Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 1

message: 'please add something on 1979 witch hunt at bethel and something ray franz pleasethese are not cover as of yet next project for me. I quess sorry I put the in history not on the talk page.
:What isn't covered (yes, I know what you're talking about, but edit summaries shouldn't take the place of actual edits)?Tommstein 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1979 witch hunt

message: jefro77
tommstein
keep up the good work.--Greyfox 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much obliged.Tommstein 04:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you  

message: sorry I have not copyedited the previous page so if any problems not my falt--Greyfox 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merged two pages  to this one UN and sex abuse 

message: I fear we are again beginning to stray from the task of documenting Witnesses' beliefs into debating them.  This article about controversial issues should be documenting what the Witnesses believe, the controversy (in this case what other scholars say about this date, and how the Witnesses respond to that.  With prophetic discussions we can get endlessly embroiled over details that are not necessary to document; but only cite.
What you will find, in reading Duffer's link, for example, is that this topic is complex, detailed, and nuanced.  You may not grasp all of it (I can't hold all of the facts together in my head unless I really focus), or accept it. But the first part, documenting the belief, is essential to presenting the controversy therein.  The site Duffer linked is quite extensive, and in my opinion really belongs in its own publicaton, not in a blog (no offense to serious bloggers).  The crucial documentation might look something like this:
*Statement of specific belief 1
**fact 1 (cite)
**counter 1 (cite)
**rebuttal 1 (cite)
*Statement of specific belief 2
**fact 2 (cite)
**counter 2 (cite)
**rebuttal 2 (cite)
*Statement of specific belief 3
**fact 3 (cite)
**counter 3 (cite)
**rebuttal 3 (cite)
The reason I suggest rebuttals is to address where Witnesses respond to the counter points, if applicable. Obviously, some scholars will hold to certain viewpoints If we are serious about documenting the controversy, we cannot in all fairness smooth over it with a gloss-over summary with an oversimplified counterargument, and leave it at that.  It is clear that the Witnesses have done much research and are certain on their points.  Present this.  Further, others have countered their claims with specific counterarguments.  Follow up with this.  Finally, if the Witnesses have responded to any of those specific points, note this.
Along with Duffer's site I found this site, which contains numerous references to Witness and historical sources, from the Witness perspective of course.  But it demonstrates that much research has been done, and that not "all" other scholars are as patently opposed to the Witnesses' interpretation of history as the glossed-over presentation that seems iminent to be proposed.
My ultimate goal is to conform any presentation of "controversy" to the NPOV rule, so in that I hope that all challenges to any point that either contradicts or supports the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses consist mainly of friendly reminders to "cite verifiable sources." - CobaltBlueTony 06:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss my point.  Since this article is about "controversy" we are attempting to document the controversy through citation of references that promote or refute each point in this controversy.  I was warning against the same thing: that of debating the controversy instead of documenting it. - CobaltBlueTony 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: Is this appropriate?  It's grossly POV, and argumentative.  I know this page is about controversial issues, but how can that addition be justified for inclusion in an encyclopaedia?  Even if we formatted the additions to reflect a point-counterpoint format it still seems rather argumentative.  What do you guys think?  Duffer 23:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgetting for a moment your nasty malicious attacks and vindictive harassment of me all over Wikipedia, your points above have no merit. The seven points I posted are long a standing problem that the Watch Tower Society refused to address. There are many resources on the web detailing their lack of answer to the points raised and the blatantly contradictory stance the organization takes, the Jensen letters are a perfect example. (Originally posted here, the image links no longer work because it's a mirror site) Also, this is why they are in the controversial section, rather than the main JW page. So, why don't you run along back to Jehovah's Witnesses, or off to one of your many apostate websites you engage in, and find some valid answers to these seven points (there are more than seven) but those will do for now. Central 12:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood Problem, user:Central's editions 

