Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard/JW discussion

Chief causes of conflict at Jehovah's Witness pages
I'll present a dot-point list here of the main causes of conflict with content of JW pages. It's a starting point should any debate as suggested by John Carter ensue; and to repeat, it may be beneficial to identify those issues and allow them to be calmly discussed, either here or at the JW project page to gain some consensus on how they should best be treated in future. From experience, these are the issues that often become the flashpoints of talk page conflict. Prior agreement may be enable any bushfires to be quickly doused. This is a starting point: other editors may wish to identify other areas of conflict they have observed. BlackCab (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Books written by ex-JWs
BlackCab comment: Several books by former JWs meet the demands of WP:RS, including the fact they are published by mainstream publishers and are cited by peer-reviewed academic authors. Current JWs, however, commonly assert that statements and observations about JW practices or beliefs made by former JWs are unacceptable on Wikipedia because these sources will be biased against JWs or deliberately misrepresent them to  portray them in a negative light. (This has in some cases been overcome by explicitly stating that certain authors, sometimes identifying them as ex-JWs, have made these claims.)

Fazilfazil comment: Of course you can use sources from writers who were motivated by their discomfort with their past religion. But you cannot blindly say all their writings are reliable because of the reason that some researchers quote specific points from their book. One example is here regarding writer James penton as user:AuthorityTam points out. In any case it should be carefully scrutinized with JWs publications and independent books (very hard to find? One might be this) to reflect the facts. If Wikipedia states simple lies about the religion quoting books from former members who actively criticize the religion then no wonder even random new editors come and shout that the article should be deleted.
 * On a subject as contentious as this, the background of all sources needs to be taken into account. One wouldn't necessarily accept at face value statements by AH MacMillan, who was an active JW when he wrote Faith on the March, and for the very reason that Wilson mentions, Penton's clash with JW leadership would also mean his claims should be treated with caution. The criticism of Penton quoted by AuthorityTam was primarily directed at his books on JWs in Nazi Germany and I'm not aware that any material from his books has been used on Wikipedia. And it can't be ignored that Penton's book is used as a reference source by hosts of academic writers. Note also that Wilson's comments are not directed specifically at Penton, but at defectors (I hate that ridiculous term "apostates") in general. As I've mentioned, it would be helpful to note where Penton does criticise the JWs that it is his view, rather than an objective fact. The recent edits to the "fear of demons" issue does just that. But it can't be said that an author's statements are automatically false, or motivated by spite, just because he/she is an ex-JW. Penton's book contains much valuable historical detail that can't be disputed and as a longtime member (with a claim to be anointed) he is in a good position to make an accurate observation on attitudes and practices. Several other books that contain valuable information were also written by ex-members.
 * I don't accept Fazilfazil's closing sentence. Willietell did claim the JW beliefs article contained lies, but he was never able to substantiate any of his claims. The article, which is fully referenced, is in fact still largely identical to its original form when he arrived and declared his determination to have the whole article deleted. The fact that a new editor arrives and starts shouting "bias" doesn't mean there is bias. Fazilfazil, are you suggesting there are still lies in that article? That's something you should raise at that article's talk page. BlackCab (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of bias has been removed to a great extent in Jehovah's Witnesses main article. However the tone of some statements and due/undue still needs improvement. It appears that Willietell claims are mainly because of the tone. Indeed it appears that you have negotiated many changes which shows that you are adapting. I am planning to raise those issues later when I get time--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am working to make necessary changes to that article, I feel that it still contains many misleading statements, A.K.A. lies... Just because I could not find an unbiased editor to agree with my observation, does not make my observation false, it simply makes me outnumbered, which isn't unexpected, because few Witnesses would dedicate the time necessary to modify pages on Wikipedia as it is sometimes a fruitless endeavor due to its transient nature. As far as "apostate" sources such as Penton and Franz, I feel that their opinion would be better limited to the Criticism page and not allowed where opinion could be portrayed as fact. Additionally, I have found it very difficult to have included well sourced rebuttal information from the WTS to counter these false claims made by the stated opinions of these biased individuals, as was the case in the aforementioned fear/dread of demons issue, where the rebuttal WTS information was deleted in whole or part several times before finally being allowed to exist on the page. I feel that if the biased opinion of apostate literature is being allowed, then a rebuttal from a reliable WTS source should automatically be allowed without question.  To do otherwise places Wikipedia in the middle of an argument with the appearance of taking one side over the other. Willietell (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Just found this page.) Willietell, it's apparent that you've predetermined that "an unbiased editor" is one who agrees with you. The fact is that several uninvolved editors, including a couple of admins, responded to your claims of bias in the main JW article, and none agreed with you. The majority of citations from Penton are for uncontested points about the history and development of Bible Students and JWs; only a few say something negative about JWs, and those statements are indicated as the views of a former member.
