Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Web links must pass the standard set out in WP:WEB. joshbuddytalk 17:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Nearly this entire article looks like original research. But I don't want to arbitrarily clip out most of it to a stub so how about some discussion?George 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To more thoroughly understand the alleged "controversy", I encourage everyone interested in this Wiki to read: http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth.blogspot.com/2005/08/is-watchtower-guilty-of-prostitution.html (defense of the WT). If such arbitrary original research is to be allowed on wikipedia, then at the very least, the thorough refutation of the allegations must be presented as well. Duffer 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, is someone preventing your from writing some sort of apology or refutation? joshbuddytalk 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Duffer, just reading through your link. I don't really get the whole UN controversy. I think the 1918 court case against Rutherford is certainly more interesting in terms of controversy. The UN thing doesn't seem all that interesting to me. Even when I was a witness (when this broke) it didn't seem terribly interesting. joshbuddytalk 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No time, so I thought I'd provide a link that covers all the bases and hope someone would take charge and write something up. I feel the same way, I've always found this to be a rather uninteresting 'controversy'. Duffer 11:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


On second thought I just nominated it for deletion.George 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we know these claims by the Gaurdian and apostates are patently false we can use this article to expose those involved with fabricating this nonsense, since it doesn't look like the AFD will succeed. Duffer 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, we could just rewrite it then, to show what the 'controversy' is based on and the actual facts.George 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So, as the article now stands the critical view has been removed from the article. This is NPOV? Dtbrown 03:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

The article has been skewed in favour of Witnesses. (Comments on the edits making use of JW's restrictive and technically incorrect use of the word 'apostates', and the obviously POV (and quite poor) wording in the last paragraph attests to that fact.) The linked article is a blog, which is not a verifiable source. The linked article is misleading, misdirecting the reader from the fact that the original forms do indeed state that agreement with the UN charter is required for NGO status, and the stated purpose in the article of the 'review' in 2002 distorts that fact. The UN has provided clear information specifically indicating what procedures were required at the time.--Jeffro77 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been lied to Jeffro. http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/ The entire article should be re-written to reflect that fact, or discarded completely. Basically the only thing in the Wiki that isn't original research is Stephen Bates' initial article published by the Guardian newspaper. We could have an entire article based on one reporters' lies; we could have an article that repeats the lie, then exposes it; or we could just delete the page. I prefer exposing the lie, but deleting the page would probably be more in line with with Wiki policy. Duffer 05:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Duffer, that's an interesting site. I have problems with it crediting Robert King as the "source," however. That's not true as I remember when this whole thing broke. He was not the "source" and his reputation (good or bad) had nothing to do with this. I think that instead of having an article that "exposes the lie" (and I'm not saying I'm in agreement with that assessment) we should have an article that mentions both sides. Instead, the critical information has been edited out. That bothers me. Dtbrown 15:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dtbrown, the UK website does not call King the source, but that "Mr King is one of the prime promoters of the NGO conspiracy theory." I've just read through that whole site very carefully - at least the main chapters - and it's chock full of very significant "minor" details that shed a completely different light on this issue. - CobaltBlueTony 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 9 is entitled "Consider the Source" and then it goes on to discuss Mr King. At any rate, I think the link to the rebuttal is worthy of inclusion as an external link. Does anyone know of any other official statements by the WT Society itself? Dtbrown 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the quality of this article is terrible. joshbuddy, talk 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but how can we really have a fair article when pretty much the only thing that isn't original research (from either side) is the Stephen Bates Guardian article, and he's just a commentator. Duffer 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The claims of those who accuse the WT of a double standard on this have been published in various formats, mainly newsletters and websites. I would say a couple representative quotes from these could give the critical side to give some balance to the article. As it stands, the critical information has been removed. Dtbrown 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes but they all revert back to the same claims made in the guardian. As these are shown to be poorly researched I don;'t see how this rates as a topic. I fyou look at the VFD you'll see that the consensus was for retnetion but the article's subject was in need of changing, namely to discuss the doctrine JW's have regarding the UN, not the barely notable ( unless you think it necessary to "expose" JW's) topic of the UNDPI realtionship. George 18:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more work regarding the doctrine. I'm working on a section to include later tonight. Dtbrown 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So restore the critical info and fix it up. Seems simple enough to me :) joshbuddy, talk 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It will take some research to do so. Others are more knowledgeable on this than I. I was just expressing some exasperation. Dtbrown 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to edit the controversy back in hopefully in a balanced way. Would we have consensus to remove the "neutrality" tag? Dtbrown 19:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I considered the POV tag as a measure to indicate its "in progress" status as regards POV issues. Feel free to remove it when you feel your work is done. joshbuddy, talk 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Hope that is okay with other editors. Dtbrown 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I question whether the "Critics" section I set apart (today) is necessary at all, since the factuality of claims within is in dispute on all sides and none of it is suitably sourced per Wikipedia policies. As far as I can tell, only the article from The Guardian and the references on the UN Internet qualify as suitable Web links per Wikipedia policies. Can someone comment on whether this chunk should even be retained? The factuality of the remainder of the article seems established by suitable primary sources. Also, it should be noted that United Nations' terms with regard to Association to the UN/DPI have been adjusted to reflect their terminology. These should not be changed to something else without discussion. Respectfully, Evident 06:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For many people this is an important controversy. I think it should be addressed here but not given undue importance.Dtbrown 09:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I can accept that reasoning, Dtbrown. I like the edit from "Critics" to "Controversy", well done.
Do you mind explaining why you removed a quoted reference to primary source material demonstrating the official policy on voluntary attachments to secular organizations deemed "under judgement by Jehovah God?" I am at a loss when trying to discern the purpose in deleting this pertinent quote from Organized to Do Jehovah's Will. Please explain. Absent explanation, please restore it. It is my understanding that primary source material relative to organizational policies is removed only when it does not relate to the point under discussion. If that understanding is in error, please explain why. This quote relates directly to the topic under discussion, and while the content of the quote may inspire doubt, it is also primary source material, not original research.
I understand the points being made. However, I thought it was not on topic to the article. I'd welcome others' views but still have reservations about the appropriateness of placing that in this article. Dtbrown 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the quote because it directly states the organization's policy on attachments to secular organizations. If that is not on topic to the article, as far as primary sources go, what would be considered on topic? Respectfully, Evident 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I note that you placed a "neutrality and factual accuracy" dispute tag on the article. If the controversy section is removed, could this tag be removed? If so, I recommend that we remove the Controversy section so that the page will have achieved agreement. Respectfully, Evident 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I apologize. I see it was Duffer who added the dispute tag. I will await an explanation. Respectfully, Evident 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Deception?

I was bothered by the comment of "deception" by Duffer. Duffer may think the website http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/ definitively debunks the criticism of the Watchtower Society on this issue. I think good faith should be shown to those who hold a different view. I would like to cite a few documents not mentioned in the above website which could support a different interpretation.

For example, the website above cites page 6 of a 1994 brochure of the UN/DPI which asks the question: "Who are eligible for association with DPI? Non-profit organizations which..." See here:

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/thechangingworldofngos.html

Page 7 of the same 1994 brochure can be found here:

http://www.randytv.com/secret/DPI%20NGO%20Brochure%201994%20page%207.jpg

Page 7 goes on to say of these associating organizations: "can prove during the initial 2 years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring U.N. information in their publications and outreach activities."

From Internet Archive is this link dated June 19, 1997 which contains the brochure "NGOs and the Department of Information." (This site says the brochure was published in October, 1995):

http://web.archive.org/web/19970619033202/http://www.un.org/MoreInfo/ngolink/brochure.htm

As to reponsibilities of those associating with the DPI, it says:

http://web.archive.org/web/19970619033202/http://www.un.org/MoreInfo/ngolink/brochure.htm#responsibilities

"Since the founding days of the United Nations in San Francisco, NGOs have made valuable contributions to the international community by drawing attention to issues, suggesting ideas and programmes, disseminating information and mobilizing public opinion in support of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Association with DPI constitutes a commitment to that effect. Associated NGOs are expected to devote a portion of their information programmes to promoting knowledge of the United Nations' principles and activities. They are also expected to keep the DPI/NGO Section abreast of their activities by regularly providing samples of information materials." (Emphasis added)

Press releases from the DPI in 1992 stated this: "To be granted association with the DPI, NGO's must have national or international standing, support the Charter of the United Nations, have a broadly based membership and possess the resources necessary for effective outreach." See:

http://www.randytv.com/secret/feb92dpia.jpg http://www.randytv.com/secret/feb92dpib.jpg http://www.randytv.com/secret/aug92dpic.jpg

This same terminology used in 1992 was used in the 2001 letter from the UN DPI which explained the disassociation of the Watchtower Society ("support and respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations"):

http://www.randytv.com/secret/unfax.jpg

This apparently is how the UN DPI viewed things as early as 1992, as the above cited press releases indicate.