message: It appears that the above mentioned link to SEC.gov is from 2000, not 2002 (as I had previously stated).  The form is a 'DEF 14A' (Definitive proxy statement) for the company REGI US.  I think it is noteworthy that the subsequent REGI US DEF 14A filing (2003) (pgs 9 and 10) no longer mentions the WTS as a shareholder:
----
"(6) Rand Energy Group Inc. is owned 51% by Reg
Technologies Inc. and 49% by Rand Cam Engine Corp. Under Rule 13d-3
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, both Reg Technologies Inc.
and Rand Cam Engine Corp. could be considered the beneficial owner of
the 4,413,236 shares registered in the name of Rand Energy Group Inc.
Reg Technologies Inc. is a British Columbia corporation listed on the
TSX Venture Exchange that has financed the research on the Rand Cam
Engine since 1986. Since October 1984 Mr. Robertson has been President
and a Director of Reg Technologies Inc. SMR Investment Ltd., a British
Columbia corporation, holds a controlling interest in Reg Technologies
Inc. Since May 1977 Mr. Robertson has been President and a member of
the Board of Directors of SMR Investments Ltd. Susanne M. Robertson,
Mr. Robertson's wife, owns SMR Investment Ltd. Accordingly, in Note
(2) above, beneficial ownership of the 4,413,236 shares registered in
the name of Rand Energy Group Inc. has been attributed to Mr.
Robertson. We believe it would be misleading and not provide clear
disclosure to list as beneficial owners in the table the other
entities and persons discussed in this paragraph, although a strict
reading of Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 might
require each such entity and person to be listed in the beneficial
ownership table.
Rand Cam Engine Corp. is a privately held company whose stock is
controlled by James McCann and minor interest by several other
shareholders. We believe it would be misleading and not provide clear
disclosure to list as beneficial owners in the table the other
entities and persons discussed in this paragraph, although a strict
reading of Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 might
require each such entity and person to be listed in the beneficial
ownership table."
----
I think we can put this one to bed for good.  Duffer 11:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further info on RandCam

message: The whole article is too long and needs a major overhaul. I was thinking if we made a summary of each section and linked to the main page discussing the issue we could cut down on size considerably. With the section on child sex abuse it is currently an exact copy of the main article. I was thinking maybe something along these lines:
Jehovah's Witnesses, as an organization, have been accused of employing policies that make the reporting of sexual abuse difficult for members. Criticism is focused in particular on the requirement that before a report of abuse can be proven, there needs to be two adult witnesses or a confession by the accused [1] [2]. Victims of sexual abuse also assert that when reporting abuse they have been directed to maintain silence to avoid embarrassment to both the accused and the organization. [3] [4]
The Official Policy on Child Protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses which discusses the procedures for reporting child sexual abuse states that elders obey all legal requirements for reporting sex offenders including reporting uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations where required by law and that they do discipline and disfellowship (excommunicate) pedophiles. It also emphasizes that it is the victims right to notify the authorities if they wish to do so. [5]
OK - the references don't show up but you get the idea...
If we do the same with both the United Nations and the blood section than we might be able to get this article on the right track.
Lucille S 06:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Child Sex Abuse

message: We are attempting to have most the Blood info. in one place.  The information here that was double was deleted.  The other info that even though it may over lap, if different was transferred.  There is a section there (jW and Blood) which can be used to discuss controversial matters in regard to blood. Not all information was transfered, I left some issues on blood,  that have not been dealt with by the Witnesses.  However, the info. that was transfer has been dealt with and is now on "jw and blood"  There is no reason to have it here and there.  Do we really need it in two places?   Can we make this all more organized, by combining where possible.  Feed back form all please. However,It is possible to transfer it from "jw and blood" to here if that would be better, but let's clean it up! Johanneum 12:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johanneum, why should the information be in just one place only? That does not apply to nearly all other JW related subjects, or Wikipedia in general, and the whole point of a controversy page is to collate all of the controversy in one place, not as a replacement for all the other articles! Information overlaps all over Wikipedia, that is why there are subsection in the first place, for additional information and a more in-depth converge of that information. It does not mean all other pieces of information should be deleted, how totally unreasonable! Central 09:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with you. This article needs to be cleaned up. What I have been trying to do with some of the other sections is have a brief summary of the controversial issues here and link it to the main article for futher in depth information and sources. Hopefully this will satisfy all concerned. We can keep this article as a central point of reference to all of the controversial issues without it becomming too cumbersome. Unfortunately I do not know all that much about the specifics of the medical issues involved with regards the blood issue. Is there anyone else that can summarise this area down to a more practical and concise version? Lucille S 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood

message: A couple of questions on referencing. Firstly is it preferable to have direct links in the article itself to other pages or is it preferable to have references listed down the bottom similar to a bibliography with links included here? I have noticed that when we have both in the same article the numbering is separate for each system which may get a little confusing.
Secondly... can anyone help me to get the references in this article to work! I have added in several references for the Child Sex Abuse and the UN NGO sections only they don't seem to want to link to the outside sources. Sometimes one will be working perfectly and then you add another reference to the article and the original is no longer working anymore... is this a problem with how the referencing is done or is there some sort of glitch with the referencing system in general. Does anyone know? Lucille S 04:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question of Referencing - HELP!

message: Does anyone object if I remove the NPOV tag from the top of this article? I will leave the other template there because the article probably still needs some extra attention. If no-one objects I will remove the tag. Lucille S 02:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is highly biased, NPOV, and in most instances not properlly sourced.  I know I havn't been around much the past couple weeks to help fix the articles, but I think the NPOV tag should stay.  Duffer 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for jumping the gun with the NPOV tag. Are there any sections or instances in particular which you feel need to be more thoroughly referenced? I cannot see any cases of biased language or misleading statements but then again I have read through this article a number of times and might be overlooking an otherwise obvious error. A fresh pair of eyes might be just what this article needs now. Any suggestions? Lucy 23:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I look forward to your contributions. Before rewriting the article would it be possible to outline which areas of the article are unbalanced and what information has yet to be included. If you have not already done so, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. In a nutshell regardless of what any Wikipedian regards as being truth (whether for or against JW's) information can only be included in the article if it has already been published by a reliable source. This means that you may need to do some research. Happy Hunting! Lucy 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: It is generally accepted that when dealing with an article as controversial as this one it is a good idea to let people know before you remove portions of the article. :) This will allow a discussion to take place rather than invite an edit war. One of the paragraphs that you removed was this one
:Criticism in forums and other such websites have pointed to the fact that many library resources are available to the public via the internet and depository libraries. [http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/services.htm#access "Services & Collection" UN website   "A Watchtower Society lie for United Nations 'association'" (Nov. 9, 2001) "Jehovah's Witnesses Forum"  However it is worth noting that some information is available only for short periods of time to advanced-level researchers (PhD candidates, authors etc). The NGO Resource centre also includes more than just the Dag Mammarskjold library. It includes access to the NGO Resource Center which offers current UN documents, access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars, conferences, film screenings, DPI photo, film and audio libraries, and language courses.These resources are not available to everyone.
I can see that in the edit history you have stated that the source of the opinion in the paragraph is not up to reliable standards for referencing. My question is - does it really have to be? The paragraph readily admits that the criticism has come from forums and other websites allowing the reader to judge for themselves the reliability of the statement. It also gives ample opportunity for counterargument. This article is about the controversy - shouldn't all interested parties get a say? These forums cannot be relied upon to provide factual information about the organization etcetera but couldn't they be used to show an opinion, afterall it is a fact that this group of people hold this opinion. Lucy 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be different if it was what is considered a legitimate source since the weight of that sources' viewpoint would be appropriate for inclusion.  However, ambiguous references to a critic on a forum that has copied the info from elsewhere falls into the realm of Undue weight.  Looking at the references provided in the deleted section we see that the forum post is a copy/paste from the RandyTV website so right off the bat the claim "criticism in forums and other such websites" is not supported by the references given.  It is that minority claim (from that one website) that leads to the conclusion: "..many library resources are available to the public via the internet and depository libraries..".  A point which becomes moot in light of the following sentences that show there is far more resources available to a researcher as an NGO than a regular person running an internet search.  Duffer 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. We cannot start printing the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Harry but only those published by reputable sources. If, however, the criticism about the library resources was printed by a credible source (regardless of the validity of the argument itself) it would need to be included along with the counterarguments allowing the reader to decide whether the point is moot. Lucy 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN NGO

