Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 4 March 2013

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jehovah's Witnesses at the Reference desk.

	Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2011 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Witnesses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Suggestions, undercovered sections and improvements

I have some suggestions for the article, in topics that may are somewhat undercovered. It is written for the Norwegian wiki, so some aspects of the text are may reflected from a Scandinavian POV.

I've added a raw translation (used google translation) for demographics. Several of the sources are in Scandinavian languages only, but as some users here have complained about the sparse accessible sources, it could be an option to use and translate from those sources. One of the sources, Hege Kristin Ringnes, have published own works about JW, and is a common used source by Norwegian media when JW is topic somehow:

Demographics:

«Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in most countries, but they constitute a major part of any country's population. the United States is the country with the most Jehovah's Witnesses, and 19 percent of the members are American, but there are fewer of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States than in Western Europe and far fewer than in Latin America. There is greater growth in "emerging markets", where Jehovah's Witnesses preaching work in recent times has been banned, than in areas where it has continued preaching for a time, and Jehovah's Witnesses have greater success in its recruitment efforts in traditionally Christian countries than in traditionally Muslim countries. In the Scandinavian countries, there has been particular focus on recruitment among immigrants, and several sociologists have pointed out that Jehovah's Witnesses at the international level, in particular successful in recruiting people who have recently moved from one location to another. Sociologist James A. Beckford has pointed out that there are remarkably many core families with young children among those who have been recruited for the religious community. — Grrahnbahr (22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

The points about relative global distribution, and areas under ban should probably be added. Focus on Scandinavian countries is probably undue weight here. (Note that the automatic translation above has not properly negated the statement about being a major part of any country.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree to your views. The Norwegian wiki do have some issues, as it is expected to have a section about the topics relation to Norway, and it is really hard to get an article featured without (I have no clear opinion on the issue, as the same occours in the Swedish and German wiki, as the Norwegian language bokmål is one of the languages spoken primarly in Norway only). JWs do of course not form a major part of any countrys population, as you stated. It is not included in the Norwegian article, but a comparison with LDS could may be of interest, as LDS do have about 50 percents of its members in USA. Regarding using research from Scandinavia, or Europe, I think it may could be of use here, if it offers information likely to find relevant for at least western-oriented countries (reseach done in USA, GB, Belgium, Sweden and Norway do very often offer very similar results). Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a main article for Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses where further focus could be made on specific regions. This article probably doesn't need too much detail beyond the continent level.

If the research from Scandinavia/Europe has a global focus, then I don't see any problem using such sources in the Demographics section here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

On a separate note, there is currently a point in the Demographics section about JWs having the highest growth of any religion. The statement may be mis-representative, as JW growth in 2009 was higher than in other recent years (3.17% according to the official report). JW-reported growth (based on publisher averages) is less than 2% for 2012, and has been under 3% for all but two of the last fourteen years. Based on peak publishers, growth for 2012 was 1.6%.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Social composition

Significantly more women than men say they are Jehovah's Witnesses. Nevertheless, women are virtually absent from leadership positions in the religious community, as these are largely restricted to men.

There have been no studies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses in Norway and education, but studies from the United States and Canada indicate a significantly lower proportion of higher education among Jehovah's Witnesses than the rest of society. Studies concerning the economic conditions for U.S. households consisting of members of the religious community, showing a slightly lower average incomes, but close up below average for U.S. households in general. Sociologists Stark and Iannaccone has reviewed the study that remarkable for many reasons, among them that there is a significantly higher proportion of households with Jehovah's Witnesses Dependants of just one income. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses in a higher degree than the general population working part time, and the relatively low proportion of white Americans among Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, are factors that would help to pull down an average for households consisting of Jehovah's Witnesses. The survey shows that there are relatively equal number of Jehovah's Witnesses who live in a home they own, like that found in the community. The findings of the Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious community with culturally middle class feel, confirmed by Beckford, while sociological studies conducted by Wilson and Dobbelaere for Belgium's person, and Göran Gustafsson of Sweden's competent, indicating that Witnesses primarily consists of a combination of middle and lower working class. The various perceptive agree, however, that one finds people of higher social rank only rarely in the religious community.