 * Of course, the same principle&mdash;"where opinion could be portrayed as fact"&mdash;applies equally to the presentation of JW beliefs.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Age of WTS source material
BlackCab comment: Some statements on JW beliefs and practices drawn from Watch Tower Society publications have been challenged on the basis that the source material is too old, in some cases almost 50 years old. It is true, however, that JWs are encouraged to maintain and consult libraries of older WTS publications. Members are encouraged to obtain WTS CDs containing Watchtower magazines dating back to 1950 and Awake magazines since 1970. Such older magazines are commonly referenced in contemporary WTS publications. A further difficulty arises in the fact that as Robert Crompton noted (Counting the Days to Armageddon, 1996, pg 115), very commonly WTS publications make no clear statement when certain beliefs are rescinded. In the absence of such a statement, when is it safe to assume those beliefs are still current or have in fact been abandoned? How old is too old: 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? There is no easy answer, for many contemporary teachings are in fact unchanged since their original pronouncement. I can provide examples if requested.

Fazilfazil comment: This does not appears to be a big problem in Wikipedia. Almost all of their fundamental teachings are available in newer publications of JWs. It is not necessary to emphasize on older teachings or observations which even an expert witness is not heard of. The religion continuously print material which it wish its even new adherents to be aware of. So if older statements are not reinterpreted in recent publications it suggests that they no longer wish to follow that. In many cases it turns out that critical-JWs editors look for loop holes for criticism in older publications. That attitude should be avoided. If older publications are used in support of a critical statement then it is wise to use an independent RS.

FaktneviM comment: Problem of citing very old sources comes only if previous teaching was changed since. And second situation - when using old statements which are 'far more distinctive' than those published nowadays. For example, 'extreme statement' from 1950's should not be cited if recent claims on same topic are 'more normal' than the old one. Such old sources should be mentioned with notice that this reasoning is no longer supported, if is it the case.
 * I agree there is no value in providing citations to support doctrines that have explicitly been changed. New WTS references obviously trump old ones. But here are two specific examples, raised as talking points, to illustrate the dilemma.
 * Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, in attempting to identify just how Witness doctrines are formulated, cites a 1933 book by JF Rutherford, in which he explains that anointed members are "instructed by the angels of the Lord". He explained: "The remnant do not hear audible sounds, because such is not necessary. Jehovah has provided his own good way to convey thoughts to the minds of his anointed ones ... Those of the remnant, being honest and true, must say, We do not know; and the Lord enlightens them, sending his angels for that very purpose." It's probably the oldest of the references in the article, but comes closest to explaining the process by which JWs believe the anointed (or the Governing Body) are "instructed" by God, "led" by Jesus or have "new truths revealed" to them. As far as I'm aware, no WTS publication has ever disputed or rejected that teaching of Rutherford's. Witnesses still believe in angels, angelic direction and divine guidance so presumably the teaching is still current, even though I know of no repetition of it in more recent publications.
