Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses Earlier discussions on this entry may be found in these discussion archives:

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by people from around the world. =

Help:Contents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that is being written collaboratively by people from around the world." ________________________________________________________________________________________

Once a page gets locked it no longer falls under any category of open to the public for editing type venue. Since this particular page seems to get edited or hacked by unfriendlies on a frequent basis, perhaps you should just write all sections yourselves or write the society and let them write it for you. After either way is done, lock down the pages indefinitely and write up a document with the amendments that state that all pages pertaining to Jehovah's Witnesses fall under a new category.

This will resolve the whole issue of what is fact and what is not. It will also give you folks a break from having to check and recheck everything to the Watchtower Library CD in your possession.7

The way the pages came together is just unbelievable. People input what we know first hand and then you people compare it to articles that are older than the information that the brothers know. Then one of us has to go back to the CD and find a newer article that shows you a different name or reference than the article that you have been referencing.

The CD doesn't have the latest articles. The CD always has the next years information compared to the version year that it is.

You folks will be editing this page locked by yourselves for the duration this online encyclopedia is afloat. Jesus said true Christian's would be persecuted but you folks are just an online book!

The alternate way to resolve this entire fiasco, which I see by the many archives present, would be for one of you to contact a Kingdom Hall nearest you and have the presiding overseer of that Kingdom Hall write up everything you want and mail it to you or fax it to you. - 13:14, 30 Jan 2005 12.32.221.123

Dear Correspondent: Thanks so much for hanging in with us. I apologize that we have appeared to ignore you. It is difficult to respond appropriately to your suggestions and concerns for a few reasons. First, without a name to refer to, we have a hard time recognizing a continuous thread of conversation. Second, there is a lot of background, convention, and policy that you are doing a valiant job of interpreting and understanding, but I think you still need a bit more time and reading to understand the goals and process here. Perhaps I can clear up a few items that may help you get your arms around all this. Tom H.

Danny Muse, George m, Polemotheos, and most of the editors who have worked on this page are Jehovah's Witnesses (I assume most of them baptized). Some of them are locally prominent members, and some of them have generational background with the Witnesses. I am a Latter-day Saint and am assisting here as an outside observer and facilitator. I am a Wikipedia system administrator. Tom H.
Wikipedia thrives and accomplishes certain things that no other encyclopedia can because of its open model of content development. It would unfortunately run counter to this model for us to have the society write for us, or to keep the page protected, and so we say "protection is harmful". The list of protected pages is amazingly short. Our goal, rather than protection, is to write articles that all reasonable people must admit are unbiased and accurate. I believe we have accomplished this in some very difficult areas where I personally have been involved: see Human and Mormonism and Christianity. I belive edit problems merely indicate we simply have not yet discovered the proper presentation. Tom H.

Please continue to dialogue with us, and we hope you will become a regular contributor. Tom H. 19:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also going to leave the page protected until more consensus has been reached. -Visorstuff 23:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Smart move. Tom H. 07:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Lack of examples; blood question

The whole section Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses, in my humble opinion, lacks specific examples. In its current state, it portrays the Witnesses as the victims of some kind of blind government and mob action motivated by religious doctrinal opposition or totalitarism but, outside of the Holocaust (which targeted many groups), no specific example is given.

The article would be considerably stronger if well-documented examples were given. This means, additionally, documenting the reasons behind the opposition to Witnesses. The claim that opposition is due to doctrinal differences is likely to be simplistic and inaccurate in many cases. David.Monniaux 09:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough... I'll start us off with a few articles about the ongoing problems JWs are facing in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The first link is to an official WBTS-sponsored page, the rest are independant news sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] -- uberpenguin 13:36, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I agree that the article is considerably stronger when well-documented examples are given. We definitely want to avoid Weasel words. Could you please supply some specific examples of what you meant by the terms "some societies" and "some jurisdictions" in your 4 Feb 2005 edits involving blood transfusion issues. Thanks. --DannyMuse 06:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some local associations supporting the JW faith had trouble getting tax-exempt status under the 1905 law in France, for two reasons:

- they mixed in the same legal entity activities that fell under that status, and activities that did not (the obvious solution, adopted by other faiths, is simply to have one association for the purely religious activities, and another for other activities, with separate accounting)

- their strong advocacy of the refusal of blood transfusions, even in the case of minor children, or of people in danger of death, was deemed adverse to public order; this advocacy was construed to incite people to fail to assist other humans in jeopardy, which is a felony; however, a recent court case judged that the threat to public order was not established in the case of some JW association was not established, because the said association had not been prosecuted for crimes, nor did it incite its members to commit felonies.

I think the first matter can be fixed really easily. The second matter was more serious (but the courts had a significantly narrower reading of the notion of threat to public order compared to the ministry of finances).

The question whether the JWs associations are bona fide associations supporting religious worship under the 1905 law, or simple associations under the 1901 law, has far-reaching fiscal implications. In the former case, donations (this is a legal term for certain kinds of financial gifts) are tax-exempt; in the second case, they are taxed, unless the association is recognized of public usefulness. If the association is found to trouble public order, it cannot be in the former category.

You may read about the matter from the JW point of view in this article. Note, however, that the article fails to explain why exactly the fiscal services did not recognize some of the JW associations to fall under the 1905 law. The allusions to the parliamentary report are unconvincing: it is not a source of law or regulation.

Some of the articles written on the topic [5] largely tried to convey the idea that the question was whether the government recognized the JW faith as a religion or not, whereas, legally, the French government recognizes no religion (furthermore, there is no Ministry of the Interior and of Religion). You should therefore be prudent before citing such documents.

The US government has more documentation [6] [7] on this. David.Monniaux 09:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added some info re bloodless surgery and alternatives to transfusions. Probably the majority of this belongs somewhere else. But I felt that at least some of this needed to be added to balance some recent additions that seemed very slanted against the JW stance on transfusions. --DannyMuse 17:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think my additions were slanted. The previous text more or less said that Jehovah Witnesses were persecuted for religious and political reasons. I just stated one very obvious non-religious and non-political reason why Jehovah Witnesses are considered with suspicion, and why their organizations were occasionally consider to promote behaviors adverse to public order.

