Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 2

message: RE: this edit. I thought we agreed to say, these say this, and these others say that. "Alleged" is loaded language. - CobaltBlueTony 13:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded statements 

message: I just commented out some internal links in the "1975" section that appear to have been intended as citations referencing other citations in the footnotes section of Jehovah's Witnesses. Since the citation section of that article has changed a lot over time, I have no idea what those citations were actually intending to point at. Would someone familiar with the source material please take a look and see if there's anything salvageable there? Bryan 04:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed most of the content, opting for a main article approach pointing to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe that article to be better cited and of better quality. By the way, a huge thank you for your general cleanup of the article. I didn't look over what you did in great detail, but it looked good from my initial review. joshbuddytalk 05:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken references

message: The statement: "A mother’s milk however contains more than 10 times the amount found in a full blood transfusion" is an invalid comparison. An unstated amount of mother's milk cannot be said to contain a specific amount more of leukocytes than a "full blood transfusion", which implies a specific amount, though is still vague, further detracting from any meaning in the statement. Re-word, or it will be removed.--Jeffro77 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood

message: I am including this to get some attention. This whole article needs to reference the sources of criticism.  I find little or none. If one person criticises a practice it also is not notable. Those who feel this should be an article need to do the research. Maybe an Rfc would be in order. George 13:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute tag

message: What's the deal with all the links at the bottom?  We should set a limit for pos/neg links.  Duffer 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we follow the guidline for the main article just three or so is enough.George 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Links

message: The opening sentence says JW's are criticised by governments, scientists and mainstream christians, but all the references are xjw. We need to fix this.George 01:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources again

message: I think the sections should be arranged in order of relative importance. For example, I'm not sure why "Sales tax on literature" is above (and three times as long as) the section on translating the Bible. I propose the following order:
# Doctrinal differences
# Translating the Bible (flows on from 1)
# Attitude towards other religions
# Blood
# Unfulfilled prophecies
# Eschatology
# Treatment of members who disassociate
# Reporting of sexual abuse (Suggested rephrase of "Sexual abuse of children")
# Internet use
# UN association
# Sales tax on literature
Any objections? BenC7 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good. Bible Translation is certainly a more important section than some of the others. My only suggestion would be to perhaps switch the Section on "Blood" to before "Attitude towards other religions". I say this because the information in the Attitude section is mostly about older publications and is therefore not as topical or relevant. The Blood section on the other hand is still considered to be highly controversial among most members of society, even those who know relatively little about Jehovah's Witnesses. Lucy 06:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just another quick note, it might be a good idea to fix up the Bible Translation section and flesh it out a little before moving it up to the top. I would do it myself but I am afraid I know very little about bible translations... Lucy 06:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I might be able to look into the translation thing a bit. BenC7 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of points 

message: I have added a table containing a more comprehensive and concise list of controversial doctrines. Sorry for anyone who had reference material in the deleted section, please feel free to retrieve it from previous edits and insert it somewhere if you think it is appropriate. I just left them out because I didn't think they were really needed. I also realize that the references used in the table are not terribly neat in the reference list, but the important information is there for anyone who would want to look for it. I'll make them look a bit nicer when I get the chance (or someone else could do it... :) ). I also haven't referenced the statements for "Mainstream Christian beliefs", however on the Christianity page the same ideas are not referenced either. I don't think anyone would dispute them.
I plan on expanding the section on Bible translation, and looking a bit more at the eschatology section, which seems to beat around the bush somewhat. I think the section on sales tax also needs abbreviation. (Hence the addition of the template.) I removed the totally disputed template while the page is undergoing changes. If people wish to dispute the factual accuracy or neutrality after the edit, fine. If someone wishes to do so while the page is still being edited, it would be better to put a disputed template at the start of the relevant section. Along with an explanation, of course. BenC7 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job Ben George 13:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: With regard to references, all the statements in the mainstream christianity side of the box need to be referenced adn should be checked against the article(s) on wikipedia. I noticed some small differences. George 01:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would be a bit of a pain to reference so many statements, since many sources would be needed for each. If you notice any factual errors, they can be changed of course. If there is something that is generally believed, but not by one particular group, this can also be noted. BenC7 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent/planned changes 

message: Upon examining this article a little more closely, I cannot find where these opinions exist.  There is no book, website, organization, or other verifiable source for any of these claims.  It is presented in a very "original research" sort of way.  While I do not doubt that at least some of these topics have been brought up, I still don't know by whom.  I don't think some guy's blog counts, so where is the same level of adherence to Wikipedia's policies?  I am not satisfied on an intellectual level regarding this page. - CobaltBlueTony 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's information is this?