Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 26

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

"Traditional Christian beliefs" in the introduction

I'm concerned about the phrase in the lead paragraph that states "Jehovah's Witnesses reject traditional Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul." While the Trinity could be considered traditional, I'm not so sure about the last two. Who says that those doctrines are traditional? Aren't those primarily Catholic doctrines, not necessarily Protestant ones? I'm not trying to debate the truth of those doctrines, but I'm asking whether those should be considered traditional. Hottscubbard 06:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Protestant denominations, as far as I know, believe in an eternal hell and the immortality of the soul. BenC7 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always associated "the Trinity, eternal torment in hell and the immortality of the soul" with "traditional Christian doctrines." Dtbrown 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe most people view those as traditional Christian doctrines. There are some Christian religions that omit those beliefs, but they are a common theme in the majority. --CBrewster 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"is" vs "are"

I see we have gone back to "Jehovah's Witnesses is" in the opening sentence of the lead. Didn't we achieve some sort of compromise in the past? Can't we re-instate that? Dtbrown 17:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on "are". I'm amazed we're back here again. joshbuddy, talk 18:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed it out of habit as part of a broader edit. Grammatically, it is indeed now wrong, but I've lost interest. (It should be noted that JW publications almost always avoid phrases that make the collective noun issue look awkward, though it is difficult to achieve without being verbose.)--Jeffro77 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How's "JWs are members of an international religion of the same name"? BenC7 01:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument was previously used that Jehovah's Witnesses use 'are', so we should here. However, JW publications also consistently use phraseology that maintains grammatical correctness. Please do not continue to mangle the grammar.--Jeffro77 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeffro, I thought you'd lost interest on this. I think this is silly to stick to the "is." I think a more direct first sentence would be better than "is the name of". Dtbrown 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

When I lose interest in something, I reserve all rights to change my mind, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason, without notice.

Further, it's been shown earlier that the standard in other encyclopedias is "Jehovah's Witnesses are..." Dtbrown 02:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The article for Seventh Day Adventists opens: "The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Christian denomination..." The article for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) opens "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religious organization..." I think we should open with a direct style instead of adding "is the name of." Dtbrown 02:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both examples given above use the correct singular "is", so I'm not sure how this defends the current wording. The "is the name of" was inserted to work around the (seemingly) awkward reading of "is" after a plural in a proper noun (because some people are confused by correct grammar and choose to defer to other sources that also employ incorrect grammar), in keeping with JW publications' own phraseology to avoid awkward wording of the religion's name.--Jeffro77 04:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing for a direct style of writing. I think it's better to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian religion" instead of adding the "is the name of" to the sentence. You cite grammar but this has been ignored by other encyclopedias. There are always exceptions to rules. Can you cite a reference work that follows the style you suggest with reference to JWs? Dtbrown 04:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, correct grammar has indeed been ignored by other encyclopedias, hence my comment: "some people ... choose to defer to other sources that also employ incorrect grammar."

"is the name of" is correct, unawkward, but verbose; "is" is correct, but awkward (apparently, though I doubt that anyone would have trouble with analogous statements such as "Cops is a television programme" or "Wheaties is a breakfast cereal"); "are" is wrong, but apparently reads better.--Jeffro77 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Has correct grammar been ignored by other encyclopedias or is there a valid exception to the rule you are citing? Dtbrown 04:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no valid exception to the rule apart from ambiguity regarding Jehovah's Witnesses as people ([possessive noun] [noun]) and Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion ([multi-word proper noun])--Jeffro77 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't common usage sometimes validate an exception? Dtbrown 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

JW publications - the 'horse's mouth' so to speak - never employ the incorrect grammar as appears in the lead. So no, common usage does not in this case validate the exception.--Jeffro77 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the first chapter of the Proclaimers book: "JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES are known worldwide for their persistence in talking to people everywhere about Jehovah God and his Kingdom." I'm sure there are several other similar constructions. Dtbrown 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain this? In that sentence, "Jehovah' Witnesses are known for their persistence" refers to people in the plural form who are members of the religion. It does not refer to the religion itself. The example is therefore irrelevant.--Jeffro77 07:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct that JW publications never "employ the incorrect grammar as appears in the lead." Can you show us some examples where they follow the style of writing you are suggesting? I'll start looking for more examples in the meantime. Dtbrown 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotations found in the publications referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses" are almost always written in the context of members in the plural rather than in reference to the organization itself; it would be tedious and pointless to provide references to those quotations. A few times, "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is employed, and this is always used with "is".--Jeffro77 08:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if it can be shown that JWs do use the singular when referring to themselves as an organization that would be significant and would affect what we do here. "Is" would properly go with "Christian congregation," however. I still think we are safe grammatically to say that common usage (as has been demonstrated by other reference works) validates an exception in this case. And I believe if we searched hard enough we'd find that JW publications do the same. Dtbrown 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A simple compromise might be to also refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" or more simply "Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." There are both terms that Witnesses use to identify with, and could be used in places where the writer insists on using "is." But for cases where the term is "Jehovah's Witnesses," the correct word is definitely "are." --CBrewster 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely? Just like "COPS" are a TV show, "Ghostbusters" are a movie. For now I've lost interest on that issue, however your suggestion of what is 'definitely' correct is grammatically incorrect for proper nouns having a plural form operating in the singular.--Jeffro77 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the JW WikiProject page, there's the sentence "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christians are required ..." -- I guess that refers to what individuals believe rather than the church since the verb is plural. Billy pilgrim99 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have previously indicated the amgiguity caused by Jehovah's Witnesses by using the same term to refer to both the religion as a whole, and to groups of individual members. However, it functions as singular when it refers to the religion as an organisation.--Jeffro77 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I must dissagree with the assertion of ambiguity. As you have stated Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves an orginization of like minded believers who are witnesses of Jehovah. It cannot be considered the same as "The Catholic Church is" since you are not using the incorperated name of the organization "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society". In that case the use of is would be appropriate. In this case it would be gramatically incorrect to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is", just as it would be incorrect to say "Catholics is". .--D L Means 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Jehovah's Witnesses do not regard the 'Watchtower Bible and Tract Society' to be their religious organization, but rather as a legal corporation used by the religion, 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. The ambiguity remains, invalidating your comparison with the Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay let me put it this way. They refer to the individual "churches" as congregations When they refer to themselves as a whole they refer to themselves as "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" at which point is would be appropriate. Since they consider themselves to be the sole "witnesses" of Jehovah then the term Jehovah's Witnesses becomes descriptive and validates the use of are and not is. Just as Catholics is descriptive and would warrent the use of are.D L Means 11:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this can be avoided in the future by substituting in phraseology that is similar. For example, you wouldn't say "Catholics is" or "Lutherans is". Using this method will ensure that things make sense in the future. It's also important to note that if you were asked to explain what Jehovah's Witnesses 'are' you wouldn't start the sentence out with "Jehovah's Witnesses is..." because even if it is grammatically correct (I still do not think it is) as some are arguing, it's phonetically incorrect. Instead of arguing, use substitution with other plural groups...for example, Latter Day Saints...if 'is' is used there, I say we use it. If not, I elect we use 'are'. --devnet

Sect or religious denomination?

This definition of this article describes the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious denomination, but in the sociology of religion, the term religious denomination is contrasted with the term sect and the Jehovah's Witnesses are described as a sect, at least in one reasonably reputable source i.e. in Wilson, Bryan Religion in Sociological Perspective 1982, ISBN 0-19-826664-2 Oxford University Press page 109. I do not think that this article should be written entirely from the viewpoint of sociology of religion, but I think that the definition should not contain the term religious denomination as the only term to describe the Jehovah's Witnesses because the term is at best ambiguous and at worst erroneous. Andries 09:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't look hard at the technical usage of the word denomination when I added it in. I just glanced at it, it seemed to fit (the SDA article used it) and I put it in. I believe strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses are a sect. I have no objection fixing the lead-in to reflect that, and perhaps an explanation of how they are a sect could be added to the history section. What does everyone else think? joshbuddy, talk 09:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure "sect" would fly by the NPOV rules, however. Jehovah's Witnesses reject that label and I think it would be improper to make that determination in the article. I'm not sure why it would be important to use that label here. Dtbrown 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Further. The article sect also states: "In its historical usage in Christendom the term has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs and that often deviated from orthodox practices." If this were a religious encyclopedia promoting orthodox Christianity "sect" might be appropriate. "Religious denomination" fits the Witnesses as the term is generally used. I see no reason to use "sect" here. Dtbrown 09:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason to use among others the label sect is because it is a classification used in the sociology of religion for the JW. In the sociology of religion it is used in a neutral way. Clearly, the viewpoint of the sociology of religion is a notable viewpoint and this viewpoint excludes the label religious denomination. Of course, we can explicitly state that the JW rejects the label sect if there is a source for it. Andries

Here is another reputable source that uses the label sect. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Jehovah's.htm by Joel Elliott from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos published in 1998 by AltaMira Press, A Division of Sage Publications, Inc. Andries 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following sentence in the summary

"The Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian movement that is sometimes described as religious denomination, but in the sociology of religion they are sometimes referred to as a sect. The JW reject the latter term because of its pejorative connotations. "

Andries 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC) amended 10:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the other citations. I don't write from a sociological perspective so I can't comment on that angle. I do feel, however, that to use the word "sect" in the lead would cause an endless editing war. Many of our Evangelical editors would also have problems with using the label "Christian." I think what we have already is really the best consensus we can come up unless we wanted to change "denomination" to "organization." Dtbrown 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the term organization is wrong, because the JW are more than a organization, I believe. It more like a movement. We can omit the term Christian and describe it as a religious movement. Again, the term religious denomination is ambiguous at best and incorrect at worst. Andries 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether members of other religions believe that JWs are Christian in the sense that they agree with, it is a Christian religion because of the obvious position of Christ in its doctrines. 'Our Evangelical editors' may need to review the actual definition of the word 'Christian' rather than imposing their own. Omitting the term Christian is misleading, possibly intentionally so.--Jeffro77 01:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion! I've tried that in the lead. Let's see what others think. Dtbrown 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Referring to them as Christians is essential, as the label Christianity is always a self-applied one. There is no orthodoxy defining what a Christian is or isn't. joshbuddy, talk 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is its called the Nicene creed. Its just most American Churches derived from protestantism chose to ignore it.

If we have consensus on this then I edited out the "who feel themselves to be the reatoration of first century Christianity" as that was a compromise taken before to avoid calling them Christian. Dtbrown 01:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to revisit this? Just came across Jehovah's Witnesses listed as a Christian denomination at List of Christian Denominations Dtbrown 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem there are many different ways to refer to the JWs: denomination, religion, cult, sect, NRM. Some are more prerogative than others. I don't want to get overly technical in our usage of these words, but instead, focus on the acceptability of these terms to the general reader. We can highlight the technical usage of these terms as they are used in the article, but generally, don't want to become hemmed in by these uses. Rather, lets stick to the general uses of these words. In the case of particularly loaded terms, lets attribute them properly. joshbuddy, talk 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying Christian denomination as I think that speaks best to the average reader. I think we need some internal link in the first sentence that gives some context to the JW movement, especially for those who have no religious background and may be reading the article. Jehovah's Witnesses are mentioned both in Christian denomination and the accompanying List of Christian Denominations. Dtbrown 12:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term 'Christian denomination' is a bit misleading, the above arguments notwithstanding. It gives the reader the impression that JWs are just another of a long list of Christian denominations. The problem with this is that JWs consider themselves to be the only "true" religion, not one of many Christian denominations. JWs also do not call themselves Christians (at least none that I know), and their publications use phrases like "this is what true Christians do" or thereby distinguishing themselves from other people who are called Christians. Saying that they are a Christian denomination gives the reader the impression that they are just-another, when neither they nor the people who know them consider them to be just-another denomination. The JWs who were previously editing the article did not seem to have a problem with "religious group", and it has been repeatedly changed back to this, indicating that many people seem to find it inappropriate. Religious group is still accurate, given that the remainder of the sentence explains the relationship of the group to Christianity.

All religions inherently consider their own to be true; the fact is that JWs are "just another of a long list of Christian denominations", irrespective of what they or anyone else might otherwise imagine. They certainly do refer to themselves as Christians, in contrast to their use of the term 'Christendom' to refer to other Christian religions.

I think that the fact that JWs may be listed in the list of Christian denominations is not a strong enough point in and of itself; it is more a matter of convenience to list them there when speaking of Christian denominations broadly. Incidentally, four out of five dictionaries that I have looked up (Oxford, Mirriam-Webster, Your Dictionary, WordWeb) do not identify JWs as Christians or belonging to a church group. BenC7 04:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would again argue for not pursuing too technical an approach to naming JWs. Their lack of ecumenism does not to me signify whether they should be included among Christian denominations. There are many other Christian groups who are not ecumenical and believe they are the one true church (something like fundamentalism I guess) joshbuddy, talk 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do identify themselves as Christian. If you look back in these talk pages far enough you'll find where JW editors were arguing to have the label "Christian" applied to them. JWs are not the only such group who claim to be the only true Christians. Having an exclusivistic view of themselves does not mean that a secular encyclopedia cannot classify them as belonging to the Christian movement. Perhaps denomination is not correct but I think that for the purposes of this article the term "Christian" should be retained. Dtbrown 05:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As to using "Christian":

http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Article?id=ar287080

"Jehovah's, Witnesses are members of a Christian religious group that uses the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as its corporate body"

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah's+Witnesses

"Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent"

Dtbrown 05:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Christianity:

From Wikipedia:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth and his life, death, resurrection, and teachings as presented in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

american heritage dictionary:

Christian:

adj. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

WordNet - christian

adjective 1. relating to or characteristic of Christianity; "Christian rites" 2. following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ [ant: unchristian]

noun 1. a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Christian

A follower or disciple of Jesus; someone who believes Jesus is the Christ or Messiah. The New Testament mentions that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians within a few years after his death.

Jehovah's Witnesses

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Jehovah's Witnesses –noun a Christian sect, founded in the U.S. in the late 19th century, that believes in the imminent destruction of the world's wickedness and the establishment of a theocracy under God's rule.

IF you notice that JW's below are referred to as Milleniarians then note also the definition of milleniarism.

Jehovah's Witnesses Crystal Reference Encyclopedia A millenarian movement organized in the USA in 1884 under Charles Taze Russell (1852–1916).

Millenarianism Crystal Reference Encyclopedia [milinaireeuhnizm] The belief held by some Christians that there will be a thousand-year (millennium) reign of the saints, either before or immediately after the return of Christ. The belief is usually based on an interpretation of Rev 20. 1–7.

I also discovered that no other group that claims christianity is regularly referred to as CHristian in definitions. So, that negates the argument that if yo only see christian in some of the defintions they are likely not Christian. Unless of course your religion is the only true CHristian religion. ;) George 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Words like "Presbyterian" and "Lutheran" are consistently defined as Christian or as a person belong to a church of that denomination, rather than a sect or millenial group. BenC7 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses always refer to themselves as Christians and, yes, as the only true Christians. However, I don't see how that at all disqualifies them as a Christian denomination! For instance, there are many sects of Hinduism, some of which believe that their chosen path of worship is the only true path... nonetheless, they are still Hindu. Exclusivity does not negate anything in these cases. Also, the "millenarianism" idea does not negate their label of Christian denomination... in fact, if anything, it supports it. - LadyBug =)

Seeing how JWs do not accept the Nicene Creed, I'm not sure how they can be called a "Christian" anything. Arianism was denounced as a heresy, and the Creed was consistently upheld at subsequent ecumenical councils. It seems ethical and correct to at least add this information in a section on the page, under "Criticism". The current "Critical Views" is somewhat strange, I think it should be changed to the more consistently used "Criticism" where such information would be appropriately placed. As to "exclusivity", to my mind this "excludes" them from being called "Christian" as per the definition here on Wikipedia. There should at least be some mention as to the connection between JWs and Arianism, or the JWs rejection of the Nicene Creed. At any rate, what are the views of others as to the change on the page from "Critical Views" to "Criticism" where information could be included as to the difference between JWs and other Christians? It seems as if both JWs and "Christians" desire the distinction to be made, correct?Supertheman 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Christian' predates the Nicene Creed, so arguing on the basis of accepting it is irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Publications section

I'm not sure what I think of this new section. Is it necessary on the main page? We mention these publications in the lead and elsewhere in the article. Any thoughts? Dtbrown 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is probably unnecessary. It can go in its own article. BenC7 05:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It already is in another article. (Or at least, there are other articles that deal with this.) The need for this sections was highlighted by our peer reviews. joshbuddy, talk 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this. Do you have a reference for the info on the translators of the NWT? I'm assuming it's from the Walsh trial. I used to own a transcript but no longer have it. Dtbrown 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just copied from the NWT article, and I assume that their reference is either the Walsh trial, or CoC by Franz. I believe those are two independent lines to the authorship, but in all honesty, I merely added these sections as an attempt to get the ball rollings, and to address the peer review comments. joshbuddy, talk 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Headquartered in Brooklyn?

Is the headquarters still in Brooklyn? I think a lot of the management is done in the Patterson, NY facility. Perhaps we should just say New York and not specify the city? Anyone know? Dtbrown 20:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, all the printing & writing is now done in Patterson. I think the service dept is in Patterson now as well. I'm not sure how much really goes on in NY anymore. Someone more on the inside would have to comment on this. joshbuddy, talk 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the printing is done in Wallkill but the Service Dept and Writing and the Governing Body is in Patterson. I'll change it to just say "New York" instead of NYC. If it needs further adjustment someone else can change that. Dtbrown 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity Portal?

What is the view of editors here about adding a Christianity portal to the main page? Dtbrown 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate. The main objections, from different points of view, are 'JWs don't use the cross symbol which appears in the template' and 'JWs aren't Christians'. Neither objection holds any validity.--Jeffro77 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true Jeffro77. How do you figure JW's are followers of Jesus Christ? They say that Christ didn't say the things he said. How could you say that you follow Jesus and at the same time call him a liar? - JW's are not Christians. - NoSnooz

You are wrong. There is not a single statement of Jesus' words in the bible that JWs deny. The fact that their interpretation may differ from yours and mine is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 12:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I'd be interested in hearing comments from JW editors we may have among us. What do you think? Dtbrown 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If we go with this do we want the full template or the type that is on the LDS page? [1] Dtbrown 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably better to go with the mini one. At least that should stop some editors from objecting to the cross on the Christianity template. Maybe.--Jeffro77 04:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the mini one. Any objections? Dtbrown 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how you've kindly avoided using a template that includes the cross, I can think of no objections to keeping it. JWs are a Christian denomination insofar as secular sources are concerned, so it's appropriate to link this article in with the rest of Christianity-related WP articles. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T14:23Z

NWT in lead

I think we need to temper the line about the NWT in the lead. There have been a couple of scholars who have said favorable things about it. Suggestions? Dtbrown 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your edit. joshbuddy, talk 00:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have found more favorable reviews and critiques on the New World Translation than negative ones whereas this article implied that the overwhelming majority of scholars and critics believed it to be inaccurate and biased. I have actually only seen such a critique twice before and both were baseless and without any kind of viable evidence. According to most critics the NWT is one of - if not the MOST - accurate translation out there at the moment. The King James Bible proves to be more inaccurate and biased than the NWT by far. - LadyBug =)

i really think you should cite these favourable reviews because my (as anecdotal as yours) impression is that the NWT is almost ubiquitously reviled at as a blatantly dishonest apology for JW doctrines. The strongest piece of evidence i have seen that no reputable scholars endorse this translation is that everywhere the JWs try to cite a favourable review, they employ their standard tactic of quoting out of a context, or quoting a long refuted work, or quoting people with no authority but fudging the citation to give the impression that it carries orders of magnitude more weight than it actually does.

If there was genuine positive consensus for the NWT, why dont the JWs cite any of it? Why do the muddle around with vague misleading quotations?

Clean up

I have tried to do some clean up on the article. It seemed some parts did not flow well and I hadn't done much real editing in quite awhile and I wanted to take advantage of some free time I had. I think I'm done for the time being. Feel free to edit changes as you see fit. Dtbrown 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest Edits

I noticed the following phrase in the Publications section: "A part of their religion is chess" Surely this must be a mistake.

I changed this to a short text about the discouragement of chess as a military game. --Prorokini 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems most of the latest edits are trying to change the page into a recruitment page. 219.109.235.241 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifics? Wikipedia does not exist to "expose" JWs. Facts are presented here both pro and con, hopefully written from a neutral point of view. Dtbrown 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things... The article presently states that JWs view beards as 'unchristian'. That is untrue; their position is "in many lands a beard or long hair on a man attracts immediate notice and may, in the minds of the majority, classify such a person undesirably with extremists or as rebels against society," however this neither indicates to be 'unchristian', nor does it preclude JWs from having beards everywhere. (I personally know of one with a beard - who retains 'privileges' - because of eczema-related problems with shaving.) Additionally, the article states that JWs are "well known" for their preaching work, but this is overstating the truth. Most people are only vaguely aware of the Witnesses, and are generally considered an occasional minor inconvenience for knocking on their doors, and are 'the people who don't celebrate holidays or take blood'. Despite the assumed view that Witnesses suppose people have of them, the sentence needs to change.--Jeffro77 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What more, beards are not internationally forbidden among JWs. There are very few truly global standards of dress and grooming among JWs. joshbuddy, talk 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence is badly worded: "Jehovah's Witnesses were intensely persecuted by the Nazi government of Germany before and during World War II, forced to wear a purple triangle in concentration camps." It implies that the 'intense persecution' was the fact that they had to wear a purple triangle. Their badge shape and colour was the least of their concerns.--Jeffro77 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Change as you please. BenC7 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the edits, Dtbrown. I was busy with other stuff and was going to make some changes now, only to find it's been done for me.--Jeffro77 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to tweak as necessary. Dtbrown 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the Section, "Beliefs and Practices", 2nd sentece, "they interpret the Bible literally, though it is recognized the writers use symbolism . . ." needs to be rewritten as it currently implies that Witnesses simply believe in a literal interpretation despite what the writers intended.

Protestantism tag

Is the Protestantism box (in the history section) really necessary? I can't see how it helps the reader, or how it relates to the text. BenC7 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it is a part of their history whether they acknowledge it or not. They bible cannon is protestant, they come from the adventist movement which is a protestant splinter group. Most evangelical groups in the US are protestant in history, doctrine and nature whether they recognize it or not. Thank the puritans for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.109.235.241 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The fact that they might "come from" the Adventist movement doesn't make them Protestant. You could equally argue that Protestant churches ultimately "come from" the RCC, so they are therefore Roman Catholic. But obviously it is the doctrine of Protestants that sets them apart from their originating group. In the case of JWs, their doctrine certainly sets them apart from the groups from which they may have originated. BenC7 07:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I think the Protestantism tag is appropriate here unless one subscribes to the view that any denomination which is not Catholic or Orthodox is Protestant by default. Neither do JWs view themselves as Protestant. Dtbrown 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do JWs come from? What religion was Russel? Adventists are a sect of Protestantism, which Russel broke off and formed Bible Students because he didn't agree. The JWs have their roots, especially the second coming of Christ, in Adventism, read his history and the Advenitist page on Wikipedia. 219.109.235.241 09:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To say that the Witnesses have their roots in a certain religion is to imply that they adopted a certain brand of Christianity and then molded it into their own version. This isn't accurate. To color the Witnesses as a whole with a certain branch of Christianity just because of Russel's religious past is careless.--CBrewster 15:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite accurate. They did indeed base their initial beliefs on beliefs of others. Any Christian religion will inherently be 'colored' as being a "certain branch of Christianity". Not sure what the issue is here.--Jeffro77 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that JW should not be refered to as 'protestants', and neither should pentecostalism, adventism etc. I would normally use the word protestant on those who clearly call themselves so. I understand that the difinition may vary, but honestly said, I think that an encycloppedia like this should be aware of the problem of stating all types of historical groups after Luther as protestant. Summer Song 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

JW do recognize the fact that they have a historical background from various developments among chrstian environments. But they clearly don't want to be put in a category of catholic, orthodox or protestant christianity, because they are not theologically similar to those churches. That all who oppose various historical teachings of the churches are called protestants by some, is true, but I think that wikipedia should be aware of the problematic issue with this. Summer Song 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To say that Witnesses are Protestants would definitely be misleading. It would be accurate to say that they have their roots in Adventism though. Russell's numerology about 1914 was quite definitely taken from Adventists going back as far as the 1820s. Just because JWs imagine that God whispered in Russell's ear to create a brand new religion, the fact remains that in simple terms, they really did 'adopt a certain brand of Christianity and mold it into their own version'. The same is true of any form of modern Christianity.--Jeffro77 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance of blood

"There is not uniform acceptance of the current blood doctrine within the Jehovah's Witness community. Though accepted by a majority, there is evidence a significant population of Jehovah's Witnesses does not endorse it."

I find this incorrect, if one of Jehovah's witnesses do accept blood then he or her will be disfellowshipped thus not making them one of Jehovah's witness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jader7777 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

THis is true. Any who do not want to follow what is taught will be disfellowshipped if they do not dispaly sincere reptance.Vinaq 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

The statement has been referenced... BenC7 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many people who identify as JWs who do not accept everything the religion teaches. This is particularly true of those who may not be active members ("irregular" or "inactive" publishers) but if questioned would claim to be JWs. Dtbrown 07:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We definitely do not accept blood. We will only accept blood fractions as mentioned within the article. It's possible that there are some inactive ones who accept blood, but if they do, they should be disfellowshipped. Seth Lopez 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The original quote is inaccurate. The willing acceptance of blood is a serious sin for the Witnesses. In followup to Dtbrown's reply, there are those who are not practicing Witnesses that identify themselves as Witnesses, but this doesn't mean they are in truth one of Jehvoah's Witnesses. In the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, one has to maintain consistent works to truly be identified as a Witness. In fact, the population numbers for Jehovah's Witnesses is based on monthly service reports that each individual Witness submits. So if someone is no longer attending congregation meetings and participating in field serive, they're essentially no longer Witnesses. The actions of a non-practicing ex-Witness should not be attributed to Witnesses as a whole, even if the person claims to be one, since they would not be counted among the numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses. Hope that makes sense.

Ladybug: The original statement quoted at the top of this sub-section is entirely correct, not to mention well documented. The Watchtower organization has itself admitted there is division among Jehovah's Witnesses regarding its blood doctrine. The Wiki article Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions includes a sub-section addressing acceptance of this doctrine among Jehovah's Witnesses. Before another editor here disagrees with the veracity of the quoted statement in dispute I recommend they look up and read each and every one of the sources cited in that article. You will find plenty of primary and secondary sources verifying everything in the article's sub-section. If an editor does not have access to the referenced material or else chooses not to read it, then they have no business editing out the statement quoted above, or even to disagree with it.

It is pure myth that Jehovah's Witnesses universally accept the Watchtower organization's blood doctrine.

-- Marvin Shilmer 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, there are many who study briefly with the Witnesses and then begin to call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, although they never make a formal dedication and do not follow through with regular meeting attendance and preaching. Those things are required to accurately idfentify yourself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. --CBrewster 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just as with anything else, if a Jehovah's Witness accepts a blood transfusion he/she has a chance to repent etc. and is not immediately shunned at all. Of course some more conservative congregations will take this as an immediate forfeit of congregation membership. However, in truth, unless one blasphemes or something along those lines, the individual is always given an opportunity to completely repent and chnge their ways. That was my experience with Jehocah's Witnesses and that of many of my friends and relatives. I took the liberty of changing that statement - hope you don't mind. =) - LadyBug

Secular definition of "Christian"

Periodically, the use of the word "Christian" to describe JWs becomes an issue among editors. I contend that editors here need to follow a secular definition of "Christian" and not one that they might use if they were editing for a religious or theological resource. A secular definition of "Christian" can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm

"There are probably thousands of different definitions of the word "Christian." We have chosen the same inclusive definition as is used by public opinion pollsters and government census offices: A "Christian" includes any group or individual who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian. Under this definition, Christianity includes: Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, United Church members, even a small minority of Unitarian Universalists, etc."

Wikipedia is a secular resource. One might say that to classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a "Christian denomination" is controversial and therefore Wikipedia should not adopt a position on this. It is not controversial to identify JWs as a "Christian denomination" using a secular criteria as noted above. Government officials and pollsters accept the self-identification of these groups. So do the majority of secular reference works. (Are there even any secular reference works which state that JWs are not Christian?) To insist that Wikipedia adopt a theological basis for identifying a religious group which self-identifies as Christian before the term can be used here is actually imposing a religious perspective to the article. Such a ban of terminology actually is not an avoidance of controversy but an imposition of a preferred religious viewpoint.

I have many Evangelical Protestant friends who believe the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian Church. Should their perspective prevent a Wikipedia article from stating the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian denomination? Or do we grant Catholics that right because they are a larger Church and not Jehovah's Witnesses (or Mormons or some other group) in this secular resource? I think the only fair way of handling this is to adopt a secular meaning for "Christian" in editing these articles and not to impose our personal theological definition. Dtbrown 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be content with any secular source classifying JWs as Christian, but exclude all others. The matter is not that unambiguous in secular sources either (just ask any comparative religionist). Additionally, even with Wikipedia being a secular resource, it should use clear language - we could say that JWs are "classified as Christians by this-and-this secular definition", but we cannot just call them Christian without qualification because people don't think "ooh, they're probably using secular defition x and not secular definition y or a confessional definition" when they see the word. The difference between JWs and the RCC is that only a very small minority of self-identified Christians identify Roman Catholics as non-Christians; neither is there any controversy about the matter in secular sources or in comparative religion. If you cannot accept my wording, then make up something that doesn't hurt your feeling but that is acceptable to everyone.

Addition: That "Wikipedia adopt a theological basis for identifying a religious group" is something that should be prevented - and that is why I cannot see any reason for calling JWs Christian or non-Christian; we should just tell that they view themselves as the restoration of the original Christian church. For instance, since the sentence "the pope is the God-appointed leader of all Christians" shouldn't be on Wikipedia, neither should "the pope is not the God-appointed leader of all Christians" be there. We can just tell that this is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. --82.181.220.186 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not true that only a "very small minority of self-identified Christians identify Roman Catholics as non-Christians." A significant number of American Evangelicals do not b elieve the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian religion. To not refer to Catholics as a Christian religion because a sizeable number of Evangelicals think otherwise would be unthinkable. Similarly, with JWs and other such groups. (BTW, I don't hold this view because of "feelings being hurt." I am not a JW.) Secular resources generally refer to them as a Christian religion. If you have any secular resources that say they are not a Christian religion, please share them with us. Dtbrown 08:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the numbers aren't even comparable. I cannot think of a major denomination claiming that the RCC is not Christian (e.g. Martin Luther thought the opposite, even when he identified the institution as the whore of babylon he still thought it was Christian because it had valid baptism). On the other side, a significant majority of self-identified Christians compose the churches that hold that valid baptism is what makes one a Christian, and that validity of baptism requires trinitarian formula and belief. Sociologists (e.g. Wilson, Beckford, Berger, Curry, though not Melton) tend to classify JWs as a cult, as opposed to a church inside Christianity. I'm sorry for thinking incorrectly about you. But even if the article bases its text on one classification attempt, it still doesn't change that people don't tend to think that way when reading the article. I may remind that the socio-historical point of view is not the only one - even though religious beliefs cannot be stated as truth, it cannot be stated as untruth either. The text must clearly state what it is talking about. Otherwise it is just as silly as a Big Bang article written in a way that implies that God didn't create the universe.

What about my current formulation, is that ok with you, or could you think of something better? --82.181.220.186 11:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They self-identify as Christians, and they have specific beliefs that make it foolish not to acknowledge that they are Christians in the plain sense of the word. Employing a definition of the word 'Christian' as used by other religious bodies is POV, and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 12:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But I am not arguing for using a POV definition. I only think that since there are disagreements about their status, Wikipedia shouldn't take sides on that debate. --82.181.220.186 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:82.181.220.186|82.181.220.186 1) Can you give us a definition of what a Christian is? Why are JW's not Christian? Johanneum 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Johanneum, my opinions about Christianity do not matter in this debate; what matters is how controversial the matter is among Christians in general. For instance, most Christians belong to the churches that view trinitarian baptismal regeneration as a condition of being a Christian, and that leaves JWs out. Wikipedia should not say "they are Christian" or "they are not Christian", but simply tell what each side thinks. That is NPOV by definition. --82.181.220. 186 14:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trinitarian baptismal regeneration" is rejected by the vast majority of Protestants. Are you going to say their status as a Christian religion is debatable also? List of Christian denominations lists Jehovah's Witnesses. There are literally tens of millions of people who believe the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Christian Churches. We cannot allow this precedent to be set. If Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be listed as a Christian denomination then someone can claim that it's POV to list Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as Christian denominations. Dtbrown 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We are mixing apples and oranges here. Rejecting the doctrine of trinitarian baptismal regeneration doesn't make one non-Christian in the eyes of those who do not reject it; rejecting the trinitarian beliefs and practices behind it does. So even though Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Baptists (who, by the way, do not constitute a majority of Protestants) do not accept the renegeration, they accept the doctrine of the Trinity and baptise in its name. In the eyes of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans etc., they still have a valid baptism and a true regeneration in it; they just don't understand properly what is happening. Hence, they are Christians in the view of those churches. But nontrinitarians are another case; their baptism isn't valid because it isn't trinitarian, and thus they aren't Christians (again, in the mentioned view, which does not reflect my own understanding of the matter).

Concerning the List of Christian denominations article, you can see that the last opening paragraph says: "For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination. Explanations about different opinions concerning their status as Christian denominations can be found at their respective articles."