The total refusal of blood transfusions, even when the life of a patient is at stake and there are no alternatives available, is very probably reason #1 why Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs are viewed with suspicion where I live. This is also one reason why they had trouble getting the tax-exempt status of association supporting worship, because this status supposes good standing with respect to public order (the other reason was the mixing of activities that could not claim this status into the same legal entity).

Then, I'm quite suspicious about your statement about this being increasingly rare in industrialized countries, or perhaps you have a specific definition of industrialized countries. But I'm not a medical doctor. David.Monniaux 17:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, welcome to Wikipedia's JW page. I'm curious about one of your comments above. You stated that the JW position on "blood transfusions ... is very probably [the] reason #1 why Jehovah Witnesses' beliefs are viewed with suspicion where I live." Here in the USA, the JW position on blood has historically been a controversial issue. But it most certainly would NOT qualify for the the #1 spot of controversial beliefs, especially not currently. I myself have been reminded on more than one occasion that my editorial contributions must address the world scene as much as is relevant. Where exactly DO you live?

France. It seems, though, that there are fewer cases nowadays of clashes between medical practicioners and JW beliefs than 15 years ago, probably because nowadays, substitutes for blood are more available. However, occasionally, cases have surfaced (example).

Whether the problem applies nowadays is perhaps not much of an issue for public perception. People nowadays remember the events of 20 or so years ago.

According to you, what is the #1 issue? (I think that #2 in France should be the door-to-door prozelytizing, which many consider intrusive.)

Regarding your "suspicion" of my edits regarding the changes in medical procedures in "industrialized countries" I encourage you to go the weblinks I added to the article. I am confident they will answer your concerns. Additionally, try a Google search using the key phrase "bloodless surgery" and I'm sure you'll see what I am driving at. Quite frankly, my research shows that, at least here in the United States and in most of the major European cities, blood transfusions are for the most part a non-issue any more.

As far as I know, this is the case for surgery that can be prepared in advanced. For emergencies, I would not be that affirmative.

As far as what I meant by the term "industrialized countries", that is a fairly common expression here in the USA and is widely understood to mean the more technologically advanced nations in contrast to the so-called Third World countries. If you can think of a more accurate term please feel free to make a suggestion. I look forward to your further contributions. --DannyMuse 05:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm just usually skeptical with broad statements like "in all industrial countries, X". For instance, is bloodless surgery available in Japan? How about Spain? Neither of those countries have large JW minorities. David.Monniaux 08:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on bloodless surgery. Some questions of mine:

Do you have substantial references in peer-refeered journals about such questions? So far, all I see is self-praising information from certain hospitals.
Aren't bloodless surgery techniques sometimes difficult to apply in cases of emergencies?
How about acute anemia and other conditions sometimes treated by blood products?

In the current state, this section looks like a long advertisement for certain hospitals. David.Monniaux 08:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oups, sorry, I just realised that I edited a part which was discussed here. Just to explain what I did: the paragraph looked a little bit like an advertisement for some particular hospital, so I tried to make it a little bit more concise. I removed the references to "noblood.org" sites (the mere name make them questionable sources...). I also added, out of personal experience, the part about emergencies (If somebody is really motivated, he could try to draft a footnote about whether such or such legal system allows the intervening physician to overrule the refusal of a patient, or even of a patient's parents (in the case of children)).

Also, I noted that all the references mention hospitals in the USA... I will take it as this practice might me reasonably available in the USA, and perhaps Europe or Japan, but we really have no information about developping countries; I assume they don't make this available, right ? Cheers ! Rama 10:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the section should not be worded to sound like an advertisement for any particular hospital. However, the point of including those links was to PROVE that bloodless surgery is a viable alternative in many locales. (The referenced cites were to serve as examples.) Why would you delete the study from the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Center for Bloodless Surgery and Medicine? That was vital information!!! After I've digested the recent edits I intend to replace that as well as other relevent data supporting the premise that blood transfusions are not the controversial issue they once were.

Also, please avoid Weasel words!!! --DannyMuse 17:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that a study by one hospital about the works performed in the same hospital may not be highly objective. Would you blindly trust a study by, say, a corporation, or sponsored by that corporation, showing that their technique is very efficient, and even superior to other techniques? I suspect you'd be prudent.

To be clear: I do not accuse the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Center for Bloodless Surgery and Medicine of lying. I'd just prefer some more perspective over the field, rather than the point of view of some entity which has an interest in promoting itself. David.Monniaux 19:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, what then would you consider to constitute adequate perspective? In the meantime I believe it is still relevant to include the study. Although the objectivity of a single study may be questioned, that does not mean it is invalid. Rather than deleting it, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it's validity and/or offer counter arguments. This is in keeping with WP's NPOV policy. Deleting text that we disagree with is not. Additional, my reason for including it is in accordance with WP's admonition to cite your sources. I would think you would agree with this practice considering your initial posting here was regarding the lack specific examples. --DannyMuse 19:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the aforementioned study which was linked to the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Center website was conducted at 12 hospitals. Did you even read the text in questions? --DannyMuse 08:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, a note: I did not delete the extended reporting of study results. Rama did. :-)

Sorry, I checked the history and must have mistaken who made the edit. With all the recent edits going on it's hard to keep track. --DannyMuse 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your discussion on "burden of proof": I disagree with your appreciation of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. If you read the policy, NPOV means that diverse points of view should not be disproportionally represented, even if that requires, to quote the policy, writing for the enemy. This means that one cannot just paste his opinions and assert that the burden falls on other contributors to bring a balance in the point of view.

Furthermore, I note that the current version of the article does cite the sources. It just does not quote them at length. David.Monniaux 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I take it French is your native language and that English is not. Although I am conversant in Spanish and know a smattering of phrases in several other languages I wouldn't even think of trying to write on the level of that required here. So I applaud your efforts. That being said, perhaps you'll appreciate why I am compelled to say that, try as I might, I find much of what you write here very hard to understand. I read the above paragraphs several times and, frankly, the point is really hard to understand.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else (like I made the mistake of thinking you deleted text which was cut by another editor). I NEVER write my opinions or assertions on the JW main page. I will ALWAYS cite my sources whenever it seems necessary. For example is something seems that it is controversial or not common knowledge. If asked I can ALWAYS document and support my reasons for ANY and ALL of the edits and contributions that I make. You may not agree with what I write, which is fine. But please don't confuse that with whether or not my contributions are factually based. --DannyMuse 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the quotation because it was very directly available on the reference, and was a little bit disproportionate for this article, I though. On Transfusion or something like this, fair enough, but here it seems too much to me.

In any case, this was not an extended reporting, it was "a X seller saying that his new X is very good, fulfills all the functions of the X of the competitors, and studies even tend to indicate that our X is better". He'd be selling brushes the same way; show me an article in the Lancet, for instance, that will be a scientific thing, which will have its place -- on transfusion. Rama 21:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, the point of adding the text of the study was to show evidence that some very reputable medical professionals do NOT share the view that refusing blood transfusions is dangerous. In fact, the study shows that there appeared to be benefits of not having transfusions in the cases studied. This was in direct response to the text added by David.Monniaux that asserted that refusing transfusions is somehow "adverse to public order".

I added an example I heard about of rejection of JW that seems to be, to some extent, based on prejudice rather than objective argumentation. David.Monniaux 21:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: Also, as it is, there is a disproportionate (I think) emphasis on predicted surgery, and it seems that accidents and Third World countries are annecdotical.

Another problem I see is that with the emphasis like this, we're switching to a technical discussion about the effects of transfusion in medical environment, which is completely out of the scope of this article. This belongs, at best, to transfusion, not here. Rama 22:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, I respectfully disagree. The point here is JWs and the Question (or Issue) of Blood. If some want to argue that the beliefs/practices of JWs regarding blood are dangerous than it is perfectly reasonable and in keeping with WP's NPOV policy to offer balancing counter-perspectives. Deleting points that you disagree with is not. BTW, please keep in mind that this particular discussion thread is titled, "Lack of examples; blood question". Frankly, I'm more than a little frustrated by the fact that several of the specific examples I have included along with supporting links has been deleted. --DannyMuse 07:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll first try to rephrase my understanding of NPOV. Danny states, about some text that he pasted, that rather than deleting it, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it's validity and/or offer counter arguments. To me, Danny appears to think that NPOV means that contributors should be able to paste any length of content supporting a particular opinion, from any kind of source, even if it makes the article unbalanced, and it is up to other contributors to find information supporting other points of view. That is not what I understand from reading Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which actually advocates that all contributors should be balanced in what they add, even to the point of writing for the enemy.

Now, about the quotations for the hospital. I fully appreciate that information supporting the possibility of surgery without use of blood should be pasted. I'm not quite satisfied that this information should be a self-praising study from a hospital, because that naturally puts in doub the objectivity of the study.

I've read Rama's remarks and I think he has a point about predicted surgery vs emergencies. I'm not a medical doctor, so I may be wrong here, but my impression is that a large share of blood products used in medicine is used for emergencies. That is, you have a person who is severely wounded and has a significant share of his or her own blood, and she is at risk of dying or other severe consequences should her blood supply not be adequately supplemented. As far as I know, even as of 2005, there does not exist blood substitutes that can work for all such cases. I'd like more information on this. Focusing on predicted surgery, to me, seems to ignore a large share of the problem.

This is also very much related to the notion of "public order". When a physician receives a critically wounded patient in an emergency room, should he try to save him, or let him die because of the patient's religious wishes? How about minor patients? David.Monniaux 08:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I moved one of your recent edits to the JW article here. I realize that this is a Google-generated translation, but unfortunately it is totally incoherent in English. I am not qualified to translate it into English from French, but this doesn't make any sense as currently worded. Any ideas about how to clarify it?

however, the Council judged that there does not exist, for the doctor, of abstract and intangible hierarchy between the obligation to treat the patient, and that to respect the will of the patient

Thanks. --DannyMuse 09:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, right. Actually, the original text was actually quite abstract too (this is legal commentary, after all), but I think my newer translation and explanation of it are probably both understandable. It basically means that there's no clear predefined legal answer as to whether a physician should decide to treat a patient against his wishes and whether he should stop treating him or her (they later talk about the question of proportion of the measures taken by the physicians and the state of health of the patient).

Note that the situation may have changed since this ruling; I think that a recent statute changed/clarified the rules in those cases. David.Monniaux 09:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, yes that's much better. BTW I fixed two spelling errors. You might want to check it. --DannyMuse 09:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal matters

Danny, I think you should be more prudent when commenting on the legal matters of foreign countries whose language you do not speak and whose legal framework you do not know; especially, copying the claims of one of the involved parties as fact does not fit NPOV.

First, I very much doubt that the legal reason for denying tax exempt status under the 1905 law to some of the JW's associations is the 1996 report. The reason is, as anybody who knows the French legal system knows, that a governmental authority has to base its decisions on statutory and regulatory instruments (otherwise, the decision is very likely to be quashed by the administrative courts, should the person effected decide to sue; sueing is very easy for administrative matters). A parliamentary report is not a statutory, nor a regulatory instrument.

Thus, until we are shown the exact wording of the decision of the tax services regarding the JWs, we should err on the side of caution and attribute the JW's claims to the JWs.

Second, "religious organization" is not synonymous with association cultuelle. The second is a legal category, while the former is not. Many religious organizations are not associations cultuelles; for instance, an association organizing group meals for the faithful a Catholic parish would certainly be a religious organization by any reasonable informal definition, but would not legally be an association cultuelle. This confusion between "religion" and "religion-supporting organization" in the legal sense is, I think, the source of many misunderstandings when foreign discuss the legal situation of religions in France. David.Monniaux 08:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, First, I got my info from a number of sources, not just JW sources. So you're jumping to conclusions. Google the text "France Jehovah Tax" and you'll come up with a LOT of references to check that re NOT JW related. For one example check the article FRANCE_ATTACKS ON NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS on the Religious Tolerance.org website. Be sure to note the EXTENSIVE references at the bottom of the page, which include:

U.S. State Department
Reuters
The Independent (London UK)
The Washington Times
CNSNews.com

Several of these references have links to the original French documents, which I'm sure you'll get more out of than I.

Ah, at least there is a quotation: the association of Jehovah's Witnesses forbids its members to defend the nation, to take part in public life, to give blood transfusions to their minor children and that the parliamentary commission on cults has listed them as a cult which can disturb public order. This is a far cry from being denied tax-exempted status "because of the report" - note that the report is only quoted as a last argument, after specific arguments were stated.

Apart from this, FRANCE_ATTACKS ON NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS does not sound to me like a very objective page.

For instance, they say According to data published in 1993 by the Interior Ministry, only 149 out of a total of 1,053 Protestant associations and only 2 out of thousands of Muslim associations in France are currently entitled to tax exempt status.. This implies that minority religion are denied tax-exempt status because of their minority status. However, they do not even say that a vast majority of the Catholic associations (Roman Catholicism being the first religion of the country) do not enjoy this status. Indeed, according to the report by the US dept of State: According to the Ministry of the Interior, 109 of 1,138 Protestant associations, 15 of 147 Jewish associations, and approximately 30 of 1,050 Muslim associations have tax-free status. Approximately 100 Catholic associations are tax-exempt; a representative of the Ministry of Interior reports that the number of nontax-exempt Catholic associations is too numerous to estimate accurately. More than 50 associations of the Jehovah's Witnesses have tax-free status.. To me, this indicates biased reporting.

This alarmist statement is followed by the hysterical All of the groups which are not recognized are presumably now at risk of losing their freedom of religion and of assembly.. Ahem. David.Monniaux 09:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second, I changed "religion-supporting organization" to "religious organizaton" because the former has no meaning in English while the second does. I never thought that "religious organization" is synonymous with association cultuelle. I'm not sure why you would have thought I did. --DannyMuse 09:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that not all religious organizations are granted tax exemptions. Only those that support religious activity, in the legal sense, are granted such exemptions. David.Monniaux 09:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is actually a very general problem when commenting on the institutions of another country: one often does not have exact translations; at the same time, legal matters are to be discussed with precision. For instance, "Cour d'appel du neuvième circuit" (Court of appeals for the ninth circuit) does not mean much in French, but is usually used to translate the US legal denomination. Similarly, French says "sheriff" for sheriff, even though the institution does not exist in any French-speaking country. What you suggest somehow amounts to forcefully translating sheriff into 'gendarme. David.Monniaux 09:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I appreciate that your recent additions regarding the tax angle have added to the scope of the content. But I believe that the details go way beyond what is appropriate for this section: JW's and the Question of Blood. Perhaps a new section or a new article is merited and this one should be pared down and the new one linked. What do you think? --DannyMuse 09:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I had the same idea at the same time. Moved to legal matters. David.Monniaux 09:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's good. At least we agree on some things! :) BTW are you a lawyer or in the legal profession? You write like you might be. --DannyMuse 10:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Medical study

I do not object to the medical study, but giving the detailed name and address of the hospital, even though its name is repeated in the quote, sounds to me too much like advertisement. That's why I removed it. David.Monniaux 10:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but I do think the doctor's name should be in the reference as it adds authority. --DannyMuse 10:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The doctor's name is written twice in the quotation of the summary of the study. David.Monniaux 10:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I can read you know. I meant in the intro to the quote. But it's not a big deal as it would probably be to awkward to include it above. --DannyMuse 10:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding blood tranfusions and emergency procedures as compared to elective (predicted) surgery, note this reference from the RWJUH website:

Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital is one of the elite academic health centers in the United States that offers bloodless techniques in every surgical and medical specialty, including emergency care delivered at the Level I Trauma Center.

Located in New Brunswick, NJ, the hospital's Center for Innovations in Bloodless Surgery and Medicine offers a multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses and healthcare professionals who set a national standard in providing bloodless treatment approaches for a variety of elective as well as emergency procedures. This outstanding team is committed to ensuring community access to superior medical and surgical care without blood transfusions.

Note that this is typical of Bloodless Surgery programs in the US. --DannyMuse 10:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question would not be hospital emergencies, but ambulance emergencies. What happens if a patient suffers a massive loss of blood in an accident ? The USA have a different system than Europe for emergencies, so I really don't know. I do know for certain that in France, Germany, Swtzerland, and probably in Italy and Spain, such a patient would recieve an immediate transfusion from the SMUR.

Does anybody familiar with the US emergency system know whether patients get their transfusion on the scene, or in emergency department of the hospital ? (I imagine that immediate transfusion makes more sense, but again, I'm not trained for the US system) Rama 10:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why should the question not be hospital emergencies, but ambulance emergencies? No one framed it that way before! If you want to state it that way then do so. But when the word "emergency" or the phrase "medical emergency" is used no such distinction is made or could accurately be inferred.

Regarding the questions of ambulances and differences between the US and the rest of the world, all I can say is that would be an interesting question for research. Which is exactly what we should do before we dogmatically state things about which we are not certain.

For the time being note the following from Tampa General Hospital:

"Bloodless care can be applied to nearly every medical and surgical specialty as shown from the following list of services we offer: "

Anesthesiology
Burns
Cancer Surgery
Cardiology
Cardiovascular Surgery
Critical Care
Dentistry
Emergency Services
Gastroenterology
General Surgery
Hematology
Infectious Disease
Intensive and Critical Care
Internal Medicine
Nephrology
Neurology
Neurosurgery
Obstetrics/Gynecology
Oncology
Ophthalmology
Orthopedic Services/Surgery
Otolaryngology
Outpatient Surgery
Pediatric Critical Care
Pediatric Surgery
Pediatrics/Neonatology
Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery
Pulmonary Disease
Radiology
Thoracic Surgery
Transplant Services
Trauma
Urology
Vascular Surgery

Conclusion: Emergencies do not always automatically require a blood transfusion! --DannyMuse 11:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that anybody pretended that all emergencies automatically required a transfusion. I think that the argument was that in some emergencies, esp. those with massive blood loss, they were often the only available, perhaps the only known, method available.

