Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

1979 witch hunt

'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)


Nevermind Its' brought out rather well in the article on ray franz.--Greyfox 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you

jefro77

tommstein

keep up the good work.--Greyfox 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged.Tommstein 04:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If I get dfed I hope it's for what I did hear.--Greyfox 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

merged two pages to this one UN and sex abuse

sorry I have not copyedited the previous page so if any problems not my falt--Greyfox 01:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

607 BC

Hinged on two other prophecies, the 70 weeks of years, and the Ezekiel 4:1-7 390 days/years of the kingdome of Judah's unfaithfulness. Interpretations of those prophecies complicate a simple interpretation of "forcing" 1914 based solely on the Daniel 4 prophecy.

607 is not 'hinged' on anything at all. The JW interpretations of the other prophecies (the two you mention as well as 1914) are hinged on 607.--Jeffro77 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The 70 weeks of years supposedly started in 455 B.C. (I think it was), and have no relation to 607 B.C. I don't think 607 B.C. is derived from the 390 years either, but vice versa (i.e. we 'know' this 390 year period ended in 607, so counting back 390 years we get to 997, unless you know of a completely independent way to first establish 997 and then arrive at 607).Tommstein 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


7 x 360 = 2520 days, day for a year.

2520 - 1914 = - 606 (aka 607 bce, remember no zero year)

doesn't make sence but thats how it works. --Greyfox 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to greatly expand on the 607 section in the article, but it is difficult to do neutrally because there is so much evidence against it. Any suggestions?--Jeffro77 10:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Present secular evidence, present biblical evidence. Duffer 10:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The biblical evidence can be harmonized completely with the secular evidence.--Jeffro77 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Impossible unless you deny scripture and accept the desolation of Jerusalem was only 50 years, and not the full 70 revealed to us by Daniel (Chapter 9). Duffer 21:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article you refer to incorrectly states that the Jews returned in 537. Josephus indicates that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus’ second year (Against Apion, Book I, chapter 21), and Ezra 3:8 places that event in the 2nd month (Iyyar), corresponding with May of 537BC. Ezra 3:1 says that the Jews were “in their cities” in the 7th month (Tishri) of the year before, corresponding with October of 538BC. The article incorrectly implies that the 70 years were of Judah rather than Babylon. The "word of Jeremiah" mentioned at Ezra 1:1 was that the Jews would return "in accord with" the end of the 70 years, not that the return marked the end of the period. The article attempts a perversion of what is written in the bible by trying to suggest that Jehoiakim's 3rd year is actually his 8th, whereas Daniel's reference to his third year is actually his third year (using the Babylonian accession-year system) which is synonymous with Jeremiah's reference to his fourth year without using the accession-year system (Jeremiah 25:1). It also attempts misdirection with the accession-year system by trying to convince the reader that Daniel could not have interpreted a dream in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year (third year including accession year) if he had already been there three years (which is actually perfectly synchronous as Daniel was taken just prior to Nebuchadnezzar's accession to the throne on his return to Babylon, and Nebuchadnezzar's "2nd year" was Daniel's third year in Babylon). The article appeals to itself for authority, stating that years (such as 617) synchronize with itself for Ezekiel and Daniel with no external support. It completely dismisses the 70 years of Tyre, though Tyre is explicitly referred to in Jeremiah 25 as being subject to the same 70 years. The article further misdirects the reader by suggesting that the subjugation to Babylon must begin with the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. Though Nebuchadnezzar brought the sieges, the suppremacy of the Babylonian empire replaced that of the Assyrian empire in 609, and Jeremiah states that the 70 years would be of serving the "king of Babylon", not "Nebuchadnezzar". The article has no veracity, and its only purpose is to prop up the 607 doctrine, which to a careful reader, it does quite badly.--Jeffro77 03:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Daniel's use of the Hebrew noun chorbah (translated devastations) does not indicate that Jerusalem was completely depopulated for 70 years. Furthermore, Daniel 5:26-31 clearly indicates the calling to account of the king that was foretold by Jeremiah would happen once the 70 years of 'nations serving Babylon' (Jeremiah 25:11-12) were fulfilled. All mention of the 70 years can only be validly interpreted in the context of Jeremiah's initial reference to it, which were of "nations" serving Babylon. There is no more need to assign the entire 70 years literally to the exile than there is to assign the full period to Tyre. Even the Society admits the true context of the 70 years in its Isaiah's Prophecy - Light for All Mankind publication (page 253):
Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination.
Indeed, Babylonia was not dominant after 539, so the application of the 70 years going from 607 to 537 does not work.--Jeffro77 23:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, the context of Daniel 9, Ezra 1, 2 Chron. 36, Zachariah ch. 1 and 7, demands a literal interpretation of a full 70 year desolation. "All the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years." The Hebrew SHAMA literally means: "deserted", "wilderness", "desolate". Read the whole link I provided. This is not to debate the veracity of the 1914 doctrine, but to explicate the discrepencies between biblical and secular chronologies. They are different. Duffer 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
shamem does not demand complete depopulation, and applying the 70 years specifically to the exile directly contradicts Jeremiah 25:11-12. Furthermore, that there was an exile of Jews after the time the temple was destroyed indicates that the land was not completely depopulated at that time (and that those Jews were some who had fled to Egypt is purely conjecture). Ezekiel 40:1 further indicates that the beginning of the exile as enumerated by the Jews was not synonymous with the destruction of the temple. The statements in Daniel, Ezra and 2 Chronicles can only be validly viewed in the context of what is stated at Jeremiah 25, just as Isaiah 23:15 does not apply the entire 70 years to Tyre.
Zechariah refers to a different period of "these 70 years", from 587 to 517 (from the temple's destruction to the decree by Darius to complete its rebuilding, which is evidenced by the statement that the other nations (that were formerly under Babylonian subjugation) were now "at ease" (Zechariah 1:15) whereas Jerusalem was still "denounced" (za'am - 'indignation') because the temple was incomplete. The angel's question at Zechariah 1:12 is meaningless if the period had already ended.--Jeffro77 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
In this context, SHAMA / SHAVTA does demand a full 70 years "until the land had paid off it's Sabbaths" (2 Chron. 36: 20). I'm not sure how that contradicts Jeremiah 25. It is the popular secular belief that Neb began his reign in 605 (4th year of Jehoiakim), 605 to 539 is only 66 years, so... somebody's wrong. I must admit this is quickly about to go over my head in terms of further specifics. If you want to expand the article in this area simply put the secular argument, then add the Witnesses argument (1, 2, 3). I hear Mag. Art. Professor Rolf Furuli makes a great case in his book, but I don't have it (yet). Duffer 04:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
2 Chronicles 36:21 does not actually state that the Sabbaths were paid off for the full 70 years, but that the Sabbaths were paid back by the conclusion of the 70 years. It is perfectly valid and consistent with the scriptures and secular history to state that the Sabbaths were paid back during (as a subset of) the 70 years. It was not the paying back of the Sabbaths that was foretold by Jeremiah, but a period of nations serving Babylon. I will put something together for the main article with the secular and Witness viewpoints as time permits. I am quite sure that 'Brother' Rolf Furuli makes what seems like a very good case for his religious beliefs.--Jeffro77 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The biblical evidence can be harmonized completely with the secular evidence

I hope your being cynnical?

Can the bible be harmonized with reality, without apologetics of course.--Greyfox 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Purpose

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)


Hi,new here, just been looking around this afternoon, forgive me for jumping in with two feet, however the comments about this subject falling into "debate" and not a documentation exercise..in my honest opinion it would seem the remedy, Fact, Counter, Rebuttal is just that "debate". I've followed this certain subject now for near on 15 years, it's heavy going as you well know. The bottom line of course being, is there any secular evidence that 607 was the correct date? I have to go with Jeffro's comment that there is so much evidence against it. And how can you present Biblical evidence and then secular evidence? Biblical evidence depends wholly on secular evidence,not the other way around as any dates in the Bible are relative dates, so even the Watchtower has to go to secular evidence to promote a date, and I know, no secular evidence supports the 607 date, NPOV on this subject will be hard to document, but looking forward to the development.

ooops told you I was new, can't see my name anywhere, it's Simon1964, forgive my ignorance I'll read up on editing Simon1964 15:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) ok think thats it

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)

Simon1964 15:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Hi cbt, I was editing too but lost it, was that because you were too?, I'll get used to it, apologies for missing your point, I was trying to mention that you quoted "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", regarding that website. Well I looked at the site albeit not in great detail and your quote is misleading. There is no mention of any scholar agreeing that there is secular evidence to prove 607. Now having said that there are mentions of the Cyrus 537 date, to which is not in dispute here, but not 607. My point I suppose being that how could you quote that site to document a "fact, counter or rebuttal" on the question of "is there secular evidence to support 607". maybe I'm running ahead here and debating a debate lol,

Hi cbt after re-reading your comment, you would agree with me? that for the majority of the 607 doctrine, assumptions and contexts have to be taken into consideration regarding certain scriptual passages?. I say that because there are not 20,000 different denominations of christinaity because the bible is clear and concise in what it tries to say, particularly of complex prohecies/history. However when it comes to the 587 date there is verifiable secular evidence, there is no such evidence for the 607 date. The Watchtower has never produced any secular evidence and furthers their cause purely by trying to the dismiss 587 evidence by using "contexted,"assumptioned" biblical passages. Consider this, why does the Watchtower Society accept secular evidence to support Cyrus 537 and yet disregards the same secular evidence for 587. I realise that this subject cuts right to the bone of the Watchtower organisation, the very notion that 607 wasn't the date and the Watchtower 1914 doctrine falls over, therefore the Faithful and Discreet Slave chosen in 1919 falls over. Therfore I re-iterate the difficulty in "documenting" this subject, without someone crying "foul". regards Simon1964

Simon1964 09:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Hi Jeffro, you said this "I would like to greatly expand on the 607 section in the article, but it is difficult to do neutrally because there is so much evidence against it. Any suggestions?--Jeffro77 10:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)" I agree with this sentiment, my own feeling is that it could be along these lines, that to reconcile 587, one only has to revert to secular evidence, to reconcile 607 a combination or secular and bilbical scriptures are required. I hope this makes sense?. What I'm trying to convey is that the 607 date relies on certain scriptures in a certain context. If this can be kept in mind then we have a chance of being NPOV as possible. regards Simon1964

Blood Problem, user:Central's editions

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)

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)

Should this article exist?

It seems to me that page is not written in a neutral manner that befits an institution such as this. Most of the allegations of controversy where under elaborated and at no time was any opportunity for counter argument given. Therefore i put it to all who will listen that this is not an article documenting the criticisms of a controversial religion but and active criticism of it and therefore unsuited to this encyclopedic institution. (Jimsim 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

I suggest we salvage what useable content we can from this article, then jettison it. joshbuddy 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've linked this article from Jehovah's Witnesses#Controversy and opposition; it's too long to merge into the main article. In order to be a better article, it needs cleanup by consensus to ensure that the neutral point of view is preserved. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The article should definitely stay, as breaking it up destroys the availability of the controversial issues as a collection in the first place, and can only be deemed a JW propaganda exercise, as they want less palatable information hidden, destroyed, or made much harder to find. I find it interesting that they have created massive PR propaganda articles based on pure subjective bias like the JW "persecution" section, and no one says a word about that. Central 13:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Central, the article should stay. I simply think it needs to take the form of many links, pointing readers to more detailed descriptions in side articles. I like the idea of having all the controversial issues in one area.
I think the "persecution" and "opposition" articles, where they deal with historical facts, should be folded into the history. When they deal with beliefs and practices, folding into those articles. Perhaps it would be useful for it to become structured similarly to how I plan to structure this article. Its all about building up the side article's content.. which takes quite a bit of time. But you'll see I already attempted to move some of it over to the eschatology section. I was having difficulty writing all the points and in a balanced way for 607. joshbuddy 17:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I closed this AfD and found that the tag was already removed from the article. Just FYI. Ifnord 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand Cam Engine Corp

  • SMR Investment LTD holds controlling interest in Reg Tech Inc.
  • Reg Tech owns 51% of Rand Energy Group. Reg Tech also holds controlling interest of Rand Energy Group which holds controlling interest in REGI U.S. which owns the U.S. rights to the Rand Cam™
  • Rand Cam Engine Corp owns 49% of Rand Energy Group.
  • The Watchtower owns 50% of Rand Cam Engine Corp. James McCann (the inventor of Rand Cam™) owns 34% and maintains voting proxy of the Watchtower's shares. The WT holds no control of the Rand Cam engine, or any of the involved companies.

^ S 1

Radian Inc has a license agreement (2002) for the manufacture of Rand Cam diesel engines for Unmaned Autonomous Vehicles of commercial and military application. S2

REGI is currently testing the Rand Cam™ generator applications for hybrid electric cars, portable generator applications, and back-up power sources for family homes (2004)S3

The claim: "The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, owns substantial shares (over 50%, 5,371,900 shares) and in a company that specialises in military engine parts and hardware, RAND CAM ENGINE CORP." Is demonstrably false. The WTS owns approximately 50% of Rand Cam Engine Corp of which it has no control over as James McCann retained voting proxy of the WTS's shares. The sources you cite: 1 and 2 are the same thing, and 3 is just a link back to those and/or other websites that copy the same. There is no evidence to support: "over 50%" and/or "specialises in military engine parts and hardware".

Central, please source your edits. I'm rather inclined to delete this outright, but I must extend the benefit of the doubt. Duffer 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my deletion of the contested section? Duffer 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible you could simply clean it up, make it not so POV. And remove the external links, replace with real references? The dispute tag is already above it, so there is (as I see it) no rush to delete it. joshbuddytalk 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Once it's cleaned for NPOV it won't be controversial:
  • Inventor James McCann gifted the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society approximately 5,371,900 (50%) of RandCam™ Engine Corp, though he maintains voting proxy over those shares as well as an additional 34% of the company. Through James McCann (the inventor of the RandCam™ Rotary technology) the Watchtower subsequently owns 49% of Rand Energy Group. Rand Energy Group is controlled (51%) by Reg Tech, and James McCann (49%). Reg Tech is owned by SMR Investment LTD. REGI U.S., controlled by the Rand Engery Group and a subsidiary of Reg Tech, owns the U.S. rights to the RandCam™ Rotary technology and has licensed it to the company Radian Inc. Radian Inc. plans to use the technology for commercial and military applications.
SMR Investment LTD ------- REG TECH.     
                                \51%           
                                 \                         ??? (Unknown)
       James McCann --34%--\      |---Rand Energy Group        |
                       +    \    /                  \51+%      |49-%
         Watchtower --50%--\ \  /49%                 \----REGI U.S.---U.S. Rights to R.C.R.
                      RandCam Engine Corp.                        \--Licensed RandCam™ Rotary Rights to Radian Inc.
By approximately 4 degrees of seperation and 0 controlling interest in any of the above companies the WTS is involved with a company (Radian Inc) that may use the license of the RandCam™ Rotary Diesel Engine to develop military applications. Since these shares were gifted there was no investment on the part of the WTS, as of 2002 (the most recent data I've found) the WTS has not sold or otherwise walked away from the shares, thus they have made no profit from the shares. I doubt that qualifies as "controversial". Duffer 21:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for this. I'm going to take a look at it later and check it out. I've always been unclear about all these relationships. Who is James McCann btw? joshbuddytalk 21:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
James McCann is the inventor of the RandCam™ Diesel Engine technology. It is unclear (though highly likely) that he is himself a Jehovah's Witness. Duffer 21:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if anyone wants to keep this is will need a better source than what's been provided. I'm not sure a collection of websites really qualified has a source. I would really like hear what other people think about this. joshbuddytalk 10:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Just another note, while the claim that rand cam specializes in military equipment might be false, it would appear that Rand Cam does make military equipment, and its shareholders are largely Headquarters or James McCann who is a Witness. I suppose there might be something to the concept that the Watchtower is profiting off of a company that makes things for military applications, though not exclusively. Whether this is "controversial" or not I cannot answer. If there is a slightly better source for this, I would like to know. Is there a book or article that makes some good claims and seems like a reasonable source? Its a bit unclear to me though. They make engines. Engines would get used in military applications. Is that the extent of the controversy? joshbuddytalk 12:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside of anti-Witness websites I can't find any information on RandCam Engine Corp. Also, even in the seemingly legitimate source that I can find the WTS only appears as a beneficiary because Mr. McCann "indicated": "Rand Cam Engine Corp. is a privately held company whose stock is reportedly owned 50% by The Watchtower Society, a religious organization, 34% by James McCann and the balance by several other shareholders. Mr. McCann has indicated that he donated the shares held by The Watchtower Society to that organization but has retained a voting proxy for those shares." Even the "best" most "verifiable" information on this subject still doesn't amount to more than hearsay, which even that only tenuously establishes a tangential connection to a company that MIGHT use the license of the RandCam Diesel Engine for military and commercial applications... and even then James McCann maintains voting proxy over the WTSs' alleged shares. On top of this (yes there's more!) NoT ONE of the alleged "sources" brought forth by Central cites a source that verifies not only the above that I have provided myself, but also their more rediculous accusations. It's nonsense. Duffer 12:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Tell me where I'm going wrong here.
  • Watchtower owns 50% shares in Rand Cam
  • Rand cam makes engines
  • Some of these engines are used by the military
  • Rand cam makes some of its profits from military sales
  • The watchtower makes some profit off of Rand Cam's stock
  • The Watchtower makes some profit off of sales to the military
Please don't take that as my wanting this included or not included. I'm just trying to understand the logic of this being controversial. joshbuddytalk 13:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I am unsure what you mean by "Rand Cam". Are you refering to RandCam Engine Corp, or REGTECH? I can't find anything on RandCam Engine Corp beyond what I've already cited.
  • The WTS MAY own 50% shares in RandCam Engine Corp. Which they allegedly deny.
  • Reg. Tech., makes RandCam Diesel Engines (and markets them for possible military application), whos subsidiary company REGI US has been known to license the technology for possible military application.
  • Reg. Tech. and REGI US makes some of their profit from military sales.
Is there anything that directly involves the WTS which extends beyond hearsay in all of this? Duffer 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 5,371,900 legal shares do! Central 09:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Prove it. Even the most neutral source I could find only mentions the WTS because the inventor of RandCam "INDICATED" that he gave 50% of the shares to the WTS. That is hear-say. Prove that James McCann followed through on HIS, ALLEGED, claim. Duffer 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Further info on RandCam

