Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 30

message: I just added the following to the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article...
:In the period from 1938-1955, the Jehovah's Witnesses won 36 out of 45 religion-related court cases. These legal battles resulted in significant expansions in freedom of speech and religion in both countries.See, e.g., Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. 
As I thought more about those two sentences, I started to realize that there should be an article on Jehovah's Witnesses and religious freedom and, finding none, I created one.
Here is the current text of the new article.  Your help in expanding the article is requested.
:The Jehovah's Witnesses have a long history of being the targets of antagonism from secular governments, primarily because of their positions with respect to other religions, saluting the flag, war involvement, voting, and other activities considered by the majority to be "patriotic". Opposition against them has been at times extremely violent, both in the Western nations as well as in the communist and totalitarian societies. In the United States of America and several other countries, the legal struggles of the Jehovah's Witnesses have yielded some of the most important judicial decisions regarding freedom of religion, press and speech.
--Richard 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have broadened the scope of the article and therefore have retitled it Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties. --Richard 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jehovah's Witnesses and religious freedom]] 

message: :This sentence: 
::" Medical procedures involving certain blood fractions are left to conscience, it is basically contradicting the fact that they believe abortion is murder, because not giving someone else blood is also like killing someone. [97] "
:found in the beliefs and practices section is properly referenced and all, but doesn't necessarily relate to beliefs or practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith. I believe that this sentence should be moved to the section concerning blood or the one about controversy. What do you think? Icestorm815 04:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that deliberately inflammatory really should just be deleted.  Refusing abortion and refusing blood transfusions are very different topics.  Duffer 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving info from Beliefs and practices to Blood or Controversy 

message: I have proposed a merger of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments with Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses or Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties.  Please express your opinions at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.  --Richard 19:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jehovah's Witnesses and governments]] 

message: Jehovahs Witnesses had a rather significant controversy involving allegations of covering up child molestation by their members. It seemed very strange to me that that wasn't even mentioned under controversies. Is there fear of the witnesses suing Wiki to silence it?
Teranceofathens 03:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not the place for it. See Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#Reporting of sexual abuse and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse--Jeffro77 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no mention of the child molestation cover up controversy? 

message: There seems to be no clear argument as to why valid and appropriate links containing historical information and pertinent historic documents have been repeatedly removed.  Additionally, there are several footnotes which contain links to websites that contain documents which were stolen from pastor-russell.com, yet the attempt to replace those links with the original website source has also been reverted.  Why?  Official websites which contain historical material pertinent and applicable to a Wikipedia article are not only completely appropriate, but should also be the first source.  Please explain why this has been repeatedly violated in this article.  Thank you.  Pastorrussell 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your username implies that you are not impartial in this matter regarding a website which is very probably of your own creation. It is difficult to establish whether the site is actually 'official'.--Jeffro77 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the point you are trying to make, but your response doesn't address the main point of my post.  Whether one wishes to acknowledge the official character of the website isn't necessarily relevant in regard to which website should be listed as a link to documents cited in this article.  The aforementioned website was the first on the web to make available to the public scans and text of original documents relating to the history of CT Russell, the early Watchtower et.al.  Over the years several websites have borrowed or stolen that material and now try to present it as their own without any link or acknowledgment to the original source.  This is plagiarism.  I am not the only person to attempt to remedy this problem.  Others have properly replaced the links only to have them removed without explanation.  Additionally, a link was placed to a document relating to the history of JFR and the 1918 imprisonment, and was also removed without explanation.  Because this has been going on for over a year it certainly gives the appearance of unprofessional and biased behavior.  No legitimacy or recognition should be tacitly given to websites which contain stolen material.  Only the original source should be listed. Pastorrussell 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A particular site providing scans of material published by a different source, even if it is the first website to do so, does not become the owner of the scanned material. Other than that, I cannot prove the veracity of your claim of originality, so can neither confirm nor deny your point of view.--Jeffro77 08:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pastorrussell, which footnote links contain material which was stolen from your site? Dtbrown 15:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  website links 

message: Wonderpet has started a new section entitled "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses." While interesting to read, I think it needs some balance. While it is true JWs have met heavy opposition from other religions throughout their history, the JWs have also heavily criticized other religions. For example, during Rutherford's era the JWs heavily criticized the Roman Catholic Church (which would be considered extreme by today's standards). I think the question we should determine is if we want to add a new section to the main page and make the page longer than it already is? If so, how do we want to balance the new presentation? Dtbrown (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section doesn't really belong in the main article. The content relating to success in court cases, while related, doesn't really belong in the section. Saying they were 'targeted in the Holocaust' is misleading, as they were not the only targets, nor the prime targets, nor the only religious group targeted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason for the inclusion is to counterbalance the mileage Jehovah's Witnesses have gotten out of their persecution by Nazis angle.  "In their official publication ('Watchtower' May 15, 1975 p. 294) they write 'thousands of European Jews can testify that one religious group in Germany underwent persecution equal to that heaped upon the Jews: "Jehovah’s Witnesses"'.  But equating their suffering to that of the Jews, apparently wasn’t enough for them. In another publication they went further: '...a horrible Nazi persecution of 'Jehovah’s Witnesses', worse than that of the Jews'" - Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God’s Kingdom Rules, pp. 549-550 .  In fact only 1/100th of 1% of Jehovah's Witnesses compare to Jews lost their lives in Nazi camps (635).  In Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics under Persecution M. James Penton writes that the suffering some of the rank and file of Jehovah's Witnesses suffered in Nazi Germany was in large part unnecessary and due to Rutherford's (who was himself safe in the United States) rash words and actions - which weren't consistant.  He'd made several shocking statements against the Jews and in support of Hitler when the latter rose to power. 63.196.193.42 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a clear explaination on how the number 635 should be considered as the 'most specific'? As I know of, the numbers have varied because the sources used, mostly outside JW, also have varied. And I don't think we shall rely on the writings of Norman Hovland. He is an extremely critic person that have written many higly provocative texts.Summer Song (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, statements about Rutherfors not being totally neutral to the Government in Germany are not objective facts. They are rather opinions.Summer Song (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 635 is the most specific and consistantly used figure by the WT themselves.  They have infact used it three times: the 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 212, The Watchtower, February 1, 1976, p. 82, and The Watchtower, July 1, 1979, pp. 7-8.  About Rutherford's role during the Nazi regime see the above referenced book Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich: Sectarian Politics under Persecution written by once Jehovah's Witness himself and now university professor M. James Penton who provides photocopies of letters etc written by Rutherford during the period as evidence.  By the way he has a Master of Arts and a Ph.D. in history. 63.196.193.59 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses"