Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reference Tag on References section

I noticed that there is a tag requesting "reliable" third party references. This was discussed before on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_practices/Archive01#Primary_sources

I agree with the sentiment there. Jehovah's Witnesses publications are the best sources for what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. After all, no one knows themselves better than....themselves. There are also independent secondary sources used in the article. Now, as a student of History I have been trained to see a primary source as a type of "eye witness" source to an event. A compilation of primary sources, plus its analysis, is a secondary source. I don't think publications of a church that describes their own beliefs should count as primary source. As stated before (see link) the issue is to be judged on a case by case basis. Is anyone opposed to me removing the tag? Fordx12 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing that JW literature is the best source for their own beliefs. However, the line becomes much more blurred regarding neutrality, notability and verifiability when only primary sources are considered. Any organisation can say whatever it wants about itself, and one would certainly not get a well-rounded opinion on an organisation by only listening to that organisation's PR. Your approach to sources is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies on the matter, and in the absence of actual secondary sources, it's not clear whose "analysis" you're relying on in order to produce what you consider to be a 'secondary source'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The analysis of JW's about their beliefs is what makes their magazines secondary sources in my book. However I am aware that wiki policy may not agree with me on the matter, though I do not understand how or why. To fulfill the requirements then I would have to find how much via wiki secondary sources? I will, over time, look for a secondary source. There's bound to be some out there. Statement of intention: To improve this article's quality class. Can't do that with those tags hanging around. Fordx12 (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything published by a JW corporation (e.g. Watch Tower Society) is a primary source in articles relating to JWs, and should only be used for sourcing straightforward statements (such as what they believe). The article should not analyse the primary sources without referring to secondary sources, and primary sources do not provide such analysis. JW publications should not be used to cite facts (i.e. it is not necessary to cite JW publications for information outside the scope of their beliefs, as there are more appropriate sources for such material; see WP:RS), and beliefs should not be presented as if they are facts. This does not mean that the current primary sources used in this article are not appropriate, as this article presents JW religious practices. However, additional secondary sources would help to verify and establish the notability of the various practices within the scope of the subject.

You might want to read WP:PRIMARY to get a better idea of what constitutes primary and secondary sources per Wikipedia's policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I have some work to do then. Thank you for your kind advise. I shall now implement it. Fordx12 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I should also more clearly state what I meant when I said that "JW publications should not be used to cite facts". Of course, statements sourced from JW literature should be factual (as opposed to false). By way of example: JWs believe Christ returned in 1914 is a fact, but Christ returned in 1914 is not, though it wouldn't be a problem to cite a (primary) JW publication for that belief. In contrast, something like "the Medo-Persians overthrew Babylon in 539BCE" is stated in JW publications, and it is a fact (according to many reliable sources), but it would be more neutral to cite an independent source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources re blood

An editor has deleted a reference to disagreement by some members to the JW blood policy, explaining: "Delete unreliable source and text based upon that unreliable source, as Lee Elder is anonymous and his purported association with Jehovah's Witnesses is not provable."[1] WP:SOURCES states: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." The statement about dissent is sourced from Journal of Medical Ethics, a peer-reviewed medical journal; clearly the statement is acceptable as a reliable source. BlackCab (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if the source were named, I would question such a broad statement coming from a singular person, but an anonymous single source is hardly conclusive enough to make such a broad statement about the position taken by a mythical number of witnesses. The statement is shear conjecture at best and has no place in the article. Willietell (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinion, Willietell, the fact is that a respected medical journal that undergoes extensive peer review before publication has published a paper by Lee Elder, who represents a movement within the Jehovah's Witnesses. The claim by Lee Elder is not, in fact, extraordinary: it states that some Witnesses do not endorse the doctrine. In a group with millions of members, it is not a statement that is so extreme it should be removed. BlackCab (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is hosted in the US government's "National Center for Biotechnology Information" which is under the umbrella of the National Institutions of Health (NIH). The source itself is reliable. The full text is available via its website [2]. Based on the Abstract, Elder seems to be a Jehovah's Witness. If he was an ex member of that church then I would be inclined to be suspicious of his claims (Is he a current member? I'm confused by that aspect) since I feel that ex-members of a church often have an ax to grind with said church. In case he isn't a current member, I still have to ask if there is any proof that there isn't a sizable minority, including Hospital Liaison Committee members (Which would be significant), that don't agree with the Watchtower? From what I have gathered, the Watchtower is not (to steal a wiki term) a consensus of the views of millions of witnesses. They do not vote in representatives that make policies and declare what the collective group perceives to be biblical truths. A claim was made, is there a counter claim? I'm afraid that without a counterclaim, there is no ground for deleting the sourced content and that the deleted content must be reinstated with its source. Fordx12 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A person who persists in believing

An editor has removed the statement based on a September 1980 letter to JW overseers stating that "to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views". The letter was reproduced in a book by a former JW Governing Body member, Raymond Franz, a book that qualifies as a reliable source on the grounds of it being cited by dozens of other authors and academic works. User:Willietell has explained: "Removing inadequately sourced content, if the editors wishes to insert material from 33 years ago, he should also include a more recent source which supports such information." [3]

I should point out that many of the sources cited in this article when detailing JW practices are drawn from WTS publications around, or prior to, 1980. This includes statements about wedding rings, ordination of ministers, baptism, discipline and use of alcohol. Since the accuracy of those sources has never been called into question simply on the basis of the date of publication, it is inconsistent and illogical to object to this one on that basis. The authenticity of that letter -- nor any of the many other letters Franz reproduced -- has never been challenged by any of the many academics who have cited his book. BlackCab (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there are issues with this source. For starters, the age of a source has little to do with its reliability unless there are other sources (Primary or Secondary) that challenge enough facts about it. That's my opinion. I do think that wiki policy states that a source may not be reliable for some claims without being entirely unreliable. However, is this letter available anywhere? The citation only seems to mention the title and the date of the alleged letter with its corresponding quotation. I'm a little suspicious about its validity since it is used to support "negative" content. It is a primary source in every sense of that word, not just Wikipedia's definition of "primary." A Watchtower article would be much more reliable. I think that for now, the content and its source should remain deleted until its reliability can be determined. Fordx12 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Fordx12. Yes, the letter is available, and I mentioned where it can be found, although I probably assumed readers would know more. The letter, from the Service Department of the WTS's world headquarters, was reproduced in full in Raymond Franz's Crisis of Conscience book, pages 292-293. It is one of a fairly large number of documents reproduced in the book, including correspondence between him and the Watch Tower Society. Throughout the book Franz is diligent in reproducing documents he discusses and the fact that the book has been cited widely in books and academic papers indicates he is accepted as a reliable, truthful source. Either the document is authentic (which it appears to be) or it is a forgery, though no reviewing author has ever raised a concern that Franz has anywhere else resorted to deception in telling his story of his life in the Watch Tower Society and his reasons for defection. Considering its context and the book in which it appears, I would argue the letter should be accepted as a statement of doctrinal belief from the religion's headquarters. BlackCab (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The letter was also discussed by James Beverley in his book, Crisis of Allegiance, about the expulsion of another JW dissident, Canadian historian James Penton. Beverley is cited in the Raymond Franz article, where a link to the Watch Tower Society letter is also provided. BlackCab (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case Franz's and/or Beverley's book should be cited instead of citing the letter itself. I'd prefer then, to add the content with attribution to Franz? But that's just my personal opinion. As for the source's validity, if it is from secondary source (and it is) then it is reliable as per Wikipedia policy. As you mentioned, Franz is referenced by scholars. Unless there is a direct counterclaim or a claim of fraud, I don't see why the content should be deleted or otherwise altered. Fordx12 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight change to first sentence