Another suggestion, about classification:

Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves the only true Christians, a continuation of the first Christians, and as the world's oldest monotheistic religion. In religion science context considered Jehovah's Witnesses as a young Christian faiths originated in the USA in the 1870s, during the third great revival wave. Sociologist Andrew Holden describes in addition Jehovah's Witnesses as a mill ennis movements, with teachings in conflict with those found among the majority of Christians. From a religion science perspective are traces of Russell's past as Adventist in several of Jehovah's Witnesses present teachings.

In sociological not fit Jehovah's Witnesses in the definitions of either church or denomination as "sect" has often been used by religious sociologists, as a descriptive term. Some religious sociologists, like Pernilla Liedgren Dobronravoff, has avoided using "sect" in their works, because of the term's negative charge in everyday language. Jehovah's Witnesses reject even that they are a sect, but the rejection is based on a different definition than that descriptive term such cult concept is used in sociology of religion.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

Witnesses religiosity consists in a practice of Christianity on key points stand out from the vast majority of the world's Christians profess. Jehovah's Witnesses considered Christian in religion scientific context, sociological, and other contexts where secular definitions adopted.

Within konfesjonskunnskap, which is the teaching about Christian churches and denominations, the definition of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian any more hesitant. Author and lecturer Geir Winje discusses the criteria that apply to the WCC and other inter-church organizations, "For the first requires an understanding of the Bible as God's word, and the other an adherence to the old church dogma which states that God is triune, and that Jesus is true God and true man ". Many theologians on similar grounds stated that they do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, among them the Danish Orthodox priest Poul Sebben, as in a post to religion.dk writes: "Allow me, as Orthodox believers and minister, stating that the Orthodox Church and theology excellent understanding to discern what is the Christian doctrine, and what is not .... It drops us not into to with Jehovah's Witnesses , no matter what people's opinions on this might be. " Professionals in konfesjonskunnskap is not as consistent rejection of Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians and religious community are other described as "rooted in Christianity, in the margins of Christianity, or a Christian elements." — Grrahnbahr (22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)) — (continues after insertion below)

The opinions of theologians of other groups are not really important here. JWs don't regard other groups as 'true' Christians either (and various denominations believe similarly about Christian groups other than themselves), but it doesn't mean we say something in every article about a Christian group that someone doesn't regard them as 'really' Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Critic section:

To mention that former members are significant contributers to critic of the denomination, t.ex by "Among the critics are former members of the religious community and representatives of professional-apologetic research strongly represented". Sourced by 1)«Organisasjon og medlemskap», Jehovas vitner – en flerfaglig studie, preface by Hege Kristin Ringnes and Helje Kringlebotn Sødal, p. 11. Universitetsforlaget 2009, ISBN: 978-82-15-01453-1. Quote: «Den forholdsvis store 'avhopperlitteraturen' er sterkt subjektiv og kritisk, ... et samme gjelder en annen type kritisk litteratur, den faglig-apologetiske, som på normativt-teologisk grunnlag vil vise at Jehovas vitner tar feil og formidler vranglære.» (translated "The relatively large 'defectors literature' is highly subjective and critical ... the same applies to a different type of critical literature, the academic-apologetic, as the normative theological basis will show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and conveys heresy" 2) ^ «An introduction to research and analysis of Jehovah's Witnesses: A view from the Watchtower*, Carolyn R. Wah, Review of Religious Research, vol. 43, nr. 2, desember 2001, ss. 161-174. Sitat: «James A. Beckford, (1975:xi) while working on his monograph on Jehovah's Witnesses, found conversations with 'both practising and defected Witnesses' to 'offer invaluable insights' but found that 'the literature published by groups which had seceded from the main Watch Tower movement was coloured by ideological interests that probably distorted their accounts of the history and present practices of Jehovah's Witnesses.'»

Suggestion, detail for the section "Sources of doctrine": The article states: "They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs, although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible."

