Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 6

Organ Transplants
This article at present glosses over the "JWs and organ transplant" topic by saying only that transplansts are now a matter of conscience. The entire truth is that they were once a disfellowshipping offence (in the same way that accepting a blood transfusion is a DF offence today). See Watchtower 1967 November 15 pp.702-4 for an example of labelling transplants as "cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people". Those old enough to remember those days can confirm: JWs did *NOT* accept transplants under any circumstances (just as they would, obviously reject cannibalism, either then or now). If one did accept an organ transplant, the punishment was disfellowshipping (if there was no repentance) just as would be the punishment for actual cannibalism. This "understanding of JWs" shifted to the present "matter of conscience" in 1980 (Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.31).

'''The question is this: if this Wiki article mentions JW history (e.g. court precedents, Nazi imprisonment, etc.) then why not mention JW *doctrinal* history? This change happened only 24 years ago!'''


 * To 69.197.198.116 - There is already a section called "Changes in Doctrine" on the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page. This page is more of an overview, whereas that page deals specifically with issues such as the one you brought up. BTW, it would be a courtesy if you signed your posts. Thanks! --DannyMuse 19:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I have added the date 1980, (which is consistent with other items in this section which are dated); also added link to the Doctrines wiki page which deals with changing doctrine. For the record, I think it is disingenuous to say that this page only is an "overview"; if that were true then 70 year old court cases should be relegated to some other page and wouldn't belong on this page (unless, of course, you believe that securing American freedom of speech is a fundamental part of the JW religion, in which case you would say it does belong on this "overview" page)? Just a thought. --PM


 * To PM: You're welcome for the clarification. However I take exception to your comment about me being "disingenuous." As you do not know me personally there is no way for you to ascertain my motives. If you take a minute to think about it you'll realize I personally am not responsible for the content of this page or its organization (or lack thereof). The same is true regarding the associated linked pages. My statement was meant to be a general comment. You are more than welcome to suggest a better organizational format. I for one would greatly welcome it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Things run smoother when we treat each other courteously. (Mt 7:12) --DannyMuse 04:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * DM: I take exception to your suggestion that I have not treated you courteously; such language is accepted in polite society (including most world Parliaments, for example). Yes, I know you are not personally responsible for the content of the page (and I take exception to your suggestion that I do not understand how a wiki works). The fact is that you personally said the page was an 'overview'; when there are trivial items which are not appropriate for an 'overview'; and yet simultaneously, significant items (I posit that since transplant affects quality of life and least, and life-and-death at worst it is a significant item) are not worthy of this 'overview'. I am glad you welcome my suggestions, and hope that a spirit of fairness and balance continues. --PM


 * PM. You labeled this edit/comment: "Apology if I offended DM" I've read it several times and can't seem to find the apology in it. Could you please, in a spirit of fairness and balance, help me find it as it seems to have gone missing! --DannyMuse 17:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand you: you *READ* "Apology if I offended DM", but having read "Apology if I offended DM" you can't find the apology? What more do you want? Is there some minimum number of times I must include "Apology if I offended DM" before you can "find" it? ;) -- PM


 * PM, I think what DM is saying is, "Please assume good faith." DM, I think I share PM's concern that Wikipedia avoid the tendency to relegate wanted and salient details to "also-ran articles"  It is important that we not resolve controversies by moving difficult facts to less visible pages.  We might talk for a while about what this article is expected to address as the unbiased summary of knowledge about Jehovah's Witnesses.  I personally am full of questions that I would like to see this article answer if appropriate. Tom - Talk 20:06, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Tom: Thanks for the reminder. I found it very difficult to assume good faith when DM's actions seemed to deliberately bury what is arguably "uncomfortable" (but factual) information. I see the date and more appropriate link has been returned; so perhaps the date & specific link removal was just an oversight? If so, I am truly sorry. I would still point out, however, that the current wording still dances around the facts rather than saying it directly and with an efficiency of words. Compare my earlier edit to the current and you will see, at the very least, a more clear and efficient statement of the relevant facts. But that's just my opinion. -- PM
 * Question for DannyMuse re: his removal of 1980 date and obscurification of link to more info: I noticed you have removed the 1980 date which I added to the sentence about transplants. You then when back and re-edited to change the link which was directly to the "changing doctrines" section of the doctrines page, and now goes simply to the top of the doctrines page (which is not as appropriate, since transplants is a directly a changing doctrine). Would you care to explain WHY you (a) removed an accurate and valid DATE, when DATES are clearly in other items in this section, and (b) modified a link to be far less specific and hence far less helpful? I courteously suggest that such actions are not in keeping with NPOV.