Could you document your view that "there are literally tens of millions people who do not believe the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Christian Churches"? Even if that were true, the difference in numbers would be immense: even with Catholics and Orthodox alone we still have some 65-70 % (or 1,4 billion people) of self-identified Christians belonging to churches that believe in trinitarian baptismal regeneration and thus rejecting JWs as Christian; add Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestants who agree with them on baptismal regeneration. To that you can add those Protestants who reject the belief in baptismal regeneration but maintain that trinitarian beliefs are necessary for being a Christian. I'm just trying to illustrate how apples and oranges cannot be compared. If you're talking about precedence, I think the LDS article already has it settled. --82.181.220.186 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

These issues are not settled until they become official WIkipedia policy. The problem of allowing a theologically motivated definition of "Christian" still stands even if you feel you can ignore the view of many American Evangelicals on Catholicism and Orthodoxy. What I believe on the Trinity and baptismal regeneration (both of which I accept) is irrelevent here in this secular resource. Dtbrown 16:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What about for instance "leader of all Christians"? That's controversial (about fifty-fifty inside Christianity) if anything; that's also something that people have theological opinions about, but that doesn't make Wikipedia say that the Pope is the leader of all Christians. It just says that the RCC teaches so. Is that case different from this one, in your opinion?

I don't feel I have "ignored" the views of "many" (previously "tens of millions of", and "vast majority of" before that) Protestants that hold that Catholics and Orthodox aren't Christians. I just feel that the matter is not comparable to this; we're talking about 6,5 million JWs versus an overwhelming majority of self-identified Christians (some 1,7 billion out of 2,1, or 81 %, when counting only RCs, EOs, OOs, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists; many others could be added), not 1,4 billion Catholics and Orthodox versus "many American Evangelicals". --82.181.220.186 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to get side-tracked on how many Evangelical Protestants believe the RCC and Orthodoxy are not Christian Churches. (I will settle for "many". When I said "vast majority of Protestants" it was in reference to the issue of baptismal regeneration and in America I believe that is true.) There are enough of them who so believe. The article now clarifies it is using a socio-historical definition of the word and elsewhere mentions the controversy. As to the analogy of "leader of all Christians." I don't think that is comparable because we are talking self-identification and not a theological concept.Dtbrown 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept is theological, too; of course you can qualify that out by telling that you are using a certain socio-historical definition, but two points: 1) why does it have to be downplayed by placing it in a footnote (which mostly have to do with citations and not clarifications) and having the main text be unqualified? and 2) I think you would need an "a" before the "socio-historial" part too. That is, you're using "a definition", not "the definition" or even more bluntly, just "definition" (i.e. "a definition so authorative that it has become a proper name without an article preceding it"). A better counterexample could be "the church founded by Jesus". That's what the Roman Catholic Church identifies itself, and historians agree (far more than on JWs' status as Christians) that it has a continuity from what was the first generation of Christians. But does the article say so? No, it only says that that's what it teaches. The concept is, like "Christian", both theological and socio-historical, and it has to do with self-identification, too. --82.181.220.186 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section mentions how JWs are viewed by others. I think that is sufficient. As far as "Christian denomination" goes, I think Wikipedia cannot be dragged into theological disputes as to the meaning. Self-identification and common secular usage should prevail. Dtbrown 18:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia been "dragged into theological disputes as to the meaning" of the RCC's status as "the church founded by Jesus" because it simply says "this is what the RCC teaches", instead of stating it as a fact? I would say quite the opposite. --82.181.220.186 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow your argument. At any rate, the solution could be to remove the label "Christian" from all other articles because it could be perceived as POV. I don't think that is a viable solution and in all fairness we can't just pick on JWs, Mormons and other such groups because they're a minority. Dtbrown 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see the reductio ad absurdum it is possible to make if we don't let the majority-minority situation affect what we write here. But at least Wikipedia:NPOV finds the popularity of viewpoints important. See also [2] - how do you think excluding the majority opinion from the opening paragraph fits in with that?

My argument is simply that we can make a reductio ad absurdum to the other direction as well, even if the majority-minority situation counts: the RCC identifies as "the church that Jesus founded". Most scientists would agree that it has a socio-historial continuity from the first generation of Christians; their view is not theological, but the self-identification is both socio-historical and theological. That is, disagreements surrounding it are theological (at least when voiced by Protestants). Should the Roman Catholic Church article therefore say that the RCC is the church Jesus founded? No, it should just say that this is what the RCC teaches.

Now change a few words: the WT identifies as "a Christian church". At least many historians would agree that it has a socio-historical features that are commonly associated with Christianity; their view is not theological, but the self-identification is both socio-historical and theological. That is, most disagreements surrounding it are theological. Should the Jehovah's Witnesses article therefore say that the WT is a Christian church? No, it should just say that this is what the WT teaches.

The ultimate point of this all is that "theological" isn't equivalent to "confessional" - the latter excludes "secular", the first one doesn't. Things can be perceived theologically, and the text can take into account and even present confessional stances, without itself supporting a confessional stance. --82.181.220.186 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And I argue that Wikipedia articles should not adopt a religious test of what a Christian denomination is but go with what other standard encyclopedias (cited in an earlier talk article) have decided: use a secular meaning of the word "Christian."

http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Article?id=ar287080

"Jehovah's, Witnesses are members of a Christian religious group that uses the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society as its corporate body"

http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Jehovah's+Witnesses

"Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian group originating in the United States at the end of the 19th cent"

Dtbrown 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, thank you for your comment, but it features little reply to what I have actually argued. Could you have a look at my previous replique and engage with what I have said? Once more, "the church that Jesus founded" (or perhaps more critically "the church that was founded in the 1st century") can be viewed as a "secular" (i'd prefer "non-theological") description too. Should the RCC article use that as a factual description of the RCC (and then qualify it as a non-theological matter in a footnote) or should it just tell that this is what the RCC professes? Many other encyclopedias (a prominent example being Encyclopaedia Britannica) refrain from using the word "Christian" about JWs. --82.181.220.186 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured the reductio ad absurdum statement meant dialogue was over. Dtbrown 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, it was a handy illustration tool; I didn't mean anything degorative. --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, your example fails as many Catholics would argue that other Apostolic Churches (Eastern Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.) are Churches by virtue of Apostolic Succession. So, the statement might not be considered factual from a Catholic point of view. Even if it were, I fail to see it as parallel. What secular encyclopedias make that statement? The example I gave of those American Evangelicals who do not believe the RCC is a Christian Church can not be rejected out of hand. It is a sizeable group and I would still maintain it's in the tens of millions. No matter the exact count, it's a sizeable group. Perhaps Wikipedia has not had to deal with this before but maybe it's time for a policy to be adopted. Should we allow a theological definition to prevail in this secular source? I say no. Dtbrown 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are comparing apples and oranges again. Even though it is a Catholic belief that other churches with valid Episcopacy and Eucharist are true particular churches, the RCC also teaches that it is the global ("catholic") church founded in the 1st century in a way these particular churches are not. So the statement is true from a Catholic theological point of view and from a neutral non-theological (that is socio-historical) point of view (at least in regard to Protestant objections). The matter is much more controversial than the RCC's status as a Christian church - but why isn't it presented in the RCC article? Because others object to it theologically.

Do you opine that the numbers (concerning the Christianity of RCC and the Christianity of JW's, presented above) are comparable? One of them is at least 1,7 billion versus 6,5 million (or 261,54 by division, at least). The other is "a sizeable group" the you maintain makes tens of millions - which means that the numbers are at most 90 million versus 1,4 billion (or 0,06 by division, at most). So the difference between the numbers is enormous: we are comparing two disagreements where the other group is opposed at least four thousand times more than the other.

I don't want any "theological definition to prevail". I just want that all of them, as well as other definitions pertaining to other fields of study, are taken into account and presented, without stating any of them as a fact. Do you think that Wikipedia should leave theological matters out altogether, or tell that the views that differ from (one possible) socio-historical view are simply incorrect and therefore not worth mentioning? --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition: as you can see, if you try to qualify the statement as socio-historical in a footnote, it doesn't take long until someone removes both the reference and the qualification. The opening clause is now what it was for a long time ("religious group"). It doesn't present any opposing view to the JW opinion, but it does present the JW opinion at the same clause ("Restoration of 1st-century Christianity"). Neither view is declared to be the correct one. Isn't this NPOV by definition. --82.181.220.186 07:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey number boy do you have a name? :-) Though you said your definition is not important, your actions indicate otherwise. You seem to have defined what "Christian" means with a biased definition, of having to do with believing in the trinity. It is of interest to note what the 1942 Encyclopedia Britannica says on p.634 under "Christianity." "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God, which is emphasized in the Scriptures. They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created....[this] view in the early Church long contended with the orthodox doctrine." While the online Britannica states they are a "a millennialist sect", did you take the time to define what it means to be a millennialist? [3] Once again it is clear that millenarianism has to do with "Belief in the millennium of Christian prophecy (Revelation 20)" And Jehovah's Witnesses a "Protestant denomination" are used as an example. To change the main article, in order to please you, would be to use a bias definition and to leave the realm of semantics and enters the realm of theology. emphasis added Johanneum 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can make an account if you want, though it will certainly not be "number boy". I think you have misunderstood me: I haven't defined "Christian" as something dependent on the Trinity. But significantly many others have (as already has been noticed, the number could be almost three hundred times greater than the number of JWs). Their opinion shouldn't be overridden, neither should the JW view. Both should be presented, neither should be stated as truth. The EB quote isn't actually in conflict with what I have written; from the point of view of most Christians, these people really were Christians as they had already received trinitarian baptism. Yes, millenniarism has to do with Christian prophecy - and even that hasn't made the EB call JWs Christians. They refrain from commenting on a controversial issue, so should we. So once again: I don't want to use a biased definition, I want to present all points of view without declaring any as truth. --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IT seems you miss the point. EB has referred to them as Christians in more ways than one. But by definition they are Christians, and that really is the end of the matter. Jeff has laid down the issue in simple terms. To debate theology is not in this realm. To show that other members of mainstream Christianity may not view them as "Christians" is already in the article. (Thus once again the discussion should be over since the other view is presented) It clearly shows that some view them as part of a heresy or cult. The issue is not that difficult. Look up Christianity in a dictionary and ask yourself if JW's believe that Jesus is the Christ and that they should follow him. And besides that the controversy that you discuss is in the article.Johanneum 11:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The current EB does not refer to them as Christians, though they do notice that their beliefs have a Christian context. As I have said, it is meaningless to repeat that they are Christians by definition ("followers of Christ"), because people see differently what that definition means. If you consider the other view presented, then the first paragraph says at the moment that the other view is wrong, right? Is that neutral? --82.181.220.186 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And, the upshot is, that by declaring the issue as "controversial" your view would prevail. Were you really serious in your edit to imply that because JWs do not believe in the standard form of crucifixion (a view of theirs that I disagree with) that makes them not Christian? That has been a minority view in Christianity and I've never heard anyone ever suggest that disqualifies someone from being a Christian. Dtbrown 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are accusing me of being biased. I am not seeking my own view to prevail (I actually have no personal definition of Christianity, and I'm not personally into declaring JWs as being outside Christianity); but would the view that excludes JWs from Christianity prevail if the article simply didn't declare it outright wrong? Saying "JWs testify x" doesn't mean "X is incorrect"; saying "X is true" means "non-x views are incorrect". It's that simple: even in the current formulation, the JW view is the only one presented, but it is not presented as an uncontroversial fact. My point in the crucifixion clause was that although a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, people have different opinions about what this means. --82.181.220.186 07:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a personal view about JWs and Christianity which is based upon my theological view. I do not bring that to this article. Instead, I adopt a secular meaning for the word "Christian" in my editing here. I suppose I could try to use Wikipedia to further my theological opinion but I think that would violate the spirit of NPOV. Dtbrown 07:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, I sense that we are not really communicating here. Perhaps I could ask you a question: should or should not the Roman Catholic Church article state that the RCC is the same Christian church founded in the 1st century in a way in which Protestant churches are not? Why? --82.181.220.186 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate is stupid and should have stopped a long time ago. Saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians on the basis that other religions go by a different definition for their own theology is rediculous. It is like saying that Shia Muslims are not really Muslims because Sunni Muslims disagree with them. The single determining factor of whether someone is a 'Christian' - the very definition of the actual word - is if they believe that Jesus was the 'Christ'. Anything else is POV. Deal with it.--Jeffro77 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for adding a comment here after more than 5 months... This is just to point out that Jeffro77's tentative definition of Christian above is to be rejected because also Muslims do "believe that Jesus was the 'Christ'" (Christ being Misyah, i.e. Messia, in Arabic), but no one would say that Muslim are Christians!

As for a NPOV, cross-confessional definition of "Christians", how about taking Jesus's resurrection as the discriminant between Christians and non Christians? IMHO, stating that "Christians are those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ" rules in all sorts of faiths that are commonly defined (or define themselves) Christianism, while rules out all religions (such as Islam) which do worship Jesus in some form (as a prophet, a saint, etc.) but are not normally considered to be Christinism.

Just a $0.02-worth hint from an atheist passer by... 194.176.201.27 11:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:NPOV simply says that in the case of truly controversial issues, all opinions should be presented without declaring any view as the correct one. You can't just override that by saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have a confessional definition. It isn't confessional if it only says what everyone can agree on: that JWs testify that they are the restoration of 1st-century Christianity. Presenting both sides of the debate isn't participating or taking sides in the debate. (It could be added that many Hindus and New Age believers believe in the Jesus as the Christ.) --82.181.220.186 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A 'Christian' is one who believes in Jesus as the 'Christ'. JWs believe in Jesus as the Christ, and are therefore Christian. There is nothing more to it. If members of other religions apply some more specific definition to the word 'Christian' and therefore exclude JWs (or any other group) from their definition of Christianity, then such a view should properly be listed in the Controversy section. The strawman argument about Hindus is irrelevant as there is no organization involved.--Jeffro77 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But people see differently what is "believing in Jesus as the Christ" - you cannot just declare self-identification as the objective and neutral definition and then ignore all other views or call them wrong. It is not a straw man to say there are members of other religions too who have incorporated the belief about Jesus as the Christ into their own religion - it doesn't matter if there is an organization or not (and I can assure you that there are new age organizations recognizing Jesus as the Christ but which nobody would call Christian churches). --82.181.220.186 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, anonymous IP person, I agree with you, as you may see from an earlier posting where I indicated that 4 out of 5 dictionaries that I looked at did not define JWs as Christians, or defined them differently than other denominations. I also pointed out that JWs make a distinction between themselves and other Chrisitans, labeling themselves as the "true church" or "true Christians", thereby distinguishing themselves from other forms of Christianity (I don't know of any other mainstream church that does this).

It used to be the case that the opening sentence said, "JWs are an international religious group whose members believe that they are the restoration of first-century Christianity". No-one seemed to have any problem with this, until it got changed to "religious sect", which eventually led to the current revision. (You can see the train of thought from the "Sect or religious denomination?" discussion above.) Since it has been changed to the current version, there has been a considerable number of edits to change it. I do not push for a theological definition of Christian either, but I am pretty sure that if a wide enough net was cast to see how others defined JWs, that there would be a significant portion (perhaps a majority) who do not define them as Christians. Perhaps you could do some research and find out? BenC7 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben, if you don't push for a theological definition of "Christian" here, how would you define it? No one argues that JWs are mainstream. But, if we are not using a theological definition for "Christian," then on what basis do we not use the word?

An aside. I was reading the Catholic periodicial _Our Sunday Visitor_ (issue of January 7, 2007) and it contains an article by Monsignor M. Francis Mannion on the Mormons. (Many similarly consider Mormons not a Christian Church and the Catholic position on Mormons is the same as JWs...their baptism is not recognized because it is a non-trinitarian baptism.) And yet, Monsignor Mannion makes this statement after making some telling criticisms: "In Mormonism, there is much about the understanding of the life and mission of Christ that is quite conventional and to which other Christians would not take exception." (page 14) I was surprised to see a Catholic writer in a Catholic paper say "other Christians" when discussing the Mormons. Dtbrown 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"other Christians..." Interesting that the Catholic Church is more liberal in its definition of 'Christian' than Mr 82.181.220.186. Perhaps logic will eventually prevail though...--Jeffro77 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification as Christian

I have tried to make a compromising solution ("Using Christian self-identification as the definition of Christianity" in footnote), see and tell what you think. And please please please do not revert it, discuss instead so that we can make something that suits everyone. --82.181.220.186 13:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference is redundant and quite lame. The definition of a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus as the Christ. JWs as organization teach that Jesus is Christ. No other definition is relevant and no other reference is necessary. However, this is becoming tiresome, so I will leave the reference in place for now.--Jeffro77 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, people have different opinions about what it means to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Do you disagree with that? I hope the last part doesn't mean that you will just remove the reference after the discussion is over. Tell me what you think, but engage with what I say, please. --82.181.220.186 14:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is always nice to see someone willing to adjust. However, I find it strange that you do not want to have anyone revert your edition, but you have now problem reverting the edition that has been accepted. Why don't you try to get a consensus first then you can do your changes and not the other way around. IF someones personal philosiphy or beliefs do not accord with reality then they need help. The reality, like it or not, is that JW are a Christian religion. That not all accept them as such is highlighted in the article, what more do you want? Before you change it can you please get an agreement here. Thank you.Johanneum 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment contains the same thing that is wrong in the way the article is still written. Two groups of people have different views on a subject, but all you're ready to admit is that the other party is delusional. No presenting both views as what they are (that is, views); the only option you accept is to present your view as a fact and the other as an view contrary to that fact (that is, a false view). That's not NPOV, that's POV by definition. Please tell me why this understanding is false.