I have proposed a minor change to the first sentence, replacing "Bible teachings" with "biblical interpretation". The intention is to take a neutral tone, to which end it seems sensible to allude to the claimed connections to biblical authority rather than implying that the religion's ideas are uncontestably of the Bible, and "teaching" looked a little too close to suggesting a claim to 'truth'. As always, I'm open to challenge from other editors. John Snow II (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fairly uncontroversial. Maybe link biblical to the Bible article still?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro. Link now inserted as you suggested. John Snow II (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Series of problematic, unsourced changes

I have reverted [4] a series of edits by an IP editor who has already been reported to ANI for making a list of editors he terms "Known apostates"[5] and issuing bizarre religious threats to editors who have reverted his edits.[6][7][8][9] The editor has already manifestly demonstrated a bias towards Jehovah's Witnesses and in this series of edits continues this trend.

Among his edits (since reverted) are:

• The unexplained removal of a statement that guilt and repentance of JWs are determined by a tribunal of elders;
• The unsourced description of a tribunal of elders as a "panel of trained elders" (though the IP editor may like to provide sourcing for the claim that they are trained at all when sitting in judgment of individuals called before judicial committees);
• The unexplained removal from the lead section the statement (sourced in the body of the article) that the practice of disfellowshipping has been criticized by many non-members and ex-members;
• The insertion of the term "certain grave actions" in listing a range of actions that may lead to a judicial committee hearing. This is an unnecessary POV adjective in describing actions that include gambling, smoking and disputing doctrines, all of which are tolerated by most Christian religions. It is a personal viewpoint whether an action is "grave" and does not belong in an encyclopedic treatment;
• The unexplained removal of a fully sourced 1981 directive from the Governing Body on conduct it believed warranted expulsion;
• The unexplained removal of part of a Watchtower article that said "apostates ... seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings.

If the IP editor wishes to reinstate any of these, he should first discuss them here rather than continue the edit-warring that has characterised his behaviour since popping up at Wikipedia. BlackCab (TALK) 10:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You should reflect on your behavior. You have taken to following me around. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, in fact I have a large number of Jehovah's Witness-related articles on my watchlist and I am alerted when anyone makes a change. Your behaviour is quite worrying and you seem to be on a crusade. Again, you have made no attempt to address any of the issues I have raised above. BlackCab (TALK) 10:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am always open to discuss any concerns, however you have shown a tendency to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I am not hopeful that you will make sincere efforts to collaborate. Still, the bottom line is that Wikipedia requires a NPOV and Reliable Sources, which you seem to be disregarding. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have explained my objections to your edits. I am waiting to hear your response. I agree that Wikipedia articles require NPOV and reliable sources: you seem to be disregarding both, as demonstrated above. BlackCab (TALK) 10:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of what you share above is a re-hashing of similar points on earlier discussions. It seems to center around your idea that your preferred sources need to be quoted word for word. For instance, you object to the word "panel" of elders, and would prefer "tribunal"... but you have not indicated why the latter is more accurate than the former? Another example you mention above is the "removal of unsourced...", but again Wikipedia is not required to include irrelevant information. The removed information was undertaken in line with the principles behind WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I prefer that reliable sources (and there are many excellent secondary sources cited in this article) are accurately represented. You have failed to do that and you seem to be quite deliberately removing material you deem to portray the JWs in a less than flattering light. BlackCab (TALK)

I don't know if you are for or against the teachings of this particular religion, but we are both aware that 1 or 2 of the secondary sources are strongly negative, while some of the other sources are positive. Thus, balance and good judgement are needed in order to effectively comply with Wikipedia policies. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the specific concerns that have been raised above. Rather than trying to assert that a source is "strongly negative", you should try to comment on what the sources actually say and assess specific statements on their merits. Ad hominem attacks on sources (and editors) are not helpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Expression of personal ideas at meetings

In the "Weekend meeting" section, an editor has taken exception to a statement that "personal ideas derived from independent study are discouraged" during Watchtower study meetings. The editor has explained: statement "Removed inaccurate statement regarding personal ideas expressed at meetings of Jehovah's witnesses. No Watchtower publication or material says or has dissuaded members from giving personal comments." The statement in the article cited the Bottings' The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses as its source. There, at page 143, the Bottings discuss procedures at meetings and write: "Any suggestion that the society encourages genuine open debate, or even discussion, not contained by the strictures of a given answer must be rejected. Indeed, the enthusiasm for alleged 'apostasy' endemic in the Brooklyn headquarters in 1980 was a direct result of individuals reading the Bible without reference to Watch Tower Bible study aids."

Andrew Holden's Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement (pg 68) notes that at meetings, those attending raise their hand to answer scripted questions and answers and says: "Personal contributions are discouraged." Holden describes the teaching methods as "highly mechanistic" question and answer sessions and that publications encourage members to learn "almost by rote". He cites an interview subject who says members of the congregation "parrot" answers and that "everybody comes out with the same answer".

James Beckford's The Trumpet of Prophecy writes of the authoritarian nature of WTS teachings and says that doctrines are not open to change or reinterpretation by rank and file members (p.204). He writes: "The habit of questioning or qualifying Watch Tower doctrine is not only under-developed among the Witnesses; it is strenuously combated at all organizational levels." (p.221).

Anyone who has attended JW meetings will be aware that answers are expected to be based on the written material being "studied"; private interpretations, doctrinal disagreements and personal testimonies would quickly be stopped. The wording in the article is correct. BlackCab (TALK) 00:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Penton (Apocalypse Delayed, 3rd edition, 2015) on page 239 also states that, similar to Roman Catholics, the Society "...[proclaims] its own magisterium or teaching power, its right to speak ex cathedra on behalf of the faithful, and its right to restrain 'petulant spirits' with 'independent, faultfinding attitudes'" (italics original). Vyselink (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This statement in the article in question, under section weekend meeting is as follows: though personal ideas derived from independent study are discouraged Two references are provided by sources clearly biased against Jehovah's Witnesses. To make such a claim would be only proper to quote reference from Watchtower publications. Anyone can make any claim they wish and find a source to support their claim. In what stretch of fairness would someone say "though personal ideas derived from independent study are discouraged", without accurate sources to support. I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 50 years and I, my wife, and countless others do the very thing it is said is discouraged. It would only be proper to find in Watchtower publications that such expression is discouraged. You will find none. STravelli STravelli (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources. Both books clearly meet this criteria. Holden is a sociologist whose work is frequently cited in academic studies and who continues to be sought by media for comment on issues regarding the JWs and other religions. His book was praised by Bryan Wilson and Professor Ian Reader, both highly regarded as scholars of religion. Why do you say he is biased: because he reaches a conclusion that differs from yours? What else in his book would suggest he is biased? Have you read the book? The Bottings' book is also widely cited in other literature.

Your last suggestion is rather foolish: since the comment about comments in meetings would be regarded by many people as rather critical, the Watch Tower Society would hardly have drawn attention to it. Their silence on the matter is no reason for an encyclopedia article to refrain from comment.

The comment you object to is best viewed in the light of how the JWs differ from other religions. I would imagine that in group Bible study sessions of other religions, independent study, comment and conjecture would be welcome. In the JWs members must adhere rigidly to the doctrines established by the Governing Body. BlackCab (TALK) 04:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You may also refer to the Question Box in the September 2007 Our Kingdom Ministry, which questioned the Governing Body's attitude towards small groups forming "to do independent research on Bible-related subjects". It said: "It is commendable for individuals to want to use their thinking ability in support of the good news. However, no personal pursuit should detract from what Jesus Christ is accomplishing through his congregation on earth today ... For those who wish to do extra Bible study and research, we recommend that they explore Insight on the Scriptures, "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial," and our other publications." The Governing Body is quite clearly discouraging independent research outside the material they provide. BlackCab (TALK) 05:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources in question meet the criteria for reliable sources. Further, JW literature has made many statements 'warning' against 'independent thinking'. STravelli, if you regard only JWs as a reliable source for statements about JWs, do you apply the same scrutiny to comments in JW literature about other religions, non-JWs and former JWs? Or do you only accept what those other groups say about themselves?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I am wholly sceptical of STravelli's claim that he gives answers at JW meetings with information gained from independent study. Whatever answers he and his wife give would necessarily be completely aligned with JW doctrine, or the pair of them would be hoisted before a judicial committee and charged with apostasy. I'm just sitting here trying to imagine the scene inside a kingdom hall as a JW of 50 years' standing began enthusiastically sharing at a meeting his findings from non-JW sources on, say, the veracity of the flood myth, the comments of theologians, medical ethicists and scientists on the JW blood ban, archaeologists' views on the real date of the Siege of Jerusalem, the authorship and origin of the Book of Daniel, the notion of lions and tigers becoming herbivores, the belief that homo sapien originated 6000 years ago, the constant changes of JW eschatology, academic discussions on the 1917 leadership rift within the WTS and Rutherford's dismissal of the majority of the WTS board of directors to get his own way ... BlackCab (TALK) 09:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

He may be confusing the matter with the Watch Tower Society's endorsement of putting the thought from the paragraph in their own words.

• Our Kingdom Ministry, October 2001, page 2: "After reviewing the respective paragraphs, they formulate their comments in their own words."
• Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education, page 70: "Learn to comment in your own words rather than reading directly from the paragraph."
• Our Kingdom Ministry, October 1983, page 1: "During your family study have them select paragraphs to comment on and help them prepare the answer in their own words."

But as for expressing their own personal thoughts when commenting at meetings:

• The Watchtower, 1 March 1998, page 15: "Although only a few may have parts on the program at congregation meetings, all can contribute to an upbuilding gathering. Often there are opportunities for the audience to answer questions. ... Never should they be used as an opportunity to promote our personal ideas, to boast of our personal achievements, or to criticize a fellow believer."

--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Watchtower (Aug 1, 2001) warned JWs that a mature Christian "does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by ... the faithful and discreet slave." Back in 1967 it told JWs to just not bother delving into non-WTS books: "In Jehovah's organization it is not necessary to spend a lot of time and energy in research, for there are brothers in the organization who are assigned to that very thing." (June 1, 1967). BlackCab (TALK) 10:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Number of meetings

Regarding this edit, wherein some POV censorship was reverted, it was suggested in the edit summary that the number of distinct meetings may need to be updated. The only reference to the number of meetings that the other editor had modified was part of a quoted source, which obviously should not be changed in any event. The article accurately states that "Two meetings each week are divided into five distinct sections". It is therefore not clear what update would be required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Activities at meetings

A recent minor edit drew my attention to a misleading statement about religious practices purportedly common to other Christian denominations. I have verified that the cited source makes no claim about those practices being common at the religious services of other Christian denominations, but merely states that the practices are not elements of "the Witnesses' activities".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

certain of these practices are are quite common, others not so much, but enough to warrant inclusion. I did not add the information, just the link. Perhaps further study on your part of the these practices will help you to see how widespread they really are, even today. Wikipedia has a link to christian mysticism which may help start you on your way and reduce your learning curve. Willietell (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It was quite possibly me who added that information, sourced to Holden, back when the JW "beliefs" and "practices" articles were combined. Willietell's rather labored attempt at sarcasm adds nothing to the discussion. The article does say that meetings consist mainly of bible study, so I take the point that an arbitrary list of other religious behaviors not practised at JW services is probably redundant. Holden's comments were probably intended to demonstrate beyond doubt just how staid and conventional meetings are. BlackCab (TALK) 06:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have again removed the statement, which was erroneously restored by Willietell. Willietell's assertion that the elements are common in other Christian denominations is not supported by the cited source. Whilst it is conceivably reasonable to state that those practices are not performed at JW religious services, it is definitely not supported by the source to say those practices are common in other Christian denominations. In particular, glossolalia is predominantly a feature of charismatic groups, but not other Christian denominations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the most recent attempt at synthesis by Willietell. Of the added sources supposedly in support of the claim that the other elements are common in other Christian denominations, the sources about 'tongues' are explicitly in reference to Pentecostal groups, and are not demonstrative of Christianity in general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

To imply I have employed any form of synthesis is without merit, I have only provided source references for existing information and I fail to see why you take issue with that, except that I was the one to do so and you appear to have a constant axe to grind. Your initial objection was that the '"cited source makes no claim about those practices being common at the religious services of other Christian denominations, but merely states that the practices are not elements of "the Witnesses' activities"' However, page links were provided to WP articles demonstrating the information is correct with a multitude of references, thus making the sentence an inline reference of sorts. You considered this unacceptable. You then brought up the singular point of glossolalia, stating that it is " a feature of charismatic groups, but not other Christian denominations". I then gave not only references to the christian mysticism aspect and the Creed aspect of the material (added by whomever the editor was who supplied the statement), but also provided for you no less than three (3) cited sources showing that glossolalia is alive and well in so-called Christian religious groups today. I do realize that the sources provided for this aspect of the edit mainly focused on Pentecostal groups, because they are the most prevalent group with regard to this practice, however, they are certainly not alone in this practice, which is also found among Baptist's, Church of God, Methodist and many non-denominational church's in the realm of Protestantism, though not to the extent or frequency found in the Pentecostal groups. I realize that possibly you see something different in your little corner of the world, but, by and large, none of these aspects have been discontinued but are frequently and regularly practiced. The source references are there, if you take issue with the edit, perhaps asking for additional input from the Main Christianity project page would be in order. I will wait a couple of days to give you the chance to do just that and to see if others supply input before restoring the properly sourced material. Willietell (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your later edit was synthesis, because you provided sources that indicate that certain practices are present in some denominations to try to support a claim that those practices are common to Christian denominations other than Jehovah's Witnesses. The largest Christian denominations do not practice 'glossolalia' which is predominantly an aspect of Pentecostal/charismatic groups. Aspects of mysticism common in Catholicism are generally absent in most Protestant groups. Many Protestant groups (and most of the new religious movements with origins common to Jehovah's Witnesses) do not recite or recognise Christian 'creeds'.

The text you restored was not supported by the original source (Holden). As previously stated, I have no objection to simply stating that various practices are not performed at JW religious services; however, it would be a blatant misrepresentation to imply that mainstream Christian denominations in general retain those practices, or to suggest that their absence at JWs religious services is somehow unique.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess the difference of opinion then is your belief that the information, which has been there for goodness knows how long, implies that JW's are unique in the absence of the aforementioned practices. I personally don't think the wording made that point, but it seemed to me to note that they are common to some groups in Christendom. Additionally, I didn't read it as to state that all the aspects would be common among ALL sects of Christendom, but that the particular aspects appeared, to various degrees, throughout the whole as a composite, but not necessarily every aspect in all groups. Perhaps, rewording, without going to far off on a tangent is possible and could resolve the Dilemma. Anyway, its late, I will look at it later in the week. Willietell (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What is really notable here is that even though your minor edit merely drew my attention to a problem with the article that wasn't related to your initial edit, you decided that my removal of the inaccurate statement that was not supported by the source was somehow an indication of bias against you. Saying something is "common to some groups" is not the same thing as "common in other Christian denominations"—one statement refers to an ambiguous subset (and in this case, different subsets for different practices), whereas the other implies that all the listed practices are present in most denominations. In either case, it is entirely unnecessary for the article to make a claim about what is common in other denominations (particularly when the claim is misleading).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References Comment

I am not sure that many of the references in the page are properly cited, such as the following:

Holden 2002

Franz 1997

Penton 1997

These references seem to be more than incomplete and need to be repaired, as they cannot begin to be verified. Many seem to have been left is such a state for a long time, leaving the question as to.... WHY? I am seeking input before making modifications. thanks. Willietell (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Harvard style references in question refer to the sources indicated in the Bibliography section. I have amended the citations in the Bibliography section so the links for the citations will work correctly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)