Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:56, 17 April 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Final authority

The lead states that the governing body "exercises the final authority on all doctrinal matters". Use of the word final here may imply there is some process by which other members submit ideas, which are then decided upon by the GB. However, this is not the case. I would therefore like to remove "the final".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the alternative you are thinking of? "exercises authority on all doctrinal matters"? StandFirm (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In cases where the local body of elders may have different opinions on the matter of any particular doctrine, they consult the traveling overseer, and in turn he may consult the branch committee, and in turn they may consult the GB for directions. For example I remember a case where the decision for inviting a disfellowshiped person for the marriage by a close relative was done in a similar manner. Furthermore if some member writes a letter to the GB (with his identity disclosed otherwise it goes to trash) regarding his personnel disagreement or opinion with a doctrine, the GB will reply him personally via the branch committee to convince him the reasoning for the doctrine. One example for this is cited here regarding a letter correspondence on the disagreement of blood transfusion. It suggests that they also give ear to the opinion of the members if it sounds reasonable, though they make the final decisions. Another reasoning for the word final is here

"When the time comes to clarify a spiritual matter in our day, holy spirit helps responsible representatives of 'the faithful and discreet slave' at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood. The Governing Body as a whole considers adjusted explanations. What they learn, they publish for the benefit of all." - The Watchtower, July 15, 2010, page 23--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Holden (pg 22) writes: "The establishment of doctrines has been very carefully restricted to, and controlled by, the Society's Governing Body," Since there is no formal (or informal) process in which members of the religion can debate and decide on doctrines, after which the GB exercises its final authority, a more accurate statement, cited to Holden as a secondary source, would be that: "They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders (etc) that establishes and controls doctrines." BlackCab (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's examples are anecdotal at best, and do not indicate that any other members have any input at all into doctrinal changes anyway. Members may write to the Watch Tower Society, and then the Society tells them what they are expected to believe. From that perspective, there is no alteration at all from my previous position that 'final' does not belong. I don't really see any practical distinction between "establishes and controls" and the more concise "exercises authority".--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? The word "establish" is clear and concise enough, and they alone "control" those doctrines. "Exercise authority" is a very woolly term that allows a whole range of possible activities. It also has the benefit of a source. BlackCab (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind either way. My only real point here is that final does not belong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The word "Control" is not in a neutral tone. "exercise authority" was a better wording--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not neutral? It is hardly bias to say, as many reliable sources have noted, that only the Governing Body has control over doctrines. It controls doctrines. No one else controls them. Members are required to accept them. There is no forum to express disagreement with them. The term is accurate, sourced and editorially neutral. BlackCab (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "establishes and manages" is better and nuetral--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should think about why you want to use a wordy euphemism instead of the concise and accurate "control". It's not clear how "establishes and manages" is better, and it's not really clear how a doctrine is 'managed'. Religions establish doctrines, they impose them, they sometimes change them, but they don't really 'manage' them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a puzzle why Fazilfazil thinks "controls" is "not a neutral tone". I agree that "manages" in this context is meaningless; he seems to be searching a thesaurus to find any option to the obvious, and most accurate, word. No one controls JW doctrines other than the Governing Body, and "control" is precisely what they exercise over them. It's not a pejorative word, it's a simple statement of fact. BlackCab (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As an ex-member you and perhaps your usual counterpart might be interested in using the word 'control' everywhere possible. But I just don't understand what is there to "Control" the doctrine. Is the doctrine a thing which unpredictably changes by itself so that someone should control it? Funny--Fazilfazil (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

'usual counterpart'?? It's not absolutely certain that you're referring to me, but from previous discussions you've been involved in, it seems quite likely. I am not the 'counterpart' of any other editor, and if you are making an accusation about me, you should indicate the specific disputed edits in an appropriate dispute resolution process. In any case, instead of making veiled accusations of bias, you might like to note that I actually stated above that I "Don't mind either way . My only real point here is that final does not belong." Though it is accurate to say th GB controls doctrine, any term that correctly conveys the top-down authority structure will do.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fazilfazil, the use of the word "control" carries an unnecessary non-neutral POV spin that suggests something clandestine and sinister, which is simply not the case and is unsupported except by the most fringe, biased sources. It's use here is therefore unacceptable. I think the use of "final" is appropriate, because not every scriptural idea comes directly from the Governing Body, as they do not alone make up the "Faithful and discreet slave" Willietell (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, you and your obsession with "POV spin". It is simply bizarre to suggest that as a source the sociologist Andrew Holden is either fringe or bias. Even James Beckford's landmark sociological study noted (page 221): "Doctrine has always emanated from the Society's elite in Brooklyn and has never emerged from discussion among, or suggestion from, rank-and-file Witnesses." On page 120 he also links the "control" of the Society's magazines by the Governing Body to the inability of those lower in the hierarchy to influence doctrine. "Control" remains the best word to describe the Governing Body's input into doctrines once it has "established" them. BlackCab (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BlackCab, that is your opinion, and I am sure you will stick to it. It is still however, WRONG for the reasons previously stated and the use of POV spin words like Control that are used in a suggestive manner is unacceptable, even if you personally like them. Find a neutral way of expressing the sentence, or don't include the information in the article, I don't really care which, but the use of Control here will not stand, nor will the POV spin. Willietell (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I fear we are going in circles. Is it bias to say a driver controls a vehicle or a central bank controls inflation? The sentence is not suggesting the Governing Body controls people. But the Governing Body most certainly controls doctrines. The source above is accurate enough: even if it was open to another group within the WTS to propose doctrinal changes, the GB is the group that has the control. BlackCab (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

hi all , started reading the article and this same point struck me too. ie that the use here of the word "controls" conveys an idea that is not ultimately the case . Perhaps consider this ; there IS no doctrine without the word of God (scripture). Therefore it has to be scripture that controls doctrine, if scripture is bent to suit an agenda it will cease to harmonize with the rest of the bible. It is true that at times things have been adjusted but the aim is always to attain harmony with what is found in black and white on the pages of the bible. These adjustments are not made because a member writes in with a preferred "interpretation" but rather are ONLY made if it becomes apparent that an understanding is at odds with the rest of the word of God, possibly because another (non governing body) member of the faithful and discreet slave brings it up or maybe even some other member. However it is always scripture that controls and to suppose that there would be free and frequent change based on the whims of humans be they governing body OR ordinary member( 7.65 million people certainly generate more than a few opinions) would render the whole premise of God being in control,a falsehood. This sequence of adjustment is proof of the bible being allowed to control . If the governing body were controlling and nothing ever changed in the light of scripture THEN it could be said that they were "controlling". I hope that the use of the word control could be reconsidered yours sincerely user:deesh.2007Deesh.2007 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deesh.2007 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Words on a page don't control anything. The people that apply those words are the controllers. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

JWs interpret (and often, re-interpret) scriptures a certain way, just as every Christian group interprets scriptures their own way. The scriptures themselves can be used to 'prove' (using the term loosely) just about anything. It is entirely accurate to state that the JW leadership controls JW doctrines, which they do through their (re-)interpretation of scripture. Whether such interpretations are right or wrong or good or bad is out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside your interpretations, Does any reliable source support "Control"? Or else it should be removed. --Fazilfazil (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just now read the above discussion, I replaced 'control' it with 'authorize' which could mean 'to sanction', 'to empower','To give permission for' etc. As Jeffro's concern was only on "final", I hope this provides a balanced view--Fazilfazil (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

bible students

"Thousands of defections occurred in the first decade of Rutherford's administration, leading to the formation of several Bible Student organizations independent of the Watch Tower Society, many of which still exist. By mid-1919, about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society. One contemporary record claimed that between late 1923 and early 1927, "20,000 to 30,000 Truth people the world over have left the Society." William Schnell, author and former Witness, claimed that three quarters of the Bible Students who had been associating in 1921 had left by 1931. Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large"."

I don't understand why paster Russel is so desperate in injecting more sentences on the number of people withdrawn from the religion. I don't think such a long explanation is needed at all. Perhaps a single sentence stating that only a few remained and all others left would suffice. I do not think any witness editor would argue against this fact, given many witnesses' are proud that quality is much important than quantity for God. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article certainly should not be used as a soapbox about other groups derived from the Bible Student movement, as such would not be neutral. However, the text you've quoted covers a very significant period of the development of JWs as a unique group following the leadership dispute of the Bible Student movement in 1917. For at least the last 60 years, JW literature has not even acknowledged that other 'Bible Student' groups still exist, and frequently claims that 'Bible Students' is just a former name used only by JWs—and this, also, is not neutral. I therefore think that the existing text is suitable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of soapbox creeping in when the point is labored. I have turned P.S.L. Johnson's observations on the comparatively brief 1923-7 period into a footnote, leaving in the main text two better indicators of the levels of defections: (1) the initial 1919 tally, showing the immediate impact of Rutherford's coup and the divisive pamphlet war; and (2) Schnell's figures that cover the entire decade from 1921-31. BlackCab (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Still I think its little bit exaggeration (Thousands of defections? ) and more than deserved --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that show that tens of thousands left. Why would you suggest it's an exaggeration when you haven't looked at the figures? BlackCab (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

JW statistics in the first half of the 20th century waxed and waned, but they waxed far more than they waned... It does seem remarkably odd that this article's current section on Rutherford's tenure includes a handful of dramatic claims about so-called "defections" from the religion (JWs fka IBSA) but the section never mentions that the number of adherents grew six-fold during the same time. I'll try to find time to perform edits which are obviously needed in light of the section's existing imbalance. You know, a related article (History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942) does a similarly effective job of hiding the fact that the religion's adherent count increased dramatically during Rutherford's tenure, and does its hiding by creatively including only-those-statistics which give the reader a mistaken impression. Here is what it says there:

Bible Students' yearly Memorial fell sharply again, dropping from 90,434 in 1925 to 17,380 in 1928. Rutherford dismissed their defection as the Lord "shaking out" the unfaithful. ...Under Rutherford, Jehovah's Witnesses grew from about 44,000 in 1928 to about 115,000 at the time of his death on January 8, 1942. That makes it seem as though the article fairmindedly concedes that during Rutherford's tenure the adherent count increased about 260%, while the actual increase is more like 660%. It seems unencylopedic for that article and this to cherry-pick particular years or not-comparable statistics. The actual statistics of IBSA/JW Memorial attendances are 1917:21,274 and 1942:140,450.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should note the huge increase that took place before Rutherford's death. The sentence Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large" is still laboring the point about defections and I'll remove that now. The big increase in adherents is accurately and fairly treated in History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942 and also appears in the intro at Joseph Franklin Rutherford. I don't know why you think the article hides the increase in the History article: it's clearly stated. BlackCab (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article presently ignores the fact AuthorityTam bought out. Given a lot of sentences are inserted for defections, I agree that its important to mention the huge increase that took place before Rutherford's death--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The import of mentioning the defections is that many Russell-era Bible Students left, which is not directly comparable to general growth. However, the influx of new members should also be mentioned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, except that the IBSA/JW growth was far from entirely due to "the influx of new members" but rather it included the return to IBSA/JWs of temporarily-lapsed Bible Students. In fact, certain year-to-year statistics are so dramatic, the only reasonable explanation seems the re-activation of formerly-inactive adherents.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source to that effect? You probably don't need to link IBSA twice in the same sentence, and the linked article doesn't seem to say anything about returning lapsed members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not having been alerted to the existence of this discussion I am only now able to comment having discovered it completely by accident. One of the most serious of omissions by JW writers is the continued existence of the Bible Students, and related to it the fact that for nearly six years those who had left were in number larger than those who chose to stay. The growth in membership during Rutherford's tenure must be carefully analyzed in order to present it fairly and without bias. The largest influx occurred in the last ten years of his twenty-five years as President. Throughout the entire decade of the 1920s and into the early '30s the original Bible Students were leaving in waves corresponding to each of the more radical changes as printed in the Watch Tower magazines. There were no "temporarily lapsed Bible Students" who rejoined with the Society, at least not in any significant numbers. The Layman's Home Missionary Movement and the Pastoral Bible Institute (in that order) each had thousands of members, virtually all of whom had left the Society. They continued their proselytizing efforts and gathered in new members, but the major effort for several years was trying to keep together all of the disillusioned Bible Students, most of whom flocked to Johnson's group (Layman's) because he had as early as 1919 predicted with remarkable accuracy the precise path that the Society would take and set himself up as the unofficial "defender of the truth." When the Dawn Bible Students Association was established they began to use radio and many new members came in and their numbers quickly approached those of the Layman's while those of the PBI diminished steadily. This corresponds to the period of the late '20s-early '30s when the Society ceased publishing their yearly Memorial attendance figures. They resumed only when the numbers began to rise. These were almost exclusively new members who had no connection to the Bible Students or any of the original membership. It is important that these basic facts not be glossed over. Neutrality and fairness are important when presenting such information, but it must not be omitted. Perhaps some of the details and wording that I've added in months and years past was not ideal, but what is important is that it got us started on the right track - the facts were now being addressed. Now, it is our collective job as editors to make sure all of it is presented properly. The way I often approach edits is to consider how a newcomer would read an article and what facts they would need to be aware of to have an accurate and well-rounded comprehension of the historical developments. Note that I do not usually edit on JW doctrine, only the history, primarily those areas that have been neglected for such a long time - the period from 1917 to 1933. As Jeffro has pointed out the WTS has consistently denied the continued existence of the Bible Students therefore to balance out the presentation the pertinent facts need to be conveyed in a way that the reader and researcher can comprehend and in the body of the article. Footnotes should merely be an expansion of what appears in the article body, not a substitute or means of "de-emphasizing" a point. Statements can always be better worded instead of relegating to a footnote and if we all have the same goal of presenting the facts accurately and fairly then we should not have any serious problem in the end. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

More than 99% of all adherents of the Bible Students movement are Jehovah's Witnesses; it seems best to discuss non-JW Bible Students at 'Bible Students movement'. And, plainly, this main article on the Jehovah's Witnesses religion is not the place for a detailed analysis of their growth trends. While I did mention (here at Talk) the certainty that some of the growth of IBSA/JWs must have involved the return of lapsed adherents, I'm more concerned that this main article on the religion has continued to feature 'this defection' and 'that defection' while failing to acknowledge the significant fact that adherent statistics actually increased sixfold during Rutherford's presidency. I have added the following rather-straightforward sentence, "From 1917 to 1942, their annual Memorial attendance rose from 21,274 to 140,450.".--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You've made that statement before - that 99% of all Bible Students are JW - and I've told you repeatedly that this is absolutely false. I am a Bible Student and well placed to know more about the membership and origins of the membership having studied it for nearly 20 years. The actual percentage of Bible Students today who have been JWs is approximately 15%, when all of the Bible Student groups are counted together. As for this article being about JWs, you're right that it isn't necessary to go into extensive detail about the division, but that wasn't my point. My point is that it had/has been completely ignored which is also wrong. It seems that you are trying to whittle things down as far as possible and minimize the significance of this event which is not appropriate because of it's pivotal role in the development of the JWs as a religion. Had Rutherford not taken his arguably inappropriate steps in the administration of the WTS and alienated the original membership the division would never have occurred. As the gulf widened and the membership dwindled he realized it was necessary to form his own group. After all, he had already succeeded in creating his own unique doctrinal and administrative platform. Your edit is misleading without proper context. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your new edit suggest that the increase in Rutherford's presidency was because of increased evangelism methods rather than the logic in the changed theology. As mentioned in this article sociological study by a RS support the fact that JWs have absolutism (conviction that the Watch Tower Society dispenses absolute truth) and rationalism (conviction that Witness doctrines have a rational basis devoid of mystery). Further AuthorityTam have previously used the superior word "a majority" which someone changed as "three-quarters". The citation provided only supports the claim by a former member who is not even an academic historian Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave, William J. Schnelll . And as far as I know nobody exactly know how many left or how many continued. The big explanations on the statistics is redundant and not belongs to this article. I would revert it back to previous sentence if you have no other explanations--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly more likely that the increase was as a result of increased evangelism methods rather than "the logic in the changed theology". The JW opinion (or "conviction") that their beliefs are 'absolutist' and 'rationalist' does not automatically mean their beliefs are 'absolute' ('true') or 'rational'. Rutherford's updated theology (which was still quite different to various current JW beliefs) was not inherently more compelling than the earlier Bible Student theology. A claim that growth was a result of "the logic of the changed theology" would require a quite specific source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(I haven't read the whole tread)The statement it was because of evangelism needs it as well. I suggest to remove why the organization grew, as it isn't important, and may anyway would be a subjective opinion (I believe it grew because of evangelism, or a combination, but it is hard to say). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrahnbahr (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The article History of Jehovah's Witnesses fairly clearly indicates that Rutherford placed greater emphasis on preaching, and the article is well referenced. It is a fairly simple and reasonable conclusion that increased promotion of an idea results in increased response to that idea. Such a conclusion doesn't require as specific a reference as would a claim that there was an increase due to opinions about 'greater logic'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree to it being logic, but at least som source witch "do the math" for the readers tends to be prefered.Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Except about inconsistency in eschatology many of the core beliefs remains the same. Of course preaching have a great effect on people as in the early christianity. But if someone preach foolishness nobody will join the religion. But please note that the tremendous increase started in Nathan knorrs period because of emphasize on house to house evangelism and abandoning the other methods mentioned above. I agree with the IP editor that such a vague statement not belongs here, but can be included in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Further citation is required to support all the opinions of user:pastorRussel mentioned there. But for now I have changed the wording "three-quarters" to a majority" which is superior in terms of accuracy. Its clearly unknown how much people exactly left--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim that "if someone preach foolishness nobody will join the religion" is easily disproved—even if we assume for a moment that JW beliefs are entirely reasonable, there are any number of religious groups and other social movements that teach things that most people consider 'foolish' (will I get in trouble if I suggest Scientology as an example?), and yet they continue to gain members. There is clearly no basis for any claim that Rutherford's followers increased in number due to their beliefs 'making more sense', which is an entirely subjective claim anyway. I agree that "three quarters" also would need a quite specific source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen "three quarters" in a "seculary" (non-JW-published) source about this topic, but I don't remember whitch source. I find a majority more accurate anyway, as three quartes most likely isn't ment to be an exact fraction, and majority is also describing for about three quarters. Because of the statements given from both the last users, I stick to my suggestion to remove the reason for the growth. Even with a source, it is hard to take it as hard proof. My opinion is both factors most likely is correct, and the political climate between the wars could also have supported apocalyptic feelings to common people. Also other groups without evangelism have been growing for periods, but few, if any, so steady as JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Reinstatement in lead section

Please read the above discussion and give your valuable input. Is mentioning the word 'reinstatement' regarding congregational discipline in the lead section relevant to the article? Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter was resolved months ago, so no new comments are really needed. Editors may recall that this article was approaching "good article" status in July 2011, and the lede's discussion of disfellowshipping and reinstatement was a matter than had to be and was resolved (my small contribution).
This is how the paragraph read on 31 July 2011, at the time the article received its "Good Article" tag:

Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may eventually be reinstated if they request it.

I have restored that well-scrutinized wording, albeit without the reference.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with this article, or enormously familiar with JWs. I was attracted here by the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy‎. But I am staggered that something as banal as excommunication is considered worthy of the lede. Is there anything distinctive about JW excommunication practices from any other church - RC, Lutheran, etc.- other than this church's terminology is different (as indeed RC differs from Lutheran)? All churches discipline, all churches temporarily exclude from communion, the practice dates from 1 Co 5. None of the, few, WP:RS in this article or the section on JWs in excommunication demonstrate anything distinctive other than a localised terminology. Remove from lede, not notable/distinctive. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The JWs pride themselves on a strict judicial system aimed at "keeping the congregation clean". I know of no mainstream religion that pursues "wrongdoers", including those who dissent from official teachings, quite as vigorously, to the point that family members are forbidden to speak to the ousted individual -- for life, if they do not "repent". As the article notes, even those who choose to formally resign from the religion are organisationally shunned; this too attracts a lifetime punishment of shunning. The practice of disfellowshipping and shunning has attracted much criticism and is the subject of several sociological studies. It is certainly notable and certainly worth inclusion in the lead. There are multiple sources cited in both the "Disciplinary action" and "Criticism" sections, supporting its notability and distinctiveness. BlackCab (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you haven't tried to convert to a non-islamic religion in Iran, Somalia or rural Afghanistan. Or to JW in Jalisco. Or to any protstant religion in Chamula, Chiapas.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've got me there, Maunus. So OK, excluding the hardline Islamists of Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan who cheerfully behead those who stray from their flocks, and the Catholic defenders of Jalisco and Chaula, the JWs are still notable for punishing defectors and "sinners" by refusing to speak to them again (and writing almost dejectedly how the law no longer allows stoning for defectors). Among "Christians", that conduct is certainly unusual. BlackCab (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What is "usual"depends on time and place - and it is pretty much universal for communities to practice some kind of punishment of individuals who reject core values of a community (it is also likely universal that minority groups practice a stricter discipline for rejecting core values than majority groups). Think of coming out as gay in a presbyterian family in Alabama, telling your hippie parents that you've decided to become a wall street broker, or your amish community that you liked the city better, or your hassid rabbi that you've decided to get a divorce from your husband to focus n your cown career. All of those actions are bound to have negative social consequences for the indvidual - quite likely including shunning. The reason this is notable for JWs is that it has received a lot of attention in the sources - and because JW gives it a lot of attention themselves in how they formulate their rules. Not because it is inherently unusual for christians. So my point is that it should be mentioned an included - but not exoticized.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. Hippie parents may well turn their back on their stockbroker son. The critical distinction here is that this is an organisational shunning: members are directed to shun certain individuals; those who defy the direction are themselves subject to punishment. I'm not sure what exoticizing the issue is, but we agree that it should be mentioned. Which it is. BlackCab (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

By exoticizing I mean framing the practice as if it is "exotic" or "unusual" compared to some implicit standard of what is "normal". So yes, mention the practices matter of factly is wht we should aim for - then we can give mre attention to the specific problems of JW shunning practices in the controversy section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, so what, BlackCab, as I understand it, you are saying is that the mechanism of excommunication/restoral may well be exactly the same as other conservative Christian churches, but there are 3rd NPOV WP:RS which demonstrate that shunning is a more systematic practice among JWs than e.g. "treat as a tax collector or publican" etc of Catholics and other Protestants. On the face of it, I'd be prepared to accept this on the basis that some of the refs in the relevant para in this main article and the linkthrough Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline article do appear to be NPOV WP:RS. What I'm not sure yet, as I've only glanced at a couple of sources, is whether the NPOV sources really make a good case for JWs being notably distinctive on compared to conservative Bible Belt examples. I'm wondering if WP:Synthesis and WP:weight need to applied more in these sections. Prima facie these sources also show JWs using family members to recover excommunicated members, just as Catholics and other Protestants do. So how strict is this rule not to talk to the excommunicated? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to compare to some arbitrarily chosen example or standard (especially not unless we have a very good RS that does that). We should just use RS to describe the practice and any notable criticisms of the practice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note, after writing above I just noticed the quotation marks, " " on Among "Christians", that conduct is certainly unusual. BlackCab (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) - that raises my eyebrow. Is the point that JWs are not "Christian" because they practise shunning? Or are the quotation marks because they are already not "Christian" for some other(?) reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fairy sure that Blackcab does not oppose defining JW as christin and she meant that most mainstream denominations do not practice regulated shunning as JW do (which of course depends on one's definition of mainstream).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

JWs are explicitly instructed thusly:
"What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. ...If we imitate our heavenly Father we will remember that he even showed certain considerateness toward the first human pair after their disfellowshiping in Eden, providing them with clothing. ...So, not “mixing in company” with a person, or treating such one as “a man of the nations,” does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane."-The Watchtower, August 1, 1974
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, talking with a disfellowshipped individual is not considered as a serious sin as per JW teachings, and therefore it does not allow another disfellowshipping for that reason --Fazilfazil (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Authors such as historian James Penton, sociologist Andrew Holden and former JW Governing Body member Raymond Franz have found the JW disfellowshipping/shunning practice sufficiently distinctive to devote extended sections of their books to the subject. This alone indicates notability without the need to attempt a subjective comparison with the systems employed by other churches.

