Jonathan Walther wrote:
I have to apologize to RK, and everyone else. What I said about the Changing Doctrines material in that particular article was wrong.
I always say: apologies are not important, future action is.
I was confusing it with material in the "Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" article, which is as I described.
I will study this article, too, now.
I do stand by what I said about the material in the Changing Doctrines section having been resolved. The fact that it is already covered in the "Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" page and hasn't undergone any edits in a long while seems like prima facie evidence to me that it is NOT controversial, and so doesn't belong in the "Controversies" page.
There appears to be some confusion about what the purpose of the "Controversies" page is about. You started the page with one purpose, but it seems to me that virtually everyone now has a different purpose in mind. This seems to be the source of a great deal of tension.
You seem to think of the word "Controversies" there as "Controversies within Wikipedia as regards what should be in the article". If that's what is meant, then the page should never have been started in the first place -- that's what the Talk pages are for.
Most people are thinking that the purpose of the page is to detail "Controversies about Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs". These will be controversies, even after we've written an uncontroversial article about them.
If you think we should eliminate this article, and incorporate the information in it elsewhere, then we should all talk amiably about *that* (on the Talk page, not here).
--Jimbo