 * I think this opens a valid question about what this article should present. We are commanded to be sympathetic, fair, and positive in our treatment of JW-ism.  But I think (is this correct?) that we should try to include enough facts to answer all the most important questions readers might have. Tom - Talk 20:06, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * To 69.197.198.116 aka PM: First, I unintentionally removed the portion of your link which went to the "Changes_in_Doctrine" section of the Doctrines ... page. I have fixed this and also replaced the date reference. I apologize for the confusion. Secondly, how would I know how familiar you are with Wikipedia? You make anonymous edits and (up until now) didn't sign your posts. That tends to indicate a newbie or someone that doesn't want to be known. Thirdly, dude, lighten up on your rhetoric. My statement, "This page is more of an overview, whereas that page deals specifically with issues such as the one you brought up" is clear in intent. I wasn't saying what this page should be, but what it seems to be at present. If you don't get that then I'm inclined to believe you don't want to understand what it means. There are tons of clear links everywhere as you obviously are well aware. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. --DannyMuse 07:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * to DM: Quote: "You make anonymous edits and (up until now) didn't sign your posts. That tends to indicate a newbie or someone that doesn't want to be known." Actualy, my anonymity is in keeping with JW/Watchtower teaching:


 * *** Watchtower 1959 October 1 pp.607 *** Our publishing work is not done to glorify any men or to give them a name of prominence before this world, depending upon the name of men in order to induce a study of God's Word with the aid of the Watch Tower Society's publications. We avoid all kinds of creature worship and anything that would stimulate to creature worship. In harmony with this endeavor the Society does not identify the writers of the various books, booklets, magazines, or articles that it publishes. They prefer to remain anonymous...So we let the literature speak for itself.


 * I wanted to let the facts of my suggestion (which were backed up by reference to WT magazines) speak for themselves. I thought that was in keeping with the Wiki philosphy. Obviously, I was wrong. -- PM


 * PM: Yes, you were wrong; but you were right about one thing, your edits do speak for themselves. Oh, and don't worry, we won't be worshipping you so you needn't worry about keeping your anonimity for that reason. BTW, thanks for the organizational suggestion. The idea of a summary with a link to another page filled with the pertinent details makes a lot of sense. --DannyMuse 07:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * *pours water on fire* *ssssssssssss* *steam in room* *says, ahhhh* Tom - Talk 16:07, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * To Tom: Your point about what the article should present is certainly valid. As I've repeatedly pointed out both here and on your chalkboard, my position is that a general organizational outline (of content) and a well coordinated means of linking related topics is currently a more important issue than content itself. You are absolutely correct that we should "try to include enough facts to answer all the most important questions readers might have." But what are those facts, and how do we go about determining them? That really is the question! It's obvious one person's "important question/fact" is another persons "inappropriate trivia." I have a question for you Tom, how/why do you think that the related/linked articles are "less visible"? They are all equally accessible online and there a plenty of links on all the pages. Since WP lacks a hierarchical means of organizing data, the only way to do so seems to be by using linked articles. Thus, I think this really begs the organizational question that I keep putting forward. Cheers, --DannyMuse 07:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * My best "go-by" (and I think that for the purposes of Wikipedia it is a very similar case, a very large controversial religion) is the Mormonism area of Wikipedia. For the record, I am a Mormon, I know the struggles of that area pretty well, and I have a sense for what articles are most prominently read (you can generally tell by the number of anon edits they get).  I personally know (and I'm confessing here) of a tendency to maybe scatter information among many articles instead of putting it right out in the hot articles.  Wesley might have some input into this.  The hot articles are a delicate and fine art, and may take a while to get right.  But I think we are doing well at Mormonism area.  You may want to peruse that area for ideas.  The Hot articles might be Joseph Smith Jr., Mormonism, Mormon, and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  ??? Tom - Talk 16:07, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Tom, as always, it's a pleasure working with you. Your comments, suggestions and questions are practical, helpful and constructive. As a bonus, your sense of humor is really appreciated when things get tense. In response to your suggestion to check out some of the Mormon pages, I've already done that a bit, but will continue to do more. In fact, check out the changes I made to this article's "External links" section. I divided it up as it is on the Mormonism page. Cheers. --DannyMuse 17:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Along the topic of organizing data: shouldn't the (now abandoned) organ transplan prohibition be mentioned under the heading of "Beliefs"? Why is it mentioned under "Opposition"??? It was a belief, and the beliefs section mentions blood transfusions? Just thinking out loud. Or perhaps there should be a new heading: "Past Beliefs" of JWs? (which could be mostly a summary paragraaph, with link(s) to another page, to keep this "hot" page tight. --PM


 * Psalm 26:4 - I have not sat with men of untruth; And with those who hide what they are I do not come in.