Again, I present these citations to establish that there is more than one interpretation available and that good faith needs to be shown to both sides of this issue. Dtbrown 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you would be bothered by the description "deception". The claims of the initial Guardian article have been proven to be deliberately misleading in it's allegations. Your resources don't support a different interpretation of what happened, they present an oversimplified and inaccurate speculation of what happened that extends beyond the realm of common sense.
Critics can get up in arms over a library card all they want on their websites, but you must understand that this is people's faith, accuracy must be upheld. The Guardian article doesn't claim the WT was associated with the UN Department of Information, it claims direct association with the UN. There is a massive difference. It saddens me that all of this is because of a deceptive commentator. How would people have reacted if Stephen Bates broke the story with accuracy: "Today we learn that the WT has a library card to gain access to the United Nations' Department of Information. All they need to do for that card is "support the UN by featuring information in their publications", something that Witnesses have been doing for half a century in thier international Awake magazine. Although it is true that Witnesses believe and actively teach that the United Nations will inevitably fail at governing humanity, and that it will eventually turn against all religion." But unfortunately he didn't, and here we are.
Press releases mean very little to me, as I personally feel it's highly likely they were never read. Also why would the WT be reading membership brochures from 1995+ when they were an NGO since 1992 and the evidence shows that membership brochures through 1994 didn't contain such language as either the 1992 PR or the new 2005 brochure. Since the only yearly sent to the WT was a questionare, I find it plausible that they new nothing of the strongly worded 92 PR. But this doesn't matter either. What matters is my initial point, that this article is unsalvageable. The only part of this article that could possibly be accepted per Wiki policy is the Guardian article, EVERYTHING else in this article is SPECULATION mixed with original, unpublished, research. If we removed everything in this article that wasn't acceptable to WP policy we would be left with a debateable Guardian article, and if that article alone is used (either here, or in any other section) then the result would be disastrously misleading. Duffer 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I took your comment "deception" as addressed to me. Apparently, I misread you. I apologize. Dtbrown 09:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one that should apologize, I should have been more specific. I do not believe that it has ever been your intent to deceive. Duffer 10:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Duffer, in your opinion can the direct statement from the UN website (http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/pdfs/watchtower.pdf) be included in this article? Dtbrown 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/hailtothechief.html speaks frankly about Mr. Heoffel's statements. Although it is the official responce of the UN, JJ.co.uk has an unshakeable point that Mr. Heoffel cites the current requirements an NGO, not the requirements of a DPI NGO during the WTs' 10 year period of library access with the Department of Information. Honestly, I don't know if it should be included as it's not readily apparent that the article actually refutes the claims made by the Guardian newspaper (association with the Department of Information, not the "scarlet beast" of Revelations). There's no way to highlight the problems (wrong reqs cited by Mr. Hoeffel -- UNs' refutation of direct association) without resorting to original research. Or by pointing to websites that have already conducted that original research, but don't cut the mustard as to what is, or isn't, an acceptable resource. Technically, I think that the UN pdf is an acceptable resource, however, the Guardian article alongside the UN pdf alone in the article would present a grossly misleading account of the events, and that really bothers me. Duffer 10:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think we can accept the UN pdf as a more reliable resource than the "JJ.co.uk" resource, which is quite problematic. Dtbrown 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly the chief spokesman of the Department of Information of the UN knows what the requirements of being an associate NGO were during that period. The attempt of "JJ.co.uk" (whoever the author is)to discredit the UN pdf is simply polemics. It omits evidence (such as page 7 of the 1994 brochure cited above) and tries to build a case for great changes in membership requirements on very flimsy "evidence." I propose we accept the UN pdf as a primary source and footnote the Guardian article. Out of fairness to the Watchtower Society we should allow a copy of one of its statements on this issue, even if it is not hosted by the WT Society itself. I have real problems with the use of "JJ.co.uk" as a resource here. This could be done in 2 or 3 sentences as this only deserves a brief mention in this article. Dtbrown 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Duffer, I notice you have put up the totally disputed tag. I'm assuming that relates to the UN/DPI controversy. Do you have any objection if I continue working on the history of Jehovah's Witness' teaching on the UN? I've made a very rough start but would like to continue on that, if that's okay.Dtbrown 13:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, it's just the UN association thing that bothers me. I agree that JJ.co.uk is polemic in nature and generally wouldn't count as an acceptable resource, but how else can the events be portrayed accurately? Besides, pg. 7 of 94 hardly has the same language as the '95 brochure. The Guardian article claims: direct association with the "scarlet beast", how can we say that that's wrong without resorting to original research? The Guardian article itself is a polemic, bashing the WT by concocting nonsense akin to any apostate site on the web. He misleads the read with the demonstrably false accusation of direct association to the UN, then he goes on to lie about "theocratic warfare", takes a highly judgemental tone against our stance on blood transfusions, and directly lies about our child abuse policy. His title is "religious affairs correspondent". He's a commentator, who's opinions and lies are as valueless to objective journalism as Ann Coulter or Rush Limaugh. He reports one or two lines of the WT saying apparently bad things about the UN, but he completely disregards half a century of WT and Awake articles that show the good things that the UN has done.
Yes this issue has been controversial, but would it have been if Stephen Bates didn't lie to the world about the WTS's association the UN? The guardian article is debateable, but the other original research has just got to go. The WTs' "dissimination of information" of UN activities has been around since the UNs' inception, not because it was in some membership brochure. I also must point out that the 94 brochure, nor any information sent to the WTS claimed that the WTS must support the UN Charter. I don't really know how to proceed. What's your take on the Guardian article? Duffer 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Duffer wrote: "I also must point out that the 94 brochure, nor any information sent to the WTS claimed that the WTS must support the UN Charter." And how do you know this? According to Paul Hoeffel, the UN/DPI Section Chief, the criterion requiring support for the objectives of the UN and the principles of the UN Charter have been in place for all NGO association to any UN department (including ECOSOC) since 1968. The assumption on the part of some is that since this criterion is not specified in the 1968 Resolution that formed the basis for the first NGO association program, it must not have been a major criterion. This is false, because each department that wishes to allow NGO involvement is charged in the same Resolution with developing its own criteria. I have yet to see any official statement from the Watchtower Society asserting that the criteria regarding support for the UN Charter and Principles was changed, and the UN/DPI Section Chief flatly rejected such an assertion. But this is original research and is therefore not fitting for the article, but the unfounded claims in the discussion side should also cease. People do read these discussion pages. Respectfully, Evident 14:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Evident, for responding to these assertions. You're right that people do read these discussion pages and these sort of statements drawn from such a polemical site as "JJ.co.uk" need to be addressed. The funniest thing I remember from that site is its quoting the UN Secretary General about how the relationship with NGOs is changing as supporting their contention that the rules changed during the time of the WT's tenure of affiliation with the UN/DPI. Now, that's reading a lot into his statement to say the least. Dtbrown 01:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to review the policy on original research again. WP:NOR. joshbuddy, talk 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempted Solution

I apologize for opening a can of worms with my edits of a few days ago. I have removed the section currently called "Controversy" and just relied on the most trustworthy source. I did add a link to the Watchtower Society's Letter explaining its side as an external link. I would hope this would take care of any concerns for original research. Dtbrown 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove the Controversy section. It wasn't factual NPOV discussion, on either side, because "critics" don't all say "X" any more than "WT apologists" all say "Y".
I would still appreciate a full explanation of why you felt the need to remove a quote from a primary source that explains the official Watchtower Society policy on joining secular organizations. Stating that you "thought it was not on topic to the article" is not an explanation of sufficient weight to justify the removal. Obviously, I felt that it was on topic to the article or I wouldn't have posted it. This leaves me wondering why you feel justified in excluding this primary source material simply because you disagree with my assesment of its relevance.
You state that you "have reservations about the appropriateness" of including the quote in this article but have neither described these reservations nor identified why you believe this quote is inappropriate to this article. Please either explain your removal or restore the quote. You have posted several other comments here without addressing this matter. I mean no disrespect to you or your opinion, but I will restore the quote if I cannot get an explanation from you for its removal that is supported by something more weighty than your personal preference. Respectfully, Evident 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Evident, this is what you had posted:
The current official policy on voluntary attachment to organizations that are deemed "under judgment by Jehovah God" is set out in the publication Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (2005), p. 155: "Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: 'They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.' (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: '[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.' Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement." (emphasis added)
There was nothing in that paragraph that referred to the subject of the article: Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations. I could guess at what you were trying to say but as you posted it, it had nothing to do with the article. Perhaps if you would want to try again and make some sort of connection to the article it might pass the views of other editors. In my original edit I stated I felt the material I removed was "extraneous" and did not just say it was my personal preference. I take my work at Wikipedia seriously and am bothered by the tone of your comment. The paragraph as you posted it is extraneous as it makes no connection to the subject matter of the article. If you do repost the material I suggest making some sort of explanation in the text for its relevance. Dtbrown 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for the explanation of its removal. I apologize if the tone of my comments seemed other than respectful. It was not intentional. I was frustrated by repeated requests for an explanation that were not honored. That frustration may have come through as disrespect in the tone, but I did not feel any disrespect. "Personal preference" was the only explanation I could find in your previous attempt at explanation, i.e. your personal assessment of its lack of pertinence. I will reword and try again. Respectfully, Evident 03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited the quotation in favor of the policy that would have been applicable in 1991/1992 and I believe I have adjusted the wording so that it is now directly relevant to the subheading under which it appears. Please let me know if you believe further adjustment is needed. Respectfully, Evident 03:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Your most recent addition had flaws.

1) Makes no point 2) Is Original Research 3) Quote from the UN website: Please note that association of NGOs with DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the United Nations system. JW's never became members of the UN in any way. 4)Dead horse, please put away the whip. George 11:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

George, I'm guessing Evident's point is to say the Watchtower Society (not Jehovah's Witnesses themselves) was being hypocritical when it entered into a formal association with the DPI of the UN since it requires Witnesses to avoid similar such associations. The way it was worded left the impression (at least to me) that Witnesses themselves would be viewed as diassociated because of the DPI/UN association.
I just want to say that I was saddened when I heard the Watchtower Society had disassociated themselves after the adverse publicity. I think it was a positive step for them. The UN is a great force for religious freedom and relief work in the world and the affiliation would help since both groups have similar goals. Dtbrown 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
George, If you look up the verb "associate" in any dictionary you will understand the relevancy of that quote. The word means combine, unite, join, etc. Organizationally, it is used in the context of joining a subordinate organization to a superior organization. It is a class of membership.
While the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. cannot and did not join the UN, they can and did associate to the UN/DPI. No one can disassociate from an organization to which they are not associated. No one who is not associated would be required to adhere to "Criteria for Association" as the Watchtower Society agreed to do. The Watchtower Society has never denied having joined the UN/DPI, they have only denied joining the UN.
My citation from the Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry book does not constitute "original research" since it is simply a quote from a primary source (i.e. a source of doctrine for Jehovah's Witnesses). The quotation I included applies directly to association to the UN/DPI (which was the context in which it was used), it is neither POV nor original research (since it is primary source doctrine). I am adding it back because it meets every standard of Wikipedia editorship. It is my understanding that content from primary sources is not to be removed without discussion taking place beforehand. Was my understanding incorrect?
I'm assuming the above was by Evident. This is your latest edit:
"The policy of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding voluntary association to the UN/DPI and other secular organizations is set out in the publication Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry (1983, 1989) p. 151, par. 1: "Also, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization the objective of which is contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4) So if a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he has disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.""
I'm concerned that the average reader who has no background knowledge of the Witnesses may not understand what is being said. Are you trying to point out a double standard? Or hypocrisy? The average reader is going to think that Jehovah's Witnesses have disassociated themselves from their religion because of the DPI/UN association. That, of course, would not make sense as the association was done by the Watchtower Society and not individual Witnesses. As it stands I don't see what point you are trying to make to the average reader who has no background knowledge of Witnesses. I think, at the very least, you need to clarify that before the edit can be discussed. Dtbrown 21:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to state what the policy of Jehovah's Witnesses is with regard to voluntary association to organizations. That it was an hypocritical act in the case of their joining the UN/DPI is likely an unavoidable conclusion. For the sake of George and others it should be restated, the UN/DPI does not equal the UN. In order to join the UN/DPI one need not join the UN. The WTS did join the UN/DPI as an associate member at a time when the WTS was the headquarters organization of JWs (i.e. prior to the formation of the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses".
But the fact that their own policy as stated in a primary source makes this hypocrisy clear without additional commentary removes the possibility of a POV statement on my part. A POV statement would be required to further clarify why the quote appears. I thought articles were supposed to cite relevant NPOV facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions, not use POV statements to lead them to biased conclusions. Have I misunderstood an editors role?
The current policy on voluntary attachements to organizations is, in my opinion, a salient fact. According to current JW policy, as of 1983 and continuing down to this day, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. formed the exact type of relationship with the exact type of organization that demonstrated that they "renounced their Christian faith" and that they renounced "their place in the Christian congregation". Respectfully, Evident 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some value here in everyone taking a second to review WP:NOR. This is a useful policy. Particularly, it would appear that Evident's inclusion of the quote from the OM book falls under the purview of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Prominent critics have written that this action is hypocritical. It would be better to use their comments than to forward an argument on your own. joshbuddy, talk 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dt Brown It would be nice if someone would clean up many of these links and leave only those that are proper. However we have not been doing so as of yet. Recall one of the pooints is that it should be an official link. JW have only one official link thus that in itself would rule out many. Anyway I just want to be consisent. IF we have many Neg aticles it seems we shoul have postitive. What do you think? Johanneum 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, what negative links are you referring to? All that the article has are links from the United Nations, the letter from the Watchtower Society and a mildly positive one from the religioustolerance.org website. If you want to start inserting polemical links the article will quickly deteriorate. I am reverting to the original links and object to your changing the link to the one from "Jehovah's Judgement" as it is simply a ploy to get people to go to that polemical site since they'll see the link at the bottom to go elsewhere on the site. The original link does not contain such a link. Dtbrown 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to add that I'd welcome other editors input on whether we should link to the site that Johanneum suggests. As for me, I feel the site is full of unverified original research. Just a cursory glance reveals it to be quite problematic as I've noted above in the section entitled "Deception." Dtbrown 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I was refering to, in general, and not necessarily just here. It is good thought to attempt to up hold policy. Johanneum 02:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links from the "jehovah's judgement.uk" site for two reasons.
1) they all contain links to the unverified original research of that site. For example, the link that went to page 6 of the 1994 brochure is used by that site to show that the NGOs which affiliate with the DPI of the UN did not have to support the UN. However, that site omits mentioning that the very next page (page 7) of that 1994 brochure goes on to say of these associating organizations: "can prove during the initial 2 years of association with DPI, that they support the United Nations by featuring U.N. information in their publications and outreach activities."

I disagree, this is a very well done site that can easley be proven. It seems that there is an exstream bias here toward only a neg point of view concerning Jehovah's witnesses and a great attempt to to make sure that the witnesses point of view be silenced. Stuart Chamberlin

See:

http://www.randytv.com/secret/DPI%20NGO%20Brochure%201994%20page%207.jpg

Just linking to page 6 of that brochure would not give the whole story. I don't think we can start adding scans of such documents willy-nilly without explaining the significance and that would put us over the boundary of original research.
2) The site that Johanneum wants to link here (the "jehovah's judgement.uk" site) is particularly problematic as it contains a section that slanders the former UN chief of the DPI, Mr Paul Hoeffels. I don't think we should have anything to do with supporting this action by the anonymous author of that site. Dtbrown 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

DT Brown Let us be consistent with our external links! Slander is a strong word too. That is debatable. However, we should not keep double standards. Freeminds is clearly slanderous, using many defaming adjectives to describe JW's, yet we coutinue to use them and other pages. Randy tv presents one side, it is only far to present the other side. I do not see how it is far to allow some sites that are negative but not to allow a site that attempts to give the Witnesses view. Besides, again let us be consistent. Even though the Home page for Randy TV is not there, the links point there. But I think I will put back the link, unless others do not agree. I think we need to be fair here. Besides does Randy TV have original research? Why do you so answer? Johanneum 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Johanneum 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no link from the "randytv" site to the other pages on the site. So, I don't understand your comment. The file you've linked plugs the "jehovah's judgement" site as a link at the bottom of the page.
I will object strenuously to the attempts to link the "jehovah's judgement" site to this article. "Slander" may be too strong, but I am shocked at what the author of the "jehovah's judgement" site has to say about the chief of the UN/DPI. The anonymous author of that site posted recently as "thirdwitness" at the jehovahs-witness.com discussion board (known as JWD) and admitted he never actually made contact with Mr Paul Hoeffel before making his public accusations about him:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/117658/14.ashx