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)

Child Sex Abuse

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)


Blood

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)

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)


I understand your point. I just am hoping to clean up some of the double info. Do we need two controversial areas? We have the page here, but we also have the sub-heading under jw and blood. No big deal though. We can just have the exact same paragraphs in a few different places, I don't think that would kill anyone. Johanneum 14:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Question of Referencing - HELP!

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)


NPOV Tag

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)

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)
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)

The article was written from the JW POV. It needs to be overhauled. Basically it is an apologetic rather then a balanced look at controversial issues. JW's do NOT like any truths that show the org in a bad light.Cestusdei 00:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Anti-Catholicism

There should be some entry on the extremely bigoted anti-Catholic views of the JW's.

You need to provide independent verifiable sources which document this. Even presenting quotes from Watchtower publications would be considered original research. Because of the controversial nature of your edits, I reverted them. Please feel free to document any verifiable source which presents this information, and then do so with a neutral point-of-view. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 21:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute! You are a JW. You KNOW what they think about Catholicism. Gosh, I knew they were deceptive, but this takes the cake. You won't even let him quote the WT? I am willing to bet no matter what he quotes you will still find a reason to delete it.Cestusdei 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Making the statement "I knew they were deceptive" is both insulting, prejudiced, and inflammatory. This also goes against WP:CIV; civility violations, blanket inflammatory statements and personal attacks have recently plagued this series of articles, leading to the infinite banning of two editors. So let's try to avoid that route, shall we?
As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, yes, of course I know what the Watchtower says, and has said in the past, about Catholicism, and other religions and specific religious beliefs. Within the context of religious discussion, it's difficult to substantiate actual bigotry from a neutral point-of-view. Catholicism insists it is the only true faith, but uses hopeful language in reference to other factions of Christendom returning to the Church. Witnesses likewise believe that they possess the "one true faith," but their hope of ingathering is directed more at the individual rather than the group.
Wikipedia defines bigotry this way:
"Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and intolerant manner."
Simply disagreeing on a theological level is not bigotry. Witnesses have endeavored to take time to take a scholarly approach to their conclusions, so it really isn't fair to accuse them of obstinence, nor even of prejudging. Disagreeing with a religious view is not bigoted. Witnesses are also taught to listen to people and teach with tact, so rudeness and intolerance should not be a part of their preching and teaching. (This method has itself risen from their study of the Bible; earlier approaches were less tactful.)
To summarize: all you have to do is source the viewpoints you wish to present. I made no statement suggesting a carte blanche restriction on Watchtower quotes; you simply can't quote it and say it's bigoted. You need an independent verifiable source that says that. Read more carefully WP:NOR, because this is the policy I am trying to adhere to. - CobaltBlueTony 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is from the catholic league: A publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witness) depicted a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "‘Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship.’ —Exodus 20:4, 5; Isaiah 44: 9-17; 1 John 5:21." This is anti-Catholic bigotry. I went to the WT site and typed in pope. Took 2 seconds to find more.Cestusdei 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Short quotes from the WT magazine are OK (We do need to keep them short for several reasons - we need to be wary about copyright issues, we don't have a lot of space and also short quotes keep the article flowing nicely). The WT magazine is a source document for JW beliefs and can therefore be used to clarify their position on a given issue but the quotes are not enough on their own.
Using the example you have given above - you can say that the WT has stated that kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary is akin to idol worship. You then need to say that such-and-such from the organization such-and-such states that the assertion amounts to anti-catholic bigotry and include a reference - if at all possible an online reference. Without such a reference, what you have (according to Wikipedia policy) is an interpretation or original research. Hope this helps. Lucy 01:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that documenting the Witnesses anti-catholic stance would be trivial. It is well documented in Apocalypse Delayed. joshbuddytalk 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it anti-catholicism as we feel the same (to varying degrees but the general idea is the same) about all non-Witness religions that comprise 'Babylon the Great'. Though I can readily see why someone could get the impression that the WTS is "anti-catholic" as their practices are used as examples of what we believe to be apostate church behavior in general (no offense intended)(not necessarily limited to Catholicism); examples of behavior from church groups that comprise 'Babylon the Great'. Duffer 15:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
What I am trying to be careful about is the use of the term bigotry. The only "controversy" I see is from those who feel slighted somehow by Witness' criticism of their faith and the actions of their leadership. Therefore, following WP:NOR, they can present facts that document a previously published opinion on the topic of bigotry as perceived on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses against Catholics.
Can bigotry be expressed against an ideal? Or only people? In general, Witnesses tend to hate the thought, action, or idea, rather than actual individual people. - CobaltBlueTony 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps bigotry isn't the right term. Rutherford's Enemies is pretty specifically anti-catholic (and not anti-religion). joshbuddytalk 17:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, Rutherford is long dead. I'm not saying whatever Penton may have to say on the matter should be ignored, just considered with caution and in the light of what is currently taught. Duffer 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It may have been controversial to a significant segment of the population of the time; but the gradual change in the tone of articles condemning the past actions and religious aspects of the Church to a more theological and less rhetorical theme has likewise lessened the controversy. Rutherford genuinely believed his approach was right, and at that time it certainly startled alot of people into thinking more about their beliefs. But his goal was definitely not to foment hate among individuals, but to "free" people from the "bonds" of religious "falsehoods," which is in itself as controversial as Russell's 'turning the hose on hell.' - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not attempting to argue for the inclusion of anti-catholic bigotry as a controversial issue. Simply pointing out that anti-catholic sentiments were present in the past, and easily verifiable. (One hardly needs to go to Penton) Thats all. It does seem like a bit of a non-issue with regards to this article. joshbuddytalk 18:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we're really on the same page with this one. The sentiments expressed were not because the beliefs/ideas came from Catholicism. or Catholics, but because Witnesses objected to the ideas directly. They would have spoken out against them no matter what group espoused them. I don't think it's really an issue either. - CobaltBlueTony 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First, to say that JW's are not anti-Catholic is delusional. I have had plenty come to my door and attack Catholicism and I have read the WT. Second other parts of the article downplay problems in the JW's. JW pov seems to predominate. It seems to me that the inmates are ruling the asylum here. The JW organization does not allow criticism by it's members. Not only that they are forbidden to read any critical material. They can be cast out into the darkness for it. So can we say that a JW is going to be willing to post criticism here? But if you don't mind me quoting the WT a bit and showing their anti-Catholicism that will be fine. Cobaltblue are you willing to allow things to be posted that are critical of your theocratic organization? If not then be honest and say so.Cestusdei 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a brief paragraph using a very limited example. All sources were cited. I don't think anyone can consider it unfair. Here is a chance to prove me wrong about JW's by not just deleting it on a pretext.Cestusdei 01:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text: The Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of anti-Catholicism. Here is one example of this accusation: a publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witness) depicted a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "‘Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship...'"[6]This was cited by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in it's 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism. Also on the official Jehovah's Witness website it is argued that since the Catholic Church took over pagan temples that it has been infected by paganism.[7]This is a common criticism used by those who oppose the Catholic Church. It is often based on a book by Alexander Hislop The Two Babylons and is vehemently denied by Catholics.[8]For these and similiar reasons the charge of anti-Catholicism is frequently made against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I have made some superficial changes to the paragraph although I have not actually changed the content itself. As is, I don't think that this issue has enough support (research wise) to be included in this article. Unless the issue is a large scale controversy that has been commented on by published researchers it will most likely to be replaced by more recent controversies.
I had a look at the link regarding the book by Alexander Hislop. How is this book related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Does the WT quote from this book? If not than this book may not be relevant to this issue.
I propose that this paragraph be left in the article for a period of time to allow some further research to take place. If Cestusdei can find other sources either online or another publication that makes similar claims about Jehovah's Witnesses and their view of Catholics than it is a controversy and should remain in the article. If there are no other credible sources than the issue may not have enough backing to remain as a foremost issue facing Witnesses today and would have to be removed from this article. What say you? Lucy 05:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm going to add a dispute tag to it as labelling an organization as "Anti" anything on a website that gets roughly 38 million hits A DAY (65% of that is the English Wikipedia) is rather serious and needs proper sourcing. A note about the content: It's a known fact that Catholicism absorbed pagan holidays, ideas, rituals, and philosophy in an attempt to "Christianize" them and gain converts. Accurately stating historical fact does not make one anti anything. Also, far worse denunciations are published by every stripe of orthodoxy (including Catholicism123) against Witnesses. Religions denouncing other religions is far from original. Should we add an entry into the Catholicism Wiki claiming an anti-Witness agenda? Please understand that I am not trying to be facetious, but do you see my point? Duffer 08:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I tried to keep it short and tight. Basically to focus on what the core of the dispute is. The 2 Babylons reference was to provide context. I have had JW's recommend it to me. If you want me to quote the WT somemore I would do so. If you went to the controversial issues Catholic article and wanted to put in a section on disputes with JW's that would be fine with me. As long as it was NPOV. You could crossreference here. Duffer, a "known fact". Well according to JW POV our POV might be different. Also even if that were the case the contention that therefore Catholicism is pagan is NOT a "known fact". It is pure POV. I mean it's a historical fact that the JW's have been wrong innumerable times on when the end is going to happen. Ergo the JW organization are false prophets, right? Do you see my point? If you wish me to refine the article with another WT quote or two that is okay with me. I will do it. Overall I think I was fair and tried to avoid any bias. An objective reader would probably be aware that there is bad blood between JW's and Catholics. It's not like the folks at Bethel are making pilgrimages to see the Pope. Let me know what you think.