 * Jehovah's Witnesses practices includes two WT quotes, from 1950 and 1972, to support the statement that "according to The Watchtower, one role of the frequency and length of meetings is to protect Witnesses from becoming "involved in the affairs of the world." The WT citations are unambiguous: a JW is best kept busy to lessen the temptation of deeper involvement in non-spiritual affairs. Does the leadership still believe this? If not, where has it said this, and when did the statement cease being true? Are these examples of "extreme statements" FaktneviM refers to? Or do circuit overseers and elders still believe this? After how many years does a "modern" belief become an old one? BlackCab (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you need to emphasize on those issues? Honestly examine if it have anything to do with your beliefs. As I said when a teaching is not repeated or reminded it implies that they no longer endorse that doctrine. Several wordings like Rutherford said is never explained again and WT have acknowledged that their early leader have made wrong statements because of their limited knowledge. Further GB is not considered as an infallible prophet in modern teaching. They teach that God's holy-spirit helps them, but also teach that God have an appointed time regarding when he should help them. They also teach that faith helps to neglect unanswered questions/mistakes by having the conviction from other core teachings and examples in the Bible. So by doing a comparative study like this we can safely conclude that on old statements--Fazilfazil (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @BlackCab -- On your two specific examples. ... I don't know. In these cases we probably keep those citations as it was written. I have doubts of importance these citations for the content. ... And Yes. I had in mind similar statements like you mentioned. Such single distinctive proclamations aren't probably adhered by recent adherents of the religious group. On the other hand, it was their believe during their life. We should analyze that statements from from the perspective of the time (1930's, 1970's) and not from the perspective of the year 2012. Until Governing Body was installed in 1976, they have different direction and most of such specific statements were rather personal opinions of responsible publishing redactors. And No. This all is not in contradiction that Sovereign Lord JHVH lead them as an only organization of preachers. --FaktneviM ♥ (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if one of these older statements is challenged as to basis on current beliefs or even as to being a notable belief of JW's then if a relatively current source (say the past 30 years) cannot be provided, then the material should without question be removed. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are routinely addresses in current WTS publications.  If a belief cannot be found published by the WTS in a 30 year period, it is unreasonable to conclude that they are teaching this to current members. Willietell (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another reason for suggested 30 years period could be that that publications available in local Kingdom Halls bookshelf contains only books 1990 (22 years) and newer. It is evident that average adherent of the group is not taught by older ones a thus older teaching is not rellevant for current members, (and thus also for content of JW-related articles in Wikipedia). If they know older teaching of the organization, they simply do no bother about. Moreover, the books used during "Bible study" with an applicants (what is most important for potential readers of WP) are exclusivelly the latest as possible. (e.g. 2005, 2008, and even 2012). Jehovah's Witnesses publications, List of Watch Tower Society publications. Some teaching is also in current WT, AW magazines, brochures and by circuit conventions. Fazilfazil´s comments in this subheading mention that some old sources are used with aim of criticism by side of Wikipedia and that when a teaching is not repeated or reminded it implies that they no longer endorse that doctrine. --FaktneviM (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 comment: If an older JW source is challenged, and can be replaced with a newer source expressing a different view, then the old source should be replaced with the newer reference. However, if a source (including older sources) is challenged simply because someone just doesn't like it, that is not sufficient reason for removal. Recent JW publications do refer to older JW literature. The 15 October 2000 issue of The Watchtower, in a Question from Readers article cites the 1 July 1951 issue of the same magazine. The 15 February 2010 issue cited an article from the 1 March 1960 issue. There is clearly not any specific expiry date on older JW literature.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch Tower Society subtext
BlackCab comment: Through careful use of certain phrases in meetings and publications, the JW leadership conveys certain strong – yet unspoken – viewpoints to Witnesses. JWs exposed to these loaded terms are left in no doubt about the meaning and their expected response. Is it therefore fair to cite those WTS publications that contain a subtext understood by every dedicated member of the religion? If so, how should they be used? Such examples, with their inferred meaning in brackets, include “true Christian” (Jehovah’s Witness), “apostates” (dissenting ex-Witnesses), “faithful slave” (Governing Body), “loyal Christian” (obedient JW), “wrong expectations” (false predictions) “opposers” (critics), “Bible truths” (official JW teaching at any chosen point in time), “false religion” (all religions apart from JWs), “revealed truth” (new doctrine established by the Governing Body), “false teachers” (all other Christian clergy) and “proud and assuming” (opponents of JW doctrine).

