Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations

message: GermanWriter removed the statement: "The Watchtower Society did not inform members of Jehovah's Witnesses of its NGO status during the period of association, or after it was terminated", which I have restored. GermanWriter claimed that the statement was analogous to an omission of going to the moon. Unlike the irrelevant concept of going to the moon, failing to declare affiliation with the UN is an important part of the controversy regarding that association.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article I read they had no NGO status. So what do you speak about? On the other hand I don't understand why you prefer to write about something that maybe (sources?) never happened. In Wp. we write about what happened, what exists, no phantasy, no suspicions. As a result I have to remove it. --GermanWriter (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are denying that any NGO status ever happened? The fact that they had such status was on the UN website, and the UN DPI directly confirmed it to be true; a letter directly from the UN DPI states, in part: "Recently the NGO Section has been receiving numerous inquiries regarding the association of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York with the Department of Public Information (DPI). This organization applied for association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992." Therefore if 'the article you read' said otherwise, then it is wrong, and your allegation that such association may actually have never occured is not only irrelevant, but also absurd. Given the fact that they did have NGO status, their failure to tell JW members of that affiliation, when such presents a conflict of interest with what is taught to those members is a significant aspect of the controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else agree with GermanWriter that the Watchtower Society's failure to inform members about its UN affilication is not relevant to this article???--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure of UN affiliation

message: To be honest this page seems unnecessary to me, at least as a separate page. Sources aren't the best, and are dominantly primary sources from the JW's. I think this article could be condensed to a couple paragraphs and inserted into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs as a section on that page, or better yet expand the section that already exists at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Updated sources, such as Penton's third edition of Apocalypse Delayed talking about the UN registration issue, should also be added. Vyselink (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have raised an AfD to allow broader discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah%27s Witnesses and the United Nations (2nd nomination). Note that it was previously nominated for deletion in 2006.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: IMHO it was of encyclopedic interest to note briefly the use that JWs have made of the UN, despite their denouncing the organisation as a whole. This was removed by Jeffro as "irrelevant" and "undue weight".  What's the opinion of other editors? – Fayenatic London 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: JWs appealing to the UN Human Rights Committee has no direct relationship to their theological beliefs about the UN. As already indicated, your addition has no relevance to the section you put it in. As the article currently stands, the only way the statement could be relevant would be to rename the last section to something like Jehovah's Witnesses interactions with the UN, reduce the 'exposé', and put your addition there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the heading as suggested, and re-added my one-liner there. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  JWs' usage of UN organs 

message: User:Jeffro77 why the reverts? Per WP:SS " the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points" and you reverted it to ignore the entire section of the "Jehovah's Witnesses' interactions with the United Nations". Summary should not be only about the religious positions of the faith, but rather about the historical events as well. Similarly the ordering of the content is IMHO far more neutral if it is first about the historical events and then about the religious beliefs. I do not understand why do you view it as "less neutral presentation seeking to draw attention to a scandal"? I did no alterations to paint a scandal here. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the section back where it was is hardly ‘ignoring it’. Wikipedia isn’t the place to draw attention to perceived ‘scandals’, especially in a manner that is not neutral. See also WP:SOAP. In any case, at this point you should wait for further input from other editors before attempting to reintroduce your changes.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

text: I have added a sentence that summarises the additional section without sensationalising the topic. I imagine this should be satisfactory?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have added is factually incorrect. The section does not discuss JW 'soughting the services of UN bodies' but rather WS being associated NGO of the UN/DPI - that's the factual core. I see it as a repetitive downplaying of the factual information in this article to whitewash the NGO. You repetitively hide try to hide facts by branding them as "sensationalising the topic", but what I'm talking about here is the information that was reported by the independent sources (see WP:SOURCE and WP:IS). Similarly attempts to keep this article focused on religious beliefs instead of factual information is IMHO grossly misguided. The facts, especially these reported by independent sources, should take an absolute precedence over the religious beliefs, especially when the entire sections are sources only with the first-party sources. Isn't that a breach of WP:PROMOTION? SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is evident from your response that you do want it to be more of an exposé. My addition of one sentence without deleting any existing content isn’t hiding anything at all, and it is a fact that making use of the DPI and Human Rights bodies of the UN is reasonably summarised as ‘seeking services provided by the UN’. The significance of the JW association as an NGO exists only because of their doctrinal position. And no, whilst secondary sources are indeed preferred, the use of primary sources is neither forbidden nor automatically promotional, and in this specific case, the article content clearly is not endorsing the doctrinal position but simply stating it. I have attempted to meet you halfway by adding a sentence to the lead but at this point you should await additional comment from other editors.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SS]] and historical over belief