I don't find it strange that people tend to define "following Christ" in different ways, depending on their understanding of who Jesus was etc. We can't say those views don't matter; they just operate on a different field of study (theology) than sociology and history. And I would argue that the average reader doesn't distinguish between those fields, so "Christian" without qualification means Christian by all measures, not just by the non-theological ones.

As for the first part of your message, if remember correctly, I put my own edit back only once or twice; in my other changes (that WERE reverted by you and others), I was looking for new solutions, not re-presenting old ones. --82.181.220.186 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition: and now, you reverted my nth suggestion. I concur that you should show some willingness to accept at least some other solution than the one you've been putting back for many times - at least I have many times come up with something new, but in vain. Constructive dialogue often contains something else than just dismissing everything. --82.181.220.186 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd addition: It doesn't encourage one to dialogue to see edit summaries such as "not really debatable" and "bury that dead cat". I'm certainly willing to dialogue and debate the matter. Actually, it would be better to start the conversation from scratch, so let's do that. Since you said I should be trying to get agreement here before making any more edits, I'll be expecting you to answer the mentioned questions. --82.181.220.186 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the compromise of a footnote stating "using self-identification." I think that would help prevent future edit wars. I am concerned that we do not set a precedent of allowing a theological judgment ("JWs are not Christian") from entering the article. That would be the result if we refrain from using the term. Perhaps a sentence could be added in the controversy section explicitly stating the theological difference in view. Dtbrown 18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply to this down there. --82.181.220.186 18:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New discussion from scratch, concerning JWs' status as Christians

I feel that the situation was getting too hot, so perhaps it's time to start from scratch - sorry if my tone or behaviour was inappropriate. What I propose is that we find together a solution to something that seems to be an NPOV problem: the opening sentence calls JWs "a Christian church" without qualification. I find this a problem because "Christian" is "a follower of Christ", which has many different meanings. The definition can be different in comparative religion, in theology and in other fields of study. The matter is controversial on both fields mentioned. Comparative religionists sometimes classify Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, sometimes as a separate religion. Theologically, there is much disagreement on the matter as well (most Christians belong to churches that don't accept JW baptism and think baptism is the gate to being a Christian). Since articles should be easy to understand, we should take into account that the average reader probably doesn't make these distinctions: if we don't qualify that we're discussing the matter in a socio-historical viewpoint, the reader doesn't automatically understand it and thinks that the description is equally true in all measures. So there are actually two matters: 1) Should the opening paragraph only report the views of comparative religionists, or should it also take into account what theological views there are? 2) If yes to 1, how could the qualification be best expressed? 3) If yes to 1, how could the disagreements among comparative religionists be best expressed? 3) If no to 1, how could the disagreements between groups defining "Christian" by their theology be best expressed? Cheers, --82.181.220.186 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggested compromise of a footnote stating "using self-identification" is the best solution. Then in the controversy section a sentence or two could be added explaining the theological difference. Dtbrown 18:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the opening sentence calls them a Christian denomination, not a Church. Dtbrown 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps the problem has been all along that "JWs are Christian" without qualification is very easily read as a theological statement, too. What about this: "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international denomination, self-identified as a Christian church and as [having been founded by Jesus in the 1st century." Or something like that. I'm most certainly not advocating that the article should say "JWs are not Christian". On the other hand, why is the matter such that a footnote is the best option? --82.181.220.186 18:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you withdrawing your offer of a compromise? Dtbrown 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. --82.181.220.186 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to dialogue endlessly on this. You offered a compromise. I think it's a good one. Will you go with your original compromise? Dtbrown 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will, otherwise I wouldn't have offered it. It just needs to be said that all solutions can always be improved; however, I find the difference between a footnote and the main text something that is more of a stylistic than a neutrality matter. --82.181.220.186 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave the page as it stands until other editors can chime in and see what they think of your offered compromise. Dtbrown 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They should express their views; I know the solution has been under some critique previously, but less than the other attempts to resolve the question. So I'll wait and see if any opposing views come up. --82.181.220.186 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents, well maybe three- The page presents the fact that some Christians may not accept JW's as Christian. It states, “Thus a number of the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses differ from those of mainstream Christianity and are considered heresy or cultic” What more do you want? Should Witnesses change the above to say in harmony with their teachings, ““Because a number of the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses differ from those of false Christianity and thus ironically these so called “Christians” consider the real true Christians to be heretics.” That my dear friend is a POV! Going by Noah Webster is not. There are enough authoritative sources to clearly show that JW's are Christians. Again a POV would be to present the JW's feelings as fact- that they are indeed the only real Christians and others are not. To say the are Christians is not a POV, it is an established fact by Webster, EB, Almanacs, etc. To go behind this is to go into theology. Whether it is a Dalmatian, Great Dane, Chihuahua , Lab, Irish Wolfhound, Chow Chow, Pug, Jack Russel, or Saint Bernard, or a Tibetan Mastiff it is a Dog. IF the Dogs want to fight among themselves about who they are or who is better let them! However we as humans clearly now they are dogs. Why? Because of set standards. To use set standards to determine whether a creature is a dog is not POV regardless of how the dog might think. We are going in circles here. I get dizzy chasing my tail. And by the way JW's DO baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit. However, I know Christians who feel that all Catholics/ Lutherans are not going to be saved since they sprinkle and not dip. But again let the dogs have at it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johanneum (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC). Johanneum 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Johanneum. I realize the discussion may be offensive to you. But, are you saying you will not accept the compromise of a footnote saying "using self-identification..." and even putting in the Almanac reference? You removed it earlier and said to have others discuss it. What is your feeling about the compromise? Dtbrown 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I will try to answer it in detail. 1) "What more do you want?" My already mentioned questions are basicly: are these disagreements too unimportant to affect what the opening paragraph says, and if yes or no, how could the disagreements (also among comparative religionists) be best expressed? 2) "To say the are Christians is not a POV, it is an established fact by Webster, EB, Almanacs, etc." As has been noticed, the EB refrains from calling JWs Christian, and so do many more encyclopedias and scientists. So the matter is just as established as any controversial scientific fact. 3) "To go behind this is to go into theology." I think it is worth noting that the term "Christian" has also a theological dimension, and my opinion is that using the word in a non-theological sense without qualification is expecting without reason that people understand that the opening paragraphs uses the word only in a non-theological meaning. Another question is whether the opening paragraph should use it in such a narrow sense, but even if it does, a qualification is needed in my humble opinion. 4) "And by the way JW's DO baptize in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit." I haven't questioned that, at least that wasn't my intention. Their understanding of those words is what is different, and that is why theological definitions of "Christian" usually exclude JWs. I didn't quite get what your stance is regarding the qualification I suggested ("Using self-identification", in a footnote); at least I feel it is in line with what you think, even if you don't find it needed in the article. --82.181.220.186 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading this comment from Jeffro [4] indicates he's willing to accept the reference as this was posted after the compromise was offered. Dtbrown 19:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment referenced by Dtbrown suggests that I will tolerate the unnecessary and childish reference (subject to change), not that I accept it. Jehovah's Witnesses are a Christian relgion, because they conform to the condition of such a name - they believe in Jesus as the Christ. It's textbook, and there is nothing more to it. The reasoning from Mr 82.181.220.186 is that we shouldn't say that JWs are Christian because definitions set by other religions preclude them. However, JWs state that other religions are not really Christian either. So, by Mr 82.181.220.186's logic, we must trawl through every single article about 'Christian' religions and add a reference stating that they're Christians only by self-identification. Yes... it is just as stupid as it sounds. Calling this a 'new discussion from scratch' is interesting piece of word play. It really is still the same discussion, and it hasn't really gotten any further.--Jeffro77 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't gone any further because I haven't been answered in spite of constant requests - "new discussion" means an appeal that former harsh tone shouldn't be an obstacle in order to reach consensus (I'd say "childish" and "word play" are examples of that tone). I brought to attention that not everyone views identically what "believing in Jesus as the Christ" means. Just repeating that they do that isn't helping anyone. The fact that JWs don't consider other people Christians - well, the difference in number is enormous (as I stated above, over four thousand times greater) in regards to disagreement about the status of JWs as Christians. --82.181.220.186 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Jeffro and I should have put it differently. I'm anxious to put this to rest and if you're willing to tolerate this as a possible way of so doing, I would agree to it. Dtbrown 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] once again EB calls them a "Protestant denominations" If Protestants are Christians then the Britannica does indeed call them Christians. How many references do you need to accept that they are Christian? As Jeffro indicates it is childish to debate that a Great Dane is not a dog. Johanneum 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference from the Brittanica. The article also moves from Protestantism to "non-Christian" groups like Buddhism, etc. So, besides lumping JWs with Protestants it implies they are a Christian group. So, we have the World Book, Columbia Encyclopedia and the Brittanica identifying JWs as "Christian." I say let's put this to rest. Too many electrons have been wasted on this. Dtbrown 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since Protestantism has become so diverse that the only common feature they all have is that they aren't Catholics, Orthodox or members of other old churches, the description is more socio-historical than theological with regards to e.g. JWs. The JW article itself refrains from using "Protestant" and the whole book refrains from using "Christian". We also have Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Your Dictionary and WordWeb not identifying JWs as Christian. What else is needed to maintain that the matter is controversial even among encyclopedias? --82.181.220.186 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are arguments from silence unless they state JWs are not Christian. It is very clear that secular sources identify JWs as Christian. Dtbrown 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, since even during this conversation I have referred to four dictionaries and four comparative religionists. --82.181.220.186 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do any of those four dictionaries plainly state JWs are "not Christian"? Dtbrown 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr 82.181.220.186, unless you are as adamant about Wikipedia articles of other religions, such as Mormonism et al, eschewing the word 'Christian', then it may appear that you have a specific agenda regarding the Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian in the plain sense of the word; moreover, the article clarifies in the Controversy section that some religious groups dispute this. No referencing beyond that is necessary. I will leave the poorly worded and unnecessary reference in place for now, pending the thoughts of other editors. However, I will change the link Christian denomination in the article to [[Christian]] [[Christian denomination|denomination]] to allow easier access for readers to see the principal definition of 'Christian' if they so desire.--Jeffro77 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Jeffro77, I can assure you that I have no agenda against JWs. I have no personal opinion about their theological status as Christians, and I accept that comparative religionists can and do classify them either inside or outside Christianity. However, simply saying 1) that comparative religion is the only field of study that should be taken into account and 2) that only those comparative religionists that classify JWs as Christians should be taken into account is not neutral. --82.181.220.186 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On inspection, someone else had removed the redundant reference and put the word 'sect' in. I got rid of 'sect', but have no desire or reason to reinstate the reference.--Jeffro77 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can put it back, I don't wish to bother you. --82.181.220.186 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

POV = JW's are true Christians. NPOV Jw's are Christian. It is that simple.Johanneum 11:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case the idea was POV = We can't say JWs are Christians because some other Christian groups would disagree. NPOV = any group which self-identifies as Christian is Christian. Dtbrown 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I've been saying, it really is that simple. And it seems that only one editor, and an anonymous one at that, has a problem with it.--Jeffro77 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As I've said previously, the term Christian is always a self-applied one. joshbuddy, talk 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the stupid reference has made it's way back. Not only is it redundant, but it is also not really correct. They are Christian, not merely by self-identification (i.e. 'we are Christian because we say we are'), but by the plain English definition of the word, being that they believe that Jesus was the Christ. The reference should not be there.--Jeffro77 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we're even discussing this gives evidence that the "plain English definition of the word" isn't something that can without qualification be used non-theologically. Make a better formulation but don't remove it altogether. --82.181.220.186 08:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Now the reference basically says 'Yes, it means what most people think it means'. At crunch time, there is no 'non-theological' definition of Christian at all. And the primary theological definition of the word Christian is a person who believes in Jesus as the Christ. Even the Catholic Church (whose members' viewpoint 82.181.220.186 is supposedly upholding) acknowledges - as quoted earlier in this discussion - that non-Trinitarian (supposedly 'self-identifying') 'Christian' religions are indeed Christian. Is there anyone who even agrees with 82.181.220.186??--Jeffro77 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it says "it means what it means in these fields of study". Most people see the word as something that contains also the theological meaning, which - according to Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and others forming a significant majority of Christendom - maintains that belief in Jesus as the Christ is inseparable from valid trinitarian baptism. The quote in Our Sunday Visitor - come on, it was just a newspaper published by a private institution and not an official church document. --82.181.220.186 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly. There is only one person involved in this 'discussion' arguing for a redundant reference (with the alternative of complete exclusion) for stating that JWs are Christians. 82.181.220.186 previously stated: "I am not seeking my own view to prevail (I actually have no personal definition of Christianity, and I'm not personally into declaring JWs as being outside Christianity)". However, despite that, the user's contributions under this anonymous IP begain on 3 February, and since that time the user has made nearly 100 edits - all on this article... not one single edit on any other articles. No edits, comments, or suggestions made on any other article, such as those of Mormons, Christadelphians, or any other 'non-mainstream' religions that claim to be Christian. For someone who is "not seeking [his] own view to prevail", he seems to be trying to keep this issue until everyone agrees with him, him being the only one who is acquiescing with his position. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.--Jeffro77 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jeffro. Except I think this has gone past silly and is starting to become disruptive. Dtbrown 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that I do make edits on Wikipedia, but I wish to keep them in an IP separate from this and unknown to others (the reason being quite obvious). Concerning Mormons - what would you expect me to edit on the LDS article? It already states (to my understanding perfectly neutrally) that the organization testifies itself to be the Christian church. Why should I be discontent on that? Christadelphians are so small group that I haven't had a thought about them. I think you could show some trust to other wikipedians, at least to the extent of believing what they honestly say. I do not consider myself able to define Christianity theologically; thus, I do not believe JWs are non-Christians, but everyone doesn't agree on that. --82.181.220.186 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to recognize any valid reason for why someone who has "no personal definition of Christianity, and ... not personally into declaring JWs as being outside Christianity" would have any "reason being quite obvious" for making their edits anonymously. Maybe it's just me.--Jeffro77 08:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you could perhaps just trust me. Even if I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I'm dishonest or with an agenda. --82.181.220.186 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify here that it's not that you disagree with me that bothers me, but that all of the editors who have commented on this issue disagree with you.--Jeffro77 07:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Even that should not bother you - not at least to the extent of calling me dishonest. It doesn't bother me either, we disagree and that's life. Of course I think I'm right and you're wrong, otherwise I wouldn't have the opinion I have. --82.181.220.186 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The general position of someone who doesn't have a strong personal view about the issue, but thinks that others might not agree with the statement would be to raise it in discussion, and then accept it the way it is once it is established that every other editor says it doesn't need the reference. But that is not what you have done. Your opinion is counter to the facts. See below. If you have some kind of factual justification for your disagreement, feel free to comment.--Jeffro77 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think neither of us is in a position to weigh each others' behaviour this deeply - it only creates an impression that you cannot think why anyone would disagree with you except for their confessional opinions. I have a very strong opinion about what Wikipedia should say about this matter, and the factual justification for that is that the matter is highly controversial. Disagreement with others doesn't automatically make me stop arguing my view, even if I have no confessional opinion about the status of JWs. --82.181.220.186 06:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire debate hinges on an invalid assumption regarding the relationship between facts and beliefs (a glorified synonym for opinions). Beliefs are important and valuable. But facts do not need to be qualified by beliefs. (On the other hand beliefs should be, but quite often are not, justified by facts.) It is a fact, by simple definition of the word, that a Christian is ‘a person who believes that Jesus was the Christ.’ That is a fact - they exist, and are real, tangible people who hold a belief, and it requires no other reference other than familiarity with the word.

Whether Jesus actually was (or is) the Christ is a belief (one that is unproven, and thus far unprovable), but the fact remains that actual people really do believe it. There are also people who believe that being a Christian means more… Catholics believe that it means accepting the Trinity (another unproven and probably unprovable belief). JWs believe that it means not accepting blood transfusions. (These are non-exhaustive arbitrary examples.) They are beliefs because, unless I’m grossly misinformed, God (whose existence is also unproven) has not actually verifiably confirmed that being a Christian requires any of these things.

These beliefs do not alter facts, and encyclopaedically, beliefs should be discussed and qualified within the context of facts, not the other way around. Of course, there may be some people who believe that I am not really a person editing Wikipedia, but actually a celestial rabbit creating nebulae by cross-stitch. But, this does not mean that I should qualify my edits on Wikipedia with a reference stating that I self-identify as an editor on Wikipedia, whether it’s one person who believes I’m a celestial rabbit, or a billion. If it is proven that I actually am the sub-conscious manifestation of a celestial rabbit, I will recant and say no more about the redundant reference. Otherwise, I suggest that no reference be given for saying that JWs are Christian. If the majority of editors are in agreement (though it seems that there is only 1 who thinks it should stay), I will remove it...--Jeffro77 07:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the general justification for excluding JWs from Christianity is not that believing in Jesus as the Christ (a belief of many Hindus and New Age believers, by the way) is enough, but that belief in Jesus as the Christ necessarily includes belief in his divinity. Therefore, the mentioned groups don't disagree with how dictionaries define "Christian", but they have a larger criteria for meeting the definition than just self-identification. At the moment, Wikipedia says that 1) JWs are Christians and that 2) there are people who disagree on this? Do you also opine that this doesn't make it say that the mentioned people are wrong? And are the mentioned encyclopedias that refrain from calling JWs Christian also non-neutral? --82.181.220.186 06:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, JWs do believe that Jesus is a god, and therefore divine, so that comment added no weight to your argument. Your comments on having a larger criteria for being "Christian" indicate a failure to recognize the distinction between fact and belief outlined above. As for your next point, consider an analogy: 1) People who buy every episode of Star Trek are Star Trek fans. 2) Others don't believe that those people are really fans because they don't go to the nerd conventions. The assignment of non-factual criteria (a belief) does not invalidate the fact they're still fans of the show, nor does it diminish the import of why the second group disagrees. You will need to take up your questions about the unspecified encyclopaedias with their editors.--Jeffro77 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We both know the difference between the general Christian belief and the JW belief about Jesus' divinity; the rest is just semantics. Your argument fails because "a Star Trek fan" isn't a theological term. Even the hardline fans you referred to don't claim their definition to be somehow objective; "a Christian" is however claimed to have an objective theological meaning. Two points: 1) We should not let the article say what it now says: "These people believe that JWs are not Christian but they're wrong", and 2) The expressions "Christian", "follower of Christ" or "believer in Jesus as the Christ" carry with them all sorts of interpretations every time we use it; there is no default interpretation - it should be specified whether the criteria is sociology, comparative religion (which school of this science?), theology (which school of theology?) or simply self-identification. And no, the mentioned encyclopedias were not "unspecified", they're listed on this very talk page you're reading right now. --82.181.220.186 21:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You've had your moment. The majority of editors do not agree with you.--Jeffro77 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you are quite wrong about your claim that encyclopaedias do not generally acknowledge that they are a Christian religion. There are several quotes in the earlier Talk section, "Sect or religious denomination" from various encyclopaedia and dictionaries that concur that JWs are Christians. Furthermore, George indicated that many other Christian groups are not explicitly indicated as being Christian in some encyclopaedias either. Notably, none of the publications mentioned go as far as to say that JWs are not Christian. And the EB does explictly classify as Christians those groups that do not believe in the Trinity. It seems that you still have not grasped the distinction between fact and belief.--Jeffro77 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that; I have claimed that the matter is controversial even among purely secular sources such as encyclopedias. I have shown that several of them do not refer to them as Christians; they don't refer to them as non-Christians either, but that's not relevant because that's not what I think this article should say. In addition, I have named several comparative religionists who do not classify JWs as Christians. I have demonstrated the matter to be controversial even in the secular usage of the word. What else could you demand? Are the mentioned encyclopedias and scientists non-neutral, in your opinion (I'd really wish that you would answer these questions)? Or should they just be ignored because of their refusal to take sides (which is what the article should do, in my opinion)? --82.181.220.186 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication at all that the issue is controversial in secular encyclopaedias. There's too much guff to wade through in this unnecessarily lengthy discussion to identify the encyclopaedias that you claim don't call JWs Christian, however it has been established that the Encyclopaedia Britannica does identify them as Christian by the definition it employs. Again, the reason that some do not consider them Christians is because of an extended definition of Christianity (belief) that goes beyond the plain meaning of the word (fact). The controversy belongs in the relevant sub-section of the article. The neutral point of view is to point out the fact, and then expand on that by noting thoelogical objections in the relevant subsection, properly indicating both sides of this issue that isn't really quite as controversial as you are making it appear.--Jeffro77 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can identify them for you: Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Your Dictionary and WordWeb. Do you opine that even when these secular encyclopedias don't identify JWs as Christians, it's again simply because their editors have certain beliefs? Doesn't this simply demonstrate that your understanding of "the plain meaning of the word" is something too simple to be even agreed upon in secular and scientific sources? (Note that EB calls historic (first-generation) nontrinitarians Christians, or JWs Protestant, but refrains from calling JWs Christian; even then, it's only one book besides the four I mentioned.) If it isn't enough that the controversy is seen even in encyclopedias and comparative religion, what is? What could persuade you if this cannot? --82.181.220.186 06:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The four publications you have named are dictionaries, not encyclopaedias. Dictionaries generally do not go into much depth describing organizations. dictionary.com does not explicitly call Anglicans Christians either, and it only explicitly mentions the word 'Christian' under the Catholic entry (as distinct from the generic entry, 'catholic') for Anglo-Catholics but not Roman Catholics. Merriam-Webster does not explicitly state that Anglicans are Christian. The Oxford dictionary does not mention the word Christian in its definition of Roman Catholic. There is no need to continue.--Jeffro77 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit my error in calling dictionaries encyclopedias. I would however say that if neutral language required a dictionary to recognize JWs as Christian, it would do that when defining the organization (dictionary.com actually calls Anglicans Christians in the third entry; it calls them a "church" in all three entries). I have only one dictionary (Gummerus) in my bookshelf, and it doesn't describe JWs as a Christian organization. I can make further research, but can I justify my view in your eyes even by showing the disagreement among encyclopedias? --82.181.220.186 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that now you're just being plain dishonest. dictionary.com's entry for 'Anglican' shows results from 5 different works (dictionary.com, American Heritage, Online Etymology, WordNet, Kernerman English Multilingual). None of the definitions from any of those 5 works mentions the word 'Christian'. It is well established that a dictionary's exclusion of the word Christian adds no support to your view. You ask whether you can 'justify my view in your eyes', however this isn't about me, it's about facts. Your opinion is counter to the facts for the purposes of a secular encyclopaedia. Argue about your theological opinions in a more relevant forum.--Jeffro77 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're making accusations of dishonesty too easily. The entry I had a look on wasn't "Anglican" but "Anglican communion" (the name of the organization, which is what is at stake here), which was evident because I talked about three entries, not five. If I wanted to be dishonest, I'd do that with a source less easily checked. I'm not arguing about my theological opinions (again something about which your accusations are too easily made), but simply about the disagreement about the matter in secular sources. You could perhaps answer the question: if I showed you that many encyclopedias do not call JWs Christian, would you agree that to be neutral language? --Martin C. 22:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my confusion that came about as a result of your vagueness. The point remains that you have not demonstrated that there is any disagreement among secular sources at all. All you have demonstrated is that some dictionaries do not explicitly mention the word 'Christian' in their definitions of various Christian religions. That seems to be a pretty weak basis for someone who is not arguing on the basis of their own theological opinions. If you showed me secular encylopaedias that say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian, that might have some weight. Otherwise, no, your point is still unproven.--Jeffro77 08:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, let's not have bad feeling about that. If omitting word "Christian" when defining JWs is not disapprovable in dictionaries, why should it be in encyclopedias either? Actually I have mentioned an encyclopedia or two that do not explicitly mention "Christian" when defining JWs (Gummerus and EB), and I can dig up more. How many examples would satisfy you? I don't need to show encyclopedias that call JWs non-Christian, because that is not what I'm arguing for in Wikipedia either. BTW, do you opine that members of the Druze religion should be called Muslims? --Martin C. 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Druze at all (and your overuse of the word 'opine' is getting a little irritating). As has been previously stated, no number of encyclopaedias that don't explicitly mention that JW's are Christian will add any weight to your contention that the encyclopaedias intend that they are not Christian.--Jeffro77 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not arguing for that. I argue that they leave the matter unspecified because of its controversial nature. Because they do that, it would be neutral for Wikipedia to do that too (I don't want Wikipedia to state that JWs are not Christian, but it would not imply that by simply refraining from saying the opposite). Concerning the word 'opine': English is not my first language, so my vocabulary is naturally smaller than e.g. yours. But what prevents you from saying that the Druze should be called Muslim? --Martin C. 11:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I already informed you, I have no opinion about the Druze, so nothing prevents me from saying that they either are or are not Muslim, but that isn't relevant. Aside from your speculation, it has not been established that there is any controversy among secular sources regarding this issue.--Jeffro77 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant - if you think that self-identification should prevail over others' opinions, you should think that Wikipedia should call them Muslims. I think I have demonstrated that refraining from calling JWs Christian is not non-neutral, because I have shown that many dictionaries and encyclopedias refrain from doing so. What could assure you? Do you want examples of comparative religionists who refrain from calling them Christian, or even call them non-Christian? --Martin C. 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that "self-identification should prevail over others' opinions". 'Self-identification' and 'others' opinions' should both be compared against factual non-theological definitions. I will not become embroiled in an irrelevant discussion about the Druze. I note your opinion that you think you have demonstrated your point. You haven't, borne out by the fact that the majority of editors do not agree with you. You are going in circles asking what will assure me. I will not continue to answer questions that I have already answered. See previous comments.--Jeffro77 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I will assume that demonstrating the matter even further will suffice for you. I can't help it, but I keep thinking that if everything I say is so irrelevant, is there really something that would suffice? Ability to be falsified is a feature of meaningful arguments. I will however read the talk page again through and try to search for what you mean. --Martin C. 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussing whether Druze are Muslims is like discussing whether a person is really related to their father-in-law - it comes down to semantics (since they don't follow the Koran, it probably leans towards 'no', but it's more complicated than the issue at hand). Discussing whether Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians is like discussing whether Hawaii is one of the United States even though it's not on the mainland.--Jeffro77 14:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? The meaning of "Muslim" is "one who submits to God", not "follower of the Koran". I've seen even Christians calling themselves Muslims (in ecumenical context) in that meaning. --Martin C. 07:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew that you would attempt some irrelevant tangential semantic ploy. As I have already explained to you, I will not become embroiled in an irrelevant discussion about the Druze. You have only demonstrated the import of the analogy I gave in my last response.--Jeffro77 08:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Harsh words, I would say. You have stated that "Christian" includes everyone who professes to believe in Jesus as the Christ, regardsless of what others think, because of the lexical meaning of the word. When I point out that "Muslim" therefore includes everyone who professes to follow God, regardless of what others think, you call that "irrelevant". --Martin C. 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are two possibilities at this point. 1) Because English is not your first language, you do not properly understand the different nuances of the two concepts you are comparing. If that is the case, see the analogies previously presented. 2) You are a 'troll'. In either situation, it has been thoroughly evinced that the majority of editors disagree with you, and your desired change is not going to be accepted.--Jeffro77 10:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure that I'm not a troll, and I acknowledge possibility 1 to be possible. I also think each of us should recognise one's own errancy and be ready to constantly weight all arguments, even noting that the other party could, after all, be right at least in some regards. How I see your analogy is that the you parallel Christianity and the USA by saying that the lexical definition of "Christian" (i.e. "one who professes belief in Jesus as the Christ") is just as objective criteria as national borders. On the other hand, you feel that the lexical definition of "Muslim" (i.e. "one who professes to follow God") is somehow more subjective, just like the question about whether you are related to your father-in-law. Did I understand the nuances correctly? --Martin C. 10:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The default English definition of the word 'Christian' is 'a person who accepts Jesus as the Christ'. The default English definition of the word 'Muslim' is 'a member of Islam'. You are attempting to compare a secondary definition of 'Muslim' with the primary definition of 'Christian'. Your application of the word 'Muslim' in the sense of 'a follower of God' is akin to the generic sense of the word 'catholic' (no capital), which does not identify a religious group.--Jeffro77 11:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By default English definition you mean the one that is mentioned first in dictionaries, or something else? In fact, also Muslims believe in Jesus as the Christ (i.e. the Messiah; see Islamic views of Jesus). Actually Islam was initially regarded as a Christian heresy. --Martin C. 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By 'default', I mean the definition that the word implies on its own to an unbiased native speaker of English. Typically this would be the first definition given in a basic English dictionary, as would be used by students; the order of definitions in more technical works may vary depending on whether they favour current usage or etymological history as the determining factor. By the way, the word 'Muslim' literally means 'one who surrenders', not 'follower of God'. Incidentally, my comprehensive Collins English Dictionary says that a Jehovah's Witnesses is "a member of a Christian Church of American origin...".--Jeffro77 12:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would agree that self-identification plays some role in defining "Christian" (since you would include JWs but exclude Muslims), right? --Martin C. 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No! You are splitting hairs and clutching at straws. I have been very very patient with you, but you are becoming annoying. Within the context being discussed, your contention that Muslims are as much Christian as Jehovah's Witnesses is plainly absurd, and is characteristically troll-like. You admit that English is not your first language, but when a native speaker tries to explain that your assertion is not correct, you keep persisting. It is obvious from the fact that no other editors are supporting your position (and most of them tired of this pointless debate a long time ago) that your argumentation is flawed. Stop or an administrator will be asked to determine whether your actions are considered disruptive.--Jeffro77 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly sorry if you had that kind of impression. My intention wasn't to split hairs or even contend that Muslims are as much Christian as JWs. I just wanted to ask you a question about how you define "Christian" since my impression is that you don't define it as simply someone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by Jewish prophets (that is what Muslims believe, at least it seems so; it's not splitting hairs to say that). --Martin C. 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you know the difference between a Christian and a Muslim. I believe that you know that Jehovah's Witnesses fit into a non-theological definition of Christian. Even if you don't know these things, the consensus among the majority of editors is that your position is incorrect, so the issue is immaterial. You are welcome to look up the word Christian in any dictionary you please, and you can discuss your opinion in a more relevant forum.--Jeffro77 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem for me to accept consensus; during this discussion I have mentioned many new aspects that, in my view, are a good basis for rethinking the matter. This could be a place for each of us to re-weigh our arguments and especially the foundations we give to them. As you said, we both know the difference between a Christian and a Muslim; to me the mentioned difference seems to be a good counter-example to the argument that professing belief in Jesus as the Christ should be the only criteria in a non-confessional definition of a Christian. What I'm saying is that this is a chance to think about the definition of "Christian" again: what should it be like in order to get results that are obvious for both of us (i.e. Muslims are not Christians), and what results does it imply concerning our disagreements? Just saying "I disagree so go home" isn't replying to the issue itself (nobody else has commented on my new argument). I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but usually conversation gives something new to think for both sides; that is why I couldn't present everything in the beginning. --Martin C. 13:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been folloing this line of discussion for the last week or so and i have to say. Why are you carrying this torture stake? (pun intended) It is obvious that your position is considered weak by the majority and unless you can come up with an argument based on solid academics it will remain that way. BTW what is exactly the reason for your wanting to remain an IP address? You will still be anonymous to everyone here. George 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. George, isn't it an argument based on solid academics that there is large disagreements even among dictionaries, encyclopedias and comparative religionists about the status of JWs? You're right about the IP, I could make an account and still remain anonymous. Per Wikipedia rules, I could even make two accounts and use both, provided that I marked the other with text that said that the account is a second account (thus invalidating the possibility to vote twice). Perhaps I will. --82.181.220.186 14:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you replied to me directly I will respond just this once.