For the record, I have argued in the past in favour of JWs being described on Misplaced Pages as a Christian denomination. The religion has repeatedly argued that they alone are Christians and that other churches are pretenders, hence my decision to quote the word "Christian" on that instance: it’s an all-embracing term they should all be included in, though they are uncomfortable with being grouped with others they feel are led by the devil.

To the question of how strict the rule is about talking to the excommunicated: AuthorityTam’s quote from the Watchtower is a good example of the level of instruction given to members on what they may and may not do. The article was written as a direct response to a perception that disfellowshipped JWs were being treated harshly, so in that article they directed that kindness should be extended in cases of personal hardship.

Quotes from Watchtower publications indicating the rigidity of the rules are available at pages such as (note the reference in the elders’ manual to the disfellowshippable offence of "brazen conduct" that includes speaking to disfellowshipped persons) and . The latter website article includes an extended quote from an August 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry newsletter that detailed who may and may not be spoken to, including a reinforcement of the prohibition on speaking to relatives and offspring living away from home. In short, the system is dictated by the Governing Body with carefully detailed instructions on who must be shunned and in what circumstances. Such shunning is triggered by a public announcement at a JW congregational meeting and is not rescinded until elders formally adjudge an individual to be "repentant" and a subsequent announcement is made. Members are obliged to obey these directives.

Interestingly, the 1974 Watchtower article cited by AuthorityTam argued that shunning should be reduced or removed when an errant baptised member themself rectifies their behaviour (for example marrying after engaging in premarital sex); authors have identified a watershed 1981 Watchtower article that did a U-turn and significantly strengthened the system of shunning, extending it for the first time to any who formally resign from the organisation. That Watchtower remains the standard text referred to as the official position, and this was reinforced in the 2008 manual, Keep Yourself in God’s Love. BlackCab (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that this issue is again going to pop-up in future if this article is considered for FA status. I am not entirely convinced why such an importance is needed to have a paragraph on the lede. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, your comparison of JW disfellowshipping (a formal direction to shun friends and family who leave the religion) with Catholic excommunication (exemption from participation in a simulated cannibalism ritual) is flawed. Catholic excommunication does not involve shunning; excommunicating vitandus was officially abolished in 1983. The JW practice of shunning is covered in studies of the religion, and in media reports about the practice, and meets the requirements of notability. WP:LEAD states that notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77, I am sorely tempted to link the comparison of holy communion to "simulated cannibalism ritual" for the editors on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism to see, even though it is not in article space. This kind of think/talk is not compatible editing any religion pages on WP. Hi BlackCab, I'm afraid I have never heard of James M. Penton and a quick Google does not indicate he is a credible NPOV WP:RS, though Andrew Holden appears to be. The problem with too much quoting Watchtower is WP:PSTS. Back to Holden, I have just read through the section pp77-81. Holden seems NPOV but lacks comparative data - what I, as someone with little experience of this church, would expect to see is some benchmarking to Mormon, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, acts of excommunication and recovery - what is being described in Jehovah's Witnesses: portrait of a contemporary religious movement 2002 Page 79 is considerably milder than that in some Elim Pentecostal congregations. What particularly caught my eye was this:

Disfellowshipping is, however, much less common than informal discipline such as counselling. ... members told me that, in his own congregation of nearly a hundred people, there had not been a case of disfellowship for seven years.

This confirms my concern that sth that happens once in 7 years and is secondary to counselling and doesn't appear significantly different from (eg. example just given Elim Pentecostal) really doesn't justify headlining in the lede? Or perhaps if it does may this needs to go with it? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Two further things - perhaps when having followed the RfC call here I should have scrolled up and noted that one of the editors (can't quite follow who, BlackCab?) is an excommunicated JW. There are no hard and fast rules about this on WP - and I hope there's been no "outing" going on - Democrats can edit Republican bios and so on, but that raises a flag; we wouldn't normally expect an ex or excommunicated member of any church to be promoting a particular view on the subject in the church's article. Second point. Following the Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline#Disfellowshipping (which seems to contain a lot of WP:primary sources) we see the following:

List of "serious sins" Jehovah's Witnesses consider many actions to be "serious sins", for which baptized Witnesses are subject to disfellowshipping or formal reproof. Actions for which a member can be disfellowshipped include: Abortion, adultery, apostasy, bestiality, blood transfusions, "brazen conduct" or "loose conduct", drug abuse, drunkenness, extortion, fornication, fraud, gambling, greed, homosexual activity, idolatry, incest, interfaith activity, lying, manslaughter, murder, "perverted sex relations", polygamy, pornography, reviling, sexual abuse, slander, spiritism, theft, and use of tobacco.

Well hang on.. with the exception of blood transfusions and tobacco these are considered serious sins in any conservative Christian church. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whole bunch of issues there, In ictu oculi.

1. Penton is widely cited by other authors of books on JWs, so your lack of knowledge of him doesn't exclude him as a RS. (I have just done a Google book search and he appears at the top of the list, as the author of several historical books on the religion published by the University of Toronto Press).

2. Anecdotally, members of every JW congregation would be aware of members who have been disfellowshipped. It is far from a rare incidence. Of the 12 chapters of the elders' manual, Shepherd the Flock of God, seven chapters are devoted to the subject of disfellowshipping. A July 1992 Watchtower stated that "In recent years disfellowshippings worldwide have been approximately 1 percent of publishers." With a total active membership of seven million that's 70,000 a year; most congregations would be about 100 to 150 publishers: do the math.

3. I am not disfellowshipped; I quit attending meetings. That no more excludes me from editing JW-related articles than the several active JWs who also edit articles, busting their balls to portray their religion in the best possible light.

3. Yes, the JWs are a moral people; commendably so, and they probably outshine other denominations in terms of emphasising the need for high moral standards. Like strict denominations, they have a list of "serious sins", and all power to them. Unlike other denominations, however, they formally expel and shun (a) those who smoke tobacco; (b) those who engaged in premarital sex; (c) those who exercise a conscience decision to accept a blood transfusion; (d) those who divorce and remarry; (e) those who voluntarily resign from the religion; (f) those who buy a lottery ticket or bet on the races; and (g) those who question or challenge Watchtower teachings. Those who are shunned must remain shunned until they die unless they "repent". For those who have formally resigned membership, of course, it means the only way to resume normal familial contact is to ignore their conscience and rejoin the religion, even if they no longer believe it.

An official directive that close friends or family members cease speaking to a baptised Christian who falls into any of those categories may be commonplace in churches in your area; in mine it would be most unusual. JWs practise all those things, and therefore the practice is notable. BlackCab (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've myself seen specific statements in comments on other books that Penton's book Apocalypse Delayed is still counted the best academic source yet printed on the JW's. And I tend to agree that disfellowshipping among JWs is probably notable. Individual excommunication among the older groups of Christians (I'm a Catholic) of which I am aware is generally not widely discussed, nor is it necessarily seen by members of such groups as necessaily being that big a deal, given the number of schismatic groups in those fields anyway. The JW are a bit better organized, and apparently a bit less freely blending into broader society, and different standards seem to apply there. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would contest that rather sharply - and I have read statements to the contrary. Academic researchers would tend to use Holden or even Beckford rather than Penton's rather limited account. I (having published academically on JWs) would certainly not use Penton as a general reference, but only use him to source his particular views and conclusions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite Penton's unhappy personal experience with the religion, Andrew Holden, Robert Crompton, Bryan Wilson, Stark & Iannaconne and George Chryssides (see an observation on his work pg 147 at ) routinely use him as a source. Are there any particular statements sourced to Penton you'd challenge? In the section dealing with discipline and disfellowshipping, he is cited only in reference to the claim that disputing the Society's doctrines is regarded as apostasy, a serious sin that can warrant disfellowshipping. For the rest of the article he is mostly used as a source for doctrinal and historical matters; the one clear matter of opinion (regarding demons) the article very clearly notes that it is his opinion. BlackCab (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly use him as a source. Holden and others also use Frantz as a source - as should we. But not as a general reference which is something else. I am not challenging any particular usage of Penton in the artyicle - but the general notion that his work could be regarded as the "best academic source yet printed" - because it isn't (perhaps was when it first came out (at least on American matters and general history) but it isn't anymore, by a longshot.)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the 1970s, Penton's book-writing projects have benefited from a dearth of independent JW scholarship, but no one should pretend he is (was?) not deeply biased against Jehovah's Witnesses (a religion which had previously expelled him). For example, in May 1981, Newsweek magazine called Penton "one of 50 ex-Witnesses in Alberta, Canada, who are now working actively to debunk the sect's teachings". I've summarized just a few quotes from other scholars about Penton at Talk:James Penton#Anti-JW bias. Ironically, I first noticed the bias in Penton's book Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship (but it was pro-JW bias, from 1976 before he was disfellowshipped). An example of Penton bias? Here at Misplaced Pages some time ago, certain editors were trying to get the article on former Watch Tower president J. F. Rutherford to include claims that he was an alcoholic; one by one, every single "authority" for the claims was shown to be unverifiable. Other scholarly works ignore the unsupported rumor-mongering; but Penton? Rather than behave like a historian and cite names and dates, Penton does a tabloid-esque TMZ-type claim: "Former workers at the Watch Tower's New York headquarters recount tales of his inebriation and drunken stupors. Others tell stories of how difficult it sometimes was to get him to the podium to give talks at conventions because of his drunkenness." No names, no dates, just un-academic anti-JW claims that their president was a decades-long public drunk. I suppose Penton can be an occasional source, but one used with eyes open and a grain of salt.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree: one has to be careful about what one quotes him on and make clear when views are just his opinion. The same caution can be applied to any source. Watch Tower Society publications are outrageously biased when presenting an account of the succession crisis after Russell's death and have yet to present both sides of that story. A wide range of sources is always beneficial. BlackCab (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said my first impressions were that Penton was not a WP:RS, now that I find he has a WP bio that confirms initial impressions. Anyway, back to the subject. Anyone wanting to productively contribute to WP religion articles should aim to work from mainstream academic sources and source comment from there. WP isn't a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we wrap this RfC up?

Re: Please read the above discussion and give your valuable input. Is mentioning the word 'reinstatement' regarding congregational discipline in the lead section relevant to the article? Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - if congregational discipline is notable enough for the lede (of which I'm not convinced given the lack of NPOV sources) then yes "reinstatement" should be mentioned per WP:NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is no lack of NPOV sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. As was the case just a few months ago when this article was elevated to "good article" status, if the lede mentions disfellowshipping then the lede should mention reinstatement. It's nice to see this resolved again despite certain efforts to remove any mention of JW reinstatement from this article's lede (see 12/28,2/3,2/3 and ,,).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. The use of the word 'reinstatement' should have a purpose in direction of improving the article by being mentioned in the lead section. As far as I can see it does so. As long as disfellowshipping is mentioned in the lead, the possibility of reinstatement should be mentioned to keep the lead balanced according to the NPOV-policy (a lot of readers may only read the lead section). Mentioning 'reinstatement' will also keep the article and the lead more accurate, because it removes the posibility for the reader to draw a conclution that disfellowshipping is absolute, when, according to (the unverified) sources given above, about 50% is reinstated. Reinstatement is also near as common as disfellowshipping given the source is correct (1% and 0.5% are both small digits, 50% rejoining is quite significant), and I am not sure if any of those are significant important information for the lead. It also seems that the subject draws significant more attention to JW-critic sources than from other sources. Either way, I don't see why the two words should be removed, when a sentence is spended for information of near same importance. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I accept the consensus view on this. I'll briefly adress, however, Fazilfazil's statement above that a report showed "about half of the disfellowshipped persons were reinstated later on a particular period." This is dealt with more fully at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 48#Disfellowshipping sentence in beginning of article, but there are two sources for this belief:
1. A 1974 Watchtower indicating that over a 10-year period half a century ago 40 percent of those who were disfellowshipped were reinstated. That statistic was gained prior to the watershed events of 1975, and also prior to the greater use of the internet to gain information about the JWs. My guess (though untestable) is that the number of people who are DFd and later reinstated would be much smaller.
2. A comment to Holden from one elder of one congregation that, "upon repentance, the majority of disfellowshipped members are allowed to return to the congregation." (Emphasis mine). The statement is a local anecdote only and can in no way be used as a universal statistic; furthermore, that elder speaks only of those seeking reinstatement. It may be that of 1000 people disfellowshipped, only 20 show repentance. While the elder's statement would be true if 11 of those were later reinstated, it would remain a fact that 989 of those 1000 (or 99 percent) remained disfellowshipped.
The bottom line is that there is no usable figure indicating the proportion of disfellowshipped JWs who are later reinstated. BlackCab (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are making wrong conclusions. I would say that the 40% or even 50% above is still true. It is a less common event among JW's that someone get dis-fellowshipped and its been cited by some editors in above discussion. Also its been cited by WT publications frequently that majority are disfellowshipped for sexual immorality and not for apostasy. Its reasonable to believe that persons who are not disfellowshipped for apostasy are more likely to repent and come back, because they are disfellowshipped not for their lack of faith in the religion. Further WT publications have cited experiences of those got reinstated, where they say that family ties and losing friends from congregation was one reason to repent about their wrong doings. You may conclude that internet have a wide impact on witnesses. For one reason this is wrong, for example in US, where internet is accessible to every one, the number of people baptized this year was nearly 34,000. For many new adherents the Bible and witnesses' sincerity in teaching them is the reason that motivates in their decision, and not the history of JWs. Therefore no one cares or even interested to know about 1925 or 1975. Another reason is that witnesses' are convinced enough using Bible about the dangers of independent thinking, reading apostate contents on internet and their own wrong expectations regarding the Armageddon. So even if they encounter such websites it is very likely that they would not even read such material. In addition I know witnesses' who have read these kind of materials online and conclude that there is no reason to go out of the faith, because they think that the logic in those literature are not convincing. And no one can conclude anything from the year book statistics, because I believe there is far more people who go inactive but not disfellowshipped.--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. Most disfellowshippings would be for reasons of immorality; most who become dissatisfied simply leave (though I have friends who were both disfellowshipped some years after ceasing association. They were pursued by elders in another state after a complaint that they had criticised the religion to a family member. Neither of them was known to JWs in the state to which they moved and they maintained no contact with JWs other than their family). I know of several others who were DFd for immorality and none sought reinstatement. My experience, like yours, is anecdotal; until there are reliable figures, it's really all speculation. Most new converts, as I did, accept the religion at face value and do not explore wider aspects of the religion. Only later do some develop a realisation about the basis of its teachings and the effect of its control methods. Studies (and forum comments) show that many, however, despite developing a distaste for aspects of the religion, feel forced to remain because the cost of the alternative (being shunned for life by their family) is a cost too high to pay. The vast majority, of course, are content to remain. But disfellowshipping remains a significant and controversial control/discipline method. BlackCab (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of the immediately-preceding comment, this diff seems interesting.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The linked diff is not directly relevant. Whilst BlackCab's statements (which he acknowledges are anecdotal) are not reliably sourced content for the article, it is related to the topic being discussed. This is not at all the same as a vague invitation to discuss JW beliefs in general. Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw this earlier today and intended to go back and remove AuthorityTam's rather stupid comment, but forgot. I don't understand why he constantly descends to this level of bitchiness, when it has no relevance to article talk page. Why would a person be so obsessed with inane point scoring against another editor? Why do it here? There seems to be a real campaign of goading, carried out on a level he calculates will be just below the threshhold for a WP:ANI report. BlackCab (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... I say 'this diff is interesting' and that unleashes insults that I am "stupid" and 'bitchy' and "obsessed"?
Certain editors need to WP:CHILLOUT.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor claiming WP:TALKO recently deleted several comments above. The editor misapplies the guideline (which explicitly states, "you should exercise caution in and normally stop if there is any objection"); I've restored the deleted material.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So you want to retain your little attack. Okay then... in what way was the other edit "interesting"?? The material that was deleted certainly wasn't interesting, and the distinction has already been clearly noted above. The other edit certainly was not related to any specific topic of discussion related to the article and was attempting to use the Talk page as a general discussion page. You know very well that Misplaced Pages is not a forum. So apart from your on-going campaign to quash civility and hostilely present other editors in a bad light, just how was the other edit "interesting"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I say something, to try breaking this up? If it was BlackCabs removal of an open invitation to use this talkpage for a general discussion, that started this discussion, I agree with the removal. The invitation was breaking with the policy of not making this room into a forum, and a warning is given on the top of this page. Someone involved into this project could may have guided the new user who added the invitation into policies here, so the user could be useful to the project. If its true that some of this article is incorrect, and it could be proven, it would be interesting to have a look into it. Either way, I am sure the fightening parts does know that use of harsh wording and accuses could make a negative value of their meaning in the actual discussion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Grrahnbahr, my removal of an invitation to "answer many questions about Jehovah's Witnesses" at a talk page was clearly in accordance with WP:TALK. Unfortunately AuthorityTam has chosen to use that edit as an excuse for another of his pointless and childish attempts to attack an editor with whom he seems to be a little obsessed. His comment adds nothing of value to the page and says more about his own strange fixation than anything else; the fact that he has chosen to reinstate his snide and unnecessary comment after it was appropriately removed by another editor underlines his determination to sidetrack discussion of article content with his own imaginary wars against those who have stated their disagreement with the religion. What can I do? If he chooses to have his infantile behavior restored to the page after its removal, that's his business. I'll stick to discussions on content. I have confronted him directly on his talk page about this; he pretends not to see those comments and persists with his odd behavior. Good luck to him. BlackCab (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important to discuss the topic, not the users (at least not in a negative way: AuthorityTam has also made important contributions to this article), and I will not take part in the change of words between you. The fact that some users not is agreed about a topic, keeps up the chase to get the article balanced and accurate, but it is important to stick to this projects policies. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have frequented this talkpage for several years now during which the three of you have been constantly bickering like this. However I do believe that the only reason that this article has not degenerated into madness is because it has been maintained in the vacuum between JW positive and critical editors which has meant that only edits that have been actual improvements have been allowed. They say walled gardens are bad, but they are often the most well kept - at least when there are several gardeners keeping each other on their toes. So AuthorityTam - please don't get yourself topicbanned or blocked for personal attacks or the like. The page needs you - try to keep your critical comments to the content side. BlackCab and Jeffro - please don't abuse talkpage guideline by removing comments from editors with whom you have now been in a running dispute of several years, and don't revert to bullying just because there's usually two of you and one of him. Focus on the content and give each other leeway on the talkpage. You all need each other to maintain this article - even though sometimes you feel it would be easier without the others.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's attack was clearly not at all related to this topic, and is part of a long running form of behaviour of attacking editors, usually BlackCab. It is entirely appropriate to refactor Talk pages to remove statements that have no purpose other than to attack editors. The only reason AuthorityTam has not been reported more often for his entirely inappropriate actions is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the pro-JW position. However, if his behaviour does not improve, he will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has certainly added some value to this and other JW-related articles with his strong pro-JW leanings and extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the religion. However it usually is accompanied by an outpouring of bile, sarcasm and hostility. I'd vastly prefer he dealt with other editors in a more civil manner and addressed content rather than personalities. Your suggestion that I or any other editor is bullying him is patent nonsense. I have repeatedly approached him directly on his talk page to address perceived conflicts. He ignores those approaches and returns to his usual practise of antagonism and provocation. BlackCab (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience non of the three of you are particularly mild in your argumentation style. Now, I'm not a believer but I do believe that you reap what you sow and that the way to get along with others is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And as for bullying I think you are all capable of that, it just so happens that it is easier for you and Jeffro to get a long for a while than for AuthorityTam to do so which means he is in the minority most of the time. And just to make clear - it is never a good idea to remove a talkpage comment from someone with whom you are in a dispute. Let someone who is uninvolved take care of maintaining the talkpage theny you guys can maintain the article·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so sure. I think when an editor has for no apparent reason added a snide or goading remark with no direct relevance to the article, it's better to delete the comment and minimise any satisfaction he may gain from seeing it there. Like erasing graffiti, it may eventually persuade him that there's no benefit in posting those comments. BlackCab (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but someone who is in a dispute is not in a position to judge that. And when two editors in a dispute are removing comments by the third then that cannot really be characterized as anything other than bullying.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have requested, several times, that if AuthorityTam has problems with editors, that he should address the matter at the editor's User Talk page or use Misplaced Pages's established processes for dispute resolution. There is no excuse at all for AuthorityTam's frequent personal attacks on article Talk pages that have no bearing at all on relevant discussion. In this case, I removed his attack on BlackCab, and I won't remove the attack he restored as that is for BlackCab to decide. However, if AuthorityTam makes a personal attack about me, I will delete it, and if it is restored, it will be deleted again and he will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That comment is not even a personal attack, although it is snarky and unconducive to collaboration, and probably borderline incivil - but so is much of what BlackCab and you say. But each one of you should examine their own conduct first and then that of others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment was clearly intended to malign BlackCab's motives, and is part of an on-going effort by AuthorityTam to malign the editor at the slightest opportunity. Because it is part of on-going behaviour, it is a personal attack. When BlackCab responded to AuthorityTam's snide remark, AuthorityTam seems to plead innocence, claiming that the 'this diff is interesting' is somehow innocuous, despite the obvious intent. When editors approach AuthorityTam at User Talk to discuss problems, he simply ignores them. Even when admins have told AuthorityTam to strike out comments, he has ignored them. AuthorityTam is not merely a poor victim of 'bullying'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is also not what I have been saying. The three of you have been stashing it out over the past couple of years and it is hypocritical to be willing to give but not to accept - especially when it is two against one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Again... I have requested, several times, that if AuthorityTam has problems with editors, that he should address the matter at the editor's User Talk page or use Misplaced Pages's established processes for dispute resolution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the three of you deserve each other. l'enfer c'est l'autres...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to pay attention to my comments. I have never claimed infallibility, and realise I at times respond uncivilly when riled (as you just did). However, I have certainly not made personal attacks with either the ferocity or frequency as has AuthorityTam. He is still welcome to discuss any perceived problems at User Talk, as are you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fairminded editors would do well to go back and re-read this entire thread. In just this one thread, two editors have namecallingly referred to me as "stupid", 'bitchy', "obsessed", "inane", "childish", "infantile", and 'hostile'. By contrast, I haven't launched any personal attack, and certainly not with any "ferocity or frequency". During all of 2011 and 2012 so far, I've only made 129 comments on Talk pages (an average of less than ten per month), and none of them has been personal attack (see for yourself). Aside from two certain editors, has anyone else seen anything from me like that which is described at 'Misplaced Pages:Personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?'? Regarding what one editor might post about another's behavior, that guideline explicitly states "Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."; so times when I have done exactly that are fully within the guideline. Incidentally, that guideline further states, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam lists a few words, which he attributes to 'two editors' (intending myself and BlackCab). I've in fact used none of those words here, with the exception of the related word hostilely, which was an accurate description of AuthorityTam's snide remarks, oblique references to other editors' comments, frequent rehashing of years-old comments (usually BlackCab's), and failure to even attempt to discuss perceived problems at User Talk. Regarding AuthorityTam's other 'request', I will quote User:Fences and Windows, who has previously advised AuthorityTam that "Digging through an editor's old comments to find what you think are incriminating comments and then posting them is looking like a pattern of behaviour that might constitute harassment." (I know of this particular comment because the same editor directed AuthorityTam to strike an attack against me at an AfD, which he failed to do.) So rather than plead innocence, just stick to content. If you have a problem with an editor, discuss at their User Talk page. (A predictable response is that I have not given this reply at User Talk. I have repeatedly attempted to engage AuthorityTam at his Talk page, and he has not responded.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they used "hostile" or "hostilely" or other terms, certain editors in this thread have resorted to namecalling, and that's disappointing.
When challenged to support his allegation that my "attacks" have been 'ferocious and frequent', User:Jeffro77 dredges up a lonely tepid caution from a matter in the first half of 2010!
Since User:Jeffro77 himself introduces the matter, others should see for themselves that none of my edits there involved anything like what is described at the WP:Personal attacks#WHATIS guideline. In 2010, User:Jeffro77 had simultaneously created AfD proposals for three separate articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I had questioned whether he could do so objectively, considering certain comments he'd previously made about JWs; my only so-called "attack" (again, in the first half of 2010!) was apparently my citation of the editor's own diffs and links! See the AfD's:

• 'Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing'
• 'Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses reference works'
• 'Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents'

Further, User:Jeffro77 is disingenuous in complaining that I didn't strike my AfD comments, as all three AfD's were closed for editing on the same day as the strike request (compare this with ,,). Editors should know that defending oneself against repeated empty accusations gets tiresome. Editors should re-read this thread and note who resorts to namecalling and comment deletion while claiming "attack" and "incivility" and "quashing". BTW.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You just can't admit that you're ever in the wrong can you. Why will you not properly engage editors at User Talk, or use proper dispute resolution methods if you have a problem with an editor?? (I have asked him this at User Talk, but he keeps ignoring.) Why do you feel the need to 'advertise' your supposed 'innocence'. Not only was there no attempt to strike your irrelevant claims from the AfDs (which you were explicitly informed were taking comments from years ago—before you were an editor here—out of context), but there was also no I would but it's been closed, or Okay, I won't do it again, or any other such attempt at rectifying your breach of policy and ameliorating the situation (on the contrary, you later attempted to defend your actions, amongst an edit with a purportedly mundane edit summary; my response at the time is here).

I tried to remove an irrelevant argument from this page (it's still unclear how removing an edit violating WP:FORUM was "interesting"), but you restored it, in order to inflame the situation, just as you continue to do. If an editor upsets you, try to resolve it with the editor at the time, and then try let it go. I am not saying I've not been guilty of the same things. I'm saying I've tried to improve the situation. It is now your turn.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed he also linked a separate edit I made to his Talk page in March 2010, which he also irrelevantly linked at another Talk page today. For the record, now that it's been returned to my attention, I have clarified and apologised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam also claims I was unable to provide any recent evidence of personal attacks. I previously provided links at AuthorityTam's User Talk page about this matter, which he seems to have ignored. However, he has indeed continued attacks on editors, mainly baiting and attacking BlackCab, a) that "editors are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "infantilejuvenile", , b) an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM, and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute, c) a further attack on BlackCab's motives, d) dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,, in addition to other edits retributively mocking other editors' preceding comments, such as a) after being told to stick to content, b) after indicating something was only his opinion, c) after he had unnecessarily attacked a source, and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion. And that's just since last month. In particular, AuthorityTam's constant attacks on BlackCab (as well as his irrelevant attack on me at 3 AfDs) constitute what is referred to at WP:Personal attacks#WHATIS as "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. ... speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." So, at the very least, AuthorityTam is just as guilty as anyone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Certain editors would likely prefer that their accusations go unrefuted, but a wrongly-impugned editor such as myself can hardly be faulted for calmly linking to the evidence. None of User:Jeffro77's links show "ferocity or frequency", or qualifies as WP:Personal attacks#WHATIS, for that guideline explicitly states, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". Obviously, an editor's former affiliation with Jehovah's Witnesses may be immaterial, but his repeated disparagement of them is another matter. Furthermore it seems unlikely that other editors will consider my use of terms like "predictable" and "disingenous" to be on the same footing as "stupid", 'bitchy', "obsessed", "inane", "childish", "infantile", and 'hostile'. Oh, and of all the editor's links, none evidence my use of the term "infantile", so the editor will likely strikethrough his unwarranted accusation about my supposed use of that term.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, it was "juvenile", not "infantile" (collecting the information was tedious). Clearly there is little difference in meaning anyway, and is not at all on the scale of listing a bunch of words I didn't use at all and attributing them to "two editors" including me (a bit like saying Billy-Bob and Hitler are guilty of incivility and exterminating Jews).

The only way in which BlackCab's "disparagement" of the religion you so dearly defend is "repeated" is that that you keep rehashing his comments.

It's clear that in the world of AuthorityTam, AuthorityTam can do no wrong. Everyone else can see that is simply a lie. And you can't even address me directly, instead arrogantly referring to "certain editors", and you are abolutely "hostile". You clearly have no interest in civility, resolving disputes, or making peace. When you decide you want to try, go ahead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the cited thread shows plainly that I'd merely responded to another's "first mention" of the term "juvenile". Does anyone miss the irony? This one remaining accusation of what was supposedly my "personal attack" was actually an insult introduced by the object of the editor's apologism! An editor who is offended by the banal term "certain editors" seems likely to be offended at much and likely to imagine "attack" where there is none.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(AuthorityTam expressed concern at my User Talk page (a welcome change that will hopefully continue) that my example of misleading ambiguous attribution of words may be construed as a comparison of editors. I have therefore modified the example above.)

Though you may believe that you have simply dismissed instances of your own personal attacks, and that reference to "juvenile" was merely "one remaining accusation", that is not the case. It seems clear that you are unable to admit that any fault at all lies with you in any editor dispute, so requesting anything resembling acknowledgement or an apology seems like a waste of time. However, you can simply demonstrate good faith in the future by not attacking other editors' motives at the slightest opportunity, as you did with the snide (and quite irrelevant) "interesting" remark that precipitated this exchange. If a content dispute may be influenced by a possible conflict of interest, it is sufficient to " out an editor's relevant conflict of interest" by simply noting that xyz is a former member of abc. Rehashing specific comments an editor made months or even years ago goes far beyond merely pointing out a conflict of interest, and constitutes a personal attack (ad hominem), especially (but by no means only) if the old comments are not directly related to the current discussion.

I am not offended by the term "certain editors". What is offensive is directing snide comments or other concerns about editors to everyone else (as if addressing an ANI) rather than addressing the person involved, ideally at User Talk. Such attacks in turn necessitate that editors who are the targets of the attacks are forced to also respond at article Talk. It is offensive that when editors attempt to remove irrelevant discussion from article Talk pages and invite you to deal with personal matters at User Talk, you restore the material and continue to bring up irrelevant user history, often out of context, and usually with no direct bearing on current discussion. So, in future, please restrict your concerns about editor disputes (as opposed to content disputes) to User Talk or other appropriate dispute resolution channels. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As he has chosen to discuss it here, I am glad User:Jeffro77 changed his example from "AuthorityTam and Hitler are guilty of incivility and exterminating Jews". As I mentioned at his usertalk page, such an example is much closer to what is actually forbidden by the WP:Personal attacks guideline.
Oh, and again, it was not me who introduced the term "juvenile" into the thread cited by the editor (or any thread, to my recollection). As my comment then explicitly stated, "this thread's juvenile first mention...was by the same " (namely, here) . I would prefer Jeffro77 also strikethrough "juvenile", as he earlier strikedthrough "infantile".--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you're still being petty. It's unclear why you're rehashing something that has already been dealt with, nor how there is any value in requesting me to rephrase when you just go and highlight the original remark (which, to be clear, was not a personal attack at all); for anyone who cares, the context is supplied here. And I see you've made no retraction of your false claim about 'two editors' calling you ""stupid", 'bitchy', "obsessed", "inane", "childish", "infantile", and 'hostile'". Same thing, different day. You may approach me at User Talk if you like.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Those coming upon this thread can plainly see which editors have deleting the comments of others and used namecalling. In this thread and elsewhere, the editor's repeatedly accusations against me make it clear that he uses the term "personal attack" for almost any comment he dislikes (rather than using the term according to the actual guideline describing actual "personal attack"). The editor is too-easily offended; he's even complained to me: "referring to a Chinese person as "a Chinese" is also often considered offensive" (newsflash: no it's not).
The editor claims that I attack with 'ferocity and frequency' but he submits a tepid incident from nearly two years ago and cites the two worst insults I have used: "predictable" and "disingenuous" (the fact is that I did not actually introduce "juvenile" into any thread). I'm just re-capping, for no defense is needed against the emptiest of accusations.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Who are you talking to??? Who do you think you're scoring points with??? No one cares about your third-party commentary. If you have a problem with an editor, resolve at User Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I also note that once again, you've trawled through edits to dig up something from over a year ago, where I correctly and very briefly indicated that "a Chinese" can be offensive in some areas (regardless of your opinion or its usage in your country or locale). And you babbled a multi-paragraph rant about the single statement at the time too! You have been told that your trawling through edits in this way constitutes harassment. Can you please try to stick to relevant discussion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the noun "a Chinese" is certainly not offensive; the editor may wish to consult a dictionary such as Wiktionary. Here are some other dictionaries which plainly show that the noun "Chinese" is a perfectly inoffensive term for a Chinese person:
Dictionary.com-FreeDictionary.com-Merriam-Webster
When an editor categorizes normal terms and commenting as "offensive" and 'babbling' and "rant" and "harassment", that editor says much about himself.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And now you're ranting about a tangent of a tangent. You are trying to distort this into some implication of how I define personal attacks and how you imagine I am personally easily offended. I made a single brief statement about how "a Chinese" can be interpreted as offensive in a discussion about how terms related to article content can be misinterpreted as offensive, and though it may have been slightly inaccurate to say it is often considered offensive, that was incidental to the actual analogy made at the time. Citing some American dictionaries on the matter is quite irrelevant to broader usage of the term, and orders of magnitude away from the purpose of this Talk page. As for your other tedious claims, I am not the only one who has advised you that your behaviour constitutes harassment. Just how far are you willing to stray from actual article Talk in your strange attempts to prove whatever point it is you imagine you have?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Question for Jeffro and AuthorityTam: How old are you? (Hint: The question is a rhetorical one) Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for AuthorityTam's behaviour. I have attempted to engage him several times at his User Talk page instead, but he ignores attempts at discussion there, presumably because he doesn't have as wide an 'audience' there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now BlackCab and Jeffro77 have moved to get me banned; editors who wish to weigh in may do so at the colorfully-titled WP:ANI#Disruptive user AuthorityTam, who thrives on dispute and antagonism.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Another lie, and still not remotely relevant to this article Talk page. Actually, I want you to improve your behaviour, and never said anything about 'banning'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes- I'm going to conclude that reinstatement should be covered in the lead if discipline is covered, because to leave it out only addresses half the topic. If a parent disciplines a child for improper behavior by applying restrictions upon their activities, should there also not be a mention made of the release of those restrictions when the child's discipline has ended? This seems to be only common sense. This seems to also be the case in the consideration of disfellowshipping unrepentant wrong doers, as reinstatement is simply the completion of the disciplinary process, and not the beginning of some new process. Willietell (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already there, and has been for some time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"...cautioned against studying the Bible independently"

"Witnesses are cautioned against studying the Bible independently from its publications or to read any other religious literature" This sentence appears under "Sources of Doctrine", and I think it is patially erroneous. The citations all refer to the second part of the sentence, and in all of my findings I have never observed the italic part. Conversely, the JW publications say "read the Bible" just about every paragraph.

Seemingly every meeting of theirs encourages similiar study. The ones I've attended all featured the generalized audience reporting their findings on a topic, notably independent of associated JW literature being considered.

So, I suggest this revision: "Witnesses are cautioned against reading religious literature of opposing doctrines."68.52.84.40 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

JWs are certainly told to read the Bible, and that has not been disputed. However, the intended meaning is in relation to studying the Bible (e.g. forming religious opinions) independently of Watch Tower Society publications.