message: I agree with you on this one. It was in the original article and it seemed that someone had done some research to have inserted quotes from different press releases etcetera. I was disinclined to delete it without first trying to find sources for the information. Perhaps we should leave this one for a little while until I can see if I can find the source documents to add a reference. Lucy 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian Agreement

message: Department of Public Information (DPI). I clarified this in article to avoid confusion. Lucy 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DPI

message: There has been quite a lot of editing backwards and forwards between versions of this article. As far as I can see, the major issues are as follows:
#POV check and attention templates at the top of the article – The very fact that we seem to have this problem with reverting of the article seems to show that there is a need for these templates.
#Under the heading “Blood Fractions and Components” the statistic for the amount of haemoglobin in red blood cells is being changed from 95% to 97%. The statistic of 95% has been referenced whereas the statistic of 97% has no reference. This referenced statistic should not be changed unless there is a reliable reference in which case we could change it to 95-97% and include both references.
#Addition of the section on “Common Critical Blood Questions” – This lengthy and rather argumentative section was once a part of this article. The information has since been split up under relevant subheadings to increase readability. If there is any information from this section that has been overlooked in the change, please discuss it here on the talk page but please do not add the entire section back to the article.
If there are any other such changes that need to be made please use the talk page to discuss the changes first. Please do not continue to revert the above issues without first outlining the reasons for the changes below. Lucy 04:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting of Article 

message: I would like to see it removed when the vandals can either participate civily or leave completely.  Duffer 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added factual accuracy tag in wake of recent vandalism 

message: The guideline WP:Auto does not apply in this instance. Take for instance some of the other articles relating to religion. The article on Christianity has editors that are Christians, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints articles have editors that are Latter-day Saints and I imagine that Buddist articles would have editors that are Buddists. As you can see, Wikipedia does not prevent editors from editing articles that are relating to a religion of which they are in fact members. Please do not revert the article on this basis. If there are any other issues with regards this article please discuss them here on the talk page before reverting the article itself. Many Thanks. Lucy 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandal is just parroting admin user:Stifle's interesting assertions about the nature of my recent block (i've yet to hear back from the admin).  Duffer 01:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]]

message: There are several disputes currently under discussion. They include but are not limited to:
#Anti-Catholicism (See above) This section has been put on hold in order to prevent the steady flow of page reverting that has been happening for this article. It seems almost pointless to do any further work on this article at the present time as it will merely be lost with all of the reverting action.
#There is obviously some sort of issue with the section “Common Critical Blood Questions” and “Blood Fractions and Components as per the entry above. Despite the fact that these anonymous editors seem unwilling to discuss their reasons for changing these sections it does seem that they are under dispute.
#There are still ongoing discussions continuing about the sections on UN/DPI, the Bulgarian Agreement and other areas.
Quite frankly I cannot believe that it has gotten to the stage that we are having to discuss whether the article is under dispute. A quick look at the history should show that in the last three or four days the level of reverting and other such activity in itself shows that the article is being disputed. This article is not disputed merely because those sympathetic to Jehovah's Witnesses believe it to be so but because editors from both sides of the issue have expressed concerns. Once we have resolved some of these issues (as we seem quite close to doing so) we can remove these tags. Lucy 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV & Disputed Tags

message: I'd like to move this article to Controversial Issues of Jehovah's Witnesses to be consistent with the naming of other pages. Any comments? joshbuddytalk 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Move 