This statement is commented by Rolf Furuli, who is a JW and scholar within linguistic, in the book Jehovas vitner – en flerfaglig studie (he wrote last chapter of the book, to give an inside POV of JWs teachings and practices, but the book is edited by Ringnes and Sødal): "Similarly do Jehovah's Witnesses expect that the Governing Body's organization of the congregations and their educational program is fully consistent with the Bible ... just as the Norwegian law stands above the Norwegian government, is the Bible of the Governing Body. When critics therefore argue that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the 'Bible and Watchtower' as if the two were side by side, this shows a lack of knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses."(The text is highlighted in the original text)

A suggestion is to prolong the sentence in the article to something like: They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs, although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible, a claim explained and repudiated by Rolf Furuli, member of the denomination, in the book Jehovas vitner – en flerfaglig studie. (My opinion: when the statement is disputed by a scholar in a published source, both versions should be mentioned in the article) Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the article history, but there currently doesn't seem to be a section about this. Maybe it is mentioned in the Criticisms article. If a new section is added, it should be balanced with the alternative POV, e.g., some theological sources, speaking for orthodox Christians, regard JWs to be non-Christians because of non-adherence to non-biblical church dogma, whereas JWs regard those same orthodox Christians to be apostates for adherence to the very same non-biblical church dogma. Ignocrates (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a subsection of the earlier heading, which would indicated that it is a proposed addition to the article. Having said that, I very very seriously doubt that such a section is either required or even indicated. So far as I know, most if not all self-described "Christians" include the JWs in that broad designation, although some of the Charismtic and Evangelical groups, who tend to have a more narrow definition of the term, might disagree. However, based on the fact that most Christians consider the JWs as some form of Christian, I tend to think that giving this matter, which appears to be a bit of a minority opinion regarding the matter, any particularly substantive discussion in this, the main article on the topic, would very likely violate WP:WEIGHT. That is not saying that the material might not be eligible for inclusion somewhere, but not necessarily this article. John Carter (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It have, at some stage, been an issue in three of the largest Scandinavian wikies, and the most serious objection against a FA-status for the Norwegian article was about stating in the introduction that JW was a Christian denomination. The user objecting, have a theologic degree, and objected because JW did not meet the criterias presented by World Council of Churches for defininition of Christian Denomination, and combined with quotes from theologs, was representing for a main stream view. The solution was to make a separate paragraph, explaining who don't concider JW Christian (mostly theologs or whoever they impact), and who does (most secular scholars). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have recently made a bit of a point in consulting any number of highly regarded reference sources on the broad topic of religion, and on some particular groups, for the purposes of finding articles which are included in those sources, so that editors here can have some idea as to what is included in other reference sources on those topics. I can honestly say that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never seen a reference source I have consulted not consider the JWs to be some form of Christian, and I am rather certain that I would have remembered if they had. The World Council of Churches' opinion is one opinion of some other Christian groups, and I have every reason to believe that any statements it might make are in some way potentially biased. It may well be that, for whatever reason, I might have more access to high quality reference sources than others in other languages might. If that is the case, feel free to drop me an e-mail with an indicator as to what is specifically being sought, and I will be more than happy to forward what I can. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have no strong opinions on the matter, other than JW are considered Christian by the mainstream of secular scholars and definitions of interest in this issue. The paragraph was written as a result of strong objections during a FA-nomination. It was out of question to remove any statement of JW as Christian, but the paragraph should be uncontroversial, and may not needed. It should however be concidered, as it may represent a significant minority view ("(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." - WP:NPOV) Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As atypical as JWs may be, they are a Christian group by any meaningful definition. The fact that they are a Christian group is encyclopaedically significant. Misplaced Pages is not censored. If the sensibilities of biased editors means that this point prevents the article from becoming 'featured', so be it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Furuli is a member of JWs, but he doesn't really have any authority as a JW (that is, there's no way to tell that anything he says is officially endorsed by the organisation). He could probably be used to cite material about linguistics, but I don't think there are grounds for considering him authoritative about JWs. On that basis, I don't think it would be appropriate to say Furuli explains the claim, as he can only really offer his opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Explain is may not the right word (it's a raw translation, by google), but it is an obvious objection to a statement exactly like the one quoted by Holden, and should be included. Furuli is a published writer, and this is a quote from a published source, edited by Ringnes, who is a promonent and commonly used sholary on this topic. I can't see why Furuli not should be quoted, when it contributes to a balanced section in the article. Several of the authors sourced in this article has no background directly connected to sholary work about JW or a close related subject, but are still used in the article, based on what? Furuli, with his inside experience, is a far better and more updated source than most, if not any, of them. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say Furuli can't be quoted. Only that he shouldn't be quoted in a manner that suggests his view is official.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding Furuli's comment would be a rebuttal of an opposing opinion. The article states what the JWs say, then adds a contrasting view by Holden. There is no value in Furuli (an unofficial commentator) agreeing with what the WTS (an official source) says. If a third commentator agrees with Holden, do we then rebut Furuli's comment with that? It could turn out to be a very long article. BlackCab (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I then suggest to move Holdens comment before the WTS statement, so Furulis comment is supportive to the WTS statement. Furulis comment comes from a third part source, and is a direct answear to a statement like the one from Holden, as it is presented in the article, so it adds value to the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is correctly expressed in the article. This is what the JWs say about themselves, but here is a dissenting view from an academic researcher based on his own observations. It is only to be expected that a JW will support what his leaders say. To do otherwise would invite expulsion, as Penton discovered. Furuli's reinforcement of his religion's teaching is just not notable and adds no value. BlackCab (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange mentioning Penton, who not can be described just another academic researcher, who offers his own opinion? Penton is referenced to in issues not related to history. The motive for Furulis comment is out of scope here, and wikipedia does not take a stand on true or false, wikipedia reference to published sources. The source is edited by Ringnes, and is published by the University publisher connected to the university of Oslo. We could have a third part to look into if the source is qualified as a RS, if that is the issue. Grrahnbahr (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Penton writes about JWs. Furuli is a language professor. Furuli's position as a linguist does not make his views about JWs any more notable than the views of any other JW member. And if the views of a JW member are considered reliable, then they're just going to echo the official view from the Watch Tower Society anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is like claiming Penton only reflects defectors view of JW. Penton have no autority as makes him a better source for writing about JWs believings than Furuli, who at least is updated when it comes to JWs believings. Penton was never higher ranked within the denomination than Furuli is, and Furuli is contributing to an interdisciplinary study about JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be turning this into a competition between the two. Penton is a professor of history who wrote three books about JW history and he continues to be cited by other authors and academics for his research and observations. I'm not sure what qualifications Furuli has that make him worth including. He is a JW and therefore supports the Watch Tower Society in its statements, as all members are required to do. BlackCab (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Penton is sourced in this article in topics not related to history. It is referenced to four different works written by Furuli (alone or together with other) in the same book as mentioned earlier, the interdisciplinary study about JW, so yes, Furuli is a referenced scholar, also when the topic is JW and their believings (Penton and the Bottings are not listed at all in the same book, Beckford, Stark and Holden is). I offered to ask for a third parts opinion if the source was an issue. The comparison between Penton and Furuli is of interest when it comes to what sources to use in this article, as the fact that Furuli is a member of JW, is used as an argument to disqualify him as a RS for this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of Penton in the article is fully justified: each of his statements in the article makes a contribution to understanding the religion. Please list what you think the article should cite from Furuli. BlackCab (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is no need for advertising what to list or not to list in advance. I don't know if you seek some kind of guarantee I wouldn't suggest more quotes from Furuli-related works? I got only one suggestion for now, and I do not see any need for limiting it the that single statement if a later addition could add value to the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Furuli, a JW, simply re-states the official JW view. It doesn't add anything to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually his comment do represent a third view, as it is quoted from a third part source. As far as I know, WTS have not stated an answear as directly as Furuli in the actual issue. Furuli is not tight connected to JW officials (as far as I know), other than being a JW and an elder. The book is edited by a non-JW scholar, and published by a secular publishing company, and can in no way be said to represent an official JW view, even if the work should be explaining teachings and believings of JW. His statement seen in context, it is obvious it is an answear to a statement simular as the one Holden presented, not just a random retelling of a JW-doctrine. WTS statement presented -> Holdens response to the WTS statement (or a similar statement - who knows?) -> Furulis response to a statement exactly like the one presented by Holden, and in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You're going in circles. We don't need a rebuttal to a rebuttal, especially when it's just a JW's opinion that reflects the official view anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stark link