• "Individual Bible study, certainly! Independent Bible study, beware!" (formatting from original) The Watchtower, 15 August, 1952, page 501.
• "We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the “faithful and discreet slave” organization." The Watchtower, 15 February 1981, page 19.
• "The Scriptures warn against isolating ourselves, thinking that we can figure out everything with independent research. ... To help us to use and understand the Bible, Jehovah’s organization supplies excellent Scriptural material in The Watchtower and related publications." United in Worship of the Only True God, page 23-24
• "In order to develop our thinking ability, it is necessary for us to acquire and satisfy a taste for study of the Bible and the publications of “the faithful and discreet slave.”" The Watchtower, 15 May, 2010, page 23.

Hopefully this clarifies the intended meaning. It may be possible to re-word if you don't think it is consistent with the sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have checked Jeffros sources to see them in context, with exeption of one:

• The first source is 60 years old, and may not represent the fully opinion of JWs believings today. I could not see to have access to the source, not at least for the moment, but a source this old is may only good if it supports other and newer sources, at least when it comes to JWs believings (but it is more likely good if it is about a topic like JWs history). I don't nessecery think Jeffro's use of the source is wrong, as I think Jeffro uses it for supporting his/her references to newer sources.
• I can't see how this could be turned into a warning against independent studies of the Bible.
• The source is wrongly quoted. The correct quoting for this particular site should be more like "The Scriptures warn against isolating ourselves. We should not think that we can figure out everything by independent research. Both personal study and regular attendance at the meetings of God’s people are needed if we are to be balanced Christians.—Proverbs 18:1; Hebrews 10:24, 25." The quote starts in the middle of a paragraph, and context shows it is more likely about two similar topics, about studying the Bible and about attending at the meetings (JWs meetings). As far as I can see, it is not warning, or indicating that the Scriptures is warning, about independent studies of the Bible. I'll also make another quote from the same chapter: "Make a special effort to read the Bible regularly. Even though you do not fully understand everything, your getting an overall view of the Scriptures will be of great value." This indicates that JW's literature do support independent study to a certain point.
• The last quote is indicating that it is necessary to acquire a taste for both the bible and JWs literature. I can not see that it is warning against independent studies.

I find Jeffro's definition of independent study quite narrow. Studying could be like looking into what other sites than Watch Tower Society publications says about the text, like what language experts says about the Bible, checking out frazes in dictionaries, and so on. It looks like JWs are free to study the Bible like they want (but warned about literature that is opposing JWs own doctrines), but they are strongly encourraged to make use of Watch Tower Society publications, and is also told this is necessary to acquire a fully understanding of the Bible.

As I see it, the proposed change will make the article more accurate and balanced. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article's discussion related to so-called "independent study of the Bible" tends to degrade from neutral at least annually. At it stands now, the article implies that JWs avoid the Bible (!). As editor User talk:Grrahnbahr notes, JW publications relentlessly instruct JWs to daily Bible reading. Editors experienced with JW publications will likely acknowledge readily that JWs use the term "study" somewhat specifically; by contrast, the typical Misplaced Pages reader is likely to interpret "study" as nearly synonymous with "read carefully". Perhaps there is good reason for the article to differentiate between Bible reading and Bible study, but the article shouldn't also ignore the facts: sixty-plus years of JW publications have cautioned perhaps 20 times against 'independent Bible study', while official direction toward 'daily personal Bible reading' has been pounded home thousands of times. Furthermore, the article shouldn't pretend there are any real "teeth" in the direction to avoid independent Bible study; I seem to recall at one point the article stated the matter thusly, "Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through independent Bible research." Perhaps the new wording is inferior to that.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it just seemed that the wording implies that the JW Society doesn't want people reading the Bible outside of some sort of confines, or that the group polices the learning of its members. Great Article, overall.68.52.84.40 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated, I have no objection to re-wording the statement in the article if there is concern that it does not properly represent the sources, and I don't have any problems with AuthorityTam's suggesion. The point is that the sources indicate that JWs should not come up with their own interpretations of scripture independently of JW publications, and JW publications often speak negatively about "independent thinking". It is not entirely accurate to state that JWs can study the Bible any way they like only to the exclusion of other religions' literature, but that they are also expected to not form interpretations without JW publications. The statement in the article is not intended to convey that JWs can't use dictionaries or similar research tools. JWs are advised not to make (Our Kingdom Ministry, September 2002) or visit (Our Kingdom Ministry, November 1999) web sites about Jehovah's Witnesses other than official JW websites.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea presented that Jehovah's Witnesses in any way are "cautioned against studying the Bible independently" is laughable in itself, as exactly the opposite is true. Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to "read the bible daily" and to do so in an "undertone" a word that conveys "meditation" on what is being read. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses are encouraged to do. They are provided with the publication "Examining the scriptures daily" that considers a particular bible text for every single day of the year. They have a weekly bible reading as part of the theocratic ministry school program that will accomplish reading the entire bible from cover to cover in just over a three year period, and are also encourage to do regular bible reading and research in excess of that through a process of "personal study" in order to develop and maintain a close personal relationship with Jehovah. To state that "Independent study" is discouraged is simply lunacy in its most basic form. As the material from "other religions" is deemed to truly come from the devil and regarded as tainted by the influence of false religion, they are admonished to safeguard themselves by obstaining from reading the apostate literature of Christendom, which is influenced by the Devil. Perhaps the article should more accurately reflect that information. Willietell (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

You've clearly ignored my response immediately above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of template

I am not sure whether this site or the one for the template is the right place for the discussion, but it is added a template to the article that in a way indicating JW is a cult. The template also contains the fraze New Religios Movement (NRM), but in the listings in the template, it is no separation between NRM, cults and sects. The template is not complete and limited, and is not including movements like adventists or LdS, even thou it is no major differences in how the movements could be classified (as I see it, and I can probably find sources for it, they are all often classified as NRM, but rare as cults or sects, and then often by critics of JW). I think the template is misleading, and think it should be discussed whether it belongs here or not. I'll remove it for now, but will accept it if it is consensus to keep the template (please not add the template until a consensus is reached). Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

JW is generally classed as a New Religious Movement, which is the first part of the name of the template, and the template does not actually say JWs are a 'cult' as you've claimed. If you object to the presentation within the template, you should discuss that at the template's Talk page, Template Talk:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The "cult" template was added fairly recently, without any consensus that I could find. The template itself is not without controversy, as its Talk page indicates. I find myself agreeing with editor Grrahnbahr: the addition of the template has again been reverted until it can be discussed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not sure if the concideration if a template should be used in an article, could be decided at a specific articles talkpage, or if it had to be dealt with at the template's talkpage. I do anyway think Jeffro acted in good faith, as he gave an explanation for why readding the template, even though I do not agree to what he said. It could maybe be an idea also to wait until a concensus is reached at the current TfD-discussion, before readding it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The template is clearly directly relevant to this article. JWs are academically classified as a new religious movement, and the template is appropriate at this article. There is an active dispute about the name of the template, which is out of scope here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is about more than a change of name, as the whole template is nominated for deletion because of possible violations to the NPOV-policy. Naming of the template is only one of several issues raised, as the template appairs to use random criterias for including, and also appairs to be lacking RS for connection of the selected articles in the template. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You will (should) note that I have not yet restored the template to the article, pending a result of the template discussion. The actual dispute about the template itself is out of scope here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed. My statement was thought as an answear of the suggestion of it being relevant to this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A cult template is inaccurate and should not be allowed to remain in place, unless somehow the definition of "cult" somehow suddenly changes. Willietell (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You have incorrectly characterised the template in question as "a cult template" from the outset at this discussion, though it's context was always broader. It has since been renamed, New Religious Movements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The template was a cult-template from the beginning (just check the history of the template), later changed to cult, sect, and NRM, and now is a pure NRM-template. The discussion is still active, and it appairs to be a non-concensus or a concensus to change of name (already done) and more specific definitions of what to include. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not restored the template to this article specifically because the discussion is still active.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The TfD discussion has been closed, so I have restored the {{New Religious Movements}} template to the article. Any concerns about content of the template should be addressed to the template's Talk page, not here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lumping the JW's in with the likes of Jim Jones is highly offensive. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JWs are classified as a New Religious Movement. The template lists groups and issues related to New Religious Movements, and does not 'lump' any particular group with any unrelated individual. If you are offended by content of the template, discuss at the template's Talk page. You should note though that Misplaced Pages does not avoid correct sociological classifications of religions merely on the basis that such classifications may offend some readers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you call the template (in which the word "cult" appears many times), it's a POV violation to pretend that there's any commonality between Jim Jones and the JW's. And you left out David Koresh. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about David Koresh. I didn't create the template. Discussion about the template's content belongs at the template's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know who David Koresh is, you don't know much about cults or "new religious movements". And if you want this discussion confined to that talk page, maybe you had best move this entire section to that talk page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 10:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I know who David Koresh is. I don't know why you are claiming that I 'left him out' of something.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"You" being anyone defending the template, not necessarily only "you" personally. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never edited the template, and am not responsible for its content, or any omissions. Again, if you want to discuss the template's content, do so at the template's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're responsible for defending it, though. Maybe you should move this entire section to the template talk page? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a New Religious Movement. The template is about New Religious Movements. The template correctly mentions JWs. That is the limit of my 'defense' of the template.

Until you started complaining about the template's content, this thread was about use of the template at this article. I am happy for you to continue your objections at the template's Talk page, or to just stop altogether. Either way, please stop going in circles here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The template is largely about cults, regardless of its current name. Your defense of grouping JW's and Bahai with the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh is your own choice, and you're in the wrong for defending it. You're pushing an anti-JW POV. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. The template makes no connection between different groups, and makes no attempt to classify individual groups along some spectrum of 'evilness'. I did not add JWs to the template. JWs are a New Religious Movement. The template is about New Religious movements. End of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The template is about cults, and was renamed in order to try to look non-POV to the casual reader. Not all of us are so easily fooled by euphemisms. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The template includes 'cults', because the term New Religious Movements is inclusive of, but not restricted to, cults. Why are you not discussing the broader issue at the template's Talk page, instead of making irrelevant attacks on my motives? I didn't add JWs to the template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You approve of it, though. Why are you not discussing this at the template talk page? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up, and I don't agree with your claim that listing any particular group in the template implies 'guilt by association' with any other group. The commonality of the things listed is their relationship with the topic of new religious movements, and that is all. You are free to raise your concerns at the template's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JWs are widely classified by sociologists of religion as a New Religious Movement (more specifically, they best fit the description of an institutionalised sect as the term is used by sociologists of religion). If you don't like that, well that's just tough. Acknowledging a view held by professionals in a field is not 'pushing an anti-JW POV'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Exploiting an academic view in order to push a personal POV is a commonly-use trick in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're just wrong. If you are going to insist on attacking my motives, you will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's you that's got it wrong. Hiding behind euphemisms and academia and personal threats doesn't right the wrong. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your mischaracterisations of my motives are incorrect, irrelevant, and becoming quite tedious. You're welcome to raise an RFC or 3rd Opinion request about inclusion of the template. You're also welcome to discuss other content of the template at the template's Talk page. So if you're quite done with irrelevancy, please get around to something constructive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your continual defense, of characterizing JW's as a "cult" on the same order as Jim Jones, is becoming quite tedious. So once you're quite done with slandering the JW's, please turn your attention to something constructive. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are simply wrong, and your continual references to Jim Jones are irrelevant. Your argument is a bit like saying The United States should not be included in a list of countries because Sudan has a terrible human rights record. JWs are a new religious movement, they are listed in the template, and the topic is relevant to the religion. End of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

USA got a terrible human rights record too. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is not relevant to the purpose of the analogy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support use of template: Jehovah's Witnesses is a new religious movement (NRM) and the template covers NRMs; therefore the Jehovah's Witnesses article should feature the template. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I have no strong opinion anymore whether JW should be listed in the template or not, as it is a no-concensus closure for the template. The change of name is a huge improvement. I do, however, share Baseball-Bugs concern about the content, or as I see it, the weak criterias for including. Some sources lists JW as a NRM, while other, like Andrew Holden, do not use that term specific (he uses movement, but it is some difference). Is it enough one RS uses the term? Different sources could be from different ages, and they could use different criterias for how they describe a group. It could be as many as thousands of groups described as NRM, but without real definitions and criterias, the random collection could easily be taken for NPOV-pushing, or just a random collection of information. There are no real connections between JW and some of the most cult-looking groups, except a vague classification. It could be like pretty much the logic presented in Erasmus Montanus: "A stone cannot fly. Mother Nille cannot fly. That makes Mother Nille a stone." Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

JWs are well within the timeframe for classification as a new religious movement. List of new religious movements cites The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Active New Religions, Sects, and Cults (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi) in reference to JWs. Encyclopedia Britannica includes JWs in its article about New Religious Movements. A search on Google Scholar finds many results that discuss JWs in the context of NRMs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: There was a pretty good consensus at the template talk page to purge some of the heavily cult-related material (like Cult suicide and Doomsday cult) from the template. If somebody could do that, I think it would solve our problem here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. But other content of the template is not related to the inclusion of JWs in the template as an NRM and therefore, the inclusion of the template at this article. As I've stated several times, discussion of the template's content should be discussed at its Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Until you take some action over there, you remain in the position of agreeing that the JW's are a cult, equivalent to the likes of Jim Jones. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. You can't just make up your own criteria about what I supposedly agree with.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

New World Translation

Am concerned Jason BeDuhn is described as a "Bible scholar", which he most certainly is not. His book's treatment of translations was also very narrow, based on a comparison of phrases/verses/ideas. Professor Kedar comes from a background in history and sociology - his endorsement is vague and his relevance highly questionable. Random academics who support against the grain of professional opinion do not add anything to accuracy!