Fazilfazil comment: Agree that the mentioned wording specific to the religion can be replaced with understandable words. I don't think any witness editors would oppose those wordings you have written. At least this is how it appears in Wikipedia articles now. Except for true Christians (all who actually follow the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible based teachings which they believe to be in harmony with that taught by Jesus and early Christians) and revealed truth (New adjustments in beliefs that the Governing body after careful scrutinizing and prayer believe to be Biblical).
 * Those last two definitions of coded WTS statements are overly long, contain redundancies and also sound too much like apologias. Do WTS publications allow for the possibility of there being "true Christians" outside the JW organisation? BlackCab (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In modern day they believe that only Jehovah's Witnesses religion represents the true Christianity. However they do not say that each Jehovah's Witnesses is a true Christian. The term do not apply to individuals who secretly continue to disobey the Bible teachings provided by the Organization. It is difficult to clearly state this large explanation in Wikipedia. But we should try to explain them in simple ways without any bias. Most of this would appear as an apology. But it is what they believe. They have a Biblical reason for all their teaching --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * JWs have a biblical interpretation for all their teachings, just like every other Christian group does. Wikipedia articles certainly cannot suggest that JWs (or any other particular group) are 'true' Christians in a way that suggests that others are any less 'true'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell comment: I don't object to clarification of a term used to make it more clear to the reader, but it should be done from a NPOV and not in a manner which conveys a suggestion that Wikipedia is taking sides in the matter. An example of this is the discussion regarding the use of the term Expected in the beliefs article over the term encouraged. We arrived at a compromise and used "obligation" to present a more neutral stance from Wikipedia. The use of terms that place Wikipedia in a position of offering an opinion are unacceptable and should be avoided. Willietell (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Encouraged is certainly used a lot by JWs, and is often employed as a euphemism for a more definite direction.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FaktneviM comment: I feel that there are few terms which are not easy to understand by non-JW-knowledgeable readers of WP, are controversial, and there is a tendency for reader to WP:SYNTH. (Because reader do not get an answer, ... own synthesis in only possibly variant after). Especially apply for these terms: “true Christianity”,“false religion”, -- Term "false religion" is used neither due some kind of "pride over others" from their side, nor from the reason that "they are crazy sect". = Only 2 possible explanations for un-knowledgeable reader after reading this terms in WP article. It is common for a reader to raise a question ... "Why?" they believe this, "Why?" all other religions are false. But Wikipedia articles do not give answer on these first questions. There is only very few, incomplete information about this. Jehovah's Witnesses' term "false religion" Thus some more explanation for that attitude of JWs is needed there. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to defend JW beliefs or to attempt to convince that their beliefs are correct or better than the beliefs of other groups.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perception of agenda-pushing
BlackCab comment: JW editors frequently bridle at any use of such terms as “control”, “direct”, “require” and “instruct” when referring to JW practices, preferring words such as “encourage”. The difference, obviously, is down to interpretation of the degree of expectation or requirement for compliance and unity. Similarly, editors have disagreed on terms such as the generalized “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe ...” when it may be more accurate to state that Witnesses are taught a certain belief, particularly when dealing with doctrines that have indisputably changed over time. To use an exaggerated example, if JWs “believe” a doctrine on Monday that changes on Tuesday, is it automatically assumed that by Wednesday they all “believe” the new teaching? The perception of agenda-pushing has frequently extended to what are arguably indisputable and mundane statements of JW belief or practice when these statements are added to articles by ex-JW editors. JW editors have several times challenged these statements out of nothing more than a suspicion they may be concealing some criticism.