This may be because Mr Paul Hoeffel is no longer in New York but now works for the UN in Mexico. The whole "jehovah's judgement" site is problematic but these baseless accusations against the chief of the DPI go over the limit. Dtbrown 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Including the 1991 application is not self-explanatory. Was there more involved in the process? Were there other documents submitted? We don't know. Putting up that file with no explanation and a link at the bottom to the "jehovah's judgment" site introduces original research into the article. Dtbrown
Addendum: Johanneum said in his edit: "(the 1991 application is VERY important to this issue!)" How so? Could you document this assertion? Dtbrown 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DT Brown- sorry so long in coming, I would like to stick with the real issue I was presenting, that we need to be consistent. Does freeminds have original research? This is relevant to the discussion on hand. You have support this web page that has accusations and slander which goes beyond the page in question here. I seem to recall that you said something to the effect on the talk page on JW's that it is 'full of useful information.' Can not the same be said of the page in question? It is an authoritative exhaustive reply to the other side of the issue. I think we need to be consistent not just on this page but on others too. Johanneum 11:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I do not support linking the freeminds.org site as a resource for this article. There is a link in the article which contains an image that is hosted on that site but the image does not link to the freeminds site. It is simply the image. Secondly, how is the "jehovah's judgement" site an "authoritative" reply? Authoritative means it has some sort of official backing. Is this site authorized by the Watchtower Society? Do you know who the author of the site is? I would like to correspond with him/her. Dtbrown 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dtbrown please see: [[1]] I am trying to make the same point. This is a ""prominent site" relating to the subject at hand. We should trust the users to judge its merits" Johanneum 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes this site "prominent"? I think that would have to be established first. The issue of original research would need to be dealt with as well, especially as that has been a major point of contention among editors here. Dtbrown 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Dtbrown- can we pick this back up? You stated on the JW talk page, "I think this directive from the "External Links" guide you cited above gives us the answer: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Freeminds.org is perhaps the most prominent critical resource on Jehovah's Witnesses on the internet. Due to this status it deserves to be listed here. It should not be given undue weight, however. Dtbrown 20:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)...We should trust the users to judge its merits."
It seems that the site http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk is the only site that gives a full supportive view of the issue. Is it prominent? I ask what other site is prominent that shows JW's side of the issue? In all fairness I still think that such a site can be linked with an explanation of the matter. I do feel it is not right to allow some sites (that could be considered hateful, or distatesful) and not allow other sites which present the other side. It just does not seem right. Again I am not talking just about this page but about the conversation noted just above. So I will once again plead for a site that seems to be prominent-"that catches the eye" Scott Foresman Advanced Dictionary. Please check out this:[[2]] They view the site as prominent. Comments please. Is it consistent to plead above for freeminds and to then to fight against a link dedicated to explaining the JW view? Johanneum 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Does this link explain "the JW view"? From what I can tell it only provides one person's perspective. I really don't think it represents Jehovah's Witnesses. Is it the JW view to malign a representative of the United Nations? Personally I think the Watchtower Society would not approve of a lot of the material from that site. What is there in this article that requires anything other than the letter already linked from the Watchtower Society? As to Freeminds. Freeminds publishes books and has published a journal for over 20 years. Do we even know who this individual is who has put together this website? Dtbrown 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me add these questions. Isn't the JW view already presented in the letter from the Watchtower Society? Is there any factual problem with the article that requires adjustment? Dtbrown 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can nobody comment on the relation of Watchtower Society with UNDP?

This is a document where United Nation Development Programee lists its customers.

The Watchtower might have profited from the UNDP because the UNDP can do business 'on account of' a customer against much better prices, especially in 'third world countries'.

http://www.iapso.org/pdf/Review2003.pdf

Dear author, can you do anything with this subject?

Thanks!

Distazo (nickname)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_the_United_Nations/Archive_2&oldid=743228006"