The vast majority of recognised authorities see the NWT as a very poor and biased reworking, seemingly often by interpreters without sufficient of the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, NT Greek) to contribute anything scholastically meaningful.

R. B. Girdlestone would not be generally quoted in modern scholarship. He needs to be noted as active over a century ago, with the limited sources that implies. Tim in NZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.170.6 (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about BeDuhn. Feel free to provide a more accurate description. If the current information doesn't properly represent a broader scholarly view, do you have some other sources we can use on the matter?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor's concerns are best-addressed by removing the section on criticism of New World Translation (that is, from this article). The NWT may be published and preferred by JWs, but their corporations also print others, their adherents typically use any, and criticism of NWT is already well-discussed at both 'Criticism of JWs' and 'New World Translation#Critical review'. Is criticism of a Bible translation also needed here at the Jehovah's Witnesses main article? I think not.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

JWs do not "typically use any" translation. JWs almost always use the NWT, and though they may have other Bibles for comparison, they do not use those primarily; this includes other translations for which the Watch Tower Society acquired publishing rights. JW publications occasionally cite other translations, and then usually to claim another translation's rendering supports a JW interpretation. I agree that only a brief summary about the NWT is necessary at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

JWs do typically use any translation; JWs do not insist upon New World Translation.

• Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 279, "If Someone Says—'You have your own Bible' You might reply...'I’m glad to use whatever translation you prefer.'"
• 1979 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©1978 Watch Tower, page 126, "A point used in our offer of a free Bible study is that we will use any Bible of the householder’s choice."
• Awake! ©Watch Tower, December 2011, page 24, "No matter which version or translation you choose to use, Jehovah’s Witnesses will be happy to help you in your study of the Bible."
  

It's tiresome to refute so many empty claims, especially when the references are so plain.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As a person who so obviously has intimate knowledge of JWs, your claim that that they typically use any translation is patently dishonest. In a congregation of 100 people gathering at a weekly JW congregation meeting, I doubt there would be one person with a translation other than than the NWT. The Criticism section is a brief summary of the main Criticism article and it is only natural that the NWT is mentioned there. BlackCab (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam cites JW publications that says that JWs will use a different Bible translation if requested by a householder. Not only does this not demonstrate that use of other translations is 'typical', but it confirms exactly what I said about occasionally using other translations. The very next statement following AuthorityTam's selective quote from Reasoning from the Scriptures says:

• But you may be interested in knowing why I especially like the New World Translation.

Also:

• Our Kingdom Ministry, November 1992: When we read from our Bible, the householder may comment on the clarity of language used in the New World Translation. Or we may find that the householder shows interest in our message but does not have a Bible. In these cases we may describe the unique features of the Bible we use and the reasons why we prefer it to others.

Clearly, though JWs will use others' translations if requested, they prefer and typically use the NWT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As much fun as it is to belabor nearly every single point... BlackCab's inflammatory comment "your claim that that they typically use any translation is patently dishonest" is inaccurate; consider:

• Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, Continuum, 1999, page 100, "Predictably, mainstream Christians accuse the New World Translation of inaccuracy, as if their own translations were thoroughly reliable. Jehovah's Witnesses will engage in discussion with others using whatever translation is available"
• "Jehovah's Witness Beliefs", Knocking: A Documentary About Jehovah's Witnesses, Knocking.org, Retrieved 2012-03-29, "The Witnesses commonly used the King James Version of the Bible before commissioning a modern language version, which was completed in 1961. Today, any Bible is suitable for reference."

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses tend to prefer the New World Translation; and Yes, a willingness to "use any translation" is typical among Jehovah's Witnesses. It's sad when editors waste time arguing against plainly demonstrable facts.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Willingness to use a different translation if requested by someone else (even if the 'willingness' is 'typical') does not indicate anything about which translation JWs typically use, and no one claimed that JWs insist on the NWT. However, it is by far their preferred translation, and their use of the NWT is notable. The comments about the NWT in the section discussed are fairly balanced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors may be want to remind the fact that the New World Translation is presently not even available in 5/6th of the languages in which WT society publish. Before ten years not even in 11/12th. In all those cases they use the locally used translations in congregation. Majority of JWs' present teachings are derived even before the NWT was published in 1950s. As far as I know there is not even a single new teaching that witnesses' derived by specifically using NWT after 1950s. Further Tam's references double verify the fact. WT society may prefer to use NWT in their publications(in recent publications they frequently use other translations) and in most cases they use it not for justifying a very few controversial scriptures but for all of the scriptures in the publication. Basically they use it because of its simplicity and ease of use. However the usage is not as rigid as like Catholics using only their church provided Bible, or Protestants believing in the infallibility of the KJ bible. And all witnesses know that NWT is not the only usable Bible. Using the phrase with a preference in the lead misleads the reader because it appears just after saying that their teachings are derived from the Bible. It makes the wrong impression that witnesses invented their own Bible to derive their teachings. If no valid reasons are presented I choose to move that half-sentence from the lead to the Worship section were it can be mentioned without confusion --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is misleading to imply that the NWT is not their preferred translation on the basis that it is not published in a specific proportion of languages (rather than proportion of population). By far the majority of JWs (and by far the majority of people in general) have the NWT available in their native language. As it is, several of the languages in which the NWT is published are spoken by fewer than a million people (not a million JWs) worldwide (fewer than half a million in some cases), and the languages in which it is not available are spoken by even fewer people (and many can understand a second language in which it is available). Relative to the number of scriptures used in JW publications overall, they do not "frequently" cite other translations; the proportion of quoting other translations is actually very low. Opinions about whether the NWT is 'easier to use' than other translations are subjective and irrelevant, except to the extent that the opinion of JWs that the NWT is 'easier to use' reflects their preference. There has been no demonstration that their use of other translations is 'typical', but only that they will use other translations if requested; this means their preference is to use the NWT. Several references have been provided from JW publications showing that the NWT is their preferred translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the points what you said. But my concern is that it is not a very notable thing to mention that in the lede, because it suggests that JWs invented the doctrines using this specific bible translation. It is appropriate in the Worship section.--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

JWs' most prominent publications are The Watchtower! and Awake! magazines and the New World Translation, and it is appropriate to mention these publications in the lead. It is self-evident that JWs existed prior to their production of their own Bible translation, and so their core doctrines were clearly based on interpretations that were developed earlier. The article doesn't claim the NWT is anything other than a translation—that is, it doesn't claim that the JW translation has extra books, extra chapters or extra verses in order to invent new doctrines. (The NWT is missing some verses which the translators claim are not in the oldest manuscripts.)

Some commentators who have analysed the NWT have stated that the rendering of some verses in the NWT reflects theological bias, and this is mentioned in an appropriate section, and not in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro appairs to be right about everything in thread, except from the part JW always uses NWT. It must be some way to express something between typical and always, as JW uses other translations occationally, but not often, and sometimes only to show the difference between NWT and other translations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said JWs always use the NWT, and neither does the article. I said they almost always use it, which is accurate. The article only says it is their preferred translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can't see that statement from the article should be wrong. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Its okay. But I think "their own translation" is still giving a misleading impression as I earlier mentioned. I would rather suggest "with a preference to the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures" removing the emphasize on "their own". Any concerns? --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In this way readers who want to know more about it can visit the NWT page--Fazilfazil (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no 'misleading impression' in disclosing why they prefer the NWT, and leaving out the reason would be a suspicious omission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"...with NWT, a Bible translation published by WTS" or similar. The WTS own the publishing rights for several translations, and printed at least one of those before NWT. With "their own translation", it is given the impression that JW have made the translation completely from scratch, and it is "adjusted" to fit their believes. An impression could be given, without directly statements, so I do understand FazilFazil's consern. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The NWT's translation committee (who were all JWs) claimed that the NWT was 'translated from scratch'. That is, they claim it is an original translation of the original languages (based largely on the original-language text as given by Rudolf Kittel (Hebrew) and Westcott & Hort (Greek)). It is therefore their own translation; it would therefore be misleading to suggest that it is merely one of a few translations printed by the WTS that they've arbitrarily selected as their favourite. The statement does not imply that it is their own Bible, as if written from scratch independently of the Bible itself. Commentators have stated that the NWT is 'adjusted' to fit their beliefs, however the statement in the lead does not suggest that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. It is not their own Bible. I just wanted to make that point clear. I am still not convinced of the need for emphasize on NW preference at the lead though.--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it not their own translation? If you're saying it is their own translation, but just not their own Bible, then that's a strawman argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is that 'Own Bible' is wrong but 'own translation' is correct which the article presently states. Thanks for the comparison. I have no interest to read any Strawman or Xman argument article though--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's really not much point arguing about something no one ever said. A strawman argument is a type of logical fallacy, and has nothing to do with Marvel comic-book characters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. By using the words 'own Bible' I mean just like the book of Mormon.(Mormon Bible). You are right. Sometime I need to do explanations for silly things--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is correct to say "JWs prefer to use New World Translation Bible in their personal study and meetings" if available in their language. However the lead misleads readers by pushing this sentence just after stating that "witnesses beliefs are based on the interpretation of Bible". It clearly makes a support to the false claim that witnesses modified their Bible to invent their teachings. The comma (, with) makes a POV push by implying that their beliefs have some thing to do with the NWT Bible. I still consider moving that second part to the Worship section or splitting the sentence in to two separate statements to clearly state the fact. Before that please provide any valid reasoning if it should be kept as it is.--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For now I have re-written by separating the sentence here--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of their doctrines are clearly supported by the distinctive translations in their Bible, and authors including Hoekema have written at length about that. I don't see that the previous wording in any way implied that the Witnesses used the NWT to invent new doctrines; Hoekema and others claim it worked the other way, that the NWT was written to support pre-existing doctrines including those regarding the trinity, soul mortality and door-to-door evangelism. Your separating of the sentence has left a sentence that reads "Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are based on their interpretations of the Bible", which is quite redundant now. The opening sentence notes that they are a Christian denomination, so saying that their beliefs stem from the Bible is now stating the obvious and should be deleted. BlackCab (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the previous wording. There is only a very mild implication that there is something about their own translation that might better suit their beliefs. That implication is supported by reliable sources, and those are presented in the relevant section. The statement about their translation does not imply that their Bible contains extra books or entirely new teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AuthorityTam referred to Linda Edwards' A Brief Guide to Beliefs (2001) in the talk page at another article. It's a book I was previously unaware of. Referring to the NWT, she writes (pg.440): "The Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of Christianity and their rejection of orthodoxy influenced them to produce their own translation of the Bible." She adds: "Many biblical scholars regard it as a poor and inaccurate translation and see it as worded to give biblical support to the group's own doctrines." BlackCab (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Okay so now you two say that their is an implication. Is that claimed implication universal? Critic Hoekama's claim is not accepted by half of other scholars. There are a bunch of independent reputed scholars who argue/praise in favor of the New World Translation Bible. In my opinion lead is not a place to give implications/support to one side on a controversy, if any it should go to sections were it can be discussed in detail providing both views. For BlackCab: There are number of sources (including a reputed encyclopedia) which emphasize on the fact that JWs claim each and every single teaching is based on Bible. JWs frequently claim that their teachings are purely based on Bible and they are the only religion doing this. So it is required to mention in the lead regardless of the fact whether they are Christian denomination/church/etc. Also it is not neutral to leave out only the sentence regarding the Governing body at lead. The Governing Body frequently say that they makes decisions based on purely Biblical interpretations. There is not even a single doctrine that witnesses developed based on New World Translation Bible. New world translation was not even available to half of the Witnesses for a long period of time and still many Witnesses do not have the full version of NWT in their language. User:AuthorityTam's independent references supports my point. In fact JWs use quotes from a wide variety of Bible Translations to support their doctrine. My suggested wording based on NPOV is as follows.

"Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are based on their interpretations of the Bible. They prefer to use their own Bible translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" if available in their language.

Perhaps the second sentence shall be moved to Worship section. I would like to have independent comments --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, your claim that I supposedly now say there is an implication (as if to say I've changed my view) is a lie. I stated that there may be a very mild implication in regard to their own translation in regard to doctrinal bias in their translation, and never said there wasn't. However, I also said earlier that the statement in the lead "does not imply that it is their own Bible, as if written from scratch independently of the Bible itself."

Your statement that "The Governing Body frequently say that they makes decisions based on purely Biblical interpretations" is semantically meaningless because those "biblical interpretations" are the interpretations of the Governing Body.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is redundant to say they prefer the NWT if available in their language. Very few people prefer books written in languages they don't understand.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: How should we specify Jehovah's Witnesses relation with New World Translation in the lead of this article?

Please read the discussion above and I would appreciate any independent comments. Some editors say that the NWT Bible is based on JWs teaching and should be included in the lead implicitly as it is now. I have a different opinion. How to specify this controversial thing neutrally in the lead? Fazilfazil (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, some reliable sources say that parts of the New World Translation were written in a way to support pre-existing doctrines. But that is not, and was not, mentioned, or implied in the lead section of the article. There is consensus among editors that JWs prefer to use the NWT, and that fact is notable enough for inclusion in the lead section. Beyond that, Fazilfazil seems to be reading offensive content into that section. BlackCab (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The RFC request mischaracterises my position. I have not stated that the NWT is "based on JWs teaching". I have stated that various commentators have said that the NWT contains elements of doctrinal bias. Aside from that, it is a plain statement of fact that JWs base their beliefs on their interpretations of the Bible and that they prefer their own translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The total number of published exemplares (more than 100 million?) indicates the translation is ment for other readers than JW only. "Their own translation", like translated and published by JW, tends to be right. "Their own translation", in the meaning of being written for JW, with or without statements about adjusting to their doctrines, is a questionable statement. I can't see why just stating the "...with NWT, a Bible translation published by WTS", could be used, as it is neutral when it comes to interpreting the translation's content. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify as some editors misunderstand my point. I just wanted to split the sentence in to two separate statement as I suggested above to clearly state the fact without an option for doubt/slight implication to take a side on the controversy. It seems we started to talk some thing else. I have no much trouble on where it should appear in the article though I preferred the second statement to go down the article. That's it--Fazilfazil (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Initially, I thought that the statement in the lead was very innocuous, However after reading the stated objections of some editors, I find that I must agree with them that the statement attempts to put a POV spin on the article that I previously hadn't recognized. Additionally, to state that Jehovah's Witnesses usually use the NWT in their personal study and meetings is far different than saying that they always prefer it to other translations or seldom use other translations of the bible, which is an inaccurate statement. One thing that has yet to be mentioned is that the public issue of the Watchtower is heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT. Also, the Awake often uses scriptural references from bible translations other than the NWT. Another point that I found interesting was the editors assertion that the NWT translators claimed that certain scriptures were not contained in older manuscripts. if the editor would like to present occurrences where the NWT with references states that scriptures are not contained in a particular manuscript falsely, now would be an appropriate time to list those occurrences, otherwise, maybe he should retract the off base statement. Willietell (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You're claiming "POV spin". What a surprise.

Citations from JW publications have explicitly shown that JWs "prefer" the NWT. Your strawman argument about some supposed claim about whether they "always prefer" it is nonsensical because it contradicts the basic meaning of the word prefer. JW literature is certainly not "heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT". Since the NWT was first published, most (possibly all) JW literature has stated, "Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the modern-language New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References." As I've correctly stated above, use of other translations in JW literature is occasional. You're welcome to go through a JW publication and provide the proportion of NWT references compared to references to other translations.

Willietell, you've been told several times not to make false attacks on my motives. You attempt to call into question my previous statement that "The NWT is missing some verses which the translators claim are not in the oldest manuscripts." The JW publication, Reasoning from the Scriptures (page 278) states, "Why are some verses apparently missing? Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts." For examples of verses omitted from the NWT, see Mark 4:31b; 7:4b, 11b, 16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28. This is not an exhaustive list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Two reliable sources have already been provided in the article for the statement that Jehovah's Witnesses prefer to use the NWT. A 1992 OKM reference has also been provided that says the very same thing, so I don't see that anyone can dispute that. The Watch Tower Society produced a translation of its own because it believed it to be superior to others available, and for obvious reasons prefers adherents use it. The JWs' preference for the NWT is a notable feature of the religion. The only justification for leaving intact the statement that JWs base their beliefs on the Bible is if there is a widespread belief that they, like the Mormons, have their own set of sacred texts in addition to the Bible. However the sentence is accurate and simple: they base their beliefs on the Bible and they prefer their own translation, the NWT. I find it difficult to see precisely what "POV spin" anyone is now suggesting that statements contains, but I'm willing to find out. As for Willietell's claim about magazines being "heavily dependent" on other translations: Watchtower magazines contain a statement on page 2 that says that "unless otherwise indicated", scripture quotations are from the modern-language NWT." I analyzed one study article (May 15, page 3): it contains 30 scriptures, just one of which is not from the NWT. The entire June 1 public edition contains just two non-NWT scriptures. 05:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems only Jeffro77 has concern over my edit. Other than talking about the preference among JWs to use NWT, no one have provided any valid reasons to not split the implicate/suggestive/controversial sentence. I have reverted the edit with a reference to a reputed encyclopedia for "basis on Biblical interpretations". I hope this would be okay. Please provide any clear reason why it should be kept as it is. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Purely to avoid a succession of short sentences I have added the word "and" and combined the two sentences into one. I am still unsure of how the previous wording implied anything offensive, but hopefully there is no objection to this change. BlackCab (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no much objection to your change. Also added the reference for JWs willingness to use any translations.--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Either certain editors fail to properly read what I say, or they are brushing aside what I say and pretending that I have said something entirely different than what I have actually said, therefore for the sake of additional clarification I will again state what I previously stated only to have it twisted into something else misunderstood by a couple of editors. "One thing that has yet to be mentioned is that the public issue of the Watchtower is heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT. Also, the Awake often uses scriptural references from bible translations other than the NWT." I didn't state the study edition of the Watchtower as one editor suggests, nor did I state that Jehovah's Witnesses literature in general is heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT. I only stated that the public edition of the Watchtower is heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT. and that the Awake often utilizes other translations. I shouldn't have to constantly be clarifying statements after being misquoted and hopefully this type of behavior will not continue. Additionally Jeffro77, what I asked for was which scriptures that the WTS has stated are "not found in the oldest manuscripts" that you have evidence to the contrary, and not simply which scriptures are omitted because they truly aren't in the oldest manuscripts, because your use of the word "claims" indicates that you are questioning the validity of the WTS statement that the oldest manuscripts omit the scriptures in question and if this is so, then I say, provide evidence to that effect. Willietell (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, you are repeating yourself. Editors pointing out that you are wrong does not mean they are simply 'pretending' you've said something different. To be quite clear, the public issue of The Watchtower is not "heavily dependent on Bible translations other than the NWT" (and neither is Awake!—the June 2012 issue of Awake! contains just four references to other translations, among over two dozen quotes from the NWT). BlackCab specifically made reference to the June 1 (the Public edition) of The Watchtower, noting that includes just two references to translations other than the NWT. You are welcome to provide the proportion of non-NWT references compared to NWT references in other issues of the magazine. As I've correctly stated several times, references to other Bible translations in these publications is occasional. Other translations are cited much less often than the NWT in JW publications, including The Watchtower—Public Edition and Awake!.

Whether their claim about the oldest manuscripts is correct is incidental to the point made. I simply stated that although the NWT does not add verses, they do omit some found in other translations, and I stated their reason for doing so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A quote from the editor in question: " As for Willietell's claim about magazines being "heavily dependent" on other translations: Watchtower magazines contain a statement on page 2 that says that "unless otherwise indicated", scripture quotations are from the modern-language NWT." I analyzed one study article (May 15, page 3): it contains 30 scriptures, just one of which is not from the NWT. The entire June 1 public edition contains just two non-NWT scriptures. 05:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)" The May 15th issue is not a Public issue and I am unsure of which year the editor chose to examine the June 1st issue. In proof of what I earlier stated, the November 1st 2008 issue of the watchtower has 22 scriptural quotations from bible versions other that the NWT in just the first 10 pages of the magazine alone. And just for clarity, I agree that the Watchtower, Awake and all other literature, predominately feature the NWT and am not trying to state otherwise. I am only trying to make it plain that since the inception of the Public/Study editions, that the Public edition has leaned towards a much greater use of other translations, mostly due to its target audience. This does not mean that the WTS is by any means relying on any other particular translation, but is simply attempting, it seems, to make the message in the articles more palatable to its target audience by providing scriptural quotes from bible versions to which they may be more familiar. Thus my statement that the Public edition relies heavily upon translations other than the NWT. Secondly, I didn't state that the Awake was "heavily dependent" on other translations, only that it " often uses scriptural references from bible translations other than the NWT." which is not the same thing as being "heavily dependent". As for the third point, I am not in disagreement that the NWT does omit certain scriptures which were, centuries later, added to newer manuscripts , but the reasons for such omissions are clearly stated in the reference edition of the translation, and your statement that " (The NWT is missing some verses which the translators claim are not in the oldest manuscripts.)" indicates a denial to the validity of such a claim. I have only asked that if you have such a doubt about the validity of such a claim. that you present the evidence to the contrary here for examination, as I have absolutely no doubt that such a statement by the NWT Translation committee is 100% accurate. Willietell (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

One additional point, just because a scripture is cited, does not mean it is quoted, a cited scripture can be looked up in any translation of the bible that the reader possesses and does not indicate a preference to any particular translation. Most of the scriptures in the June 1st 2012 Watchtower are cited, and not quoted from a particular version of the bible. If this is indeed the magazine to which the editor in question refers. Willietell (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. Anyone with the slightest iota of regard for context would realise that the June 1 issue of The Watchtower considered was from 2012. Occasionally, an article or issue will deal specifically with a doctrine from another religion, and such articles sometimes use a translation other than the NWT. This is the case with the article you've cherry-picked, as it happens, in an issue focussing on hellfire. Such usage is occasional—the fact that you had to go back to 2008 demonstrates that, and it is extremely dishonest to try to imply that such usage is typical.

My usage of claim was not intended for any other reason than to provide their stated reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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