This is not really about NPOV. It's about WP:NOR, and WP:Verify. Your position is that Witness literature is anti-Catholic. You do not provide any legitimately published research that substantiates that allegation, ONLY your supposition and instances that you personally feel are "anti-Catholic". You claim accusations against the WTS in terms of anti-Catholicism are "frequent" but like the rest of your allegations, it is not sourced or verified. It is the concensus of Witness and non-Witness editors (who have spoken above) that this is really a non-issue. Joshbuddy says that there has been previous anti-Catholic sentiment from a long dead president of the WTS, but even if properlly written, and sourced, doesn't constitute a current Witness controversy (the very subject of this article). For that reason as well as those found under WP:Verify#Burden of Evidence and WP:NOR#What is excluded? I'm removing the anti-catholicism section from the main page to this page for further discussion. If you adamantly believe an anti-Catholicism section needs to be here, then we should take the issue to the Mediation Cabal. Duffer 07:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of anti-Catholicism. A publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship..." has been used as an example of anti-catholicism by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in it's 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism [1]. Another example can be found on the official Jehovah's Witness website which uses the fact that the Catholic Church has taken over pagan temples as evidence of a link between the church and paganism.[2]The Catholic Church disputes this contention.[3]

This is a common criticism used by those who oppose the Catholic Church. It is often based on a book by Alexander Hislop The Two Babylons and is vehemently denied by Catholics.[4] For these reasons the charge of anti-Catholicism is frequently made against the Jehovah's Witnesses.