message: I have made a few changes to the UN NGO Section which I have outlined below.
* There seems to be a slight disagreement about which half of the quote from the UN web page to include. I have included the entire quote. This way the reader can decide which part to put emphasis on. Hopefully we can all agree on this compromise.
* I have also restored the section that includes the United Nations response to the controversy. I imagine that this section was removed during the edit wars that have become common with this article. If this is not the case, and the section was removed for a reason please discuss below.
* I have also removed the section regarding the claim that any person with the internet can access the UN library. This information (with the same source) was included in the article but was removed because the source is not reliable – See discussion above under the headings "My Edits" and "UN NGO". We can only include this information if we can find a verifiable, published and reliable source that makes such claims. Lucy 00:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN NGO Changes

message: I have been working on rewording the section on Jimmy Swaggart and Sales Tax. This is what I have:
In the early 1980s, the State of California informed Jimmy Swaggart Ministries that tax was due for religious books and tapes sold in the state since 1974. Swaggart eventually paid the tax ($183,000.00) but sued for a refund. In February, 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal for Texas (and 14 other states) to exempt religious books from sales tax. On 22 June 1989, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief with U.S. Supreme Court in the appeal to the Jimmy Swaggart case. This brief declared that if tax was imposed on religious literature, each of the 132,000 door to door ministers of Jehovah’s Witnesses in California would be obliged to register as a retailer and lodge quarterly returns despite that fact that considering the costs involved the vast majority, if not all Jehovah’s Witnesses would declare a loss. The brief concluded by stating that for religious activities “the burdens imposed on retail merchants (to register, file quarterly returns, collect and pay license or sales or use or whatever taxes) should not encumber the right to freely deliver or receive a sermon, printed or otherwise.” 1
On 17 January 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, declaring that sales tax must be paid on religious literature. In February 1990 a letter from the Watchtower Society went out to all congregations stating that there would no longer be a set price for literature but that they would be given to the public on a donation basis. By way of reason the letter stated that "by adopting a method of literature distribution based completely on donation, Jehovah's people are able to greatly simplify our Bible education work and separate ourselves from those who commercialize religion." The court case involving Jimmy Swaggart and sales tax were not mentioned. 2 
It has been suggested that in participating in the court case by admitting the brief, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society could be seen as associating and supporting the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart. This is controversial as the Society has disfellowshipped people for attending church services. Others believe that the Society went against the principle at Luke 20:24 regarding the paying of taxes. Additionally it has been pointed out that whilst the richer countries have a donation based system some of the poorer countries still have the old pay first system.
One thing that I wanted to clarify. I was under the impression that all of the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses were given under the donation arrangement in all countries. Is it true that some countries still have a set price for the magazines and if so which countries and what is the price? Does anyone know? I have left this sentence in the paragraph because I simply didn't know whether it was true or not. I will add this section into the article unless someone has any suggestions on how to improve it or in case I flat out got something wrong! Lucy 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I have added the section into the article exactly as above minus the last sentence regarding the donation arrangement. If anyone has published, verifiable and current information that states that the pay first arrangement is still current in some countries, I would be very interested to read it. Lucy 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Swaggart - Sales Tax 

message: This article seems to be plagued by revert wars. I have requested 
comments from other editors in the hope that fresh eyes will be able to help to resolve the issues involved and allow this article to progress.
The first issue seems to be regarding the inclusion of the section “Common Critical Blood Questions”. This section was originally added to this article on 28 January 2006. It is lengthy and somewhat argumentative. Its tone might even be described as sarcastic. As such the information from this section was split up under the relevant headings. If there is any information that was overlooked in this change please discuss.
The second issue is that sourced and relevant paragraphs are simply being deleted. The only reason that I can see for this is that the deleted paragraph does not agree with the individual editors point of view. The sections that this reoccurs in are particularly Child Sex Abuse, UN and Attitudes towards other religions.
An overview of the two different versions of the article and the differences can be found here. Thank you for your assistance. Lucy 01:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment (RfC)