The 1997 report by Rodney Stark & Laurence Iannacconne may be used as a source, but may not be suitable as an external link, as the report is not representative of current growth rates.

During the 16-year period from 1981 to 1996, average annual growth was 5.6%. However, in the 16 years from 1997 to 2012, average annual growth has been only 2.4%.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

- The period of 1981 to 1996 is not the point of the Stark article. On the other hand I’m unsure why this article deserves usage as an external resource given that its point is a theoretical analysis rather than a case study. The analysis is attempt to extrapolate a mechanism to project growth potential among religious groups. This is a very, very narrow field of study and other secondary articles offer far more about the actual state of things among Jehovah’s Witnesses, all of which makes me wonder why the article deserves placement as an external resource. That said, I leave it to other editors to decide what to do with this placement.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The report do have some unique aspects about JW, esp. when it comes to topics related to demography. It may is better used as a source than an external link, I've no strong opinion on the matter. I'm not sure what other secondary articles User:Shilmer knows, that is better suited. I'm really interested in more studies and aspects about JW, as I think the article still can be improved, not to mention if made by scholars not affected to JW as a member or ex-member. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The study is one of many academic works on the JWs that is available online and focuses on one aspect of the religion. It is cited twice in this article as well as in Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, History of Jehovah's Witnesses and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no need to list it as an external link. BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1981 to 1996 was used to illustrate the point because it is the same amount of time as 1997 to 2012. However, using any period of older statistics similarly demonstrates the point I made about the non-currency of the growth rates in that source. The only period with growth rates lower than the last decade and a half was the late 70s. I will remove the external link. This has no impact on the validity of the source for reporting historical growth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a worthwhile EL for the Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses article however. It's not cited in the article but fits the general guidelines of WP:EL.BlackCab (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Refer to my edit summary here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Further Reading Section.

I don't usually see most articles with a further reading section that I've noticed, can we just cite them in the article and leave it at that. My concern is that it will be used as a pro/con promotion area. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Further reading is a standard appendix for Misplaced Pages articles. If you have concerns about specific entries, they should be discussed though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree to User:Hell in a Buckets concern, thus the addition of the two last books, adds an undue weight of works mainly offering a critical view of JW, to the section.Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not personally familiar with the books that were added, but no reason was provided for their removal. If the objection is simply that the authors were former members of the group, I don't think that automatically makes them inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The objection is not about the authors religious believings, and, to my opinion, the books adds an undue weight of works mainly offering a critical view of JW, to the section. My opinion is based on numbers of books and a briefly overview of the books content and critics from scholars and other sources. Grrahnbahr (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Another edit by the editor who added the books to the Further reading section also suggested in the article text that Botting also made positive statements about JWs. Not that it's a solely determining factor, but the Botting's book shows up in the second page of results of Google Books when searching for Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

While the Bottings pursue a generally critical line in The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses, drawing intriguing parallels between the WTS and Big Brother, the Fundamental Freedoms & Jehovah's Witnesses book is a scholarly, and quite dry, book charting legal cases in which the JWs have helped to develop fundamental freedoms, particularly in French Canada. Generally aimed at a legal audience, it documents their banning, censorship and religious persecution and the judicial and legislative responses to WTS legal challenges. The Misplaced Pages article briefly mentions the Witnesses' legal challenges to government restrictions; Botting's book is therefore an excellent reference work to include in the "Further Reading" section. Some people might take the time to become better informed before branding books as critical. BlackCab (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding critical view, my conclusions was primarly based on my knowledge to the "Orwellian World"-book, as I wasn't aware about his deverced view to JW, so my mistake. Considered Botting's past as a lawyer, it could make sense the "Fundamental Freedoms" is more of an informative character then "Orwellian World", which I find hard to recommend as a primary book for futher reading. Grrahnbahr (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Jeffro, I just hadn't noticed that before but if it's standard process then all is well I guess. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Further reading is common on WP. It happens in two cases: new articles or stubs, where a source is known but hasn't (yet) been studied in detail to add cites; or (as here) where it's a large article and the corpus of relevant text is massive. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A thing I noticed regarding the manual of style, is, as I interpret it, the further reading is separated from the "work or publication"-list, which also is separated from the "notes and reference"-list. It seems kind of mixed in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Moral contamination