This is especially important since, at least in my impression, a large proportion of the blood transfusions, nowadays, are used for these kinds of emergencies (think car crashes with massive blood losses). David.Monniaux 11:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well if that's what you mean then that's what you should say. --DannyMuse 12:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Background info: The USA have a different system than Europe for emergencies, so I really don't know. I think that what Rama alludes to is the following (but, contrary to Rama, I don't have EMT training, so...): in the United States, the ambulances have mere paramedics on board, and apply a "scoop and run" technique: they take the patient back to the hospital in minimal time. The up side of this technique is that the patient is at the hospital quickly; the down side is that many patients die during transportation. In France, the emergency ambulances carry doctors who apply a "stay and play" technique: the patient is treated and stabilized so that transportation is safer. The down side of this technique is that occasionally it would be better to be in a fully equipped hospital room. See Emergency_medical_services#Prehospital_Care_Strategies:_.22Scoop_and_run.22.2C_.22stay_and_play.22_or_.22play_and_run.22.3F for a detailed discussion.

Not all techniques that can be applied inside a hospital (French or American) can be applied inside an emergency ambulance, for obvious reasons. David.Monniaux 11:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the info on the WP Emergency medical services article:

... natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions outside military medicine due to scarcity and fragility.[Emphasis added]

It's not mentioned, but the issue of blood type compatibility is another factor that also must limit the efficacy of emergency transfusions by EMS personnel. --DannyMuse 12:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Put it back into the context: "The future development of an artificial blood substitute that will carry oxygen will greatly enhance the provision of emergency medical services, as natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions outside military medicine due to scarcity and fragility." This sentence basically says that having a fully efficient artificial blood would be better than having to rely on donors, not that blood transfusion is not a good option on the field (the sentence could actually be better shaped).

As far as I remember, there's not so much of a penury since any SMUR unit will carry blood complement (perhaps the United States of America are in a particularly difficult situation because of their present foreign policy, but this is something special). I'm currently checking this out.

The blood type is not so much an issue, since a whole range of sample will typically be available; also, negative rhesus is very rare, and as you know, o type can be administrated to A, B or AB types in an emergency. The main difficulty with blood is that the samples have a limited life span and that the stock are typically insufficient for the needs, even more if there is a major catastrophe. This is the reason why so much research is put into artificial blood. Rama 14:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama, Thanks for the response. I did not know some of the facts that your wrote--so it was informative. That being said, I don't see how "putting it back in context" changes anything relative to the points I made or its significance in the current article. The statement is made in the current version of the article:

However, in cases of certain medical emergencies, or if bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions are sometimes the only available way to save a life.

No distinction is being made as to this being cared for in a hospital or by EMS personnel in an ambulance. As the sources I've cited show:

In hospitals emergencies do not always automatically require a blood transfusion; and,
natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions '

Therefore, I submit that the statement in the article as it is current worded is inaccurate and needs to be revised to reflect the reality of the situation. If you or David would care to do that you could possibly find a wording that suits us all. If not, I will. --DannyMuse 16:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the present formulation is accurate. In the case of certain emergencies (particularly those where a massive loss of blood has occured), or if bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions are sometimes the only available way to save a life.

Seems to me like medical fact. Contrary to what you seem to imply, this sentence does not imply that all emergencies require a blood transfusion (this would be a ridiculous affirmation!). It implies that some of them require them. David.Monniaux 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not a medical doctor, but a simple Google search gave me this page (sorry for the page in French, but I think you can trust my translation) which mentions blood transfusions:

"Emergency transfusions in SMUR concern a minority of patients, but they need important quantities of blood for each patient, and they imply having stocks of a variety of blood products."
"Road accidents: a person suffering multiple trauma may need several dozen units of red cells."
"Cancers: platelets cannot be dispensed with when treating leukemia, especially when chemotherapy destroys blood cells."
"Genetic illnesses: certain genetic illnesses such as thalassemia imply the need for regular transfusions throughout life."

Etc. They do not mention hip replacements and other major surgeries, presumably because, with these kind of surgeries, it is often possible to reduce blood losses and act without transfused blood. They focus on blood illnesses and wounds that result in massive blood losses. David.Monniaux 17:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We could make the sentence even more explicit by stating something like

"in the case of a massive loss of blood, a transfusion of plasma and red globules will be necessary to limitate the hemostatic shock and maintain a sufficient pressure. Severe cases might require a transfusion even at the hospital. In the case of on-field medical intervention (according to the "stay and play" doctrine), the limitations of available equipement can make transfusion indispensable even sooner."

However, I am not a physician, so I wouldn't like to put such technical information before it has been reviewed by a fully qualified doctor. I have asked for a confirmation, I'll let you know when we have more info.

In any case, I think that the "natural blood is rarely available for field transfusions" should be taken with precautions: perhaps it's always true and I was especially lucky or have an imprecise remebering of the cases I was on; perhaps the person who wrote that was refering to his particular area, where this is true for technical or doctrinal reasons, but is not correct for other parts of the world; perhaps he was only speaking generally to explain why people want to produce synthese blood. It is hardly a reference. Rama 17:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it just occured to me that the JW mush have opposed transfusions from the time the technology was available -- thus at a time when bloobless medical technology was not available; am I correct ? Probably a good way to introduce the matter would be followin the historical state of the art, something like "introduction of transfusion (we oculd take 1916 as an "official" start of the technique), opposition of the JW (reasons for the opposition), perhaps examples of statistics or striking cases (like [8]), and then we could mention the emergence of bloodless medecine and the tendency of some JW to accept transfusions, like in [9]. What would you think of this ? I'll try to draft something when I have a minute to do so. Cheers ! Rama 09:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vague content in the article

It would be nice to have examples of these. David.Monniaux 11:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's coming. It's now 4:30 am in California and I'm ready for sleep. Think WWII ... Eleanor Roosevelt. --DannyMuse 12:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking about weasel words, here's a list of "facts" that I would like to be made precise. Not that I doubt that they are mostly true! David.Monniaux 14:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Throughout their history, their beliefs, doctrines and practices have met controversy and opposition among societies and other religions, including Christian groups. Which religions? Which Christian groups?

Many religious groups consider the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses to be a false teaching. Which groups? Do JWs consider that the teachings of other Christian groups are false teachings?

Political and religious animosity against them has at times led to mob action and government oppression, including the targeting of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Holocaust and widespread criticism from those of other faiths. Here, the question about mob action. Which other faiths? Were JWs oppressed and criticized by agnostics and atheists?

Hostility from traditional, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians has been common, allegedly because of this group's rejection of many of the doctrines of mainstream Christian groups. For example, they teach that Jesus Christ is God's first creation and that the Holy Spirit is not a person but God's active force. Many have been critical of their opinion that our current time period is "the last days." Who teaches that? JWs or "traditional Christians"? What are "traditional Christians"?

Depending on geographic location, Jehovah's Witnesses have been accused of misleading youth, engaging in satanic worship or supporting zionism, communism, fascism or pacifism. Examples mapping geographic locations to specific accusations would be great.

Because of their neutral political stand, What is a "neutral political stand"? This concept is alluded to several times in the article, but never explained. Does this mean that Witnesses refrain from participating in public debate? From making public decisions? From voting for elected officials?

Jehovah's Witnesses have often been accused of being disloyal to the state in both totalitarian and "free" nations. They have been sent to prisons, concentration camps, and even been executed. Which totalitarian nations? Which "free" nations? Why the quotes? What were they accused of, exactly, in those nations?

At times non-Witness family members and acquaintences have presented stiff, even violent opposition to their faith. That's probably also true for many other religious affiliations. Try converting to Islam in a Catholic family, or the converse.

Although uncommon, hate crimes have occurred against Jehovah's Witnesses because of their beliefs and practices. Where? For which beliefs and practices? How is that different from any other religious group?

On the other hand, many people are cordial to the Witnesses. Who? I'm myself cordial in general, do I could as "cordial to the Witnesses"?

David, you raise some good points. These could all be more specific. I'd welcome anything you could do to make them so. (It's not as if I wrote any of this content.) Since you're getting my sense of frustration at "weasely words and phrases" maybe you'll try to fix them where you can and avoid adding them in your new edits. Thanks! --DannyMuse 16:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In most cases that you pointed out of alleged "weasel words" in my edits, the specifics were addressed in other sections of the article. You may note that I tend to provide detailed specifics, including quotes from actual legal text. In comparison, I have many reservations about your own edits, which, in my humble opinion, tend to quote from opinion sites and to make unsubstantiated general claims ("leaders in health care" etc.). David.Monniaux 16:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, in fact, overall I think that your more recent contributions to the article have been excellent. But I think your above reply is just plain ornery. If you don't acknowledge that University Hospitals in major US metropolitan centers qualify as "leaders in health care" then your own objectivity is clearly in question. There's no need to get testy here. We are obviously both intending to stay with this project. We can either try to work together--in spite of our differences--or not. Your call. --DannyMuse 16:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two things I want to point out about these recent edits are:

this view of the French government re blood transfusions is today a minority view. It is getting way too much billing on this page. It belongs on the Supreme court cases page. I am not sure mention of it is even important enough for this page. Is it more important than Moscow denying registration to JW's? Also, a discussion of this subject should consider the possibility of a general dislike of JW's within the French government as a reason for their actions. eg, they are looking for ways to give Jw's a hard time.
Much of the research David is asking for is in the archived pages of this discussion, I encourage David to look there, as we shouldn't have to rehash every debate when someone new arrives.

george 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, the discussion of the views of the French government regarding blood transfusion was prompted by Danny's assertion that some of my statements lacked substance. I agree that they now take a disproportionate size of the article. Maybe a new article titled Jehovah Witnesses: legal issues should be started.

David, wait a second. You are the one that started the "Vague content in the article" section on this talk page are you not? I definitely agree with that position. Naturally I expect ALL editors to maintain that high standard, myself included. --DannyMuse 06:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, a discussion of this subject should consider the possibility of a general dislike of JW's within the French government as a reason for their actions. eg, they are looking for ways to give Jw's a hard time. – very difficult to do; you're essentially asking for "hidden motives" in people; in general, discussing "hidden motives" is basically a question of opposing opinions. It is much easier and neutral to discuss about the actual legal cases rather than to comment on supposed intentions.

Second, many assertions written in the article are very vague, lack substance, use weasel words, and exhibit a certain point of view. Readers should be able to read the article and get a good understanding of the issues without having to read through 11 pages of lengthy talk archives. Remember that the talk pages are not meant to hold content for the end readers. David.Monniaux 21:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I am sorry. I got the impression you have some personal problem with JW's. I am probably wrong. Much of the problem I have is that your additions seem to imply that the French gov are correct or right in their actions.

Overly sensitive, george 00:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er... Actually, I do not know any JW (or, at least, any person who has told me to be a JW – I normally don't ask other people their religion). My contributions were mainly with a motive of NPOV. Previously, the article essentially said that JWs were persecuted or at least viewed with suspicion for political and religious reasons. It totally ignored other reasons why people could be suspicious of the JWs. To me, this was incredibly one-sided. Especially, the total refusal of blood transfusions (as opposed to "refusal of blood transfusions except when there's no other known/available treatment") is seen, I think, by most people in this country as excessive.

I'm not discussing whether the French government is "right" in the moral sense; "right" according to which morality? As for correction, correction is defined by the judgments of the courts responsible for the actions in question, and I think that I gave a detailed legal explanation of the matter (but I am not a lawyer nor do I have all the documents pertaining to those cases, so I may have committed mistakes).

Apart from that, as I said, it is very difficult to discuss "hidden motivations" of the government. Perhaps, indeed, some people in the tax services thought it a good idea to bankrupt the JWs through the legal construction that was applied. That's possible, but that's speculation. Of course, we must report that it is the JW's appreciation that they were unfairly targeted.

Apart from that, I wonder what you call a minority view? Minority in the sense of "applicable in a minority of countries"? Obviously, the exact views of the French government only apply in France, exactly as the exact views of the US government apply only in the US (and in countries they occupy). Or do you mean that the opinion that advocating total refusal of transfusion for minors is held by a minority in France? In the last case, I don't have poll results, but my experience tells me that it's rather the vast majority of the population that holds such views. David.Monniaux 08:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, all. I think we share a general sense that we just have not quite "arrived" with this article, and with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses in general. There are just too many nagging problems as we read. Did we say the most significant things? Are we fair to all POVs? Alas, we just don't yet know what the solution is. D Mo, all your points are valid, and I'm sure D Muse shares your concerns and desires for improvements in the article. Bottom line, nobody here is, to my knowledge, defending the status quo. So let's all work together on incremental improvement or ultimately a major rework. p.s. When I read this off-site article [10], it refreshed in my mind again how far we are from being neutrally informative. This linked article answers many more questions than our articles. Sad. Tom Haws 23:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, once again you present a voice of reason. You are totally right about how superior the article on JWs at the University of Virginia is compared to our current efforts here at WP. You'd think with all our combined knowledge and experience we could do better. I think it's obvious that a lack of a spirit of cooperation is preventing us from achieving a superior article.

David, whether you think so or not, I do appreciate the general thrust of the content that you've been contributing. In fact I think you and I accomplished a lot last night. I believe the article is better for it.

One of the reasons that I stayed up so late (it was midnight to 4 am my time here in California) was so that you and I could work together in real time. That being said, I feel that you viewed our work very differently than I do. I realize that many of my comments are direct. But I implore you to take some time are reflect on what transpired. I try very hard to keep my comments specifically directed to the CONTENT of the edits, from you or any other contributors . (I probably slip from time to time, but I assure you I never intend to offend you personally. If I have, then I offer my sincerest apologies.) Yet many of your comments seem directed personally towards others working on this project. The fact of the matter is this: none of us "own" this article. Nevertheless, we might tend to become "territiorial" over the contents. I know I do from time to time. I've been working on this particular article for about the last six months. Those of us that have stayed the course on it have seen moments of intense disagreement and frustration. We've also been rewarded with an article that has gradually improved over time due to the perseverance and hard work of all the contributors, both the regulars and the fly-bys.

You joined us, what, a week or so ago? I applaud your passion for the subject and your obvious ability to research your areas of concern quickly and with intense focus. Yet, you seem unaware of how your sometimes drastic revisions affect those of us that have worked long and hard on this article. Your comments frequently come across as caustic and personally cutting. They are often insensitive at the very least. Please, give my comments some time and consider them. I know from my own personal experience that occasionally taking some time away from working on this project gives me a renewed sense of perspective. When I return I'm refreshed and ready to give it my best. Please be assured that we don't want to lose you on this project. But we do have to find a way to work together. --DannyMuse 06:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've been active on Wikipedia for... quite a while, so I do not think that I joined you "a week or so ago". :-) Unless you consider the articles on Jehovah Witnesses to be a project removed from the overall concerns to write a comprehensive encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.

David, I realize you've been on Wikipedia for a while. My comment was specifically referring to your contributions here on this article. I thought the context made that clear. Sorry if it didn't. And, no, I don't "the articles on Jehovah Witnesses to be a project removed from the overall concerns to write a comprehensive encyclopedia with a neutral point of view." Please try not to read more into my comments than I intend. As you know, there are 470,062 articles on Wikipedia. No one contributes to all of them. Most regular Wikipedians work on a relatively small group of articles. Again, my comment was referring to the fact that you only started to contribute to THIS article about a week ago, whereas many of us that you're working with have worked on it for many, many months. --DannyMuse 17:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your comments frequently come across as caustic and personally cutting. Sorry about that. I tend to write in a precise manner, and I'm not too good at being "sensitive" in writing. I was indeed under the impression that some people here considered the article as theirs.

We all can benefit from cultivating more wikilove. Tom Haws 17:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Now about my concerns. There are a number of groups (religious, political, etc.) for which there exist Wikipedia pages. Excellent! In many cases, members of those groups have added the "official" point of view of their group. That's good: obviously, the official point of view of a group is an important part of the documentation of that group. In some cases, the groups are controversial. In that case, one should take care to report the controversy accurately and not misrepresent the arguments of those who are, for one reason or another, opposed to the group. Especially, there is a tendency – and it's human, and I understand it – for members of a group to portray any criticism as "unfair", prejudiced, or motivated by political or religious intolerance.

My view is that, in general, not all criticism is blind and unwarranted. Even when its manifestations are exaggerated, there are often sensible reasons for criticism. These reasons should not be ignored.

Let me give a non-religious examples. The red scare was a period of US history where witch hunts were conducted against suspected Communists. I think that most everybody agrees that some excesses were committed, and constitutional rights violated, in that period. Yet, one would give a one-sided account of the story if one did not mention that at the time, the USSR was a very powerful enemy of the US and indeed tried to influence politics in other countries.

I stubled upon the article about JWs by accident. When I read it, I found it was:

Vague – some important concepts (such as the political neutrality of the JWs) are invoked, but never explained, even with a quick sentence. There was a discussion of opposition to the JWs, but it was written in very broad terms; actually, I think the same text could have applied to many other groups, including the trotskyites.
Somewhat POV – ascribed all opposition to political and religious intolerance, while ignoring some concerns that I was familiar with. Of course, this is unscientific, but I asked people around what they thought of JWs – and the answer was that they were illuminés (i.e. "enlightened", people with very strong beliefs obtained from a revelation) who refused blood transfusions. So it seemed that the blood question was important. The blood question was also central in all court cases and in most political opposition that I had heard about in my country. It just shocks a lot of people that JWs would blindly refuse transfusions to minor children in danger of death (while, I think, most people would be perfectly happy with a policy to "avoid transfusions unless no other method is available"). Somebody used the word "insensitive" above, but, really, this is exactly the kind of behavior that most people where I live consider "insensitive" – putting your children's life in harm's way because of some ideology. And yet, the question was totally ignored.

David, could you be more specific, which question do believe was totally ignored? Perhaps if you articulated it clearly I could respond. Thanks. --DannyMuse 17:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article mentioned only religious, doctrinal reasons, as well as political reasons, as motivating opposition or at least mistrust of the JWs, whereas there were well-publicized reasons (esp. the question of transfusions) not falling in either category, and these reasons were not even mentioned (apart from the invasion of privacy when evangelizing). David.Monniaux 17:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One must understand the basic reason for this opposition: what some people consider as a moral obligation because of some scriptures will not be considered as a moral obligation by others, especially if those others do not consider the said scriptures as having any kind of particular value. Thus the incomprehension, between parties that think that they are each acting "in good faith".

I think there should be a separate article about the major legal question posed by the JWs in several countries; then, this article (giving detailed legal information) would be summarized. For instance, we could say something along the lines of "Jehovah witnesses encountered legal problems in the US for their refusal to salute the flag, enter compulsory military service, etc." ; "Jehovah witnesses encountered legal and fiscal problems in France for advocating refusing blood transfusions to minor patients"; etc. I agree that this currently takes too much room on the page. David.Monniaux 08:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David, I like the idea of a separate article. Perhaps a brief overview in the main JW article with a link to that separate one would be nice. This is getting at the organizational issues of the entire JW Wikiproject. --DannyMuse 17:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prozelytizing

I think that all the concerns about aggressive door-to-door prozelytizing should go together. David.Monniaux 17:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quotations of scriptures

While quotations of scriptures are useful in the sections describing the JWs' usages, mores and activities, I don't think that they are appropriate in the section on hostility against the JWs. People who are hostile to JWs prozelytizing at their doorstep very often do not care at all about scriptures. :-) David.Monniaux 21:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in keeping with NPOV we need to include all relevent sides of the issue. --DannyMuse 06:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, at least some people who are hostile to JWs proselytizing base their opposition on scriptures. Perhaps some of these references should be added, rather than removing the references that are there. Wesley 06:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wesley, I'm confused!?!? Is your "On the contrary" in reference to MY comment or David's? (It seems to only make sense in reference to Davids comment, but the placing after mine makes it unclear. Please clarify. Thanks. --DannyMuse 06:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. It was in reference to David's comment, which I hoped the level of indentation would make plain. At any rate, I added a couple of passages, for better or worse. Wesley 06:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against giving the JW's side of the story, or rather the reasons why, in their opinion, door-to-door prozelytizing is appropriate. I'm just saying that it rather belongs to another section of the article documenting the JW's mores and activities.

On the contrary, at least some people who are hostile to JWs proselytizing base their opposition on scriptures. Please document this opposition, and the kind of arguments those people use. David.Monniaux 07:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An example of this opposition is cited at this article, and as can be seen by the title, the pamphlet's attention is divided between Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. An older booklet is called "Preaching another Christ: an Orthodox view of Evangelicalism through the eyes of Saint Theophan the Recluse." It is essentially a collection of letters written by Bishop Theophan in 19th century Russia to an unnamed correspondent who reported that an Anglican was "evangelizing" in his predominantly Russian Orthodox town or village. His general response was to have nothing to do with anyone who preached a different Christ than was already preached to them, or preached a different Gospel. Scriptures used in support of this position by St. Theophan include Matthew 24:5; 2 Corinthians 11:2-4; Galatians 1:6, 8-9, 3:1; Matthew 7:21.

Lest you think that only the Orthodox have such extreme views, I remember hearing similar warnings about the Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of other groups in my high school era Assemblies of God Sunday School classes; I can't document those lessons or verify which verses were quoted, but the diversity is enough to convince me that this sort of "defensive opposition" is widespread among Christians in the US, though of course it's much more low key than the profiteering opponents. Wesley 05:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. We could probably use a section on this. (As you probably know; as a general rule, today, the Orthodox church generally considers as inappropriate meddling the activities of other churches in traditionally Orthodox lands. This has been a topic of conflict between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church for ages, for instance, and I suspect it's even worse with respect to smaller denominations.)

Now, of course, one has to wonder which proportion of the people opposed to door-to-door evangelizing oppose it for precise reasons arising from the Scriptures, for the reason that their own church hierarchy considers such evangelizing to be inappropriate, or from other reasons. These proportions differ probably considerably between cultures. David.Monniaux 09:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Intro - Christian religions

Looks like I missed the end of the discussion that led to the current intro. I don't want to upset the apple cart too much at this stage, but I wonder, shouldn't it say "Christian denominations" where it now says "Christian religions?" (Or singular as appropriate.) Take a couple minutes to look at religion and religious denomination and think about which word is more appropriate here. Wesley 06:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this intro has hardly changed in months. That being said, I agree with your comment and so changed to the end of the intro as per your comments. Thanks. Oh, and by the way, it's nice to have you back. You've been missed 'round here! --DannyMuse 06:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Funny, in the archives, it looked like a lot of discussion happened in late Dec. 2004. Not that it really matters. Wesley 06:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it was only a month-and-a-half ago, not "months." I apologize for my uncharacteristic lack of precision. Did I say I missed you???? What was I thinking!!! Just kidding. Welcome back. --DannyMuse 07:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we are beyond another rewrite of the intro. It has a few quirks and remains with that "vague" feeling DMo has been pointing out, as seen when compared with the control version I presented above [11]. But I don't know if anybody is up to the task yet. Tom Haws 19:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

In general, I don't think that an introduction should be too detailed; some vagueness is perfectly acceptable as long as making things more precise would prevent the necessary brievety of an introduction, and that the alluded to matters are discussed in the sections. Similarly, some vagueness in a section is perfectly acceptable if there's another article explaining the problem in detail. David.Monniaux 20:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's always been my position. In fact good editorial style is this: start with the general then add specific details. Any other approach always becomes problematic. It will usually tend to get off balance and unwieldy. It is better to address the specifics in sections dedicated to each subtopic, which is what we are doing. --DannyMuse 22:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)