Fazilfazil comment: Apply words considering the context and how it is understood by the adherents by comparing other publications of JWs. See Wikipedia guidelines for Impartial tone and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Willietell comment: Refer to my comments above in the proceeding section, as they also apply here. Willietell (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 comment: This depends on context. For basic uncontroversial fundamental JW teachings (e.g. JWs believe Jesus is God's son), there generally wouldn't be a problem saying JWs believe.... This is the case even if there might conceivably be some members who do not completely understand or agree with the teaching. However, if a subject is controversial (e.g. blood transfusions) or frequently subject to change (e.g. definition of the generation), it is better to state JWs are taught a particular thing.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No using of Bible scriptures to explain JWs motives/rules
Faktnevim comment: This list indeed includes most of issues within JW-related articles to meet NPOV policy, but one was discussed with no real application to practice in Wikipedia. Main practice is generally against using scriptures in JW-related articles. Mostly by revert changes which intend including of specific scripture verse or 'suggest to change in WikiProject' policy. Or saying 'that's beyond the scope of the article'. Or reasoning because 'the articles are so long', 'Watchtowerish' and 'POV fork'. There is some policy about using scriptures, .... but in real Wikipedia life, there is no real support for including those, possibly because anti-JW POV, which is also as bad as pro-JW POV is. Religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses ('WTBTS' .... whole name ... not only 'Watchtower Society') claim that all their doctrines are highly supported from the scriptures. This should be examined directly in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, but this also mean that should to respect reasoning of the subjects itself and includes all points of view.
 * Your point is a little difficult to discern, but there have been suggestions in the past to use more scriptures in articles to support JW beliefs. There are certainly times when this is needed (and they are used well in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and the sections in the same article on 144,000 and Other sheep. Some could be added to the section on apostasy in the same article to explain the JW application of shunning. The problem has been a tendency for some editors to sprinkle articles with bracketed scriptures in the way Watchtower articles do, with the implication that the scripture in some way confirms a doctrine, when generally it is simply one of many possible interpretations. There are no hard and fast rules, and where editors think they should be added, it's something we can discuss and reach a consensus. I don't see that "anti-JW POV" has anything to do with those decisions, and nor do I see that objection to inclusion of scriptures in any way benefits "anti-JW" editors. BlackCab (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear that we should only describe how WTBTS' literature implicate the specific scripture. In both cases (if confirms their doctrine), or (prove that the reasoning of WTBTS's is not biblical). Please avoid the third way (atheist point of view -- all is wrong, because I don't want obey neither God, nor man). This third way is highly irrelevant from JWs viewpoint (whole organization including all believing people) and it is not admitted as a argument at all. Generally, editors of Wikipedia should avoid releasing own theories and speculations. However, the sentence 'one of many possible interpretations' reveal the one of possible reasons why the Bible is not used much more. You simply have your own understanding of the Bible which differ from WTBTS' rationale for the specific teaching. That is OK. Editors of Wikipedia could have their own PointOfView. But this shouldn't be affected in the articles. Articles should include rationale from the Bible in which way WTBTS use it. Rationale for all different beliefs and practices are frequently published by WTBTS. There is no problem to include them. --FaktneviM ♥ (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with FaktneviM, it is illogical to attempt to explain who Jehovah's Witnesses are and what they believe while at the same time attempting to avoid the very thing they base the very existence upon, which is the belief in Jehovah as the creator of he universe and the bible as the word of God. That other religions and atheists believe something different is out of the scope of the discussion and not notable.  The reader already knows both of these facts prior to coming to Wikipedia and looking up Jehovah's Witnesses.  The scriptures that Jehovah's Witnesses base their beliefs upon are both notable and relevant to the discussion and should be presented to give a well rounder understanding to the reader of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.  To do otherwise deprives the reader of the factual  information that they sought out in the first place. Willietell (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 comment: As stated in a section above, it is not Wikipedia's role to try to defend or convince. JW doctrines should ideally be sourced from reliable secondary sources, though their own beliefs can also be sourced from JW publications. Articles should not source JW doctrines directly from scriptures that JWs happen to interpret a certain way. For Wikipedia's purposes in particular, presenting a scripture as a source for a JW belief would amount to the article interpreting a primary source, which would constitute original research. (See also Religious text primary). It is sometimes appropriate to quote a scripture&mdash;such as when the specific wording is pertinent&mdash;and then provide the JW interpretation, but the interpretation needs to be sourced from something other than the scripture itself.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)