Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

The earlier material has been removed from this section, and stored in a newly created "Talk" archive. Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive

I really do think this:

Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines and practices controversial. The public and extensive nature of their evangelizing work has escalated controversy against them to the point of mob action, government oppression--including being targeted in the Holocaust--and widespread criticism from members of other faiths. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web.

reads a lot better (and is more natural to the medium) than

Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines, beliefs, and practices controversial. (See Jehovah's Witness Doctrine, Jehovah's Witness Practices). Responses have included mob action, government oppression, including being targetted in the Holocaust (See Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust), and widespread criticism from Christians of other denominations. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web. (See Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Any opinions?

yup, the top version is clearer to read. -- Tarquin

I agree, it's much clearer. Though I'm still not convinced the criticism needs to be broken out into a separate article. Wesley

Wesley, are you convinced that Holocaust Revisionism should be a separate article from Holocaust? Then you should have no problem with the existence of the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article. --63.231.52.76 07:49 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

I prefer the Encyclopedia style of the second entry. It makes more sense to me. --63.231.52.76 07:49 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

Actually, I find these attempts to use the Holocaust as an excuse to remove the opposing links to be quite amusing. :) Modemac

Do we let fundamentalist Christians censor our articles on Christianity and the Bible and baldly rewrite history, in the issue of "fairness"? Does an impartial encyclopaedia article on Christianity have to be written in accord with Christian theology? No, of course not. Do we let Orthodox Jews censor our articles on Judaism and the documentary hypothesis in the issue of "fairness"? Does an impartial encyclopaedia article on Judaism have to be written in accord with Orthodox Jewish theology? No, of course not. This is an encyclopaedia based on facts, and not a tool for religious propaganda - for any faith. However, we have been letting the pro-Jehovah's Witness crowd get away with murder here, as they keep censoring articles, deleting indisputable facts, and sometimes rewriting history to the point of lying. This is not a good sitatuion. We need a few more people to help keep an eye on this and related entries. Merely maintaining NPOV isn't the problem; it is outright academic dishonest and censorship that we need to fight against.

Opposing Views

Mr 63.* ; you're being a dickhead. Please stop it. NPOV demands that criticism be included. Stop deleting links to it.

Calling me a dickhead doesn't in any way support your thesis. There is an article for Criticism of JW's, just as there is an article for Holocaust Revisionism. --63.231.52.76 18:04 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

<yawn> If I must then I must, though you will simply deny this anyways and keep on deleting the links to the opposing viewpoints. There are many, many people and organizations worldwide that promote the fact of the existence and timeline of the Holocaust. Holocaust revisionism is only one minor facet of it, one that is nearly universally rejected because of the overwhelming evidence against it. On the other hand, as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, there is only one organization (the Witnesses themselves) promoting the point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses; there are many organizations and groups worldwide who question that opinion and offer alternating viewpoints. This is why the opposing viewpoints are necessary. This is also why I call it "opposing viewpoints" and not "criticism" -- because that's what it is. Of course, you're simply going to go on deleting the opposing view links anyways, because as far as you are concerned, I am someone who thinks he knows more about the Jehovah's Witnesses than you do. By the way, where is our friend Clutch? Modemac

I think it's time to do away with the criticism article. In the text of the criticism article, it says it's a place to put criticism until what is factual can be hashed out and put in the main article. Well, that seems more the role of a talk page. Further, I think Mr. Clutch and Mr 63.* are misusing that page to suppress what is factual. It is a 'fact' that somebody has a criticism page at some URL. The whole point of NPOV is you report various views, and you attribute them to whoever feels that way. That's exactly what we do when we say "Opposing Views" above the links. q

Since there are pro-JW links and JW is a controversial religious movement there should also be links to websites that are critical of JW, no? Deleting valid links is very unwiki and edit wars are unproductive. If this war doesn't stop then the page may need to be temporarily frozen in order to give everybody some time to cool off. --mav 21:53 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

Suggested pages:

-Stevertigo

This is a fascinating debate, and to me, as an atheist, makes me more than aware of what a curiously half-baked affair religiosity in any of its forms actually is. I am interested in the initial assertion in the article as it currently stands that the Jehovah's Witnesses are classified as a Christian denomination despite worshipping Jehovah and not Christ. Anyone care to shed any light on this please? user:sjc

Have you read the Wikipedia article on Christianity, which is linked to in the article itself? The essential belief common to all Christians is that salvation comes through Christ. JW's assuredly hold that belief. --63.231.52.76 07:33 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

This looks like a highly selective redefinition of reality to me. I think that one or two of Marx's ideas are interesting. This doesn't make me a Marxist, far from it, I am your archetypal laissez-faire capitalist. Similarly I think that one or two of J Christ's post-Platonic ramblings have a certain merit. That by the same token doesn't make me a Christian. I would need rather more convincing that the JWs were Christian than that to allow them to really be contained within the ambit of a Christian denomination. user:sjc

Atheism has nothing to do with your repeated removal of the links to the opposing viewpoints. You asked (or rather, you demanded) that I respond to your "charge" about Holocaust revisionism vs. the opposing viewpoint links, and I have done so. And you continue to remove the links without any further discussion, Mister "you refuse to answer my challenge." Where is your continuation of this discussion? Modemac

Furthermore, q has a good point. The text for "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses" says: Criticism levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses can go here until what is factual and what is not can get hashed out sufficiently to be put in the article on Jehovah's Witnesses in a neutral manner. Isn't this what the Talk page is supposed to be about? Modemac

--

Evidently Mr. 63 has given up trying to have any sort of discussion, though he keeps trying to remove the opposing links. How much longer until we have cause to file a complaint to the Wikipedia sysops? (And how much longer after that before he starts crying "religious persecution"?) Modemac

Its not in the interest of an authoritative encyclodedia to have articles that speak in religious language: That is to say, terms within such religious discussion are usually couched in metaphor, so when people argue about minor quasilogical differences between denominations, it strikes the rest of the human world as boring, and utterly self-involved.

Christianity has three main branches, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and everyone fits into these boxes, like it or not. The Christianity article is need of some work as well.

A religious language is not English, therefore it belongs somewhere else. It may use English words, and look a lot like English, but its not.

Wouldn't religious "language" be best understood as just another set of jargon? A number of the more advanced articles on science and mathematics use some words I don't know either, because I'm not a mathematician. It seems to me that your argument would ban those words from the encyclopedia as well, since they're certainly not plain English to most people. Wesley

'Salvation through Christ' will mean nothing to the objective point of view, (we read encyclopedias for knowledge we do not have - religious knowledge belongs on a talk page, not the article)

The above metaphor and all the others should either be saved for teatime, or have to be reduced to their meaning i.e, '"with the belief in an unearthly spirit, comes also the belief in its immortality, through the continituity of life, represented by (insert metaphor here).

- Stevertigo

If "Salvation through Christ" means nothing from an objective point of view, then such an objective point of view means nothing in the discussion of religious topics. Substitute that kind of objective view point, and you will make clear to all religious people that you are not only disinterested in religion, but positively hostile to it. Mkmcconn

You are quite correct that this is a core concept within the terms of reference of this subject Mkmcconn. But it is a very intangible concept by its very nature and is evidently and manifestly insufficiently defined. Perhaps it needs clarification in an article on the subject, written from an appropriate NPOV of course. I would tend to argue that from my conversations with a number of "Christians", that "Salvation through Christ" is way down the order of precedence. But hey, maybe I'm just skeptical. user:sjc

The terms can be defined in such a way to be descriptive, instead of preferential, without resorting to the biased notion that non-religious terms are a more "objective" way of describing religion. Mkmcconn

There is nothing "biased" in objectivity nor do I see any problem in trying to accurately describe something nor using a terminology which is appropriate. That is the whole point of what we are doing here. Perhaps the problem is that religion and the associated semantics which underpin it are inherently non-objective and should be accurately described as such, e.g. in the way in which descriptions of fictional characters in articles are clearly ring-fenced with the word "fictional". The corollary of which, of course, is that all religious concepts should be clearly delineated as such. I have no problem with that. user:sjc

LOL, mkm.. you accuse me of being hostile to religion, but, i accuse any religion to be hostile towards the other. It is the lack of common language that has created this hostility, nitpicking, and inability to reconcile common values and core beliefs. You claim an allegiance to a family of religion that only exists as a unity against secularism. -stevertigo

This won't get far, I can see. No, I'm not talking about either, you or me, or what your hostilities are or what my allegiances are. The point is that the adoption of a secularized, "objective", scientific point of view such as has been described, would not be neutral when dealing with a religious subject. Mkmcconn

Perhaps this debate can continue in a more appropriate place: Talk:Controversy over religious semantics, objectivity, and play (esoteric) -q

This feud is exactly what I was afraid would happen to the Unification Church article, and it may be instructive to compare the current squabble here to the relative peace that has reigned over there.

Although I am a member of the Unification Church, I have tried to digest any criticism at a leisurely pace, often preferring to leave in what I regard as a mistake.
When I did feel it necessary to speak up, I would place a comment on the talk page first, and wait for replies.
After several months of this, I'm more likely to hear about a "criticism" from another contributor than to see it myself: "Hey, Ed, why do you let them say that about your church?"

I feel that my determination not to make a fuss about what I believe has helped keep things smooth over there. At least, no one's ganging up on me. And user:Wesley has been unfailing kind and helpful.

Have I brought out any helpful insights that can ease the situation here? --Ed Poor

If someone actually has a good reason to delete the Opposing View links, that should be explained here on the Talk page before deleting them again. That's just standard Wikipedia etiquette to avoid editing wars. Wesley

OK, deleting the links is beginning to rise to the level of vandalism -- at the very least this is causing a lot of unproductive use of the this talk page and is draining our human resources. I suggest that the person doing so stop or risk a 24 hour block. --mav

I've stated my reason as to why the Opposing Viewpoints should remain on the main page: as far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, there is only one organization (the Witnesses themselves) promoting the point of view of the Jehovah's Witnesses; there are many organizations and groups worldwide who question that opinion and offer alternating viewpoints. This is why the opposing viewpoints are necessary, to counter the "official" (sanitized) Jehovah's Witness links and offer genuine differing viewpoints. This is also why I call it "opposing viewpoints" and not "criticism" -- because that's what it is. If Clutch/63 could be so kind as to try talking things over and accepting the fact that the Jehovah's Witness worldview is not the only one allowed on Wikipedia, we could come to an amiable solution. And to Mr. Poor: As someone who has had less-than-satisfying experiences online with the Unification Church (a Moonie mouthpiece named Damian Anderson tried to wipe out the entire alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* newsgroup hierarchy on Usenet once), I appreciate your open-mindedness. Modemac

How interesting, the previous explanation of why the Opposing Views links were being removed has been erased from this Talk page. Now I wonder why someone who is self-proclaimedly "out to get" JW's would do that. Those links are strident, partisan, clearly biased, and mostly innaccurate and misleading. I stated clearly that if people can find factual articles, without innuendo, lies, and misleading statements filling them up, they are welcome to link them in. So far that has not happened. The people that want the "Opposing Views" in only seem to want the ones that trash the JW religion. This does not help anyone take the scholarly standards of the Wikipedia seriously. None of the anti-JW crowd has dealt with this issue, instead preferring to ignore it and say "We think the links should stay anyway". Responding to my comments dismissively is not the same as considering them thoughtfully. This article is for objective facts about the JW's, not for the unconfirmed, often innacurate subjective opinions of every Tom, Dick and Harry that feels he doesn't like them. I feel sad that some people feel such intense hatred that a neutral stating of objective facts is called "pro-JW propaganda" by them. Their own attempts at what they feel is "counter-propaganda" is even sadder. This article is about JW's, not "why I and some others hate them".

The kind of accusations those opposing views links make are similar in truthfulness to the accusations made on anti-Semite websites, accusing the Jews of mixing Gentile blood with their matzo every Ceder, raping little baby girls, and the like. One could refute them, but who has time? There are just too many. One or two examples of such bias should be enough to discredit these sites. Then if you find an unbiased article, you can link it in. For this reason I say, if you continue to post these links to the JW article, you must, in all conscience, post a link to the Zundelsite on the Holocaust page because it is equally factual and irrelevant. Handwaving and disagreement by Modemac doesn't change these facts. --63.231.52.76 20:08 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Dear anonymous; Your slander of all these people border on hatespeech. How dare you compare critics of JW's with murderers, and with anti-Semites. Your constant vandalizim of this encyclopaedia only proves that much of the criticism made against JW's is true. You and your peers here use unscrupulous tactics to slander others, censor material, promote bald-faced lies and literally rewrite history. Your actions only prove to the rest of us that the criticisms made against you are true. If you do not go away, you be banned from Wikipedia. Hopefully permanently. RK

Opposing Views

There are anti-global warming theory links in our global warming article and their are anti-viewpoint links in many other controversial articles. JW is a controverial sect and therefore opposing views are warrented here. Stop deleting the links or be blocked for 24 hours. --mav

Ok, I'm glad the links in question are listed here, so we can discuss them. For the record, earlier reasons for deleting these links has not been completely deleted, it can still be found here: Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/archive. I for one am glad that User:63.231.52.76 took the time to again explain his/her rationale for deleting the links.

After reviewing that discussion, I think an important question has yet to be answered: How should Wikipedia's NPOV standard be applied to external links? If an externally linked site does make unfounded accusations or huge factual misstatements, should the link to the site be removed from wikipedia articles? I'm not voicing an opinion on the sites in question, I haven't even visited them yet. I personally think the Jehovah's Witnesses are heretical, but that doesn't mean that every anti-JW site is therefore 100% accurate and upstanding. I think the question raised deserves a careful answer. Wesley

They are labeled as Opposing Views. We shouldn't concern ourselves too much with the accuracy of the info prestented there but only with the info preseneted here. The particular links may not be appropriate but there should be links to opposing viewpoints in an article like this, especially when pro-JW sites are already listed. --mav

Hey, 63.231.52.76, why not tone down the rhetoric a bit? Not everyone is "against you" here. Like me, for example. I'm an admin, and I can assure you that if you will just abide by a few simple guidelines there will be no more talk of banning.

Guideline #1: Signing in gives you an edge. Why not pick a nickname like "Bible Student" or something catchy like that?

Guideline #2: Bringing up the Holocaust is poor strategy. Instead of persuading, it alienates.

Guideline #3: Spend less time impugning the motives of your opponents -- if you see other contributors as opponents -- and more time writing what you know about the subject.

Guideline #4: Stop ignoring me. I'm trying to help you, but if you don't respond, I can only assume you'd rather go it alone.

--Ed Poor

I am far from home, and have to snatch what minutes I can to type things into the Wikipedia when I'm on my breaks. I don't wish you to think I'm ignoring you; I just lack the time and comforts I have at home to do more detailed research and responses, and I seem to be overwhelmed by the daytimers who are on fulltime editing and reverting articles; by the time I come back on my next break, several people have already jumped in saying I'm a vandal, calling for my banning, and that impression has set in because I wasn't in a position to defend myself or my edits.

In a few days I expect to renew editing with my user account. I don't remember my password; I keep it "remembered" by the web browser at home. Thank you for your fairness and even-handedness, Ed. Unless it is demonstrated the JW's have a history of lying and misleading people about themselves and their faith, and keeping parts of it hidden, it seems only reasonable to take the stance that JW's are acting in good faith when they wish to see their religion described accurately. Scientologists don't have that presumption of innocence for exactly those reasons. --63.225.184.165 02:42 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I removed this link, because it's over the top.

The Watchtower Observer - accuses JWs of pedophilia, anti-Semitism and covering up murder

Please check out the site yourself and comment here, rather than just reverting this deletion. It really hurts my feelings to see how nasty and one-sided their criticism is. --Ed Poor

I agree. The other two links are rational and should stay, but that one goes too far. Matthew Woodcraft

Perhaps all this started as an over-reaction to the first link. I agree with the removal of that link. The others should stay. --mav\

continuing from the above:

...the adoption of a secularized, "objective", scientific point of view such as has been described, would not be neutral when dealing with a religious subject. Mkmcconn

Yes, I agree, but from a secular point of view. Secularists often forget that its not the linguistics in religions that make them powerful, rather, their metaphorical symbolism. To ask 'religious' people to abandon these powerful symbolic languages in place of a secular humanist one is sort of short-sighted, and no doubt personally offensive. My point however is simply that religious speak is a separate language despite its similarities to a common tongue. Thus religious speak, by definition belongs not on the english WP, but rather a JH WP or a CU WP or whatever. Nes pa?

and... nice try quintessent. -Stevertigo

Like I said before, that's silly. Religious language is not a separate language in the sense that German or Chinese are separate languages. Many languages have a subset of vocabulary that have very specific meanings within a religious context, or that are coined especially to deal with religious topics. In other fields, this is called jargon. Wesley

Please stop the edit war. There is a huge difference between maintaining NPOV, which I am trying to, and wiping out indisuptable historical facts, to appease the pro-Jehovah;s Witness advocates. I understand that JW's today wish that their leadership didn't attempt to negotiate with the Nazis during World War II, and spewed anti-Allied and anti-Jewish propaganda to curry favor. But it happened, and it is dishonest to censor this fact. Similarly, many Jw' smight wish that many Christians accepted them as Christians. But their wishes simply don't carry any weight when it comes to writing an encyclopaedia. The fact of the matter is that practically all Christians reject JW's claims to be Christian, and there are many firm reasons for this. Please stop rewriting history to make the world conform to JW wishes. Unless you can give good and compelling reason to hide these facts (and I cannot imagine any) I will keep restoring these facts to the article. Please stop the pro-JW advocacy edit war.

Censored material that I will restore: Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines, beliefs, and practices controversial. Responses have included mob action (please specify or remove) and government oppression. During World War II the Nazi's targeted the Jehovah's Witnessed for persecution, despite the attempts of the Jehovah's Witnesses leadership to curry favor with the Nazis by siding against the Allies, and against Jews. There is much criticism of the Jehovah's witnesses by former members of the organization, from many Christian groups, and from a number of non-religious anti-cult organizations. + Throughout their history, many have found their doctrines, beliefs, and practices controversial. Responses have included mob action; government oppression, including being targeted in the Holocaust and widespread criticism from Christians of other denominations. Such criticism has become an entire genre with the advent of the Web. Some Christians do not consider the Jehovah's Witnesses to be a Christian organization because of their unusual beliefs and practices. Some go so far as to label the religion as a cult.

The vast majority of Christians (including Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians) hold that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. The dispute exists because the Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians, explicitly identifying themselves with Arius, a fourth-century priest who was condemned as a heretic at the First Ecumenical Council in 325 A.D. As such, they do not share most Christians' belief in the Trinity or any form of the Nicene Creed. Many Protestant Christians label the Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult. End censored material

--RK

Hm. What was so wrong with the above text that it had to be removed? --mav

I think that the second paragraph is not controversial. These are facts describing the relationship between JWs, and the Protestants and Catholics, that all parties can acknowledge. Whoever doesn't want that paragraph is selling something. However, the first paragraph has a different character; not that it needs to be censored, but it does have a clear agenda (bias) doesn't it? It strikes me as being like a description of the history of the United States that places banner emphasis on the conquest of native Americans, enslavement of blacks, the cultural imperialism of American entertainment media, the decadence and hypocrisy of its people, the arrogance and insensitivity of American corporations, or whatever else you might discover from a newscast by the Taliban or the Pacifica news service. All factual - at the very least, it's all factual that people have these opinions - but too prominent a display of that kind of material draws attention to an agenda: someone wants you to know that there is something really wrong with JWs, and a lot of people agree. That's not quite as helpful in understanding what JWs are, as it is in gaining insight into the fact that people find much to criticize with JWs. (not sure why I think my comments are needed - but, it seems to be sharing time) Mkmcconn

truth hurts maybe - and it should sometimes, As I understand it, despite its current negative connotations, 'cult' is not in itself a derogatory term. It may be made that way by the major religions, but, we cant be blind to the fact that some religions are newer than others, and there is an associated heirarchy of what might be misnamed 'validity' associated with these.

the real issue with regard to the deletes, besides putting makeup on an old woman, is the degree to which facts carry sentiments, negative or otherwise. In the context of a religions language, censorship and edits are normal. why? because facts miss the point - the point is the faith. Here, however, faith is your business, and we just carry the facts. then, how much are these 'facts' merely sentiments, or opinion? well, my opinion may not be worth much, but a million or two similar opinions make public sentiment, which is valid to record, as long as its proportional and in a balanced context. not balanced in terms of whos right or wrong, cause who cares, but well written, and I think we all know what that is.... umm... SV

The Ontario Consultants' website says:

They have predicted that the start of Armageddon would occur in 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, and 1941. None of the prophecies have come true. Each failed estimate caused some disillusioned members to leave the organization.

Should we mention this, and other controversial points, in this article or at the controversies article (or a little of both: say, introduce it here, and go into detail there)? --Ed Poor

That group seems on the level, but maybe some more corroboration of facts ought be made with at least some other source, no doubt, the OC have some attribution. == And on a final note here, if one is so inclined to be critical of a religion, make it not feel so singled out: spread it around into other denominations as well, and when your'e done...do your own. == --Stevertigo p.s. which reminds me, there is no way to link an attribution number with a target on the bottom is there?

No. But the next best thing is:

Put each external link in single brackets, like: "[http://www.edpoor.com]" which shows up in the text as numbers [1]
At the end of the article repeat each external link with some descriptive text, like: "[http://www.edpoor.com Ed Poor's homepage]" which shows up as Ed Poor's homepage

--Ed Poor

I haven't cared much about what's going on here, but I have been watching. Most recently, I noticed that "Arian Christian" was changed to "Christian". What is the reason for that? The Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door admit that they are Arians. They insist on it. To be Trinitarian is to be part of the great apostacy. Should I be correcting them? "No, Mr. JW proselytizer. That's not a neutral point of view, to describe yourself as Arian"? Mkmcconn

Okay, I will put it back. If they describe themselves that way, I see no reason not to do so. It sounded strange to me, as I connect Arianism with the very early church, and would prefer not to call a modern group 'Arian' even if it has very similar ideas. By the way, another problem I have is the connection I make with 'Aryan'. I have thought about changing it to Arianist, but I guess 'Arian' is too much more common to do so. Andre Engels 16:19 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

You're right, that Arian it doesn't communicate very well. I hadn't thought of it before, but you are right to want to remove the potential for confusion with Aryan. I placed an awkward parenthetical statement into the sentence, and added a link. Mkmcconn

Clutch, I can understand several of the rewordings; it makes sense to state the Jehovahs Witness position first, before stating any differing opinions. But is it really necessary to completely remove all mention of Arianism and Arius? Were the statements regarding Arianism factually inaccurate or misleading? Wesley

The word Arian is too close to Aryan in pronunciation for comfort. Despite a parenthetical explanation that Arianism is "not Aryanism", the word sinks into a persons consciousness immediately and makes it's "first impression" because of a lack of surrounding context that prepares them for the idea "this is a type of theology". I don't think it's proper for an Encyclopedia to be giving people subliminal impressions that this group or that group is anti-Semitic.

The statements themselves were not inaccurate. But I feel they are adequately explained on the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses page, in a suitable context where misimpressions are unlikely to happen. In fact, the first paragraph on that page talks about the fact that they have an Arian christology. I feel that the information doesn't really need to be duplicated on multiple pages. --Clutch 17:37 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I think the answers to our questions is clear: Some pro-JW advocates know that Arianism is considered heresy, yet they want to spread their faith to other Chrisitans. So they try and hide these facts as part of their scheme to get people to join their religion. This is not about different ways of presenting information; it is about people trying to hide information so that they can continue to convert people.

And who are you, that is posting comments here without attribution? Stand forward and be named. --Clutch 17:37 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

That was contributor 165.155.128.121, of course. Someone who like yourself, prefers not to give enough information to be easily identified -- Derek Ross 17:46 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

The Witnesses acknowledge that they hold Arian beliefs that most Christians hold to be heretical.

For reasons stated above (that information is already contained in another article), I don't see the need for that sentence in this article. It is redundant, and not quite appropriate without more context. If you think Arianism is important enough to go in the main article, then maybe it is time to fold the separate Doctrines page back into the main page as it was before. --Clutch 18:35 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Some up-front mention of Arianism is necessary, in order to accurately identify what Jehovah's Witnesses are. If a single sentence of non-partisan description can't survive being cut, then is it reasonable to think that an extensive discussion of controversial material can be folded back in? Mkmcconn

In the context the sentence was placed, it wasn't balanced or non-partisan, although I think Wesley meant well. The material in the current Doctrines had stabilized to a large degree before Cunctator decided to break the article up into chunks. I see no reason why there would be a problem folding it back into the main article. --Clutch 19:17 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I'm still confused. There is no success in getting a single mention of arianism mentioned in the article, without an edit war; but you are saying that there is enough of a consensus that we can take an article that mentions the offending word repeatedly, and this will bring peace. It seems unlikely. I have an alternative solution, that I'm going to post in the subject article in a moment. Let's see how that works. Mkmcconn

There is no need for confusion. The mention of Arianism in isolation wouldn't be balanced or neutral. In the context of talking about the whole body of JW doctrine, it is entirely appropriate.

I am wondering, why single out Arianism? JW's have many other doctrines which conventional Christians disagree with equally vehemently, such as the belief that humans don't have an immortal soul. Why pick one doctrine that sounds so similar to something hated by the majority of people, and put it alone in the main article as being their distinctive doctrine? It's not as if it isn't covered adequately in the Doctrines article already. --Clutch 20:33 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I do, by the way, think that the Doctrines article is quite good. But, apparently not everyone agrees with being explicit in the main article that, Christians generally agree with one another that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not know or teach the Christian faith. Mkmcconn

Many Muslims don't consider the Shi'ites to be proper Muslims. Should we then heavily emphasize in our article about them that "They consider themselves Muslims, but all other Muslims do not"? That is the sort of thing you seem to be suggesting is appropriate here. If Eusebius, widely considered a "Church Father" were brought forward in time to today, would he also be considered "not a Christian" because of his adherence to the Arian belief? --Clutch 20:33 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Theologically, they identify with the views of Arius and his fourth century followers who agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (see Arianism).

Phrased this way, I don't think there's much chance of Arius...Arianism being confounded for Hitler's "Arayanism". --Ed Poor

There is already a page for talking about their Doctrines; why focus on that one doctrine on the main page? It is not their most distinctive or representative doctrine, nor even their most controversial. Can someone explain what is so important about that particular fact making it to the main article, while a host of others go in sub-articles? --Clutch 20:33 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

I myself like having the Arius...Arianism thing in the article because (1) it distinguishes JWs from other Christian groups -- much as the male-only priesthood, 5-level hierarchy & papal infallibility distinguish Roman Catholics; (2) it's something JWs have somewhat in common with my other 2 favorite Christian groups: Latter-Day Saints and Unification Church. --Ed Poor

It would be (only roughly) comparable to erasing the qualifier "Protestant" from "Christian" from every article on protestant denominations. Many (most) catholics do not consider Protestants to be part of the Christian Church, and to eliminate the word "Protestant" from the definition leaves the reader without a clue about why this group is not in fellowship with other Christian groups. Here, we are talking about something distinct: not Protestant Christian, not Catholic Christian, not Orthodox Christian; the right name for it is, "Arian Christian". As far as Christianity is concerned this distinction is by far, very much by far, the most important and controversial of all of the things they teach. Mkmcconn