You know, I figured you JW's would do this. You will delete anything that shows the JW's in a bad light. I used your OWN sources. The WT is official. I used other sources including a prominent group that monitors anti-Catholicism. Letting JW's write the controversy article is like letting Nazi's write the holocaust article. You aren't going to get any objectivity. I strongly suspect your organization has ordered you to ensure that nothing gets in this article that isn't filtered through the WTBTS. That doesn't suprise me a bit. Freedom of speech (for others) is anathema to the JW's. But I will appeal and hopefully win. Even if I don't it will be a joy to share this with the next JW's that come to my door with stories of Catholic perfidity. So by all means let's take it to mediation unless you can give me a npov reason why it shouldn't be here.Cestusdei 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

4 People, 2 of which are not Jehovah's Witnesses, have given you very good reasons (wikipedia policy). Have you read the aforementioned Wiki policies? Here's a breakdown of your paragraph:
  • "Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of anti-Catholicism". This is true to a point according to Joshbuddy's previous statement about Penton where it is claimed that one of the former WTS (long dead) presidents' writings were anti-Catholic (I don't have the book so I don't know). It would be acceptable to summarize Penton's claims but the editors of this Wiki (including you) would have to come to a consensus on whether it was truly "controversial" or not.
  1. I will answer each point. As a JW you know how the WT feels about Catholicism. I have seen WT's with pics of Catholic priests being blown up in Armageddon. You are well aware of this. Don't insult my intelligence by pretending that JW's just love the Catholic Church. If our catechism contained a section that said all JW's are satanic I believe you would want that in a controversial issues article.
  • "A publication of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship..." has been used as an example of anti-catholicism by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in it's 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism [5]." True, that is what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights claims. I actually found the source of the quote, it's the footnote of a 1982 brochure "Life on Earth" page 13. Regardless, it still exists and it is still claimed to be "anti-Catholic". I must point out that your words "used as an example" are hyperbole, it is not just "an example" it is the ONLY sourced example of your claims.
  1. I offered to present other examples. But had no time before the article was removed the very next day. No one said to put more in and then it would be okay. I can present more examples. If I do then will you withdraw your objections? I am betting not.
  • "Another example can be found on the official Jehovah's Witness website which uses the fact that the Catholic Church has taken over pagan temples as evidence of a link between the church and paganism.[6]" You have not provided a source that alleges the words printed in the WT are "anti-Catholic" regardless of how much you believe them to be so. Please understand that allegations need published sources that meet the criteria for being a "legitimate source" (refer to previously mentioned Wiki policies).
  1. The idea is anti-Catholic. To make the jump from taking over a building to alleging that Catholics are now pagan is unwarranted. If the JW's worship in a former bar does that mean they are all alcholics?
  • "The Catholic Church disputes this contention.[7]". I'm sure they do. This bullet, and the above can be combined to say something like: "Witnesses allege that Catholicism has it's roots in paganism (source). The Catholic Church denies this (source)." But then, Churches calling other churches "Arian" or "pagan" or "heretical" is hardly original or controversial.
  1. I think being called a pagan or heretic is controversial. If I called you a satanist you would probably think the same.
  • "This is a common criticism used by those who oppose the Catholic Church. It is often based on a book by Alexander Hislop The Two Babylons and is vehemently denied by Catholics." This article is not for the defense of allegations of paganism against Catholicism. Besides, you would have to source the claims: "common criticism by those who oppose" and the more substantial "it is often based on.."
  1. But this is precisely what the WT claims ie. that Catholicism is pagan and not Christian. It is the basis for your view of Catholicism.
  • "For these reasons the charge of anti-Catholicism is frequently made against the Jehovah's Witnesses." You have only cited one source that contains one (unreferenced - the '1982 Life on Earth' brochure) example. That is an original conclusion and really one published citation cannot justify "frequently."
  1. As I said I offered to provide more. You gave me no time. I don't think it would matter if I gave 10 or 100 quotes though. I can write an entire article, but then you would omit it for being to long.
I will participate in mediation, but I will not request it. There are two options available in terms of mediation: the informal Mediation Cabal (nice guys) and can generally get around to starting the mediation process faster than the formal: Mediation Committee. You can find information on how to request a mediator on the respected pages linked above. There is a third option: Request for Comments, basically the disputed text and arguments for/against are presented and the Wiki community at large makes comments. I'll participate in any of the three, but won't initiate any (though, if you have questions on how to initiate any of these options I will oblige). I don't feel this issue is substantive enough to justify the time, except maybe the RFC. Duffer 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. I will consider which avenue to take to appeal. I suppose I oculd get into an edit war, but I will take the high road. I leave the lower one for JW's to take. Next time at theocratic ministry school or when the WT shows the pope as an evil anti-Christ I want you to REMEMBER this article. Maybe you will have some sense of shame and acknowledge that yes there is merit to the charge of anti-Catholicism. You don't have to agree with it, but the fact is that no non-JW would be shocked at the idea that JW's don't like the Catholic Church. That is a reality that transcends your pov.Cestusdei 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between not liking and being "anti". Religions that believe they have the truth denounce other religions who believe likewise (as exampled above by the various Catholic websites that denounce Witnesses). They cite examples of what they believe makes the other group un-Christian, etc.. While certainly provocative, that is not "Anti (insert religion here)". Witnesses denounce elements of every non-Witness religion, Catholic Idolatry, Trinitarian pagan philosophy, Orthodox patriotism, etc.. The Encarta 2006 dictionary defines Anti-Semitism (see also Wikipedia's article Anti-Semitism) as: "behavior discriminating against Jews: policies, views, or actions that harm or discriminate against Jews". Replace "Semitism" with "Catholicism". That is a hefty charge that mandates proper sourcing. See also the Wiki Anti-Catholicism article. Regardless of our disagreement here, please be civil. There's no need for comments like "I leave the lower one for the JW's to take." Duffer 03:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Heh - slow down! Is this really necessary. Surely we can work something out without having to resort to mediation which should be left as a last resort. I will do a little research and see what sort of printed material there is regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and the charge of anti-catholicism - maybe even expanding the paragraph a little to include other religions. Duffer - If I do find that there are claims of anti-catholicism printed by reliable sources than it should be included in the article despite your strong feelings to the contrary. In a similar fashion, Cestusdei - if neither you nor I can find printed reliable claims (plural) of anti-catholicism that proves this is an issue worthy of being included as a controversy than it will have to be dropped until such information can be found. Remember that it is the responsibility of the person adding the information to prove their case. You hold the burden of proof so to speak. Talk Soon. Lucy 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have not been at it long but this is what I have so far... any suggestions. Lucy 04:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that “one of the more common criticisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses over the years has dealt with their outspoken denunciations of other faiths, religious leaders and clergymen.” (Reference Number One). In the 1930’s and 1940’s the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been described as “notoriously anti-Catholic” (Reference Number Two), including such images as a semiclad harlot (the Roman Catholic Church) reeling drunkenly into fire and brimstone.
The book entitled “Enemies” published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1938 included some of the more direct denunciations of primarily the Catholic Church but also the Protestants and the Jews. It includes references to the Catholic Church as “the old harlot” who has a “bloody record… many crimes… a filthy record”. With regards the Protestants and the Jews the same book is quoted as saying “Today the so-called ‘Protestants’ and the Yiddish clergy openly co-operate with and play into the hands of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy like foolish simpletons and thereby aid the Hierarchy to carry on her commercial, religious traffic and increase her revenue… the hierarchy takes the lead, and the simpletons follow… poor simpletons.” (Reference Number Three)
Since World War II publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses have not included the same level of attack against the church but does continue to view all religions except Jehovah’s Witnesses as being included in “Babylon the Great the world empire of false religion” and are represented as the harlot riding the wild beast in Revelation chapter 13. Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to denounce other religions, refusing to participate in any interfaith relations. Publications continue to contain elements of what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights consider to be anti-catholic sentiments. An example cited by the 1998 Report on Anti-Catholicism included a publication depicting a person kneeling in prayer before a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the caption, "Some worship idols. God says you must not use idols or images in worship...” (Reference)
REFERENCES
  1. Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802079733
  2. United States Congress (1943). Declaring Certain Papers, Pamphlets, Books, Pictures and Writings Nonmailable. Hearings Before a Subcommittee.
  3. Penton, James (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802079733
Books which also have a state that Jehovah’s Witnesses are anti-catholic (there are more)
  1. Walker, Samuel (1994). Hate Speech. U of Nebraska press. ISBN 0803297513
  2. Pilon, Roger & Swanson, James (2003). Cato Supreme Court Review 2001-2002. Cato Institute. ISBN 193086535X