Moved from User talk:Grrahnbahr

You removed the statement from the Jehovah's Witnesses article that "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses", commenting: "The statement is not accurate, nor reflected in the article". In fact that point is expanded under the "Separateness" section, where a reference to Holden's book is included. Holden is the author who uses the term "moral contamination". BlackCab (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Holden did also mention examples of JW not following this advice/teaching. The article later states "Witnesses... are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality." A JW is still regarded as a JW, even if the "advice" is disregarded, so stating "They limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" is not only misleading, but an untrue statement (the statement is using "they", as the statement is describing JW as individuals). The statement is, as I see it, reflecting an area of teaching to complex to include as a one-sentence statement in the heading. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that some Witnesses (who would be regarded as defiant) ignore the constant instruction to avoid social interaction with non-members doesn't change the truth of the statement. Holden emphasises this point in pages 109-112. The other references in the article show the WTS constantly tells Witnesses that fraternisation with outsiders presents a threat to their spirituality. Their separateness from non-members is one of the defining and notable characteristics of the religion. Beckford's sociological study of the religion, Trumpet of Prophecy (p.194) also notes that the religion urges children "strenuously to restrict their friendship relations to fellow-members of the faith". BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Their "limitation of their social interaction" with non-Witnesses is an object of interpretation. "Social interaction" is presented like if not in a broader context, but it does include so many exceptions it is difficult to make a specific description in few words (WTBTSs definition of social interaction is may not even the same as from a secular view). I think it better could be described as situational. Their limitation is also not a strict practiced teaching (unlike most of their morale codex), and can pretty much be compared with seeing a possible "unsuitable" movie or having an ungroomed appearance. JW are encouraged to stick with the policies on those topics, but it is not fair to state t.ex. "JWs are not watching James Bond-movies", because the movies are portraying murders, and JWs are taught not to let themselves entertain by violent expressions. Some of them may don't see James Bond-movies of that specific reason, while some, may even many or the most of them, do or have done so. It could be fair to state it in the context of their teaching, but a narrow view like it is presented in the recent changed heading, is possible contributing to an unbalanced and misleading view of JWs as individuals. Regarding their relation to not being a part of "the World", it appears to be far more often used by the witnesses regarding not engaging into Politics. Sorry for not showing to any good sources here on short notice, but I am pretty sure you are familiar with most of the policies and examples here, and my point. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your remarks about watching movies are irrelevant to the discussion. You initially claimed that the statement about the outside world being morally corrupt and the fact that JWs limit their social interaction with non-members was "not accurate, nor reflected in the article". I have clearly showed you that it is an accurate reflection of a sociologist who studied the religion and devoted an entire chapter (Holden, pg 103-124) to the practice by the religion of discouraging "unnecessary contact with the outside world". I have directed you to another author, who wrote a landmark study of the religion, who discussed the same thing. The Misplaced Pages article also includes a reference to, and quote from, an article in the Feb 15, 1994 article specifically warning members against "extended association with worldly people" and the "dangers" of such friendship. From long personal experience I know this message is repeated regularly at meetings and conventions, with a variety of illustrations to highlight the spiritual dangers of such association. I therefore see no reason to delete the statement from the article. BlackCab (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't understand why there is a conflict here. I don't have Holden's book at hand but I also don't see the basis for disputing his statement. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to BlackCab): I think you may mixing up warnings for a JW against making close friendship to a non-JW, with normal social interaction with non-JW acquaintances. I doubt a JW visiting a non-JW neighbor, aunt, and a lot of other possible acquaintances, is considered living on the edge of their faith, even though the purpose is of social character only. The statement in the heading is giving such an expression, like JW could be considered as of an antisocial character. Note also "bad associations" (like the expression is used in 1. Cor. 15:33) is also used to warn against fellow JW in a not so good standing. I thought I would need more time (I'm about to have a week or so wikibreak), but I managed to find some sources to confirm a somewhat different view than stated above: "Since all Witnesses are responsible as individuals for managing their contact with the outside world, close scrutiny from inside the movement might reveal differences in how this is achieved." "But one thing that is clear is that the tolerance levels of devotees vary, as does their frequency of contact with outsiders. Although some voluntary contact with the outside world is permissible, the Witnesses are adviced to err on the side of caution when forming friendship with those who do not share their beliefs." "Certain Witnesses demonstrate their conviction by keeping contact with outsiders to a minimum. Others, though they may befriend non-members and maintain amicable relations with people in their neighbourhoods, makes their status known to those with whom they associate." (Quoted from Holden, p. 110-112) Holden describes this topic as complex, and was using interviews to get a realistic view of how JWs relations to "Worldly people" is. I still think the addition to the heading is representing unnecessarily criticism and a twisted and narrow view of JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether all JWs happen to follow any particular instruction they're given, the official position is that JWs are not meant to form close friendships with non-members. Despite that 'counsel', there may be any number of JW members who do so, just as some JWs might talk to former members, watch violent movies, and so on. The article is about the religion, not what individual members might do. Unless there is a source indicating notability of a particular widespread attitude among JW members that is counter to the leadership's instructions, it is not necessary to cover actions or attitudes of members who happen to diverge from any particular rule.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to religion, it is unavoidable that articles cross back and forth between doctrinal positions versus belief held by people making the particular religious community. Presuming a given statement is made in relation to a religion’s official position I don’t disagree with Jeffro77’s comments, and I’m sure this is what he speaks to. On the other hand, if the same statement is said broadly of the community of people associated with the religion then notable divergence should be disclosed. Notability would have to be documented and quantified by reliable sources. Anecdotal evidence would not establish notability no matter who shares it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Grrahnbahr's edit that replaced a straightforward statement reflecting reliable sources with a defensive half-truth. His statement was "While the Witnesses internally are advised to minimize social contact with non-members, independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, as Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination." As I have explained, Holden devoted almost an entire chapter to the religion's practice of instructing members to avoid "unnecessary contact with the outside world". The Watchtower and Holden refer to socialisation with non-JWs as dangerous and a source of moral contamination. These are strong statements of an extreme view and cannot be brushed off with wording that says they are "advised" to "minimize" such socialisation. Some JWs may indeed have social networks outside the organisation, but it is of no greater significance than the fact that some are also wife-bashers, tax cheats and gamblers. Just as their strong convictions on morality (and the constant admonition in WTS literature to maintain this stand) are notable, so also is the practice of strong warnings to members to avoid social interaction with outsiders, and the general practice (as observed by Holden) that Witnesses do indeed follow this instruction. Per WP:NOENG, an English translation should be provided for a Norwegian source that is cited here. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement that JWs are not supposed to have close 'worldly' friendships and view 'the world' as morally contaminated cites a reliable source, and the point is also made in JW publications. This article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, the group. Any number of JW members might hold any particular personal view (including opinions for which they would face religious sanctions if revealed). However, the official attitude of the religion is that JWs are to avoid close friendships with non-members. They are told they should only have close friendships with 'true Christians', which is understood by JWs to mean only JWs. Even 'close association' with their own non-JW 'Bible students' is discouraged.