There is no large or even small disagreement among dictionaries and encyclopedias. Period. A number of "Christian scholars" (see I do it too) say that JW's are not Christian. This is based on their interpretation of what it means to be Christian, their personal or communal theology. Their opinions are not useful to the definition of JW's from a secular point of view. THere is an Orthodox Wiki where you can forward your position and it would have a better chance of acceptance there. ( because it is a theology based site) Please don't harrass these people trying to move ahead any longer. George 12:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. George, I have mentioned four dictionaries and one or two (depending on interpretation) encyclopedias that do not call JWs Christian. --82.181.220.186 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, the Nicene Creed should stand alone as the litmus test for whether something or someone is "Christian" or not. This statement of belief has been repeatedly upheld and used as the accurate statement of belief by numerous ecumenical councils over the years. It has stood for almost 1700 years as the de facto doctrinal statement for Christianity. Most Christian churches either recite the Creed during service or utilize the Creed in doctrinal statements. I think this issue highlights the problem with Wikipedia, which is that it is currently being strangled by political correctness and a very fluid standard of "terms" - that being the guide that is used for how someone or something is defined. There needs to be some kind of standards or guide to determine how things are labeled. Is it appropriate for anyone or anything to determine it's own label? Might Al-Qaeda be allowed to call itself a "democratic organization", or a Christian organization on Wikipedia (and I am not suggesting any correlation between JW and Al-Qaeda)? There needs to be some guide to determine how things should be labeled, or we wallow in a sea of subjectivity, completely at the mercy of any sophistry presented. The overwhelming majority of Christians around the world accept the Nicene Creed (as first proposed in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea and later ratified at the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus) as the true statement of belief for Christians. I don't see why this should not be used as the standard for any organization referring to itself as "Christian". There should at least be some statement that says, this or that organization aligns or does not align itself with the tenets of the faith as stated in the Nicene Creed. JWs make a point of specifically not accepting the Nicene Creed as representative of their doctrinal statement, and it seems scrupulous to include this on the page. Is there any cogent argument against using the Creed as such? Supertheman 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cult

Johanneum has restored a comment that some members of other religions consider JWs a cult because they do not conform to certain mainstream Christian doctrines. The comment is erroneous, as it is does not properly define what a cult is. Some view JWs as a cult because of their their separationist attitude to society - disfellowshipping practices, limiting contact with non-believers, not celebrating worldly holidays and so forth. It is those things that are viewed as 'cultic'. While refusing to believe the Trinity may be viewed by some as heresy, it does not identify a 'cult'.--Jeffro77 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Walter Martin, Author of the Kingdom of the Cults stated "By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith." However, I am not going to make an issue out of it. Johanneum 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cults are not determined from how far from Christianity. If it were so, Islam, any form of polytheism, Hindusm would all be cults. Some sources, mostly from those who are evangelistic consider religions such as this, Mormonism, and Iglesia ni Cristo as a Cult of Christianity, which is what the above comment states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

The trouble with what has been presented above introduces ambiguity between cult and cult (religious practice). Most readers will assume that the common use of the word is intended (the former), rather than the latter to which Kindom of the Cults refers in the quote above. Because of this distinction, it would be best to avoid the word 'cult' in the paragraph in question.--Jeffro77 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness is not a christian organisation by their own admission. Christ has no deity to them and throughout the new testament (in their New World Translation bible) they have removed the word "worship" in relation to Jesus and changed it to "obeisance". From Isaiah 42 they have named themselves after Yahweh and not Jesus Christ. They are Jehovists and not Christians. Many denominations are part of the "body of Christ", the JW's however are not. BMurray 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any self-admission at all by Jehovah's Witnesses to say that they are not Christian. Your belief that they are not Christian is based on an extended definition of the word 'Christian'. See talk in the section above.--Jeffro77 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an offence to Jehovah's Witness to term it as 'Christian'. As per Isaiah 42 they are called God's (Jehovah's) people and not 'Christ's' people. They constantly disparage 'Christians' for taking on that term, but the rebuttal from Christians to Jehovah's Witness is from Act 11:26

Your comment is bombastic and plainly stupid. It is one thing to claim that others don't recognize them as Christian, but your claim that they do not even 'self-identify' as Christian, and that they are offended by the term is grossly ignorant of the facts.--Jeffro77 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

BMurray 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

BMurray you comments show a gross lack of understanding of JW's. Just one quick quote. “YOU will be witnesses of me . . . to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8) With those parting words, Jesus commissioned his disciples to be witnesses. But witnesses of whom? “Witnesses of me,” said Jesus.... Jesus’ disciples were given an unprecedented privilege—that of being witnesses of both Jehovah and Jesus. As faithful Jews, Jesus’ early disciples were already witnesses of Jehovah. (Isa. 43:10-12) But now they were to witness also concerning Jesus’ vital role in sanctifying Jehovah’s name by means of His Messianic Kingdom. Note the Chapter name too! (Proclaimers Of God's Kingdom chap. 3 p. 26 Christian Witnesses of Jehovah in the First Century)Go to [watchtower.org] for more info.Johanneum 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"YOU will be witnessess of me" BRILLIANT point... who is making that statement? Because in Jehovah's Witness Jehovah and Christ are not the same person, so they are either witnessess of one or the other and it is the former. Given this additional point, Christ falls even further from their religion.

Watchtower states that it's name (Jehovah's Witness) is based on Isaiah 43:12 "I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God." and Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

They ommit Isaiah 62:2 "And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name."

Furthermore, throughout watchtower.org they constantly disparage Christendom and distance themselves from it. Bastian BMurray 10:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The key fault in your illogical claim is your implication that they must be 'witnesses' for one or the other, as if the two aren't on the same side. Of course they very much believe that God and Christ are certainly on the same team even if they aren't the same entity. Their disparaging of Christendom, as much of an ad hominem attack as it is, makes them no less Christian by simple definition. Furthermore, the fact that they refer to themselves at times as the "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" (and have a legal entity of the same name though they do not limit that expression to the name of that corporation, eg w99, 15 May, p25), your contention is completely dissolved, and your bias is evident. It is fine for you to be biased. But not here.--Jeffro77 10:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Jeffro, but sometimes its like saying the terms 'Jew' and 'Christian' are interchangeable, maybe they are. For instance; I am comfortable with using the term 'Judeo-Christian'. Many Jews believe that Christ was a prophet; however they don't believe he was the Lord (sometimes translated as Jehovah in the New World Translation eg. Luke 4:12). BMurray 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jews do not believe "that Christ was a prophet". They believe that Jesus was a prophet. They do not believe that Jesus was Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand fulfil the requirements for being Christians in the only factual sense: they believe that Jesus was the Christ and that they are doing stuff he likes. Whether the NWT is accurate is not relevant to this topic.--Jeffro77 11:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, sorry I got the semantics wrong between 'Jesus' and 'Christos', not unlike the NWT in Luke 4:12. Jesus said to the multitude their reward in heaven will be great, unfortunately the quota for heaven is now full. It is hard to comfortably say "they are doing stuff he likes", they confuse him with the Anti-christos in Revelation 6. BMurray 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC) ("And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering." Genesis 22:8)

It has been well established that interpretations of specific scriptures regarding the Trinity have no bearing as to whether JWs are Christians, so there is no need to respond to your comments. However, I was quite amused by the liberty you take in your misapplication of Genesis 22:8. Implying the word "as" rather than the contextually valid "with" after the word "Himself" really is quite funny. Unless you actually imagine that the lamb supposedly provided by god that Abraham used for his grotesque primitive blood-letting ritual was also actually God Himself... Funny stuff. According to BMurray, the bible indicates at Genesis 22:13 that Abraham actually killed God.--Jeffro77 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you for some part, it is a "grotesque... blood-letting" act, many secualr people were digusted with the gore in "The Passion", but that was the role that Jesus was apparently taking on, and the idiom used for Jesus, the Lamb, is constantly used throughout Revelation. The bible contains over 300 figurative uses of speech, among them are puns and allegories. In Genesis 5 the tetragammatons aren't translated, also in Revelation 2, once again the tetragammatons aren't translated. Imagine making a statement like "imagine that the bread provided at church communion was actually Jesus Himself... Funny stuff. According to so and so Christians actually eat Jesus." That doesn't sound like an intelligent statement. Maybe now you understand what an 'allegory' is, but since I'm on the topic lets look at some other parallels - The ritual was performed on Mt Moriah, probably near Golgotha, God said "take thine only son, whom thou lovest" that's a familiar phrase and Abraham had more than one son, so thats interesting too. The "law of first mention" dictates that where a word is used for the first time in the bible it is significant, this is where the word "love" is used for the first time. Abraham also prophetically named the spot "Jehovahjireh". It's possible that all these parrallels that fit the allegorical model could be coincidental. Coincidentally, the word "coincidence" is not a Kosher word. BMurray

You have gone even further off topic. (And it is very bad form to modify other editors' comments on Talk pages.) Don't patronize me about allegories. A glaring error - substituting an implied adverb, "as", in place of a preposition, "with", can't be validly explained away as an 'allegory'. However, getting back on track, the point is that it has been established that JWs are Christian for the purposes of a secular encyclopaedia. Period.--Jeffro77 08:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That was an honest mistake Jeffro that I just noticed, I apologise, I meant to 'copy' and 'paste' your quote but I must have 'cut' and 'paste', I didn't mean to do that because it makes my comment out of context. Except for that very first edit I haven't touched the actual article but kept everything to the discussion page, so I do respect the general consensus. Its not so much an allegory as it is living out prophecy in advance, the model actually carries on further into the next chapters, which I won't get into and further off the topic. I don't have to imply anything, Hebrew lends itself to read the way it does, aswell as contain the Equidistant Letter Sequence, the heptatic structure, acrostics and various other codes. BMurray

Apology accepted. Those word games - particularly the spurious 'Equidistant Letter Sequence' - can be played with almost any piece of literature.--Jeffro77 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I can say that we do identify ourselves as Christians. We do not identify ourselves as part of Christendom however, since we use that term to refer to all other Christian religions. Witnesses are certainly not offended to be referred to as Christians - quite the opposite actually. We're offended when people try to claim we are not Christians, since this implies that we don't recognize Jesus' works, his sacrifice for mankind or his current kingship in heaven. Hope that clears up any confusion... --CBrewster 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written this elsewhere on the page, but it does bear repeating here. There is a very great need on Wikipedia for some standard as it pertains to a definition of terms. Certainly no one here would support Al Qaeda calling itself a Christian organization. Surely the JWs would not like it if Al Qaeda decided to say on it's Wikipedia page that it was a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses church, correct? I use the extreme of Al Qaeda because it is something we can all agree on, not to compare them with anyone or any organization mentioned here. I'm simply saying that there needs to be *some kind of standard* by which things are named. Personally I think the Nicene Creed is a *pretty good* standard for determining if something is "Christian" or not. It has stood for almost 1700 years as the de facto statement of belief for Christians around the world. I understand that JWs don't accept the Creed as doctrinal, which seems to me to at least merit mention on the JW page. Since JWs zealously make distinctions between their beliefs and the beliefs of so-called "Trinitarians", it would seem to me that they would embrace a mention of the Creed on the page to distinguish themselves. After all, don't both mainstream Christians and JWs desire everyone to understand the difference between the two? Certainly JWs want people to understand the difference, so what better way than to begin using the Creed as a point of association or departure?

I propose that every religion that associates itself with "Christianity" have the Creed appear in totality on their page, with a statement of association or points of contention. Can anyone offer a better standard by which we all could clearly identify our beliefs (as Christians)? Supertheman 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaninglessness of Christianity

This article has managed to render Christianity as nothing but a large body of contradictions, absurdities, and illogicalities by describing Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christian". Christians believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or Christians don't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. Christians believe in the Trinity or Christians don't believe in the Trinity. Christians believe in Heaven and Hell or Christians don't believe in Heaven and Hell, or perhaps, they believe in one but not the other.

Let's apply this standard to Islam, shall we? Islam teaches that there's no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet. Therefore, Muslims believe that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet or Muslims don't believe there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet. Islam teaches that Jesus (Isa) is not the Son of God. Therefore, Muslims believe Jesus is not the son of God or Muslims do believe Jesus is the son of God. Islam teaches that God is not a Trinity. Therefore, Muslims don't believe God is a Trinity or Muslims do believe God is a Trinity.

Let's also apply this standard to Geography class, shall we? The U.S.A. is a nation located on the continent of North America or the U.S.A. is not a nation located on the continent of North America. France is a nation located on the EurAsian continent or France is not a nation located on the EurAsian continent. German, English, and Chinese are languages or German, English, and Chinese are not languages.

Now, is Chinese both a language and not a language? Is France both located and not located on the EurAsian continent? Does Islam teach that God is both Allah and not Allah or that Muhammed is both his prophet and not his prophet? If you can reasonably conclude in the affirmative the above, then go ahead and describe anybody as Christian, regardless of belief. If not, however, then it's time to take a good look at the effect of including all groups as Christian on what it means to be a Christian. IOW, if anybody can be called a Christian, then Christianity fails to be a distinct religion.Jlujan69 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To further illustrate my point, it would be proper to say that Rota is a town in Spain and an island in the Western Pacific Ocean. It would not be proper to say that Rota is an island and is not an island or that Rota is a town in Spain and is not a town in Spain. Such a statement would be contradictory and absurd. The same goes with this article's characterization of Christianity by whom it includes as such.Jlujan69 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following are differences in theology among the religions who consider themselves Christian and are not JW's.

The pope receives/does not recieve his position through apostolic succession.

People go to purgatory/do not go to purgatory.

The Bible is/is not the inerrant word of God.

If we apply the above reasoning to all of 'Christianity' then no one is a Christian because they all claim that only their theology is correct and the others cannot be Christian. (of course they say the opposite in interfaith agreements). Obviously there is no 'Christianity' and therefore we need to take our reasoning to all the other articles about religions that self identify as Christian and fix them. There are no Christians.

Jesus said that his followers would be known because they showed love among themselves. Also "by their fruits (actions)..." also 'make disciples'.

A few other things Jesus said to do:

Love your enemies, put away your sword.

This is how JW's live.

What Jesus did not say was required of those who were his disciples:

Beleive that He and the father were both God. - You may believe he "meant" that but he never said it.

George 02:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular resource. The article follows a secular meaning for "Christian" and does not endorse a theological definition. Dtbrown 04:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The above drivel from Jlujan69 scarcely deserves a response. The childish and ill-contrived analogies attempt to compare simple facts with a belief held by a subset of Christians, and they do so on the flawed premise that all Christians believe in the Trinity. Back in reality, what Christians have in common is that they believe that Jesus was the Christ. The flawed examples are like saying "Californians are American therefore New Yorkers are not American because they're not Californians."--Jeffro77 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the use of the term 'christian' and 'christianity' should follow that of encyclopedias. Christianity will be used about all who clearly state themselves as following christianity as a religious belief, not dependent on what some would classify as 'genuine' christianity from their own theological point of view. Summer Song 11:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get contentious, and I won't comment on what I think about the statement that started all this, but I do think that we need some kind of standard for what is called "Christianity". Also, Jesus said other things beside what you wrote George. He also said, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matt 7:15 So, I don't think you can sit there and say that Jesus was "ok" with accepting every idea as to what "Christianity" is.

He also said, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Matthew 23:33 So, He wasn't against calling a spade a spade and dealing with people who were leading others astray, which is not to say that JWs are, it is simply a rebuttal to associating the "put away your sword" comment with accepting any old doctrine as "Christian". Clearly Jesus wanted us to remain pure, to maintain our witness as pure, to keep or doctrine correct and pure, and to zealously *reject* any false teaching - "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 3:10 (and) "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time." Mark 13:21-23

"Be on your guard", those were words spoken by our Lord, so I think it is prudent to separate the false teaching from the true, don't you George?Supertheman 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

This is a very informative article for someone who does not know much about Jehova's Witnesses. One question I have though is: are Jehova's Witnesses allowed to marry people of other religious beliefs and is it frowned upon? If the answer is no it would be worth adding, unless it is already there and I have missed it. 153.18.17.22 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is frowned upon. Members who marry non-believers are usually viewed negatively in the congregation. They are 'encouraged' to 'marry in the Lord', which they consider to mean only JWs. If a JW marries a non-JW, they may not be married in a 'Kingdom Hall' or by a JW 'Elder' (the same applies if one of them is an 'interested one', a 'study', or an 'unbaptized publisher'). See also w04 7/1 p.30--Jeffro77 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 153.18.17.22 that this point could be worth mentioning. It would be right if this point of view was told and explained for those outside the congregation. But it must be treated in a way free of biases and criticism. It should be explained from the theology of JW and should be followed with references to JW litarature. Summer Song 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NWT reference

The Duthie reference:

Alan S. Duthie stated that the "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT, which is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines' ...even though a few aberrations can be found. ...Some have to condemn out of hand any version made by Jehovah's Witnesses...because they must be full of heresies...It is true that there are some heretical doctrines to be found in NWT (eg. the incoherent polytheism in Jn.1:1,... but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'. How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, Alan S. Duthie. pp. 30, 216. Jason BeDuhn stated "While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NW[T] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared." Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2004 p.163

The quality of the reference is questionable. Changing particular verses (such as John 1:1 [about which I have no opinion], or Jeremiah 29:10 [about which the context invalidates the JW translation]) may only be a small impact on the complete work if considering the changes simply on the basis of the percentage of the entire bible that is 'altered', but it is the significance of those portions that are altered that is important. Jason BeDuhn's comment is of limited value if it is unknown which translations were compared. If such a long reference in support of the NWT is included in the article, why no references against it?--Jeffro77 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it isn't really that much of an endorsement. Its value is still questionable.--Jeffro77 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The NWT's interpretation of John 1:1 is just that and fully defendable from their point of view. (I have other issues with the NWT that I will remain silent on at this time). I do feel that this cannot be considered an "alteration" as much as a re-interpretation from a completely secular point of view. As far as the reference to poly-theism, does this then mean that all Christians are poly-theists because the same greek word is used elsewear in the OT to refer to other heavenly creatures/spirits? D L Means 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy - blood

From the article:

Critics have challenged the Witnesses' policies on blood transfusions, stating that their requirements are inconsistent and contradictory.[127] However, to Witnesses blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience for God’s personal property- blood.[128][129] That the matter blood is not at stake, is seen in the fact that members are allowed to eat meat which may still have some blood left in it. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat even though it will contain a small amount of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood thus is different than the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove any little trace of blood.[130]

The part in italics does not address the issue raised. It was the WBTS that imposed certain policies on blood; to then turn around and say that the WBTS does not see it as the issue is to deliberately ignore the point that the critic is trying to make. If it is not a response, as Johanneum even states in the edit summary, then it shouldn't be presented here where a response or counter-point should be. BenC7 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I recall reading a point out of a book by a former Witness. He made the point that Witnesses are inconsistent since they say, "no blood" but they do accept some blood. However he missed the issue as do many today. It is an issue of respect. Witnesses can and do eat some blood when they eat meat that is not KOSHER. The Jews go to great lengths to avoid any blood. Jw's do not because they feel the real issue is not so much the "blood" as it is respect and obedience for God's property. Failing to understand what Witnesses mean when they say "no blood" and then to highlight "inconsistencies" can be a strawman. They do not interpret "no Blood" to mean an absence of anything having to do with blood. Breastfeeding is a good example, white blood cells will travel between mother and baby and Witnesses will breast feed. Why? Because once again it is not totally absolutely "NO blood" but according to what God allows with his property. IF he allows white blood cells to leave then they do not question that since it is HIS PROPERTY and he can do with it as he pleases. So while it might not address all the issues that some raise it does fit in to help clarify their position.Johanneum 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Johanneum, that's an interesting interpretation. Can it be sourced to JW publications? I'm concerned that if it cannot be sourced it would be original research. Dtbrown 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

DTBrown The 1961 Watchtower (p.669) Questions From Readers states this:

"There may remain in the meat some very small amounts of blood even after proper bleeding has been done. Then, too, the fluid that runs out of the meat may simply be interstitial fluid. The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God’s law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it." Awake! stated this 1973 May 8 p. 27 Is It Right to Eat Blood? "Disrespect for the sanctity of blood is just as serious. Why? Because men really do not have the right to deprive any creature of life, for they are unable to restore that life. Accordingly, for them to take life without acting in harmony with God’s command respecting blood means taking God’s property, that is, the life represented by the blood. It means making themselves responsible for taking the life of the creature in defiance of God." So while this may be expressed in different terms, it seems that what is stated is the same thought. Johanneum 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Martin C. on Christianity Definition

What's your opinion on whether Wikipedia should use the term "Christian" to describe groups like Oneness Pentecostals (who deny the Trinty) and the classic Unitarians (not to be confused with the Unitarian-Universalists)?