Lucy, I would be happy to be molified. If we can handle it here then I will be delighted. Your proposal has serious merit. I think what you have written seems to say what needs to be said. It mentions the issue, gives examples, and looks objective. I will refrain from requesting mediation and see what everyone else says.Cestusdei 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Duffer 17:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied. The issue is acknowledged. It seems to be fair and reasonable to me. And we don't have to go to mediation.Cestusdei 03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My Edits

I removed/edited/tweaked/referenced the article. It still needs work, if anyone has objections to my changes please lets discuss them here. I have a couple notes on some sections:

  • Blood Fractions and Components: The "Ham and Cheese" reference is misleading. The article does not present that "Ham" is used in different therapies than "cheese", leading the reader to assume "Ham" and "Cheese" are administered during the same therapy.
  • Bulgarian Agreement: This needs a source.
  • United Nations NGO Association: What is a DPI?
  • 1914: I don't believe this is controversial. Like nearly all of Witness theology it is contended by nearly all orthodox sources. There are a few contentions that the section is trying to convey:
  • Christs presence was previously believed to have started in the late 1800s with the fullfillment of Armageddon to take place in October 1914, this didn't happen and the eschatology was later revised. Alot of Witness theology has changed so I don't really see that as being controversial.
  • The means that leads to the current interpretation is based around an event that modern historians say took place at a different time than what Witnesses believe (based on their interpretation of 70 years). I think this aspect should be properlly illuminated should we choose to keep the 1914 section. The Witnesses' interpretation of the bible places the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 and it's complete desolation for a full 70 years, nearly all historians claim Jerusalem fell in 587 and was desolate for 50 years contrary to the bible (Dan 9:2; 2 Chron. 36: 20,21; Zech. 1:12; Jeremiah 25:12).

Duffer 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "Critical Resources" needs to conform to Reliable sources and WP:Cite. Currently, most of the "critical resources" do not meat the standards of what is a reliable source for "further reading" as they are self published, partisan, and most are not cited in the article itself at all. Duffer 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

UN NGO

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.[1] [2] 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.[8]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)

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)
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)

Ham and Cheese

I am not entirely sure what you want changed. The paragraph does state that the components are only allowable if given separately. Did you want the section to read?:

The principal components of the remaining 7% are Albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. All of these components are allowable but only if they are given in separate treatments. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately. Lucy 06:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought I would bring it up as the Ham and Cheese analogy is misleading. I would prefer it say something like: "The principal components of the remaining 7% are Albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors; all of which are allowed under the current WTS blood policy. Should one combine the total allowed fractions (not just from plasma) they would be equivelant to one whole unit of blood. (Louderback-Wood pg. 815)". This suggestion states the facts, and the heart of the controversy, succinctly without using dodgy analogies. I would remove the 'ham and cheese' reference entirely as it concludes an assumption; akin to saying: "like blood, all of these fractions will be administered during one 'therapy'". Something that may or may not be the case in any given situation. I'm just saying we should change it to reflect accuracy (which is why I didn't delete it). Duffer 07:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to take this opportunity to say that I personally do not agree with half of the arguments given in this article... but it doesn't matter. The ham and cheese analogy is printed by a credible source and is referenced. This means that it meets the criteria for inclusion whether any of us personally agree with it or not. We are not here to debate the validity of claims that are made but only to state them and let the reader decide what is truth. Take as an example those who are non-witnesses writing articles on the beiefs of JW's - they would have to include quotes from WT magazines whether they believed in the truth of those statements or not.
You will have to forgive me but I need some clarification about the reference you have given (Louderback-Wood pg. 815). Would it be possible to include a quote for me to read either here in the talk page or if it is too long maybe in my sandbox? It would be most appreciated, that way we can be on the same page.
The analogy is not saying that all fractions are administered in all therapies all of the time. It is merely pointing out that if all of the fractions are OK separately why are they not OK as a whole unit. You could point out after the analogy that not all fractions are used in every treatment if it helps to clarify the issue. If I am missing your point, please let me know. Lucy 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete it as it is properlly sourced, I just think it's bad prose and can be replaced with more concise information regarding the issue. The Louderback ref is from a discussion on the main Jehovah's Witnesses talk page. The full quote from Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation Kerry Louderback-Wood (page 815):
  • Surprisingly, the Society today allows its followers to accept ALL blood fractions (aka “fractions” or “components”) without church sanction, provided a follower’s decision is well considered.162 Currently, the Society depicts the allowed fractions as “minute” and omits pointing out the fact that the allowed fractions would, if added together, total the entire volume of blood they came from.163 In 1990, a time when fractions were allowed, the Society declared that Witnesses abstain from blood in any form.164 Because the Society depicts the fractions as minute and prescribes that Witnesses abstain from blood in any form, one might anticipate that today’s Witnesses would be confused if they were aware of an actual equivalence between whole blood and allowed blood fractions. If one adds the fractions together, they total a unit of whole blood..
Really that is the heart of the controversy whether I like it or not. Duffer 15:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian Agreement

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)

DPI

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

Reverting of Article

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

added factual accuracy tag in wake of recent vandalism

I would like to see it removed when the vandals can either participate civily or leave completely. Duffer 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Autobiography

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)

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)

NPOV & Disputed Tags

There are several disputes currently under discussion. They include but are not limited to:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

Article Move

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)

Plasma

I needed to put in more information than would fit on an edit summary so here it goes... Plasma is made of (approximately) 93% water. The remaining 7% contains several components of which the principal ones are albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. So these four components are the main four but not the only four components of that 7%.

I will change the sentence because as it currently stands it reads that blood is made of 93% water and the other four factors.

Was that more or less confusing???!! Lucy 05:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S - Thanks for changing the article to simply bypass the hotly contested statistic... brilliant.

I think you'd be better off avoiding the word "principal" because of its ambiguity. Here is a suggestion:
Plasma is made of (approximately) 93% water. The remaining 7% contains several components such as albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors and others.
I understand your point. I understand you use of the word principal. I'm concerned about readability and concision. At any rate, feel free to do what you want. :) joshbuddytalk 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Just a thought- Re: "The remaining 7% contains several components....These four "components"" this is true because they are components of Plasma but more accuratly "fractions" of blood. So if the issue is blood then "fractions" might be better, if the issue is Plasma then it is good as it stands. Just wanted to add this two cents.Johanneum 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

UN NGO Changes

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)

Jimmy Swaggart - Sales Tax

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)

Nice job! Looks npov. Just wondering if the following quote or (gist) might balance the JW view more. “With the destruction of Babylon the Great drawing near, there are growing pressures against all religious elements. Our main concern is that the vital worldwide Kingdom-preaching work continues to move ahead without hindrance...” This appeared in the article “Use Our Literature Wisely” May 1990 Our Kingdom Ministry p. 7 par. 10. There a referral is made to the donation issue with the mention of pressures against all religions. Johanneum 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this sound great, but I can confirm that the donation system is used only. There is NOT a charge, in any country, for JW literature. They run all their printing branches off donations from all countries. There is no distinction between poorer and richer countries because all donations made to "The World Wide Work" are compiled into one lump. That is then allocated to the sub branches to handle the expences in printing and processing the literature. -Lance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.40.62 (talk • contribs) .

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)

Are all these issues really necessary?

Most of these issues are not, as the title page says "Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, doctrines and practices [which meet] controversy from governments, the scientific profession, communities, and religious groups." They are what former Witnesses are spreading. For example, Religions are concerned with doctrines. E.g.. Trinity (hugh) Immortality of the soul, hell, etc. Not sales taxes, UN, 1975 etc. It seems this page is an area for former Witnesses to vent. Would it not be better if the issues presented were what people in general have a problem with not just former Witnesses? For example, Keep Blood, Child Abuse, and probably "Attitude towards Other Religions' but are the other issues really a controversy to the general public? We could even add doctrinal issues such as the trinity. It just seems this page needs a lot of work. Comments? Suggestions? Johanneum 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more of a question of the introduction not being relevant to the article rather than the article not being relevant to the introduction. (I added the introduction as pretty much a copy from the main article under the heading Controversy & Opposition - I agree it could better reflect the article. Feel free to change it).
Controversy is controversy even if it is former members who are making them most public. You raise an interesting point about hellfire, immortality of the soul and the trinity. Perhaps there could be a brief section that relates to doctrinal issues as these are definitely a basis for controversy amongst other Christian groups. We could link to the main article on Doctrines. We would have to be very careful though. This is not a place to be debating whether these doctrines are true or false and going over the many scriptural basis for these diffferences but rather it would have to have published backing stating that the religion is controversial because of these differences. In short we would be discussing the controversy that stems from these differences and not the differences themselves. Do you know of any published articles or books that discuss the controversy? Lucy 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Animal Blood

I appologize if this is not the place to bring this issue up, but I noticed a problem with the qoute listed here as being from 'The Watchtower Feb.1, 1997 p.30'. In reallity, this quote is somewhat missleading as the article(found on page 29, not 30) addresses, not the use of animal blood, but the practice of some hospitals saving placenta and the umbilical cord, with intent to extract things from their blood. I, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, feel that this should perhaps be removed, or edited to show the actual intent of the authors. The quote in its current state, spans 3 full paragraphs. The context of these is lost and the meaning distorted. -Lance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.40.62 (talk • contribs) .

Request for Comment (RfC)

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)

  1. ^ [http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/services.htm#access "Services & Collection" UN website
  2. ^ "A Watchtower Society lie for United Nations 'association'" (Nov. 9, 2001) "Jehovah's Witnesses Forum"
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_1&oldid=1155062907"