of Metzger, Mantey, Hoekema, Countess or Howe? ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed to imply that. The main article's section about the NWT should be (and currently is) a briefer summary than what is at either article, and the purpose of the NWT section at this article is different, though obviously related, to the section at the NWT article. This article is about criticism while the section at the NWT article is about critique. It is not necessary or suitable for the main JW article to duplicate every point as the summary about the NWT at this article, just the most important points; what is deemed 'most important' is a subject for Talk page discussion, based on sources.
Upon considering what BeDuhn actually compared, I have removed the reference to his review from the main article, as it does seem like undue weight. (This is not an endorsement to remove his review from the other articles.) Whereas the other sources mentioned in the summary at the main article reviewed the translation more broadly, BeDuhn only compared a few 'controversial' passages in a few translations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Extremism charge

Some countries (Russia) accuse them of extremism. Irrespective of it being right, we need to mention the arguments and context. I guess some Russian JW materials have been challenged as arguing for "extremism". -》 What are these? Zezen (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Totalitarian charge

As per the extremism charge, above, the antidemocratic charge may be pertinent to explain the Russian Courts mindset.

Pacem BBC - Religions - Witnesses: History:

Rutherford thought deeply about a key passage in Romans 13, and concluded that the proper interpretation of the passage no longer required Witnesses to cooperate with secular law unless those laws were in accordance with God's laws.

The relationship between the Witnesses and the civil authorities deteriorated further as a result. 1920s: organisational changes Rutherford introduced what he called "Theocratic Government" to the organisation. This downgraded democratic elections as a way of choosing local elders, and brought in a highly centralised structure, obedience to which was considered obedience to God.

-》 Let us add it, using also other RS. Zezen (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Status as "Christian" Denomination

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

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

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

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

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

The additional criteria you have listed for identification as 'mainstream' are primarily Catholic doctrines that do not predate the origin of Christianity. These criteria are not a requirement for identification as 'Christian', and that usage here would not be neutral.
It is not appropriate to use article Talk pages to tell editors how to engage with others outside of Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Attempted collusion with Hitler

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

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

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

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

u/YayVideoGames

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

Not without a reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't meet any of the reasons (notability, RS. etc) for inclusion. Vyselink (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Beginning of "the last days"

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

Another adjustment is needed too: the "Date of Christ's invisible presence" had previously cited Franz, Penton and the Watchtower itself (August 15, 1974, p.507 fn) with the claim that the move from 1874 to 1914 had taken place in 1943. Junkönig, in good faith, edited this to say the change had actually taken place in 1930, and he cited The Golden Age (1930, p. 503-504) and Rutherford's book Light, Book One (p.74). In fact as early as the September 1922 ISBA convention at Cedar Point Ohio Rutherford had introduced the idea that although Christ had been invisibly present since 1874, he had taken power in 1914. That belief was enshrined as point 2 of the 13-point resolution passed at Cedar Point. (See Watchtower Nov 1, 1922, pages 325, 334.) That was repeated in subsequent Watchtowers (Feb 15, p.60; March 1, p.67; April 1, p.103; October 1, p.294) and was included in the book Deliverance (1926, pgs 255, 257, 306).
By 1930, when Rutherford wrote Light, his comment at p.70 finally seems to throw the 1874 date out the window: "Prior thereto the church had been applying the prophecy of Matthew twenty-four to the events that came to pass from 1874 to 1914. Not until after 1918 was it understood by the church that these events apply after 1914." (All books and magazines accessible at Watchtowerwayback.org).
It confirms what author Robert Crompton stated — that is difficult to trace the development of JW doctrines because explicit changes are often not identified in Jehovah's Witness literature, leaving readers to assume which details have been superseded. That difficulty was presumably also why the Watchtower editors in 1974 made the erroneous claim that it was only in 1943, in The Truth Shall Make You Free, that the organisation "also fixed the beginning of Christ's presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 CE." BlackCab (TALK) 08:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like you're correct in regarding 1928 as the last year in which the Watch Tower Society taught the "last days" began in 1799. Whilst Junkönig claims that there is no 1928 edition of the book The Harp of God, such edition can be easily found on the internet (for example, here). The digitalised document clearly has "1928" printed on one of the first pages. This is further confirmed by a sentence on page 260, that reads: "No one will attempt to gainsay the fact that just now, in the year 1928, all the nations are in distress ... " (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, the last edition of the book Creation seems to have been published in 1927. — Zenadix (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I've updated the article with the 1928 edition of The Harp of God. It now states, "As late as 1928 Watch Tower publications were still claiming the last days had begun in 1799." However, the table titled History of Eschatological Doctrine under Changes of doctrine may also need some tweaking to reflect this change. — Zenadix (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I did not know about the reprint from the year 1928. I also improved the template by including the line "1929-1930". Also, I changed the line "1930-1933" to "1930-1966" in the above template because the line "1933-1966" was deleted because there was no change in 1933. — Junkönig (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement about concern of coercion is supported by the quoted text, but it is not necessary to include what might be very loosely construed as 'personal research'. I have restored the quote from the court document, which stands on its own merits without the need of additional interpretation. The court document directly acknowledges the possibility that Jehovah's Witnesses' "refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community". The claim that the document was taken out of context is blatantly incorrect. The fact that the court did not find that coercion was specifically evident in the Russian court's findings in a specific case does not contradict the court's acceptance that coercion may occur. The claim that the document arbitrarily switches from talking about JWs to patients in some entirely unrelated sense is bizarre.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming from your comments that as per usual you haven't bothered reading the source material before furnishing an opinion.
Section 139 "Turning to the instant case, the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions in advance, free from time constraints of an emergency situation, which is borne out by the fact that they had prepared for emergencies by filling out “No Blood” cards and carrying them in their purses. There is no evidence that they wavered in their refusal of a blood transfusion upon admission to hospital. Accordingly, there is no factual basis supporting the finding that their will was overborne or that the refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision."
The selective quote promotes the erroneous conflation of opinion between the two Courts as though ECHR opinion conceded the Russian courts judgement on "encouragement of suicide". This part of the ECHR opinion, indeed presented out of context, was unpacking the thinking behind the Russian court's judgement.
I would encourage you to read the entire ECHR judgement. Based on previous commentary from you here, you may unenviably find yourself agreeing with some of the allegations of the Russian prosecution and subsequent judgements of the Russian courts against jw, vigorously overturned by the ECHR. Hopefully will go some distance to mitigating your bias.
The ECHR did not accept that coercion may occur. They said in section 138 "The Court accepts that, given that health and possibly life itself are at stake in such situations, the authenticity of the patient's refusal of medical treatment is a legitimate concern." They proceed with their judgement quoted above (section 139), antithetical to any suggestion of coercion.
IC (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm presuming you're aware that this case is the one where the ECHR finds nothing, no form of, no factual basis for coercion. In fact, they find just the opposite, a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfer.
The reason the opening quotes "essentially say "Russia was completely wrong"" is because that's the unambiguous judgement of the ECHR. That may not align with this ed committees preconceptions, but facts - or no facts in this case - don't exist to validate preconceptions. This subjective effort to "balance out" the clear verdict of the ECHR (even based on deficiency of sentence & context comprehension) is grossly disproportionate, and in actual fact irrelevant to jw given the ECHR judgement.
Take another look at the diametrically opposed decisions.
The Russian court decides: "their refusals had not been an expression of their true will but rather the product of pressure exerted on them by the applicant community".
The ECHR judgement states: "the Court finds nothing in the domestic judgments to suggest that any form of improper pressure or undue influence was applied. On the contrary, it appears that many Jehovah's Witnesses have made a deliberate choice to refuse blood transfusions.... Accordingly, there is no factual basis supporting the finding that their will was overborne or that the refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision."
The Russian court in the opinion of the ECHR, was completely wrong, right? Are you suggesting they were only partially wrong? So, let me see if I understand your non partisan quest for "balance". ECHR determined that the Russian courts reached a decision based on nothing, with no evidence. In fact, they found evidence to the contrary. However, the Court that emphatically denies "any form" of coercion, also suggests that coercion may exist? Nonsense. Characterising this as the view of the ECHR to those unfamiliar with the context is in the interests of avoiding editorial bias? IC (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I would choose not to say anymore either if I had said your piece.
I’ve elucidated your confirmation bias whilst you “imagine” what it would be like to answer the source based questions - Was the Russian court’s verdict completely wrong or only partially wrong? Is it “more accurate” to promote a false balance, “However, the Court also stated that”? In parsing ECHR judgement, is it reasonable to assert that the same court that emphatically denies “any form” of coercion, also concedes that coercion may exist? (the general sense no option of course, since both you and Jeffro have already agreed in analyzing the sentence “such circumstances..the patient..refuse medical treatment..legitimate concern” applies singularly to jw)
Now, whilst your response is ad hominem, I’ve actually engaged with the source itself to reveal yours and Jeffro’s bias causing miseducation here, and elsewhere where you’ve both taken it along for the ride.
I’m on tenterhooks waiting for another member of this very small BOF ed com to surprise me by making up the very low single digit “objective consensus”, so that beyond methodological systemic bias, this committee can flock together to further embed bias into the plethora of superfluous articles on jw. IC (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
You are plainly wrong. The court document refers to "their refusals", explicitly indicated in the same sentence as the refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses, and directly states that those persons' refusals may be a result of "pressure exerted on them by the applicant community". Your misdirection about whether the Russian court's verdict in the specific case was "completely wrong or only partially wrong" is entirely irrelevant to the European Court's more general acceptance that coercion may still occur.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Where do you shop for your straw men? IC (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant nonsense aside, there is no consensus for your requested change. The article directly quotes the source without any additional interpretation and the statement from the source is unambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Your declarations are underpinned by very poor argumentation. Straw-manning another’s arguments is the very definition of irrelevant.
The adverb “however” after the unambiguous, no coercion verdict of the ECHR is highly interpretive.
I’m almost impressed with your ability to parse the Russian courts verdict, some points lost since they’re arguably ideological comrades of yours on the subject of jw, many more due to the fact that the sentence could easily be understood by most school children and was never in question.
Where they might struggle is where you also do. ECHR switches from plural to singular - “adults..their..them..” to “the patient” in the very next sentence. School children might also be ignorant of the significance of the ECHR’s use of language extracted from Russian law and applicable generically - the patient’s refusal of medical treatment, along with the qualifier “in such situations”.
Is the ECHR referring to the applicants? Not to anyone with even a mediocre grasp of word usage and English grammar.
Your insistence that “legitimate concern” essentially means may occur further reveals your struggle with language. Your buffet style response to the question cascade ignored the rebuttal to vyselink’s ill considered position and conveniently, the most pertinent question.
Here it is in the form of yours and vyselink’s untenable position: The Court (ECHR) that found nothing to suggest that any form of coercion was applied and no factual basis supporting the finding of the Russian Court (that their will was overborne or their refusal of a blood transfer did not represent their true decision), contradicted their own clear, unambiguous judgement by conceding that coercion may have existed.
Are you aware of any court that would render such a ludicrous decision?
“We find nothing to suggest he committed the crime, in fact we only found evidence to the contrary. But, maybe he did it”
IC (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Your tendentious interpretation of the use of a hypothetical patient is ridiculous, and shows little regard for the actual context of the statement. Your summarising strawman argument is just as irrelevant. Back in reality, it's more like, "We have not seen direct evidence of coercion in the specific facts presented in this case, but we acknowledge that the Russian court's broader concerns are warranted and that it is possible that coercion may occur in other cases." Your claim that the insertion of the word "However" constitutes 'original research' is laughable, and the removal of that term makes no difference to the substance of the statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Montana

I have removed an addition related to a Montana court overturning a previous ruling. The insertion was out of place in the section, which makes no mention of specific court cases. The Montana court ruling is not an overarching vindication of Jehovah's Witnesses' policies regarding child abuse and should not be used in such a broad manner at this article, especially in isolation from other court findings. If the section at this article is to contain information about specific court rulings, it would necessarily include details about other prominent cases such as the Australian Royal Commission. However, adequate coverage at this more general criticism article would probably constitute undue weight. Details about specific court cases—including the recent Montana ruling—are covered at Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, which is already linked in the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_10&oldid=1156688067"