Also, there are denominations which do not require a belief in the Trinity. Many Quakers are not trinitarian. The Advent Christian Church has both trinitarian and non-trinitarian congregations. Some mainstream denominations tolerate non-trinitarian belief, even among denominational scholars. Should "Christian" be used in Wikipedia articles when discussing these groups? Dtbrown 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised and disappointed to find so much subtle and not-so-subtle bias in the original version of this article. As I have many members of my family that are witnesses as well as witness friends and colleages I was able to pinpoint many of the manipulated "facts" presented by the original writers of this article as well as the underlying bias they wove in there. I took the liberty to change a few small words and phrases here and there and incorporate soe extra articles giving a broader and better-rounded point of view essentially eliminating a good portion of the bias that was in there and (hopefully!!!! lol) giving it a much more neutral point of view for the reader.

(The unsigned paragraph immediately above this one isn't mine.) From the viewpoint of mainstream churches, they are non-Christian for the same reason as JWs (nontrinitarianism). I'm not sure how split dictionaries, encyclopedias and comparative religionists are in calling them Christian or refraining from doing that, because they might have additional reasons in the case of JWs (strictly speaking, so do the mainstream churches, but it still has to do with theology). I would go with the common usage in secular sources, whatever it is (if there is one) - though I would mention the disagreements between different groups and qualify them to be theological, socio-historical, in the field of comparative religion etc. --Martin C. 06:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this illustrates why a theological difference cannot be the basis of determining the usage of "Christian" in a secular resource. Quakerism, for example, is generally thought to be a Christian denomination but many Quakers do not believe in the Trinity, though some do. I can't imagine an edit war over in that article trying to remove the word "Christian" from the first sentence. I think the way the JW article now reads reflects common secular usage while noting immediately that JWs are not mainstream. The Controversy section touches on the controversy though I think it could use some further editing. Dtbrown 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would still maintain that a theological difference can be a basis, but a confessional opinion on the matter cannot. For instance, comparative religionists do let the theology of each denomination to affect its description and classification, they just don't let their own possible confession affect it. But I think this disagreement between us is semantical. More important is your view concerning "common secular usage". I think I have demonstrated that some secular sources call JWs Christian, some refrain from calling them either Christian or non-Christian. The overall percentage should perhaps decide which option Wikipedia should take. However, even at this point, it should be recognised that both wordings (calling them Christian or refraining from calling them Christian or non-Christian) are acceptable and neutral tongue. --Martin C. 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've established that some secular sources "refrain from calling them either Christian or non-Christian" unless one believes an argument from silence has any validity. As has been pointed out, even the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to JWs as Protestants and refers to Arians (non-trinitarians) as Christians. Martin, if you and I were called upon to edit a Catholic article on JWs we would approach this differently. But, this is not a Catholic resource. Dtbrown 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call it "refraining from calling" or simply "not calling"; the fact still remains that those sources do not use those words ("Christian" or "non-Christian") when defining JWs. It's not an argument from silence, since I'm not deducing anything about the intention of the writers; nothing that radical. I simply present it as evidence that a wording is neutral even if it does not use a word like that. Do you disagree with that? (I have pointed out that the EB's use of "Protestant" is different from most sources, and that at least first-generation Arians were Christians by all standards; nevertheless, the EB is just one of my examples, and I can find more if you wish.) I wish to underline that I don't let my personal confession (which is neutral on the status of JWs) affect this. --Martin C. 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As to the EB. I think we should let it speak for itself (it calls Arians Christians and uses "Protestant" to describe JWs) without reading something into it. Please cite some specific examples of secular sources which state the JWs are not Christian. Dtbrown 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's let it speak for itself: it uses "Protestant" for JWs (which at least in everyday language means belonging to a certain subset of Christianity; a rare classification for JWs) and "Christian" for Arians, though not "Christian" for JWs.

I have not claimed that secular sources "state the JWs are not Christian". What I have claimed is that when describing JWs, many secular sources do not use the word "Christian" (or even "Protestant" or any word implicitly meaning "Christian" in everyday language). This is why my thesis is that not using the word is completely neutral from a secular point of view. One can disagree with that, but it's still the factual usage of many secular sources, and WP should be following the common usage instead of trying to form it. Some of these sources have been mentioned above (I can surely find more), should I repeat them here? --Martin C. 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have actually not at all demonstrated that "many secular sources" do not call JWs Christians. You listed several dictionaries that don't make explicit mention, and one encyclopaedia (the EB), which calls them protestants, which it in turn calls Christians. It has also been demonstrated that dictionaries frequently do not explicitly state that (other) religious groups are Christian in their definitions, so omission of the word Christian in dictionaries adds no weight to your argument. That being the case, you are yet to provide reference to any secular encyclopaedias that decline to call JWs Christian.--Jeffro77 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I have mentioned two encyclopedias (EB and Gummerus) that do not call JWs Christian. Calling them Protestant (a rare classification) implicitly says the same, but explicitly not; the current discussion is about the explicit use of "Christian", and nobody wants to use "Protestant" here, so the word won't add any weight to anyone's argument. This may look like a You forgot Poland argument, but I can present more. I'm not sure if that's necessarily today or in the following days, but I will do it.

"Gummerus" is the name of a publisher, not a specific publication. Gummerus publishes encylopaedias and dictionaries. Previously, you stated that you "only have one dictionary (Gummerus)". Being a dictionary, it is not relevant to the discussion of whether encyclopaedias call JWs Christians. (Refer to Dtbrown's comments below regarding your reasoning about the EB.)--Jeffro77 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I blundered with terms (again) and I'm sorry for that. I was referring to the Gummerus concise encyclopedia, not dictionary. --Martin C. 13:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very late at night, so I'm not now fully sure of this, but as far as I can remember at the moment, the only mentioned example of dictionaries omitting "Christian" when defining groups that are Christian by all standards was in an article titled "Anglican", which isn't actually a name of an organisation ("Anglican Communion" is; in the same dictionary, that article mentioned "Christian"). Additionally, a book's omission of "Christian" should be deemed irrelevant only if it is found that the specific book itself often omits the word when defining Christian groups, not if merely some other dictionaries are doing it. Even if you find that unimportant, you need to recognise that a wording can be neutral even without containing the word "Christian". --Martin C. 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglican happened to be the very first term I looked up. It was by no means an exhaustive list. Fact: No secular source has been demonstrated to explicitly state that JWs are not Christian. Fact: No secular source has been demonstrated to implicitly state that JWs are not Christian. Fact: There are secular encyclopaedias and dictionaries that do explicitly refer to JWs as Christian. Fact: A Christian is a person who believe in Jesus as the Christ. Fact: JWs believe in Jesus as the Christ. Ergo, fact: JWs are Christian. Discussion over.--Jeffro77 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, if we're not willing to deal with other people's arguments, we are unable to discuss with anyone at all. Being ready to admit at most that the other party is sincere but delusional is not putting much effort to understand him. It doesn't matter if secular sources don't call JWs non-Christians (I'm not sure if they call any group non-Christian); they still often refrain from calling them Christians, and since I want Wikipedia to call them neither, that is the only thing that matters. --Martin C. 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that at least users Wesley, BenC7, Jlujan69 and Knocking have been symphatetic to this view. --Martin C. 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments made by Wesley and Jlujan69 regarding this issue were irrational and illogical, and of no benefit to the discussion. BenC7 made valid (though ambivalent) comments, but in view of other discussion matter on this issue, does not present a strong case for saying they are not 'Christians' (and he does not seem to have any strong opinion on the matter).--Jeffro77 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this demonstrates well how we should not approach other people's comments. If we dismiss anyone disagreeing with us as "irrational", "illogical" or otherwise irrelevant, how could we ever come to a common conclusion? With that kind of approach the only acceptable option is to have our own opinion prevailing, regardless of what anyone else has to say. --Martin C. 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not merely dismiss their irrational ideas without explaining; I gave specific reasons in response to them that demonstrated their views to be irrational. Moreover, they gave no valid counterargument to back up whatever logic they supposed supported their views. Additionally, your entire argument is based on an assumption you have made that (some) secular encyclopaedia's do not regard JWs as Christian becasue of an argument from silence. At best, your suggestion is original research. At worst, it is invalid.--Jeffro77 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not your demonstration showed their views to be irrational is a matter of opinion; it is common to think like that about opposing views, but even if we do that, it does not suffice for rendering their views irrelevant.

Concerning my argument: I'm not willing to believe that you purposefully misrepresent it, so I will contend that I just haven't explained it well enough. My claim is that since omitting "Christian" when talking about JWs is seen in encyclopedias, it is neutral language to omit the word. I don't need to deduct anything about the motives behind the omission in order to establish that. And if the omission occurred in Wikipedia, neither then would it mean that JWs are non-Christian. --Martin C. 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is neutral not to mention something. We could just omit the entire article altogether, then we're being really really neutral. It has not been established that other secular encyclopaedias generally do not call JWs Christians. Added to that, they are Christian by plain definition. There is absolutely no reason whatsover not to call them Christian.--Jeffro77 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is absolutely no reason, then the editors of the encyclopedias that have made that choice have not known it. Don't worry, I will (in time) present more sources; it is up to the editorial community to decide which option should prevail, and in my opinion it should depend on the general usage, which seems to be your opinion too. --Martin C. 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the 'editorial community' here seems to have decided a long time ago that there is no problem calling them Christian in a secular sense. It is only you that is insisting that it change (apart from some biased and unreasonable comments from 'Wesley' and 'Jlujan69').--Jeffro77 08:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, at least four (it seems that five, counting BMurray) users and myself have lately argued for a change or tried to proceed with it. Calling them biased and unreasonable doesn't invalidate their opinion. In addition, much new information has risen during this dialogue, and more will be coming. --Martin C. 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been 5 editors who have lended support to your view, including you and BMurray. The opinions of BMurray and Jlujan69 are plainly biased, and were demonstrated to be irrational, and are therefore of no value to this discussion. The reasoning of BenC7 - that some dictionaries don't call them Christian - is immaterial as many dictionaries do not call other christian religions either. Martin C.'s argument is based on an alleged controversy that exists among secular sources, based on the flimsy assertion that one or two encyclopaedias (and irrelevantly, some dictionaries) don't call them Christian.--Jeffro77 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Calling them biased does not invalidate their opinions. Their opinions are invalidated on their own merits (or lack thereof). Okay then, speak up people, who thinks that Jehovah's Witnesses should not be called Christian in the lead? Give unbiased non-theological reasons.--Jeffro77 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if so then perhaps they will join in the discussion here. Dtbrown 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Three of those four have stated their opinion on this talk page. --Martin C. 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you are the only one that has said your objection is not theologically based and your first arguments on this seemed to be theologically based. In my opinion, if the argument is theologically based it can be mentioned in the controversy section. As far as I can see you have not demonstrated that secular resources classify JWs as non-Christian. Your dismissal of the usage of "Protestant" in EB is puzzling. While many of the editors refrain from using it here because it's not a designation that JWs use, the usage by EB clearly shows your thesis is faulty. If there are some secular sources which explicitly state JWs are not Christian I would like to see this. Please cite the entire section in which this occurs.Dtbrown 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, I find it really frustrating that I need to repeat this over and over again (my communication is not perfect so the fault can certainly be mine): I'm not saying that secular sources identify JWs as non-Christian, and I don't need to, because that's not what I want the article to say. I haven't "dismissed" EB's usage of Protestant; on the contrary, I have stated that it implicitly means belonging to Christianity, though the word is rarely used of JWs. My point however was only that many secular sources do not explicitly mention "Christian" when discussing JWs - and that is the most relevant point when the question is should the article explicitly mention it either. I am willing to present more secular sources than these two encyclopedias and four (?) dictionaries. --Martin C. 13:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a secular encyclopedic source of the size and scope of this article that does not mention their connection to the Christian movement? Dtbrown 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but I think this article should mention their connection to the Christian movement. --Martin C. 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest to mention their connection to the Christian movement? Dtbrown 15:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The current article tells about the origins of the organisation, its theological views that are shared with many others, and other cultural matters that connect them to the Christian movement. It can certainly be improved, but there already is a great deal of information that doesn't leave the matter blank. --Martin C. 15:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My first lines of argumentation were not confessional (depends on point of view whether they can be called theological). At least my intention was to argue that the article shouldn't call JWs Christians because so many people would disagree, not because they're nontrinitarians. And I think it doesn't make an editorial opinion seconded by several users less weighty if they give different reasons for it. Saying "nobody agrees with you so shut up" for one person holding that view at a time is something that should be avoided, in my opinion (not that you've done it, but in some instances in Wikipedia, it's been very close at least). --Martin C. 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the JW's deny any connection or affiliation with non-JW's, and the fact that most if not all Christian denominations deny affiliation or common heritage with the JW's where they allow for such shared belief with most other denominations, is why the Jehovah's Witnesses are better described as a 'religious organization' than a 'Christian denomination'. They don't consider themselves to be one denomination among many acceptable ones, the way most Protestant denominations do. And they think that most of historical Christianity was wrong. They're a different group that happens to use (mostly) the same Bible as Christians, but even here they insist on a unique translation as well as interpretation of it. Wesley 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that JWs use their own translation, they do use entirely "the same Bible as Christians" (minus the Apocrypha, but many Christian religions don't use that, so it is irrelevant to the argument). Your contention ignores the actual definition of 'Christian'; it's like saying that if a particular 'animal rights' group were to deny affiliation with other 'animal rights' groups, then it isn't really an 'animal rights' group.--Jeffro77 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Wesley, say I'm reading this article and I have no religious background. Do I put the JWs in with the Buddhists? Or Islam? Are you saying the JWs are just an independent religion and have no connection to Christianity? If you go to the library and grab a large volume on Christianity you'll find JWs listed in the index in the back. Now, many of us may have problems with JW beliefs but we can't allow our theological views to make us pretend JWs are not connected to the Christian movement from a secular standpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dtbrown (talk • contribs) 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I would agree that JWs do not view themselves as a "Christian denomination" as if they were one among many. The article is written from a secular standpoint and not from the JW viewpoint. Dtbrown 18:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin C If you were asking for a truely nutral designation by omission you would be asking that of all "Christian" entries. The fact that you are focusing on JW's implies bias in itself. As a secularist I accept the definition of Christian as one who believes that Jesus is Christ. Any other definition (or lack of) to me would be biased unless you removed all references of Christianity from all entries.D L Means 11:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Jew

This article says "All major Jewish denominations, as well as national Jewish organizations, reject that Messianic Judaism is a form of Judaism." And the beginning of the article begins with saying that they are a "religous sect". Religous sect would be a more correct term for JWs. BMurray 04:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. "Group A claims that B is false. Therefore C is false." If the discussion was about whether we should call 'Messianic Jews' Christians, you might have a point. We're not.--Jeffro77 07:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point - Messianic Jews are more Christian than JWs, so why is there no consistency in articles, especially parallel articles? BMurray 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you allege that "Messianic Jews are more Christian than JWs"? JWs hold the entire 'Christian' bible as their holy book; Messianic Jews do not. JWs believe that Jesus was God's son; Messianic Jews do not. The teachings of JWs are quite plainly those of a Christian religion, though they do not hold to some of the beliefs of many (but by no means all) other Christian religions. None of those beliefs that they don't have in common define them as non-Christian. Your comparison with Messianic Jews is invalid, and the only validity to your argument is that we might be able to say that 'Messianic Jews' are 'Christians', which is a long shot at best, and completely irrelevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 23:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Messianic Jews do believe in Jesus, or as they'd prefer to say "Yeshua." "Religious sect" usually refers to a small group as the link in the article shows. Some Messianics apparently do not prefer the label "Christian" [6]. Dtbrown 23:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"they worship both the Abrahamic God and Jesus." Something which the JWs have re-written their bible to not do. BMurray 01:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any justification for saying that JWs are not 'Christian'. If you want to start a discussion on the Talk page of 'Messianic Jews' to say that they are Christian, feel free (though I don't like your chances).--Jeffro77 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Kerry Louderback-Wood

"Former" was added in light of recent news that called her such. While it is true that the news is freqently not accurate, and the secular definition of a Witness is different from the JW view, It would seem that the new agency got their information directly from her. Anyway here are a few links. [7] [8] Quote follows-

"A former Jehovah's Witness said the blood ban isn't always as strict as it appears. "The word is symantics," said Kerry Louderback-Wood, of Fort Myers, Florida." I think see meant semantics. Johanneum 14:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Johanneum, for the links. I have mixed feelings on whether to add this or not. As you said, it may not be accurate by the JW definition. If a reader goes to her linked article they will see immediately that she was raised in a JW home and I think that would be sufficient. Dtbrown 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous Witnesses section?

Do we need a "Famous Witnesses" section on the main page? I don't think I've seen other religion's main pages contain this. Thoughts? Dtbrown 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it unnecessary, but it may also be misleading. The list is incomplete, and there is no distinction between current members, former members, and those who view themselves as members but who aren't officially. There is a separate category for JW people, and that seems reasonable, but they don't need to be mentioned here, in accordance with other 'religion' articles.--Jeffro77 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this falls under WP:TRIVIA. I would see any such list as nothing but trivial information, which really adds nothing (IMO) to the quality of an article. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T01:02Z

Watchtower Society

I think this article should be merged with Legal Instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is just very short and includes information that would do well in that article.Summer Song 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to a different page? Or do you mean this main JW page should be merged with something else? Dtbrown 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I talk about the article Watchtower Society. I am not talking about this main article. Summer Song 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I have put it into action. See Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses. Summer Song 20:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

Please read this article. I would like an reply from everyone whether this article is neutral. In my opinion, it is clearly not.

It is stated: There is not uniform acceptance of the current blood doctrine within the Jehovah's Witness community. Though accepted by a majority, there is evidence a significant population of Jehovah's Witnesses does not wholly endorse it. Facets of the doctrine have drawn praise and criticism from both members of the medical community and Jehovah's Witnesses alike.

For any further explaination, see what the participants have debated in the discussion page of the article. Summer Song 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a problem with this when it was started, I just don't have the time to take on the issue so I dropped it.George 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Links from reexamine.org and reexamine.info

Links from www.reexamine.org and www.reexamine.info are being removed per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=537555#reexamine.info. Personally, I think that many of the links were not copyright issues, but some were, and apparently Wikipedia has decided to blacklist the site. I tried to replace some of the links with other acceptable links when I was able to. You can help by checking other articles and perhaps replacing them with other suitable links. Dtbrown 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if pertinent links to documents, etc... were linked to the official Pastor Russell website, pastor-russell.com. It is the only officially sanctioned website on the life, ministry, and legacy of CT Russell supported by Bible Students worldwide and his only remaining descendants. Many of the links are to websites that do not accurately portray his life and viewpoints. Pastorrussell 13:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if the hosting site is sanctioned, supportive or otherwise. I would look for longevity and stability. joshbuddy, talk 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an important difference between 'accurately' and 'favourably'. Sites other than the official one may be able to take a more balanced approach, so it is appropriate that other sites be referenced unless they are actually non-factual. (I have no opinion on any specific sites related to 'Pastor' Russell.)--Jeffro77 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they a sect?

Vinaq 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)They are not a sect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Vinaq 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq

Strictly speaking, they are a sect because of the nature of the religion's origins (regardless of how many exclamation marks one cares to use). However, the term 'sect' as used colloquially carries implications that are not appropriate for defining the group, so any use of the word should be used very carefully to avoid implied bias.--Jeffro77 07:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A sect isn't really negative depending on where you live in the English speaking world. A sect simply means a division in religion. There are the Sunni and Shiite sects in Islam and the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform sects of Judaism. Sects are simply divisions in a main religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses are simply a sect of Christianity, much like the Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church. Only in some circles, the term "church" replaces "sect".

ColdRedRain 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, JW's are not simply a "division of Christianity". They deny Jesus' plain statements, making him a liar. You can't be a follower of Jesus Christ and call him a liar at the same time. - NoSnooz

Just which 'plain statements' of Jesus do you believe they "deny"??--Jeffro77 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Adventist?

I see that the article has been put i nthe category Adventist. That is, as I see it, completely wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses do not indentify themselves with the adventist movement, and the vast part of their beliefs are different from particular adventist beliefs. Even though The Bible Students originally were inspired by some of the theology of the movement, it will not be correct to state Jehovash's Witnesses as an adventist group today. Summer Song 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be just something from your POV. Assuming that you're a Jehovah's Witness, you may think your religion is unique and has no other religion that's even quite like it. However, looking from a historical perspective, Charles Russell shared many Adventist beliefs and many beliefs that modern day Adventists have, JW's have too. For example, soul sleep, Christ's invisible return in a specific year and literal interpretation of many verses in Revelation. The religion is clearly Adventist in its beliefs. However, it doesn't make your religion less unique. If it did, there wouldn't be separate Adventist churches and a Jehovah's Witness church, the movements in time would have merged to create one superchurch.

ColdRedRain 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this. The Bible Student movement was influenced by William Miller and this is acknowleged in many of the older publications which point to him as being used by God. (See [9] as an example from The Finished Mystery.) So, there is a strong link to the original Adventist movement. It is true that nowadays there are many differences between various Adventist groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and JWs but there is a connection between the various groups and William Miller. Most of Russell's early associates were from what is now called the Advent Christian Church. What do other editors say? Dtbrown 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a clear opinion. Jehovah's Witnesses should not be classified as belonging to the adventist 'church family'. They do not identify themselves that way, neither do they share any of the given characters that identify the adventist churches. They are not regarding Miller and his movement as a direct background (at least no longer), and they have clear theological breaks with the adventist churches. I think that if they are regarded as 'millenialists' or something together with the adventist movement, that would be closer to the truth.Summer Song 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Russell and his companions said that they were in some ways influenced by various preachers and religious movements before them. Nevertheless, the theological views they developed were in many aspecs unique. The Bible Students through many years still did call other christians 'their brothers'. The early Bible Students interacted with the adventist movement, but they did become something on their own. Anyway, I think that it would be completely wrong to call Jehovah's Witnesses today some part of the adventists. Jehovah's Witnesses have a faith that is clearly different from what adventist denominations have.Summer Song 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True, Jehovah's Witnesses do not identify as Adventist. Yet, Russell's group did develop directly from the Adventist movement. George Storrs, who heavily influenced Russell, was one of William Miller's closest associates. Nelson Barbour was also a Millerite and an Adventist. When Barbour and Russell started saying that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874 is when the other Adventists started looking at them as heretical. So, while the faith today is different their origins are clearly tied to Adventism.Dtbrown 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of their origin have ties to Adventism. However, in their present form, they do not, and inclusion of the Adventism category is misleading.--Jeffro77 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do not belong to the adventist 'church family'. Such a classification would be wrong. Their faith is clearly different from that of the adventists.Summer Song 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's stronger than "aspects of their origin have ties to Adventism." Their origin was directly from the Millerite/Adventist movement. We also have the category "Restorationism" listed at the bottom of the main page. I would say one could make a stronger case for Adventist than Restorationism. I'm not necessarily arguing for retaining it. But, I think we owe it to the readers to find a way to categorize the origin. Dtbrown 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, JW and Adventist beliefs aren't all that dissimilar. There's a reason some people still link these guys together. Just a comment, not making a case for one way for the other. Fcsuper 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And cow's milk is made from grass. Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Adventists. It can be stated as being part of their historical development, but not the category.--Jeffro77 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are Adventists and I'm not necessarily opposed to your edit removing the category Adventist. I think, however, some category should be developed (just like Restorationism) that connects the various movements that can tie their origin to William Miller and the Adventist movement. Dtbrown 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from RTinOttawa

Hi, This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia so I apologize if I inadvertently perform a faux-pas.

For background I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realize that that brings with it some biases but I like the exercise of looking at my beliefs from a third party view. I feel that this article presents our beliefs fairly and is in general a good article so what is to follow is not an attempt to gripe or find fault but rather to work towards the goals of a more acurate article.

Part of the intro reads: "The survivors of this event [Armageddon], along with individuals deemed worthy of resurrection, will form a new society ruled by a heavenly government and have the possibility of living forever in an earthly paradise." I feel that the phrase 'along with individuals deemed worthy of resurrection' is biased in that people would likely infer that we belive only past witnesses would be ressurected or something to that effect. In truth we believe that the vast majority of deceased humans will be resurrected (an interpretation of John 5:28,29) and have the opportunity to live on earth in a paradise (though the 'those who have done evil' group would have to show that they would submit to God's rule. If you choose to keep the term 'deemed worthy' it may be more appropriate to add something to indicate that it is not the witnesses doing such judging.

I know that the blood transfusion issue can be a touchy subject so I won't delve into it too much but I feel that the statement "In her article in the Journal of Church and State, Kerry Louderback-Wood alleges that labeling the currently acceptable blood fractions as "minute" in relation to whole blood causes followers to misunderstand the scope and extent of allowed fractions." presents an argument that is missleading as we are encouraged to do research into each fraction for ourselves and some detailed (relatively) information on common fractions are provided. I'm not saying that the statement should be removed but in the interest of being non-biased I feel that both sides should be presented. There are many "Awake!" articles that could be quoted on the subject.

RTinOttawa

Hi. I just put your comment into its own headline. Summer Song 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the resurrection comment, I don't agree that the quoted text is at all biased. The issue of who will be resurrected according to JW doctrine is expanded a bit in a later section (remember, the lead needs to be concise as well as correct). I think the only ambiguity in that sentence is the issue of exactly whom deems persons worthy, which could be fixed with the addition of two words ("by God"), but I still don't think that the omission of this clarification constitutes bias. Disclaimer: I'm also a JW and used to edit this article actively under the pseudonym uberpenguin. I stopped around the time that the Tommstein/Central debacle was taking place, but lately I've decided to watch it again since there is a much fairer crowd of regular editors here these days. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T00:47Z

I have clarified the statement. For the benefit of non-JW's, those resurrected after Armageddon will consist of both deceased JW's and deceased non-JW's, but I think this extra information would be too much information to place in the lead-in IMO. Joseph C Talk 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible Students

I'm in Australia. A few days ago, a couple of JWs came to the door and introduced themselves as bible students, which threw me as I've never heard them use this term before, and this article says it's an obsolete term. Is it back in favour, even in certain countries? Naysie 11:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I think that it is not totally obsolete to call oneself Bible Students. JW are not alone in doing that. So actually, I think that they did call themselves that because of the fact that they would like to say that JW truly are someone who study the Bible thoroughly. Note also that one of the legal instruments is still called the Bible Students Association. But as an official term to identify JW especially, I think that it is obsolete.Summer Song 12:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They might have said they were 'bible students', in a generic sense as being students of the bible, but they would not have used 'Bible Students' as a title.--Jeffro77 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I myself sometimes introduce myself that way to avoid quickly bringing up any negative connotations that "Jehovah's Witness" may bring up in a person's mind (here in the "Bible belt", a lot of churchgoers are told to reject JWs without hearing us out). You're right that it is no longer used as an actual title, though. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T00:56Z

Another reason JW sometimes say "Bible Students" is to differentiate themselves from "religion"/"Christians" (which may have negative connotations as shown in the news because of hypocrisy of pastors/churches, lawsuits against pastors for touching children, a focus on donations). A true Christian or bible student will not perform such acts because those behaviors are against Biblical principles - and thus Witnesses want to show that they are different than the "religious fanactics/Christians" in the news in that they actually follow the Bible.

identity of Jesus

The lead section totally needs a statement about the JWs view of Jesus. It's way more definitive to them than the "name of God" business, or even that they don't believe in Hell. OK, it says they reject the trinity and see Jesus Christ as King, but does that make them binitarians, modalists, quadrinitarians, or what? It never says. The JWs see Jesus as the Logos, God's only begotten Son, Jehovah's appointed sacrifice, Savior, King, and Judge. They don't see him or the holy spirit as God. That's meaty stuff, and it belongs up front. Jonathan Tweet 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is "meaty stuff". Which is exactly why it does not belong in the lead.--Jeffro77 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that, on reading this lead again I'm really impressed how good it is. Jonathan Tweet 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

The repeated vandalism is getting old. Solutions? Should the article be semi-protected? Dtbrown 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for some time now. I'm seeing several reverts per day (many from you, Kudos!). Frankly, I think a semi-protect would be a great idea. Bruce 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to go about requesting semi-protection? Could someone do that for us? Dtbrown 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP. It's a pretty simple process. It should be noted that a lot of these edits are coming from registered accounts, which will not be excluded from editing unless they have only been registered within the last few days (four, if memory serves). You'd need full protection for that, and except in cases of extreme vandalism, that's not a great solution. It would probably be best to write a brief note to these registered users thanking them for their contribution, explaining why their edits were reverted, and nicely requesting that they participate on this talk page before making edits that could be controversial. If they don't wish to participate in discussion and simply continue to push their edits, then you can warn them that they may be blocked for vandalism (yes, refusal to discuss contested edits does constitute vandalism) and eventually have them blocked if it has to come to that.

Note that none of the above precludes requesting semi-protection (I think it would be a good idea anyway), but it's something to consider. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T00:39Z

Okay, I've requested semi-protection for this article. You can make any additional comments you like here, though it probably won't be necessary since semi-protection is generally a quick and straightforward process. Protection will be removed (if applied) after a few weeks, at which point you can again request protection if the problems persist (try not to go overboard, though). -- mattb @ 2007-03-28T06:09Z

I hope the protection happens soon, particularly after reviewing the brilliant scholastic efforts of 24.57.55.15. Not funny. Not clever. Not even controversial. Just... dumb. At least some vandals' changes elicit a small laugh before I revert them, but this last one gave rise to nothing more than a look of concern and a disappointed shake of the head.--Jeffro77 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not going to happen. My request was declined because I made too big a point of saying that a lot of the edits are probably not done with vandalistic intent, but merely out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or dislike of the subject matter. WP is always very touchy about suspending ANYONE'S rights to edit unless they are obvious vandals. If you were to request semi-protection again, you'd probably need to make the case for doing so due to high levels of total-vandalism edits from IPs. -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T03:01Z

Even if semi-protection had been granted, it would only have been for a short period of time. It is a central principle of Wikipedia that editing by anonymous IPs is to be encouraged and that semi-protection is to be used only to combat short, intense bursts of vandalism (more than 10-15 in 24 hours is one guideline that I've seen). Semi-protection should be lifted after a few days except for the most heavily vandalized articles. --Richard 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thus my statements earlier. It is this same grand central principle that leads to a lot of the annoyances we have to deal with, but I digress... -- mattb @ 2007-04-02T18:02Z

Book "Pay Attention To Yourselves and To All The Flock"

Recent edits here and on other pages have suggested it's wrong to cite this book. One edit summary said listing it was violating copyrighted material. The book is a matter of public record. Occasionally copies are sold on ebay. To merely cite a page from the book is not a violation of copyright.Dtbrown 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Citing the 'secret' book is not a violation of copyright at all. And the suggestion that even listing the publication is a copyright violation is plainly stupid.--Jeffro77 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer in overview section

Is the disclaimer that begins the overview section really necessary? The section is fairly carefully written and dispersed with phrases like "JWs teach/believe/consider" which should make this disclaimer unnecessary. I think it's jarring and should be removed or better integrated with the text if it's absolutely necessary. Thoughts?

Also, I'm slowly editing this article to fix issues as I see them. Most will be clarifications, stylistic, grammar, and readability related. The article's content and structure is, I believe, very good, so I won't be changing anything major. Any edits that I think might cause any controversy I'll clearly mark with an edit summary, and I'm happy to discuss them (don't want to step on anybody's toes). I think we could make a strong shot for another FA nomination with a little bit of prose tweaking and cleanup work. This article has all the makings of an FA, and I believe the only thing fundamentally going against it is the inevitable collection of editors who believe that some topics should receive more attention (like criticism). This is a problem with a lot of broad-topic and controversial FAs, so it can hardly be avoided. We should, however, polish the style as much as possible before trying again. -- mattb @ 2007-03-26T01:54Z

We could try removing it or re-writing it. That section used to get a lot of editing by well meaning people who thought it was not NPOV. Thus the current formulation of the disclaimer. Dtbrown 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's a pretty weak claim to say that expounding JW beliefs from a third party encyclopedic tone implies endorsement of those beliefs. Let's try removing the disclaimer and see what happens. I don't see any precedent for this sort of message on any of the major religion articles. If we need to add a few more words to explicitly clarify that a view expressed is a JW belief, so be it, but it doesn't have to be littered in every other sentence or presented as a disclaimer. -- mattb @ 2007-03-29T15:58Z

Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines

I would like to ask why the Category:Jehovah's Witnesses magazines should exist. It includes no more than two articles. I think it should be deleted and that the two magazines should be in the categories Category:Jehovah's Witnesses literature and Category:Christian magazines. They do in no way need their own category.Summer Song 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree--Jeffro77 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave it a try, and it was very quickly pointed out that the category is relevant to a broader hierarchy of religious magazines. So it should stay.--Jeffro77 10:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)