• The Watchtower, 15 March 2006, p. 23: "What about having close association with those who may be morally clean but who lack faith in the true God? The Scriptures tell us: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) We come to discern that bad associations are not limited to permissive or morally debased people. Hence, we are wise to cultivate close friendships only with those who love Jehovah."
• The Watchtower 1 July 1972, p. 400, "Blessing Jehovah in Our Daily Associations": "Fathers often must spend the larger portion of their waking hours working with worldly associates in order to provide materially for their families. Schoolchildren, in order to receive an education, must spend a considerable part of their time with schoolmates who are not concerned with blessing Jehovah. Other than such necessary association, true Christians will avoid keeping company or making friendships with those who do not share their love for Jehovah God. It is only the course of wisdom and life to do so."
• The Watchtower, 15 July 1975, p. 428, "Watch Out for Spiritual Uncleanness": Of course, there are persons with whom you may be studying, and some of these are very fine people, making progress, loving association with you and the members of the congregation. These need your association to the extent necessary to encourage and to help them. But there are those who have no interest in what the Bible has to say, or who do not particularly care to listen to the good news. Some of these persons may be upright, respectable people according to the world’s standards. But close association with them is bad, for the reason that all persons who are not devoted Christians engage in things not pleasing to God and can be a contaminating influence."
• The Watchtower, 15 February 1994, p. 23, "Keep Your Distance When Danger Threatens": "Some Christians have gone astray by getting too involved in business activities, by cultivating close friendships with worldly associates, or by becoming emotionally attached to someone of the opposite sex when they are not free to marry. The wise course, in each case, is to keep our distance from danger."
• The Watchtower, 15 August 2001, p. 19: "All the while, avoided getting too close to their pagan neighbors. Christians today must likewise remain “no part of the world.” (John 17:16) While we are kind and courteous to our neighbors and work associates, we are careful not to get entangled in behavior that reflects the spirit of the world alienated from God."
• The Watchtower, 1 March 1993, p. 9: "We also live in a world of twisted values, bankrupt morals, and false religious practices. Many among us once lived according to the system of things of this world. Others of us have to rub shoulders with worldlings day in and day out." (Yes, 'worldlings'! Sigh.)

Clearly, the article reflects both third party sources and the official view of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• GA-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles