Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

→

"Unrepentantly practice" revisited

I'm moving Tam's new comment into a new section, since the previous discussion is nearly two weeks old. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once more... the sentence currently in the article (ie, Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".) is NOT accurate. The current sentence is inaccurate because it strongly (and wrongly) implies that JWs insist that anyone who is currently disfellowshipped or disassociated is unrepentant. JWs do not teach that; for an editor to conclude that the belief is both hidden in JWs publications (and is notable) requires the sort of synthesis that is disallowed to Wikipedia editors. I have previously edited the inaccurate statement to correct its tense (eg, Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice[d] lawlessness".), and I believe others have insufficiently demonstrated why the wording I suggest is inferior. I have reinstated the wording which does not insist JWs to believe that every disfellowshipped or disassociated former Witness continues to be unrepentant as long as he is not reinstated; see my edit here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the sentence over and over, and honestly, I think it would be fine to delete it. The general idea of it is already clear from the surrounding text: these people are shunned, these people are considered to have departed from the fold, these people can be reinstated by "repenting". Mentioning this specific terminology seems almost UNDUE in this article; it would be fine in Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline but it is really an unusual level of detail for this summary article. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's wording is itself a synthesis. Unless he can provide a source for his claim that those who disassociate practised lawlessness (adding a "d" to the end of the word to alter the tense in the source currently cited) then he should desist with his one-man crusade.

The current wording in this article evolves from a statement that existed earlier in the year, namely: Members who formally disassociate themselves are described in Watch Tower literature as "lawless" and are also shunned. This is a valuable explanation of why the religion maintains one of its most distinctive disciplinary behaviors of shunning a member who chooses to formally exit. The reason: official doctrines decrees that that person is "lawless" or "wicked" (to use the phrases in the article), and thus must be treated as a pariah. It is entirely understandable that JWs may use those judgmental terms about a person who committed adultery, for example. It is very remarkable, though, that a person who simply decides "I'd rather not be in this religion any more; I therefore quit" is dubbed "lawless" and "wicked" just for that act.

It would therefore be better to return to the original statement (italicised above) and delete reference to the less notable fact that disfellowshipped persons are also deemed "lawless" or "wicked". BlackCab (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though it might be the case that individuals who 'seek to be reinstated' may not be considered to still 'practice lawlessness' (though they are are still shunned), changing the statement to past tense falsely implies that the 'practice of lawlessness' only applies to the act of leaving and not subsequent action. That interpretation as past tense ignores the basic meaning of the word 'practice', which indicates a continuation of a behaviour, and also ignores the fact that individuals who have been shunned even for many years but who do not intend to return are considered to still 'practice' lawlessness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It saddened me to see editors trying for weeks to force a square peg into a round hole, insisting on unsupportable language. As I noted when I began the thread above at Talk:JWs#Unrepentantly practice (or try here), the ostensibly-quoted reference explicitly mentions currently disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons TWO PARAGRAPHS before the phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". Furthermore, I'd shown their belief that "repentance" must precede JW "reinstatement", ergo some disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons must be repentant (that is, not unrepentant). It was correct of User:BlackCab to eventually delete the "unrepentantly practice" language.
But I'd also previously noted that Christianity in general holds that all humankind is sinful, that the Bible (not merely JWs) uses the term "lawlessness" as a DIRECT SYNONYM for "sin" (ie, "lawlessness"="sin"), and thus the term "lawlessness" is simply not notable here. Furthermore, I could find no JW publication which unambiguously identifies disassociated persons generally as "lawless and wicked" (including The Watchtower of February 2011). Per comments by User:B Fizz, the undue material has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam continues to flail around in a bid to deny the obvious. The directive to shun those who break free from the religion is contained in paragraphs 15 and 18, pg 31-32, of the February 15, 2011 WT article. Those paragraphs (and the catechestical review questions attached to those paragraphs) refer to disassociated individuals as "lawless", "wrongdoers" and "practicers of lawlessness". They are contained in a small section of the article with the subheading "Adopt Jesus' view of those who love lawlessness". In paragraph 2 of that article it equates the word "lawlessness" with "wickedness". It is simply dishonest to try to pretend there is no connection, when it is the plain thrust of the article.

He again raises the straw man argument that since all humans are sinners, the use of the term "lawless" is not notable. If that was so, the Watchtower would not have written the article. It isolates occult practices, alcohol abuse, immorality and disassociation as acts of lawlessess and directs its readers on their necessary response. It is notable that a religion brands those who formally resign as "wicked" and directs members to shun them. That is why the statement should remain. BlackCab (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of whiningly interpreting, the editor should share the supposed quote wherein JWs explicitly identify disassociated persons as "lawless and wicked". Let's avoid WP:SYNTH. I have again removed the claimed "quote" until it can be verified.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop being so disingenuous. Paragraph 18 reads: "By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome. However, you are also showing that you love the wrongdoer enough to do what is best for him or her." The review question for that paragraph reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The paragraphs are contained under a subheading about "Those who love lawlessness in an article entitled "Do you hate lawlessness?" The dots are pretty easy to join. BlackCab (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Plainly, then, JWs do not explicitly identify disassociated persons as "lawless and wicked". Unsurprisingly, the editor provides a quote that could only yield his insisted conclusion after significant and tortured interpretation. Per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"; a dubious interpretation of a single article is certainly not among "exceptional sources". The editor's preferred sentence ("Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as lawless and wicked and are also shunned.") has been reverted to "Members who disassociate (formally resign) are also shunned."; see here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You requested a quote, I provided one. That section of the article unquestionably uses the phrases "lawless", "practicers of lawlessness" and "wrongdoers" in that section about only two sets of individuals, and the point is reinforced in the review questions for that section. If those phrases are not used about those people, what was the point of that section? About whom was it written? Your persistent denial of that plain fact is verging on disruptive editing. BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, BlackCab's claimed "quote" (supposedly identifying disassociated former JWs explicitly as "lawless and wicked") cannot be found in the one publication from which he quotes. In any event, it seems rather obvious that a truly notable factoid will be referenceable from multiple sources (see WP:REDFLAG); obviously, User:BlackCab's claimed factoid is not thusly sourced. Whatever the editor may sincerely believe to be "truth", Wikipedia is actually more concerned with verifiability than with "truth". The inadequately-sourced assertion has been removed, again.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have provided above, on request, the clear statement from the Watchtower that supports the claim in this article. There is no doubt that disassociated individuals are described as lawless in that article. I have asked AuthorityTam above and here to provide an alternative explanation of who the article was referring to if not disassociated and disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witnesses. His reply ignores the question, which I can only conclude is a confirmation that there is no alternative understanding of it. Only one editor, AuthorityTam, continues to remove this sourced fact and I have sought, civilly, to engage him in a discussion about why he disputes it. In essense, he simply argues that black is white. I don;t want to let this drag on. If, in the absence of a consensus by other editors that the statement is wrong, I will report him for edit warring. BlackCab (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dissasociated members are described in a lot of different ways, I don't see any particular reason to include this particular description in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Christian

It is gravely misleading (undue WP:SYNTH) to call them "Christian". The facts are as follows:

Fact 1: JV:s never call themselves "Christian",
Fact 2: Those who call themselves "Christians" never call JV:s "Christian",
Fact 3: JV:s and those who call themselves "Christians" mutually reject each-other as being invalid/objectionable beliefs.

Jesus is irrelevant, Jesus also occurs in Islam and in Bahai (add accents here and there). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what 'JV:s' are. Perhaps you're talking about a different group entirely.

1. JWs consistently refer to themselves as Christian.

2. The theological opinions of other groups are not especially relevant, however the Catholic Encyclopedia states that non-Trinitarians are still Christians.

3. See 2.

The issue you raise has been discussed at length before. The presentation of JWs as Christian is correct. You need to re-check your 'facts'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, JW:s of course. I think you're wrong. Now the discussion is up again, so I'm going to slowly try to find sources for my statements, while I propose you may keep your eyes open for counterarguments. Personally I think theological opinions are crucial (pun unintended) for the "function" of a religion, and am going to try finding sources for that. A majority opinion within trinitarian Christianity (which by its extent is a majority opinion) is that the Nicene creed is defining for what is christianity, and Catholic Encyclopedia is not ignorable as reflecting the majority opinion. We're not inventing our own "truth" here about this opinion stuff, we should reflect what others think in a balanced way. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is entirely incorrect. It is already clear that you are going to raise 'No true Scotsman' arguments or argumentum ad populum in 'support' of your opinion that JWs aren't 'really' Christians. However, JWs believe in Jesus as the son of God, the Messiah, the redeemer of humankind etc, and satisfy all secular and theological definitions of the term, aside from Trinitarianism, which the largest group of Trinitarians officially state is not a determining factor in the definition of 'Christian'. But feel free to present your arguments. Good luck.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH. That's your opinion. Now go for sources! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the one claiming something against long-established consensus. The burden of proof is on you. Based on the fact that your very first 'fact' above is an outright lie, it's not looking good.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not reflecting consensus. Your private opinions are your personal opinions. The leap from Catholic Enc describing non-trinitarians are christians to JW's are christians is WP:SYNTH, invalid and a reversed implication fallacy. The burden of defence against my eminent future proofs will rest on you ;^#) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Table moved to User:Rursus/Are JWs christians, really

Read through the many archived Talk pages on the topic. Then present any additional sources you believe support your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that. After I've collected my arguments. Then let's discuss the order of priority between policies and consensuses, and whether we're actually interpreting the consensuses the same way. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what I said last time, "Heretical" Christians are still classifiable as "Christians" for secular purposes, such as Wikipedia. They use the Christian bible, they believe Jesus is the Christ. They have very different doctrines on certain aspects of Christianity than most, and are certainly outside the "mainstream", but they still fall under the larger umbrella of "Christians". You'll find some sources listed at this older discussion in support of calling JWs Christian, along with lengthy discussion. ...comments? ~BF izz 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that by calling them "Christian", Wikipedia is not asserting that they will be "saved", nor that they are in any way "true Christians" according to any religious definition. When Wikipedia uses the term Christian it should be clearly understood as an outsider's classification, rather than an insider's approval. ...comments? ~BF izz 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is an absurd notion that JWs are not Christian. The entire thread serves only as a platform for the pointy insinuation of someone who seems to prefer ignorance over research. It is the same rhetoric as the notion that JW's sell their publications. The truth is too easy to find to expend energy debating such frivol! My76Strat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to BFizz's comments, Wikipedia does not assert that any group of Christians is (or 'will be') 'saved' or 'true' or 'good' or any other subjective theological opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, guys! I appreciate very much your enthusiasm for your position, and I'm going to collect those in my argument collection, I'm considering placing it in f.ex. User:Rursus/Are JWs christians, really, not here. It will take some time for a pattern to emerge, my sources and your sources, but it won't be used directly in the article. My stand point is that if people regard JW and the trinitarians as separate, then they're separate. Yes, I'm a protestant myself, but for now I'm just acting on personal experience on how my priests react towards JW. I don't currently care whether they're right or wrong, or if I'm right or wrong (both are common), only how JWs and the trinitarians label each other. I'm pretty sure that your consensus is wrong, but if I'm proven otherwise, then I am wrong. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Thank you User:B Fizz, for the pointer back to that discussion! Now I'm going to catch and chew. Anyone else knowing some interesting links? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And just couldn't refrain from: WP:MASTODONS! ;-) Have a nice day!! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a nice day too! My76Strat (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So far, the only statement at Rursus' sub page for the 'against' argument (the position taken by Rursus) is that "The doctrine that most clearly sets the WTS apart from Christianity is its denial of the divinity of Christ". However, as previously stated, the Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly states that non-Trinitarians are Christians, so that POV argument is invalid for the purposes of encyclopedic definition. More broadly, arguments that are not based on any identifiable or verifiable definition of Christianity are also invalid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The very name of Rursus' subpage is a No true scotsman fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To further demonstrate that Rursus' contention is pointless, here are just a couple of sources that claim that Catholics[1] and Protestants[2] also are not 'really' Christians either (just the tip of the iceberg). The tediously biased 'reasoning' in those sources is exactly the same as Rursus' own fallacious 'reasoning' about his opinion that JWs (which he variously refers to as "JV:s" or "JW:s") aren't 'really' Christians. What all those arguments have in common is that instead of accepting a testable definition of Christianity, their proponents prefer to pile on a host of various theological opinions that are entirely unverifiable, based on superfluous subjective interpretations. Hopefully this inane 'dispute' can be laid to rest once more.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I also note that Rursus still has not retracted his shameless lie where he claimed that "JV:s never call themselves "Christian"".--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of facts: User:Rursus looks like another time waster and perhaps no hope for additional content in WikiProject by this user. Moreover, both User:Rursus and User:Jeffro77 are unbelievers and arguing about something, what has NO value for both of them. Hahahahah. --90.182.221.2 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Logical argumentation does not require any particular theological belief. You seem to be claiming that impartiality is a bad thing, which is quite strange. However, Rursus has said above that he's a Protestant, and therefore not an 'unbeliever'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, as you could see at top of this talk page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 59. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 59 at the Reference desk.

~~Your complaint about 'not a forum' is not relevant in this instance, as Rursus proposes an (invalid) change to the article.~~ Actually, his intention is quite ambiguous. His claim that using the term Christian is "gravely misleading" does certainly very strongly suggest he intends a change to the article. However, he's also somewhat ambiguously claimed that "it won't be used directly in the article". If he does not intend a change to the article, this section and the related subpage in his User space should be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! Still take a look at WP:MASTODON! Have any of you read it yet? Are you all happenstance knowledgeable academics? This is not an academic forum where insults fly around like mites in a swamp. This is Wikipedia!

Now, an update: I retract that JWs don't call themselves "christians", in fact they call themselves "true christians" a few times, and all the others "counterfeit christians". I was wrong about that.

The criteria for calling JWs christian are what? That's what I'm after. If they're not generally labeled "christians" or rejected as being "christians", the formulations of the article should be different than they are now. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."[3] Christians believe themselves to be followers of Christ, who they believe to have been a Jewish man named Jesus who existed 2000 years ago, who they claim was the son of god and the biblical Messiah (Christ and Messiah literally mean the same thing). That is about as far as a verifiable definition of 'Christian' can be taken. It is probable but not certain that Jesus existed at all, and there is no evidence that Jesus, assuming he existed, did much of anything attributed to him in the gospels; the existence of a god is also unproven. The addition of superfluous criteria for the definition of Christian is entirely theological opinion.

If you believe that a group should be called Christian only if all the other groups of Christians agree, then by such criteria, Catholic and Protestants aren't 'real' Christians either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

JW's are definitely NOT Christian! Zenkai251 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a very compelling argument. Present proof from reliable neutral sources or go away.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We have had this discussion repeatedly, and noone have been able to show with reliable sources that JW should not be classified as Christians. They are very generally being referred to as christians by scholars of religion, because they are historically christian and because they share the most important tenets of other christian groups, namely the belief that Jesus is Christ. Wikipedia is not here to suggest that one groups of christians are more christians than others, but of course take the neutral objective scholarly standpoint which classifies religions in accordance with their history and with shared beliefs and practices.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For the love of.....this is getting so old. Jeffro, you understand we're fighting a losing battle on this one. JW's are Christians, as we and a lot of other people know, you know, the ones with brains. But there will always be someone who comes on here, says "oh, they are a cult" change it, and then it'll be back to this again. sigh Vyselink (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course. I don't actually expect them to come back with some convincing argument. I know that no 'proof' for their points exists. Of the options I suggested, the only legitimate course for them is to just go away. It was just a slightly more polite way of saying so. And I know they or others will persist in the matter, but the fact remains that their unsubstantiated opinions will not result in a change to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Look up the definition of "cult", then find out what JW's actually teach. You will see that JW fits the definition perfectly. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources include them as a Christian religion, not a cult. That is what matters on Wikipedia and how the group should be shown in the article. 72Dino (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Zenkai251: Cult (dictionary.com):noun

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Those fit EVERY RELIGIOUS GROUP EVER ASSEMBLED, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Evangelicals, the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, Arianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses....here, just go here. See all those religious categories? Yeah, all them. So unless you want to rename EVERY religion on wikipedia as a "cult", go away. Also, read this, especially the second paragraph of the opening section (it says "The popular, derogatory sense of the word has no currency in academic studies of religions) as well as this (says in part "Other scholars and non-academic researchers who use the word do so from explicitly critical perspectives which focus on the relationship between cult groups and the individual people who join them. These perspectives share the assumption that some form of coercive persuasion or mind control is used to recruit and maintain members by suppressing their ability to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best interest. However, most social scientists believe that mind control theories have no scientific merit in relation to religious movements.") Vyselink (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The terms cult (a stigmatised and poorly defined term) and Christian are not mutually exclusive, so Zenkai251's argument is irrelevant. Even if JWs are a cult (which has not been established from reliable sources), they are still Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the definition provided by Vyselink above is a general definition, and not the more specific pejorative use of the term that Zenkai251 implies. Contrast cult, destructive cult, cult (religious practice).--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct Jeffro that it is the general definition to which I am referring to, and not the pejorative term, and it is good to note that. However, I specifically ignore the pejorative term because academically I don't agree with it's usuage, especially in an encyclopedic entry. Vyselink (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And my argument was more geared towards showing Zenkai251 to put a little more thought into what he says, as all he said was "Look up the definition of "cult", then find out what JW's actually teach. You will see that JW fits the definition perfectly." So that's what I did. Think it sunk in? Vyselink (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My comments were really just another nail in the coffin of Zenkai251's poorly constructed argument, not a rebuttal to you. Though I doubt that it sunk in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make an argument. I was just stating the fact that JW is cult-like. I've done some more research, and I guess JW's could be somewhat Christian. I originally called them un-christian because of their cult-like behavior. Zenkai251 (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, I did not read all of the comments and remarks on this section here, though some, but just basically the UNBELIEVABLE FACTUAL ERRORS put forth on the top by Rursus. These are my corrections and factual rebuttals.

Fact 1: JV:s ALWAYS call themselves "Christian", (in fact they call themselves "the only true Biblical Christians on earth". Just check their literature and listen to their sermons.)
Fact 2: Those who call themselves "Christians" sometimes have and do call JV:s "Christian", (not all of course, but some churches and writers (who profess to be "Christian") have referred to JWs as that, from time to time, depending.)
Fact 3: JV:s may reject others as being "valid Christians", and others do too, vice versa, but it does not matter much on a neutral Encyclopedia context.
Fact 4: JV:s are sometimes referred to as "cultic" by SOME who claim to be "orthodox" Christians, but not by all professed "Christians" necessarily. (And that doesn't matter as it's a known fact that the first-century Christians were referred to back then, by religious "orthodoxy", as "heretical, cultic, and crazy" too. The so-called "orthodox" turned out to be wrong, worldly, and pagan, and the fringe "heretics" turned out to be right. History never changes.) Regardless, JWs refer to themselves as, not just "Christians" (all the time, not just sometimes), but as the ONLY real New Covenant and Biblical Christians. That can easily be seen. To say that JWs "never" refer to themselves as "Christians" betrays an incredible ignorance and sloppiness (if not outright deception). Or just reckless assumption, because of agendas. JWs profess to believe in "Christianity". That's not even debatable, but completely verifiable. JWs call themselves "Christians" all the time.

This section is basically nonsense, built on 3 confirmed and absolute LIES....(or humongous mis-notions at the very least.) I don't know where he got that notion that JWs "never" call themselves "Christians". Because just the opposite is the case. JWs call themselves, not just "Christians", but the only true separated narrow-road no-part-of-the-word "Christians." They call themselves "Christians" all the time. So WP is correct in calling them that. In whatever sense. Just like Roman Catholics are professed "Christians" (though Luther called them pagans and called the pope "anti-christ"), so do JWs profess to be "Christians", and so do many neutral reliable sources, and so should a neutral encyclopedia. cheers. 68.237.235.130 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just wanted to add, as far as Jehovah's Witnesses, and the term "Christian", and their using it. I happen to know also that JWs refer to themselves (quite frequently) as "the Christian Congregation". That's even one of their official names. Something worth noting. Regards. 68.237.235.130 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reputation

Someone has added the statement, They have a reputation of being one of the best-behaved groups in the world. This statement seems weaselish and requires verfiication. Note that a source saying they are well-behaved is not the same as a broad reputation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The source says that they have "a current reputation of one of the best-behaved groups in the world". There are enormity of news reports about their good behavior and I am pretty sure that there are other secular sources commenting on it too. However if you feel it as "weaselish" I have no objection in modifying to something that would be less "weaselish". In general their "well behavior" and morality is a notable fact for an inclusion.--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is something that could be noted, however, "best-behaved" is rather vague. The original quote refers to JW's manners while performing missionary work; the placement of this sentence in the "ethics and morality" section completely changes the meaning, alluding to faithfulness in sexual relations. ...comments? ~BF izz 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the quote has been provided, it is evident that that source is describing their methods of preaching. The context of the quote does not support the more general context of the statement in the article. I will therefore remove the statement. If there is a suitable third-party source that describes their behaviour as especially good, the statement can then be reinstated. --Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society's own literature states that "each year thousands are disfellowshipped from the congregation because of sexual immorality," (The Watchtower, 15 December 1989), and "All Christians are familiar with Jehovah’s standards of morality and would never agree that such unclean practices as adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are acceptable. Yet, each year about 40,000 individuals are disfellowshipped from Jehovah’s organization. Why? In many cases because of these selfsame unclean practices" (The Watchtower, 1 April 1994). And that doesn't count the ones who are not expelled because they are deemed 'repentant'. Therefore, in the context of the section in question, they are evidently not especially well behaved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

okay. No objection. Hats off Jeffro! for your ability to prove virtually anything. Please show the same zeal when it comes to undue negative claims in this article. I am happy that this article is not that much biased as many dissatisfied editors here wanted to be. --Fazilfazil (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, you're still welcome to present legitimate third-party sources indicating some notable propensity for good behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

~40,000 out of ~7,500,000 is approximately 0.53% (cases of infidelity per year). Contrasted with, for example, these infidelity statistics, the JWs are actually doing insanely well. This conclusion, however, is my own synthesis; to include such a statement we should find a secondary source that draws the same conclusion. ...comments? ~BF izz 03:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not every instance of 'infidelity' results in expulsion, so the statistics you've provided are not directly comparable. The point is, a statement about any widespread 'reputation' of good behaviour requires a reliable source that is contextually valid. A more accurate 'reputation' of JWs from 'the average Joe' would probably be that 'JWs are those people who knock on doors and don't celebrate Christmas' rather than association with especially good behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"They have a reputation of being one of the best-behaved groups in the world. This statement seems weaselish" - I think it is badly worded. JWs are hated by certain governments for their stance on health, the military, and the state... but while many non-members are annoyed by their strong proselytisation, they are not a public nuisance in other senses. They avoid wild parties, and substance abuse etc, and their conventions are very orderly.-MacRusgail (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

'Not a public nuisance' is still a far cry from 'the best-behaved'. Such a claim would require a pretty good source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but it is all about wording...-MacRusgail (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Who decides what constitutes "good behavior"? The statement should probably be deleted.Hellbound Hound (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

War of words breaks out among Jehovah's Witnesses

Police are currently investigating...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/war-of-words-breaks-out-among-jehovahs-witnesses-2361448.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.25.77 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a change to the article? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The link you cite can be (and has been) used as a source where relevant, but it does not need to be presented here without any context attached.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

I added George D. Chryssides, Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (2008) a highly useful impartial reference work from a publisher that specializes in impartial reference dictionaries.Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bible translations

I have reverted this edit, which is similar to past edits by the same user. JWs do not typically "use and study many different Bible versions". JW publications occasionally cite translations other than the New World Translation. When other translations are cited, it is often using another denomination's preferred translation to refute a practice of that denomination (as is frequently done in Reasoning from the Scriptures, a reference book largely for that purpose), but occasionally for more mundane reasons of variety. The New World Translation is used by JWs in their publications, their religious services, and in personal study in by far the majority of cases.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that translations other than NWT are used for refuting doctrine and for "variety". "Sometimes" might be a better term than "occassionally" because it isn't that infrequent in certain contexts like Reasoning on the Scriptures. Natural (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Sociological analysis

I was concerned about this subheading on the main page of this religion. Including only two researcher statements concerning a religion does not seem approbate. There are a number of analyst and researchers that have studied and reported on Jehovah's Witnesses, to quote only these two analyst is bias. Some of the statements made by one researcher I would say are questionable for example under 4."demands sustained and total commitment from its members, and the subordination, and perhaps even the exclusion of all other interests." the "exclusion of all other interests" is an overstatement. By an large for the vast majority of JW's this is not true. I have read some of the archives concerning this sub-heading and others have also questions some of the statements by these analyst.

Because this information is disputable and only two researcher, who main purpose are generally negative concerning Witnesses, are the only ones quoted I believe this should be removed to it own page in which other researchers statements both positive and negative can be included. Saujad (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if someone could supply additional analyses from other third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree withe Jeffro, more analyses from impartial third-party sources would be clarifying.Natural (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

The Trumpet of Prophecy develops the subheadings mentioned in the Wikipedia article. However, the final subheading is not included, extremism. Beckford argues that "the everday behavior of British Jehovah's Witnesses betrays no signs of violent alienation from major social institutions or processes, and that their outlook could be more accurately described in other ways."

On the point of eschatological views and the imminence of Armageddon, in the same subheading he states, "Firstly, it must be made clear that the Witnesses in this country do not typically concern themselves with the details of Armageddon's occurrence nor do they have articulate ideas about their anticipate millennial existence."

Further, Beckford states in the same subheading, "In Britain, therefore, Jehovah's witnesses have become so mild and conventional in their criticism of the prevailing political and legal arrangement that 'world indifference' more aptly describes their outlook than 'extremist' or 'revolutionist'.

In view of the large sections of Wikipedia devoted to the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses, including the above comments from sociologist Beckford would be clarifying for the reader. Also, Wikipedia mentions the term "world indifference" and what Beckford meant by that, as stated above, would clarify what that means. If rejection of worldly institutions is mentioned, then clarification on that point would be of value, which Beckford does in other parts of his book.Natural (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

The reason "extremism" does not appear in the list is that Beckford does not think they are extremist. The list, in other words, is of characteristics he believes the religion does have. He includes a discussion of extremism because of the common perception that the religion is extremist, and then dismisses that. I'm not sure of the value for this article of identifying a characteristic (particularly something as unsavory as extremism) that an expert decides doesn't apply. BlackCab (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses and sources

This is a question that seemed to have been discussed before and resolved, but that keeps coming back. In sections that are designed to purport views of critics of JW, Wikipedia's role is not to present its own argument, but to report on the third parties who purport these arguments, in which case, references and quotes to the Watchtower literature to prove its point isn't appropriate, but it it would more in harmony within the context of Wikipedia, and more honest, to refer back to the critics themselves who make these arguments. Otherwise, Wikipedia comes across as the one who is trying to prove a point and it loses its NPOV - Neutral Point of View. We had a Wikipedia mediator come in and make that very point.

This is an examples. This is more along the lines of personal research. If these are quotes from a critic of JW, go back to the original source of the criticism, rather than quoting directly from JW literature. It is more than likely that these sources were obtained from references of critic's literature, than from JW literature, by the editor of Wikipedia who added this information.

^ a b "Overseers of Jehovah’s People", The Watchtower, June 15, 1957, "Let us now unmistakably identify Jehovah’s channel of communication for our day, that we may continue in his favor ... It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision."

If the original quote or research is from Beverly or Ray Franz, then you have to go back to the original quote rather than the Watchtower literature for the above.

Natural (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

The opening sentence of the "Suppression of free speech and thought" subsection could probably be better worded. The same criticisms are, of course, aired in the spinout article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, but there it is plain that the WT references do not themselves contain criticisms of the religion. The section you refer to is just a summary of that spinout article, and therefore it's not necessary to go into great detail. I do think it's helpful to somewhere identify the statements in Watch Tower literature that express the official position, when that position (eg, a demand for loyalty, an intolerance of dissent and the policy of expelling and shunning dissident members) is the subject of criticism. That leaves the reader in no doubt that the WTS did, indeed, demand those things or maintain those practices. Possibly a solution is simply to delete those WT references from the summary section and include them in the spinout article. BlackCab (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The article would need to address it, if it were to retain any self-implicating Watchtower quotes, as Wikipedia has done in the past. It refers to the article, as referred to by ....so and so author, to make it plain that the research is from whoever it is that developed that line of thought. That would be more honest and transparent. Wikipedia is not developing its own criticisms, but reporting, like a journalist, on the sequence of events or thoughts that have already been developed, showing both sides of the story. Natural (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Pilgrims

If the term Pilgrims is used, it might be good to clarify what that means.

By the 1910s, Russell's organization was maintaining nearly a hundred pilgrims.[31]

Also, Brooklyn, New York might be more accurate that New York City - where Russell moved headquarters. New York City usually refers to Manhattan.

moved headquarters to New York City in 1909

Also, could mention, from Allegheny, or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the article, it doesn't seem like a location is mentioned before NY city.Natural (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

I have added a definition for "pilgrims" and changed "New York City" to Brooklyn. The article notes in the History section that the movement began in Pittsburgh. BlackCab (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ThanksNatural (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Interesting comment about Ray Franz's view of JW

Franz seems to view the Christian community as a whole in much the same light as he now views Jehovah's Witnesses. Thus he estimates that "about the same percentage among Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians as in any other church" (703). http://www.equip.org/articles/in-search-of-christian-freedom

You seem to have misunderstood what Reed meant. Franz (pg 705 in the 2007 edition of the book) raised this point in discussing his usual response when asked if JWs were "true Christians". His answer was that "the organization itself manifests serious deviations from Christianity in its teachings and practices", but that impediments also existed in other denominational systems. He concluded: "I believe about the same percentage among Jehovah's Witnesses are true Christians as in any other church." In other words Franz viewed the JWs as just another denomination, with the same proportion of people devoted to God and Christ as in any other church. In his judgment Jehovah's Witnesses therefore had no special claim to the title of "Christian" or "true Christian". But I don't think this is sufficiently notable to include in the article, if that's what you're suggesting. BlackCab (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is notable is that most of what is posted concerning R. Franz on the subject of JW gives a different impression, that he is very much opposed and tends toward the idea that JW are a or the false prophet, that type of thinking, not exactly that thing. That was the viewpoint I had of R. Franz, until reading this quote. It is notable, and provides a different viewpoint than what is currently expressed through the selected quotes. It provides some balance to the R. Franz rhetoric. and it also qualifies JW from another source as Christians, at least it qualifies them, from Franz's viewpoint, who appears to be opposed to JW, as on an equal plateau with other Christian religions. Because Franz is heavily quoted and relied upon for argumentation in this article, his balancing comments are of importance also. Natural (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

You're still missing the point, and you are clearly quite confused about Franz's overall view. Franz, to my knowledge, never made the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses were not a Christian denomination. He certainly did accuse them of being false prophets, and nothing in that quote (which comes towards the end of a long book that is strongly critical of the religion) contradicts that view. In this case Franz was not saying that the JWs were no worse than other Christian denominations; he was saying they were no better. I find it difficult to understand how you would write that statement into the article and what possible use it would be. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying JWs are Christians doesn't mean that JWs are good or bad or right or wrong, nor does it suggest any of those things about Christians in general. It just means what it says. Subjective moral judgments about 'good Christians' are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Franz was in essence a Christian "anarchist." He was strictly anti-organization of any kind for any denomination, but still believed that anybody could be a Christian if they personally chose to be (including Witnesses).

"But I believe that [organizational] impediments exist as well in the other denominational systems, though they may take different forms. And I do not believe that the impediments of themselves can prevent anyone from having a heart devoted to God and to Christ if one does not allow them to do so." (ISCF 705)----Teary Oberon

Given the fact that R. Franz's arguments form a major part of the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that Franz's opposition was not only to Jehovah's Witnesses but to organized religion, and also that Franz made what I feel is a neutral or slightly positive statement about JW, that there were, in his opinion, true Christians among JW, in other words, you could be a JW and be a true Christian, anymore than you could be one in any Christian religion. Whereas, the false prophet hypothesis takes you into a whole other field of thought, and which Wikipedia makes it a point to capitalize on, then I think it is appropriate, in Wikipedia's reliance on Franz's testimony to develop a damning argument against JW, even though JW defend themselves afterward in the Wikipedia article, that it be fair to include Franz's statement about being possible to be JW and a good or true Christian, whatever wording he used. It provides a more balanced and complete view of his testimony, if it is going to be used in this front page of a Wikipedia article, which already has a full page on the subject of Criticisms of JW. R. Franz himself was more neutral towards JW than the Wiki page here makes him out to be, and it is important to give the full picture, not just pieces of it.Natural (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Frankly, I think you're clutching at straws. If you can find anything notable in that single statement, then propose a sentence and suggest where it would be inserted. As I've said (and I've read the book; you haven't) all Franz is stating is that individual members of the JW religion are no more "true" Christian than members of any other denomination. I don't see this as a moderating or complimentary statement at all, and from an editor who complains incessantly about the amount of critical statements in this article, it seems curious that you are seeking to add more criticism — criticism that in this case is of little encyclopedic value. BlackCab (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from being impolite, making personal attacks or bullying in commenting on the talk page. Thanks.Natural (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

You are very thin-skinned. You are proposing the addition of material and I am simply pointing out the weakness of your argument. Nothing I have said is uncivil and I have no idea how you interpret my comments as bullying. BlackCab (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposed material is irrelevant. Including it would be giving undue weight to a tendentious interpretation of statement of less than trivial significance.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on criticism of Ray Franz

It should be noted in the wording of the main text of the article that it was Ray Franz who mentioned both "social isolation" and "mind control", rather than other critics.Natural (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Franz is just one of several authors whose criticisms are contained at that point. There is no need to isolate him as a critic and name him. BlackCab (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Who are the other authors that use the term "social isolation" or something similar? and what did they say specifically about that please? From what I read "social isolation" in connection with "mind control" is a unique accusation of R. Franz. Mind control is closely linked with brain washing and dangerous cults. Whereas Franz seems to link JW with Christian religions in general which he also rejects.

Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control by Dominic Streatfeild

Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control by Kathleen E. Taylor

Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults by Steven Hassan

Hassan, for one, was once part of the Unification Church, what most would consider a true cult. JW are not included in any literature along these lines by any knowledgeable authors on this subject. No other serious writer that I know of has made a similar comment like that but R. Franz.

If there are other references for "social isolation" please provide them. Thanks.

Natural (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

The sentence, written as concisely as possible to keep the section brief, lists a number of criticisms made by a number of authors. There is no need to spell out in the body of the article which authors made which criticisms. Those details are contained in the footnotes. BlackCab (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is edited more succinctly and now accurately attributes R. Franz's accusation to the source of the information rather than to general critics. Franz's accusations are unique to him and his followers.Natural (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Franz's criticisms are NOT unique to him. And who are his "followers"? The sentence accurately states that critics have accused the Watch Tower Society of exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses, (criticism sourced to Beverley), controlling information (sourced to Muramoto, Holden and Rogerson) and creating "mental isolation", (sourced to Franz) which former Governing Body member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control." (Sourced to a book in which Franz discusses intellectual dominance, information control and mental isolation). Please stop trying to distort plainly stated criticisms. And take care that you are not mangling a sentence, as you did. All in all, it was a careless and inaccurate edit. BlackCab (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If feel that when an edit displeases BlackCab's ideology, he resorts to ridicule and bullying tactics.

I will come back please to the previous edit. What Franz claims, in his statements concerning social isolation and mind control, comes very close to the thought of brainwashing. Brainwashing and mind control are closely linked, as noted on this talkpage, in many authoritative books on the subject, none of which mention JW. I would like inserted, after Franz's statements about mind control, this sentence from Andrew Holden's book on JW. It will provide an authoritative counter-point besides quotes or referring to JW literature, which really isn't according to Wikipedia standards. This is the sentence...

Sociologist Andrew Holden rejects any form of "brainwashing" in connection with Jehovah's Witnesses stating that "the majority of those who join millenarian movements," such as Jehovah's Witnesses, "are making an informed choice." He devotes at least one entire page to that subject. This is a very concise synopsis.

http://books.google.com/books?id=40Sqq6n_HYgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=andrew+holden&safe=strict&hl=en&ei=Woi0ToPePIqIgwf8qZm_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=brainwashing&f=false

Natural (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

I have added a line to note Holden's statement. He limits his comment to a criticism of the accuracy of sensationalist tabloid newspaper reporting, and the perception this creates of brainwashed extremists, so that is what is now contained in this article. His comments should not be assumed to be a disagreement with Franz's view: although he quotes Franz throughout his book, and is therefore aware of his views, he makes no comment, positive or negative, on Franz's view about "mind control". There is also no need to state in the article how much space in his book (which amounts to only a few paragraphs) he devotes to this view. BlackCab (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your fairness and reasonableness in adding the line from Holden's book, I added to the sentence, millenarian view, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, because his book is specific to Jehovah's Witnesses, even though his comments apply to all millenarian religions. Most readers, including myself, would not know, and did not know, that JW is considered to be a millenarian religion or movement. When reading the term at first, I though it applied to some sects of the 1800s. But in Holden's case, he is applying it to JW. So, that will help the reader understand the context from which Holden was writing about. The casual reader might not realize that Holden's book is about JW. Natural (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Natural

Strictly speaking, the addition of "such as Jehovah's Witnesses" in that sentence is redundant because a) the article is about JWs, b) the lead says JWs are millenarian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Additions to History section

The extensive additions to the History section by User:Kazvorpal are unnecessary in an article that is already about the maximum recommended length for Wikipedia pages. The History section is a summary of the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article and many of the points added today, including the expectations/predictions for 1914 and 1925, expand on on issues that are already mentioned briefly in the main article. They are also dealt with in an expanded form at the History spinout article. Please note the website cftf.com is unacceptable as a reliable source. BlackCab (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Position of Sociological Analysis Section

I think that the Sociological Section is placed too early in the article. It describes an analysis without first giving the reader an understanding of their beliefs and practices. I suggest the editors to consider a cut-paste of the section to just above the Persecution Section. Any comments? --Fazilfazil (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be placed further down in the article. However, your suggestion that it go "just above the Persecution Section" (which is actually a subsection of Opposition) seems to be an indirect way of requesting that the analysis also constitutes 'opposition'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The sociological section is not needed at all actually. We should be integrating it into the other sections of the article. Right now, we have an unfortunate tendency to rely too much on Western-entric theological and historical critiques; with a smattering primary sources and good scholarship mixed in. If we are going to fix the problem with this article, we need to include more social scientific approach of which there is ample literature and explain how they affected influenced the JWs. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some logic to its placement immediately below the Organization section, though I agree its sociological classification is probably of less importance to casual readers than its beliefs and practices, so that section could afford to drop lower, to before or after the Demographics section. I disagree with ResidentAnthropologist, however: the facts it raises are best contained in a section of their own to help isolate and identify the characteristics of the religion that make it so different to mainstream denominations. I'm not sure what "problem" he refers to: the article underwent exhaustive line-by-line review this year to achieve GA status. It is the best it has ever been; fair, balanced, informative and accurate. BlackCab (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jeffro! It was my mistake. What I actually meant was to place it above the opposition section. Below the opposition section is also fine--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Marriage

It is not a requirement for marriages to be between fellow believers, it is only "strongly encouraged" under the "unequal yoke" admonishment. It is not in itself necesarrily a cause of disciplinary action. For example the rule restricting divorce overrules preference for non-mixed marriages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Already being married to a non-believer is not "in itself necessarily a cause of disciplinary action". However, marrying a non-member does result in disciplinary action. Generally such an individual is 'marked', meaning normal social (but not spiritual) interaction is curtailed. A JW who officiates or attends such a wedding may also lose congregation 'privileges'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Additions to Criticism

Re: those who choose to leave the religion "are seldom allowed a dignified exit."

1) Holden was talking specifically about those who officially leave the religion and not just anyone walking away.( Thus either disfellowshipped or disassociated) The way it read was misleading. More of the context seems to help. 2) Two scholarly articles were added to support that not all agree with there terminology "totalitarian". If these points were already in the article please dirict attention to them here, because it seemed all one sided POV and not a NPOV. 3) If you do not like the format, could you please be so kind to perhaps fix it instead of deleting it? Johanneum (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro77 Not only did I not break a text from a source I add to it, thus giving more of the quote. Please use talk instead of revert someones work. Thanks Johanneum (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- If anything much of this paragraph is already a repeat of the section on "Sociological analysis." It may be well to combine some of this info. Johanneum (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

'See also' templates referring to other articles are not used at article Talk in the manner you used.

I think I've fixed your botched (not 'blotched') formatting. When you break up paragraphs mid-sentence, it makes diffs very difficult to compare, meaning your actual point was missed entirely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the whole Paragraph in quote:

Eric went on to explain how all the people with whom he used to go on holiday and out for dinner were Witnesses. He knew that, once he decided to leave, these friendships would be severed and he would be regarded as an apostate. All the former members with whom I spoke told me how they had been cut off by friends and family who refused to visit them, attend their weddings or even acknowledge them in the street.18 This is why defectors who make the smoothest transition are those who have found an alternative belief system or have the support of outsiders who are able to distract them from the milieu of the Society (Holzer 1968). But finding alternatives is far from easy given the years of constraint placed on devotees to limit their contact with the outside world and to refrain from reading apostate literature. Those who do eventually break free are seldom allowed a dignified exit.19 Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’. Johanneum (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No Problem. Thanks for correcting the paragraph split...didn't see that one. Johanneum (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I was seeing this.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that the view attributed in this article to Garbe in Between Resistance and Martyrdom is accurate. The Google books preview of Page 518 shows that he did indeed refer to the WTS leadership as "totalitarian", "requir(ing) complete obedience from the members". In his conclusion, on Page 523-524, he asserts that "the totalitarian characteristics in organization and ideology of the IBSA increased the conflict." For reasons I can't discern from that brief excerpt, The Routledge History of the Holocaust places its own interpretation on that material, deciding that Garbe "pointed out in his study" that the use of the term "was understandable but analytically problematic." I'd suggest deleting Garbe at this point in the article (presented as a dissent to the use of the term "totalitarian") and restrict that protest to the Routledge book. BlackCab (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed reference to Garbe, along with the source that doesn't mention Lichti. The second-hand source doesn't unambiguously provide Garbe's view. If he specifically says elsewhere that JWs are totalitarian his comment of 'analytically problematic' needs to be provided in context rather than taken as any kind of clear statement rejecting totalitarianism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede, since it is not a quote and if someone wants to they can follow up on the footnote in the actual article in the link. However the view attributed to Garbe is indeed very accurate. In order to appreciate this one would have to realize he is not agreeing with Michael H. Kater. He quotes Falk Pingel who also did not agree with Kater and so "expressed reservations" (on the same page mentioned above 518) On Page 520 he clearly shows that what Kater has done is inaccurate, since it puts the ideology (and totalitarianism) of the SS on par with the JW's. And this is Garbe says is not accurate. Thus he agrees in terms of aspects of "totalitarianism" but does not agree as to the application or reference which has Kater did, which can mislead others. Johanneum (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentally diseased

The section in criticism states "Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." This seems tweaked and misleading. For one reason ONLY apostates are condemned as those LIKE 'mentally diseased'. Further adding the word 'Not only' could wrongly suggest that the later is also announced in platform. Not all disfellowshiped persons are called as 'apostates'. Most of the time the reason is kept unknown to help the person to return back --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times already. The criticism is about the treatment of those who disassociate from the religion, that is, voluntarily and formally resign. Such persons are publicly named at meetings and then all members are required to shun them. The Watchtower, in the July 15, 2011 edition, says defectors are apostates (pg 15) and that apostates are mentally diseased (pg 16). The point was not lost on several major newspapers recently, which noted the religion's use of the term "mentally diseased" to describe those who choose to exit the religion. Holden's statement is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The text isn't "tweaked". After I queried the additional text added to the quote, the editor who provided the extended quote also provided the original paragraph from the source in the section above.

The conclusion that "the reason is kept unknown to help the person to return back" is fairly subjective; it is just as likely that the reason for not explaining why people left is to reduce the perceived number who leave due to doctrinal concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There could be legal reasons why the perceived cause of the disfellowshipping/disassociation is not identified, in order to avoid any problems of defamation. Generally, I suspect, the absence of a publicly announced reason serves to foster a sense of suspicion and danger surrounding the "sinner" and, possibly more importantly, to reduce the likelihood of people discussing the rightness or wrongness of the decision to disfellowship. In the case of disassociation, the congregation would certainly not be keen to advertise the fact that a person has quit because of doctrinal reasons. The suggestion that by withholding the reason for a defection or expulsion, the individual might be more inclined to return, seems highly speculative and unlikely. BlackCab (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses who are disfellowshiped know their status ahead of time. The elders make the status official for the rest of the congregation during a meeting. They say "so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witness." The details about why a person was disfellowship is NOT disclosed. The details about a person's mental state is NOT disclosed. Any other information about the disfellowshipped person beyond the simple announcement is simply NOT true. — Gorba (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that a public announcement is made that a person is mentally diseased. That term is applied by the religion's publications against those who choose to defect. The process is calculated to humiliate those who dare to quit and therefore serve as a deterrent for others to leave. BlackCab (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Holden say about "mentally diseased"? Otherwise you have to mention the reference to the publication and specify that the publications describe those choose to leave as mentally diseased.--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've restored BlackCab's version of the article. Fazil's edit clearly alters quoted text from a RS, and maintains quote marks attributing his new text to the author the RS. There's no way that edit may stand as it is. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fazil, yes, the Wikipedia article quotes Holden's words. The quotation marks that it is a quote. Why are you continuing to rewrite a quote from a book in an attempt to make it sound as if Holden said something else? BlackCab (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Encouraged

The article has suffered in the past from overuse of the word "encouraged", which is part of JW jargon. Members are forever being "encouraged" to take some course of action, when the direction from headquarters is commonly much more direct. In the present case, I have replaced the word "encouraged" from the sentence that did read: "Adherents are encouraged to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism over Watchtower teachings ..." The claim cites a 2001 Watchtower that explains what a member must do to be deemed a "mature Christian". This explains that such a person does not insist on personal opinions and has complete confidence in what the leadership says. It is therefore accurate to say that adherents are told they must have complete confidence. BlackCab (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The seriousness of the word "must" depends on the context and can be easily misunderstood by the reader. "must do to be deemed a mature Christian" is different from "must do to be not get disfellowshiped". Can you suggest any article which say that disciplinary action will be taken against to those adherents who don't have "complete confidence"? Having said that "told to" best fits the context.--Fazilfazil (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this fixation with disciplinary action. I know of no article that threatens punishment for anyone who fails to have complete confidence in the Governing Body, and it's a ridiculous suggestion. BlackCab (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Adherents are told they should have complete confidence ..." overcomes the issue. This gets across the concept of being urged to do something, without suggesting punishment if they fail to do so. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Adherents are taught they should have..... Johanneum (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Adherents are taught they should have.....Looks good. --Fazilfazil (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are taught that at all. They are certainly told that they must have complete confidence in the GB and obey it, if they are to become a "mature" Christian. I'm not aware of specific structured teaching program that instructs them they should have complete confidence in tbeir leaders. "Taught" is just another one of those fuzzy Watchtower words that avoid stating the obvious. BlackCab (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't his resolved years ago with the word "instructed"? --Soc8675309 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Scriptural references

I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia, a resource dedicated to unbiased information, would not allow bible quotes or scriptural references to show the fundamental reasons for doctrinal claims made by Witnesses. For example two of the primary scriptures they used to justify their famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) preaching activity is Matthew 24:14 and 28:19,20. These two seem to be indicate directives by Christ to go out, preach the good news about God's Kingdom, and to make believers. Jehovah's Witnesses pride themselves on using the bible to back up their doctrines and yet when I read information about who they are on Wikipedia without scriptural references it truly sounds like madness. I think it would be advantageous at least to include some scriptures in order to provide a well-rounded article. I am not saying everything needs a scriptural references, but in the interest of Wikipedia's unbias and fairness scriptural references should be included for major doctrines. After all Wikipedia prides itself on strongly enforced cited sources, should this standard not extend to the bible as the source for the main tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses? — Gorba (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does contain some scriptural references where they help to explain beliefs or practices of the religion. The guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures explains where they are appropriate and how they should be used. They are usually unnecessary, however, and Wikipedia certainly does not use scriptures in the same manner Watch Tower Society publications use them, citing a scripture without explanation after making an assertion. If you see any places where the use of a scripture would be of benefit, please say so. BlackCab (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Do not cite supporting scriptures when explaining doctrines or practices. If discussing the interpretation of a particular passage, quote the passage and then provide the JW interpretation." This makes no sense. This is like asking someone to explain a lawyer's interpretation of a law, but not the law itself or even show that such a law exists. The Bible IS the main source for their tenets, and so everything they teach and believe is from that source. It seems to me that to deny this crucial piece of information does hurts Wikipedia's credibility. Gorba (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Everything they teach and believe is from that source". Not quite. Their prohibition on the medical transfusion of human blood is a contorted interpretation of a temporary scriptural admonition against drinking animal blood. Their prohibition of birthday celebrations is based on the very shaky foundation that two birthdays are portrayed in a "negative" way in the Bible and that celebrations have pagan origins. (Dogs, in contrast, receive a far more negative portrayal in the Bible, yet JWs are allowed to keep dogs; pinatas and wedding rings have pagan origins, yet are deemed acceptable.) But rather than speak in generalities, feel free to identify any specific teachings that suffer through the lack of a scriptural reference. BlackCab (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

When I say "main tenets" I am not referring to blood or birthdays I'm referring to these http://www.watchtower.org/e/201008/article_04.htm Those are the main tenets. At least those are worth scriptural references. If Wikipedia cannot allow scriptural references for those main tenets then I really see no reason to continue supporting the Wikipedia project financially. Gorba (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a bit petulant, Gorba. "Let me use scriptures or I won't donate money again." Those 10 tenets at the JW.org website are a perfect example of the lazy use of scriptures to claim biblical support for a dogmatic statement. The fourth point is a good example, in which the WTS dogmatically states God's kingdom will have 144,000 co-rulers. The website cites a clutch of scriptures from Revelation and Daniel with no clear relationship to one another; the WTS decides that the 12,000 members of 12 tribes in Revelation 7 are symbolic (as are most of the numbers in that book, the lake of fire, "days", the dimensions of the holy city Jerusalem), yet that the 144,000 in total is a real number. The 10th point cites a scripture to support its patently false claim that there is no clergy-laity distinction within the religion. I was in the religion long enough to know that elders are viewed as God's police, with the power to interrogate, judge, and punish their "brothers" without recourse. I think Wikipedia can do better than this. If it means it loses your donation, so be it. BlackCab (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that Gorba states that certain (unstated) JW beliefs "truly sounds like madness" when not followed by a cherry-picked scripture (in Watchtower style, with no regard to context or exposition). However, no one said scriptures can't be used at all, but that they should only be used when directly discussing that scripture. As has already been pointed out, this is indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not childish to request that the treatment other faiths receive in citing scriptures also be extended to article about Jehovah's Witnesses. Since it seems this policy is enforced and unchangeable then I simply have no choice but to deny funds in protest. Name calling won't change my mind. Gorba (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. We are not interested in your financial situation and your personal plans Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Thank you for making that crystal clear.Gorba (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proselytizing is standard procedure in Christianity. There's nothing special about JW's practicing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with proselytism. Every Wikipedia article, including the Jehovah's Witnesses article, all cite numerous references to verify the source of information presented. This same principle should extend to doctrine and tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses. In other words, "Where did Jehovah's Witnesses get this doctrine? Here's the main scripture they used." You can discuss and debate the accuracy all day long someplace else, but to simply not even disclose the scriptural reference is completely disingenuous to Wikipedia's founding principles. Gorba (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you twice to identify sections of the article you think would benefit from having a scripture. You keep speaking about generalities. Be specific or quit complaining. BlackCab (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gorba, as you were told before, no one said scriptures can't be used at all, but that they should only be used when directly discussing that scripture. As has already been pointed out, this is indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures. The reason that scriptures can't just be given Watchtower-style is that scriptures can be (are) interpreted in many different ways by different groups. JW doctrines are based on their interpretations of scriptures, and those interpretations are found in JW literature as well as other (secondary) sources. It is those sources that are given as citations for JW beliefs, because they provide the JW interpretation. It would biased in the extreme to just assert that a particular scripture can only be interpreted the JW way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

144,000 in lead section

I know the article's lead section is already long, but it's just occurred to me that one pretty glaring omission is a reference to the 144,000. It is one of those things, like their opposition to blood transfusions, that people have a vague knowledge of in terms of their distinctive teachings. it could easily be added as a reasonably brief sentence among their central beliefs: They believe a heavenly reward is limited to just 144,000 people; most members have the hope of living forever on earth. BlackCab (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Something similar could be added, but it is not neutral to imply that more (any) people 'go to heaven' (outside of JW belief). Because they believe non-JWs who die prior to Armageddon will also be resurrected, it's not accurate to say that their 'hope' of 'living forever' is limited to 'members'. Perhaps They believe that exactly 144,000 individuals receive a heavenly reward, and that the hope for others is to live forever on earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't they revised that in light of the fact they have more than that many members? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they haven't. They still believe 144,000 go to heaven to rule over the rest living on earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly fundamental JW teaching. Here's the first ref I could find, but there are so, so many. The Watchtower 1 February 2010, page 6:

How many go to heaven? As in any government, the rulers in God’s heavenly Kingdom are few in comparison with all the people who live under its authority. To those who will rule with him, Jesus said: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32) That “little flock” will finally number 144,000. (Revelation 14:1) That number is small in comparison with the millions who will enjoy endless life on earth as loyal subjects of the Kingdom.—Revelation 21:4.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"glaring omission" Ehh Black? Its obvious by your page that you have an enormous Jumbo Tron sized axe to grind here. With your apparent hate for this religion it seems like a conflict of interest for you to have any say about anything in this article whatsoever. --Ironious (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say, one way or the other, about the merits of the suggestion of mentioning the 144,000 doctrine in the lead?? If you have concerns about a conflict of interest, this isn't the correct venue for discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the religion, it's true. In my two decades in it I saw too much to remain indifferent. I think it benefits the public to be aware of notable information about the religion, including facts the WTS tries to hide. But I have no more a conflict of interest than any JW who wants to edit the page. As long as the information presented is accurate, properly sourced, and written in an editorially neutral way, we can all contribute to the article. I don't see that adding a detail about the distinctive teaching about the 144,000 is in any way a demonstration of hatred. But you're welcome to your opinion. BlackCab (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:BlackCab I don't necessarily disagree with you here, as I feel the belief of the 144,000 is notable, but isn't it already contained in the subheading God's Kingdom ? Maybe it should be expounded on there? I'm not against including it in the lead section, but the lead section is already rather lengthy. Willietell (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is rather lengthy. Also I feel its not as important as other core beliefs. Similar importance is there for many teachings like destruction of false religion via UN, visible organization, 1914 year, etc. But these are derived teachings of God's kingdom which need some kind of background understanding for the reader. But they are presented nicely in the appropriate subsections.--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The JW's are well-known for believing in the 144,000 thing. That's not at issue. However, it would be interesting to explore what scholars have to say about the significance of that number as a number. The Bible in general, and Revelation in particular, are filled with numbers that appear over and over again - 3's and 7's and 10's and 12's and such as that. Numerology was kind of a quasi-religion in itself, well-known to the Jews and early Christians, and by no means confined to those groups. Surely someone must have done a study on why the number 144,000 would have conveyed some special meaning to the readers of Revelation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reinstatement in lead section

User:Fazilfazil has twice inserted the words "and reinstatement" to the section in the lead section that reads "Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning." He explains the addition with the edit summary "highlighting only disfellowshipping is not nuetral".

Reference to reinstatement in the lead section is unnecessary and to suggest that its absence creates bias is utter nonsense. It is certainly notable that the JWs have an elaborate judicial system to punish members. Their system of organised shunning of former members, including the refusal to speak to family members, has attracted controversy in the media and in published books, so it's appropriate that the article contain reference to it, and that a brief mention of this distinctive feature be included in the lead section. It is not, however, an important feature that in certain circumstances the religion also removes the punishment it has imposed. The article does note in the body of the text that "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by elders ..." and that is sufficient. It is certainly not so important that it needs coverage in the article summary.

It is also inaccurate and meaningless to say that "congregational discplinary actions include ... reinstatement". Reinstatement is not a disciplinary action. I will remove the words "and reinstatement" again. Please do not reinstate those words again; discuss the issue here first. BlackCab (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As probably a dissasociated former member your bias and discomfort is understandable. It is not correct to say that JW's follow military like discipline. Some dissatisfied apostates of the religion who dedicate their lives to portray disfellowshipping as cruel makes a lot of prejudice on internet. Since JWs are generally not responsive to negative criticism (because they are taught to win evil by their good conduct) this misconception have became widespread. Every new witness have made an informed choice in this regard. They clearly know that they will be disfellowshipped from the congregation if they persistently involve in immoral and unbiblical actions.(according to JWs interpretations). Therefore disfellowshipping is not a surprising thing to them. And witnesses believe that disfellowshipping is a actually a kind of love shown (just like a father disciplines his child) to the unrepentant sinner to help him to come back to senses. Also they are taught that this will help the church clean from immoral influence. However elders do visit yearly the disfellowshipped individuals to help them to come back. An old report (which was before present in this article) showed that about half of the disfellowshipped persons were reinstated later on a particular period. Hence it is an important part of congregational discipline. Therefore highlighting only the one side of the coin at the lead is a clear violation of neutrality. It is also noticeable that the fact JWs are persecuted around the world is also missing in the lead.(which is more known than disfellowshipping). I am not unreasonable and I would appreciate independent editor comments--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

my discussion is not about the rights and wrongs of shunning; nor is your interpretation of the figures on reinstatements correct. Your suggested wording is wrong and there is no need to include in the summary that shunning injunctions are sometimes lifted. BlackCab (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's claim that negative comments about disfellowshipping are merely a beat-up by 'apostates' is simply untrue. Various newspapers have reported on articles in JW literature that promote the bizarre practice of shunning. Indeed, even an Awake! article said that shunning is cruel (when it is done by other groups), and stated that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." Awake! 2009 July p.29) Additionally, it is not the case that all JW necessarily make a fully reasoned and informed choice before baptism. Many, primarily children of JW parents, feel pressured to get baptised; articles have appeared in Watch Tower Society literature 'encouraging' children of JW parents not to put off baptism, even if they're worried that might subsequently commit a 'serious sin'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this is not the point of the discussion. Fazilfazil has claimed that without adding that reinstatements sometimes occur, the article is not neutral. (He took that opportunity to make a personal attack, accusing me of bias and "discomfort" as well on the sole basis that I left the religion. I'd prefer he just addressed the content and left his prejudices and assumptions out of this). Using the same logic, the lead section should also say that (a) some JWs decline to do door-to-door preaching because they don't see the point of it and don't like it; (b) many do celebrate birthdays privately in defiance of the official teaching; and (c) some Witnesses do have a wide circle of "worldly" (non-JW) friends despite the warning about the influence of "bad associations". The lead section, or summary, highlights in brief the most distinctive features of the article's subject. Detail on the subject is contained further down the article. The practice of punishing and shunning is a distinctive trait; the fact that they sometimes withdraw that punishment later is a detail. BlackCab (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you two editors are zealously opposing a single word reinstatement in the lead section. My opinions were based on my honest observations and I believe that its not neutral to only highlight shunning in the lead. Please don't take it emotionally. I Suggest the following minor change.

Congregational discipline include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning, and reinstatement.

I have raised a RFC --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

JW and homosexuality

According to the section «Ethics and morality» homosexuality is considered as a serious sin. It could be limits in my English knowledges, and the Norwgian article of same subject «Homofili» is fooling me, but I have to make a comment here anyway: I do not have any refs by hand, but as far as I know, JW separates actions from orientation, whitch meens homosexuality is not considered as a sin as far as it isn't practiced. (because homosexuality is or could be the sexual orientation rather than performed action?) Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that JW do not consider the orientation but the practice to be a sin.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a statement from a recent Watchtower regarding the subject:

I hope this provides all the information you needed on the subject, if not, ask and I will provide additional references.Willietell (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a lengthy quote from a Watchtower publication that is unnecessary on this page, and is also probably a breach of copyright. Willietell, provide a link to the article if you wish, or include a brief quote from the most important section of the article. But really, the question has been answered. BlackCab (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BlackCab please do not continue to disruptively delete my input into talk page discussions as you have done here [4] this in uncivil and improper. If you don't the material I have presented, rebut, but don't delete my input. Willietell (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also these are cited direct quotations, not a copyright violation. Willietell (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. The WP:TALK page explains that comments must be brief and to the point. This is not a place to copy and paste entire copyrighted articles from other publications. Get rid of the Awake article now. BlackCab (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the edit is rather lengthy, but the question raised required more than a short explanation, because complicated questions sometimes require rather lengthy answers. The Awake article covers those situations well and thus I felt it proper to include the lengthy amount of information in this limited situation to provide a more complete understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses position on the practice of homosexuality. the information is properly cited and is therefore not a copyright violation. It is rather lengthy, but I will not make a habit out of it. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether you cite the Awake article correctly is immaterial. WP:COPYVIO explains that "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." BlackCab (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have let the removal stand at the insistence of "seemingly" two editors, I my choose to provide a link in the future, if the discussion seems to need additional input.Willietell (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Seemingly" two editors? Are you suggesting Maunus and I could be the same person? Get a grip. BlackCab (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This Talk page is not the proper venue for general questions about JW belief, beyond discussion for improving the article. Maunus' brief response was more than sufficient within the scope of this page. If someone asks a general question about JW belief that requires more than a brief response, you should direct them to the WP:Reference desk or to sources outside Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my question was to contribute to make a better article, by scoping to a place where the article possible is unaccurate. If homosexuality could mean the orientation, this could make the article unaccurate, by crediting JWs for possible controversials view they don't have. If homosexuality could mean the practiced action only, then the article is good on this topic. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that your question was a problem. However, the lengthy response (since removed) was not necessary. My comments about questions on Talk pages wer intended more generally.

I have modified the article slightly to refer to homosexual activity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted the article so that there would be a complete and unmistakable answer to the question asked, the material was properly cited and therefore copyright is not an issue. It was in fact, not the entire Young people ask article, but only the section dealing with the question asked. I feel that to delete it was unnecessary, but I will not attempt to put it back due to the unreasonable uproar that has been the response to posting it. Additionally, I personally feel that much has been made of little with regards to my posting a slightly lengthy article, but nonetheless, it is gone, so the issue is closed in my mind. That is, unless someone still has doubts as to the subject matter. Willietell (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have cited perhaps a sentence or two to clerly make the point. A minor change has made the article more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When a quote goes beyond a few sentences in most cases, links are preferable. You will get into copyright issues with entire paragraphs. And the talk pages get long enough as it is without pasted article content. Linking makes things way easier for all involved, not to mention, Wikipedia has policies regarding pasting in that much of info. The point actually can be summarized in a few sentences. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, here is an example of a quote which serves Wikipedia's purposes and respects copyrights:
Awake!, ©Watch Tower, December 2010, page 23, "Rather than get ensnared in a debate about the cause of homosexual desires, [a Witness asked about the matter should] emphasize that the Bible prohibits homosexual conduct. ...The Bible...simply directs those with same-sex urges to do the same thing that is required of those with an opposite-sex attraction—to “flee from fornication.”"[emphasis retained from original]"
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking (note 5)

I had changed the note for marking, from "most common example given" into "a common example given". I'm not sure if even this is right. It seems that the topic marking is barely mentioned in JWs literature, at least literacy as marking. A section in Organized to do Jehovah's will is named "Marking disorderly ones" (page 150), and among the examples given, the one from the note is not even mentioned. It does also lack of independent sources (even though I believe JWs own sources usually is good enough when it comes to describing their own belivings). Being marked, as described, do probably have some effect on the marked ones, but the impacts is not even close to those from disfellowshipping. The fact that it also seems just briefly mentioned in JWs literature, makes me also ask if this is important to the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

JW 'marking' is certainly not as severe as disfellowshipping; I don't object to it being at this article, but also don't think it's essential here. (It is covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline.) The cited source states, the elders may warn the congregation by means of a talk that makes clear the Biblical view—be it of dating unbelievers, or whatever the improper course is. I agree that it is better to refer to the example as a common rather than most common..--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Apocalypticism

The header mentions Millenarianism but not Apocalypticism, however that is also a major part of the WT ideology. Both can often be assumed to be interlinked, but it is not always the case.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

Could probably also be:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian, apocalyptic, restorationist Christian denomination, with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

It however does mention apocalyptic beliefs later on.

Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting of a paragraph

It appairs for me a paragraph «Eschatology» could need som work or rewriting. I am aware my English isn't the best, so I'll leave it to someone who got the "skills". The conserns regards the wording rather than the content. Most of the paragraph is written like it was etablished facts, and is missing expressions like "The witnesses believe", and "they teach"/learn" and so on.

I would also ask if "the great tribulation" is common English rather than an expression? It does not have quote-symbols like used in expressions like "system of things" and "last days". Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When discussing beliefs of a group, it is not necessary for every single sentence to start with something like they believe, as such repetition can make the text quite boring. The most important thing is that it is clear that the section is presenting the group's beliefs, which seems to be the case for the Eschatology section.

'Great Tribulation' is not a term that is specific to JWs. It is already linked to the relevant article.

Would be good to see what others think though...--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Last days" is not a term specific to JWs either. By quote-symbols, I mean "

Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither the term "great tribulation" nor the term "last days" are unique to JWs, but the terms represent particular theological concepts that benefit from use–mention distinction (per WP:MOS standards, I suppose with double or single quotes). JW publications do not typically capitalize the terms mid-sentence. I have put the term "great tribulation" in quotes now, in the article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Husbands

The article statement, "The husband is considered the final authority on family decisions" has been edited to "The husband is considered to have authority on family decisions" (see The Watchtower, April 15, 2011, page 15, "Likewise, husbands need to recognize that their authority is limited and that they are subject to Christ.").--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the section "Satan"

It is an issue in the section "Satan". As I see it right here and now, it may could be a minor violation of the NPOV-policy, or a violation of guidelines regarding reliable sourcing. In the last part of the section, it is referenced to researchers statements about Jehovas Witnesses, among them Beckford and Montague. Without mentioning Penton is not a researcher in a relevant field, it is quoted from his book, giving the impression it is from a relevant researcher. As far as I can see, Pentons opinion on this field is irrelevant anyway, as he is quoted in the article as an historican and former member (presentation of his work under Further reading, "Penton, professor emeritus of history at University of Lethbridge and a former member of the religion"). Even though it is given some kind of balance in his statements, I think his quotings should be removed, as this only could be concidered as the personal opinion from a former member. Historicans do usually not give qualified statements about psychological effects of religious belivings. And anyway, if a statement about JWs being superstitious should be relevant, it should be some reliable quotes or sources for them to be quite/very superstitious compared to other religious movements, as it is reasonable to connect superstitious-ness (it isn't a word, right?) to religious practice. It is also somewhat questionable if psycological effects of JWs believings is relevant in this section at all. (I Suggest to concider/discuss Pentons reliability in this particular setting/this role, before moving content to other sections. If concensus is to delete or remove content from this section, it could be concidered if any of it could be used in other sections or articles related to critics, as it is less likely to be challenged as violations of the NPOV-policy in such a section.) Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I share many of the concerns of editor Grrahnbahr. This thread here seems closely related to the article section 'JW_beliefs#Satan' and discussion thread 'Talk:JW beliefs#Fear of demons'. It may make sense to concentrate discussion there, but there reach a consensus regarding the similar, largely-redundant section in this article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr's argument has several weaknesses. Penton's field of expertise is clearly history, and he had sufficient interest in the religion to write three books about it, the first of which was published while still a member and gained a couple of mentions in WTS literature. Penton's book has been widely cited by other authors and academics, and was also published by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, so he is clearly a RS. The fact that he was expelled, or is no longer a member, does not disqualify him as a source. Beckford, who was never a member, made the same observation, so there is clearly no conspiracy by ex-members. However it is the first mention of Penton in the article and it could be noted that he is an ex-member, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions, about (a) whether he is prepared to invent or exaggerate claims to show the religion in a bad light, and (b) whether his previous membership provided him with the opportunity to make first-hand observations of the attitudes and conduct of his brethren. I'll make that change. There is also no need to attempt a comparison of their outlook with other religions, as both Grrahnbahr and AuthorityTam now call for. The observation has been made by multiple RS, so notability is proven. Nowhere else in statements about their beliefs is there a comparison with other religions. BlackCab (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with citing Penton here is not the fact he's an ex-member, it is his lack of expertice of psychology (or close related subject). The statement in the article is not about their believing, but about claimed effects of their believing (sociology), and Penton do not have expertice to be cited, even though he could be right. Another thing is, if this is the section to bring on the effect JWs beliving do have to their members. As I see it, it belongs to a complete other section.

By the way, I suggest to change the headline of the paragraph into "Satan and demons", as it covers both topics quite well. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nor does he have to be an expert of pscyhology. If Penton is accepted as a RS, there are problems if one starts to debate what specific topics he is permitted to comment on. Can he be used as a source on the blood doctrine if he is not a doctor? Or on their use of funds if he is not an accountant? BlackCab (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion or even a concensus for him being a RS doesn't meen he is reliable at all aspects. Most of what Penton write, appairs to be correct, and the fact he is updated within most of JWs believings and activities today, makes him more reliable than most other sources from former JWs, but Penton do also got several statements most readers with basic knowledges about JW would easily turn down. I would be careful about using Penton as a primary source in some cases, and certainly outside his core fields of knowledge. That is not controversial: It should not be a problem using the Watchtower as a source when it comes to JW believing (JWs tend to know what they believe), but it would be a highly doubtful decision to use it as a source for confirming an article about an animal described in the magazine, even though all statements given could be true. Whatever Penton says or what I think about his reliability, I do still think the last part of the section does not belong to this section. I suggest to remove the last part of the undersection Satan, because I do not think it is relevant for the section (relevant as in "do not belong there"). It would be interesting to hear your opinion about a removal because of lack of relevance. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of other editors have expressed the view that it is not necessary here and I'm prepared to accept that view. It's dealt with at the Beliefs article and that is probably sufficient. BlackCab (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor issues in "Life after death"

Some statements in the section are mentioned twice, but with slightly different wording. Is it necessery, or could the section be rewritten, so the readers could benefit from a text without repetation (as I've stated before, I am aware of my limited language-skills, so are dependent of other users for "advanced" changes)? Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made some changes that should hopefully resolve this concern.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it looks better now. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel the love

Can I just say how .... wonderful it is to see such co-operation, civility and respect being displayed at the moment on this page. Brings tears to the eyes. BlackCab (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue in the section "God's kingdom"

The article states: «They believe 1914 marks the restoration of God's rule over earth after being halted for 2520 years since 607 BCE, the date they uniquely assign to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.[180]» JWs literature, however, indicates that Satan have ruled the earth since 1914 (See Watchtower November 1, 1996, p. 7 for one example), and God's kingdom in the heaven only. It is somewhat unclear if the given ref is refering first or second half of the sentence. Whatever the ref says, it does not look like the sentence is reflecting JWs believings. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't attempt to resolve what seem like contradictions in JW literature. Briefly though, their position is that Jesus has ruled as king of God's kingdom since 1914 (e.g. The Watchtower, 15 August 2009, page 5: "God’s sovereignty toward our globe began to be asserted anew with the installation of Jesus Christ as heavenly King in the year 1914."). They also believe that Satan was cast down to earth in 1914, not that he became king over the earth in that year. They believe that Satan has been the ruler over earth before and after 1914. Further, they believe that presently only JWs are the subjects of God's kingdom on earth, not everyone. I hope that clarifies matters for you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right about their beliving of Satan as a ruler, and not only since 1914. I do still find the statement quoted above, is looking like it is in conflict with JWs actual and current believings. Even though it should be technical right in some way, it does not look like it is reflecting JWs believings. If the statement is regarding JWs (or people of God, or anointed, or whatever term used) only, it should have been reflected in the article, unlike now, when a general term like "over earth" is used. According to wp-guidelines, if two or more sources indicates different opinions, both/all could be used, as the article could clearify the different sources opinions. JWs literature indicates that the Kingdom of God is a heavenly kingdom, unlike ancient Israel, but their literature also indicates that the kingdom will be ruling over earth sometime in the future, and also that it is not ruling over earth today. I'll list some short quotes from The Watchtower to support my opinion of the statement, as I find it significant regarding the topics accuracy:

The Watchtower 1 January 2008, page 7: "God’s Kingdom, now ruling in heaven, is poised to establish its rule over the whole earth ... And when will it begin to rule over the earth?"
The Watchtower 15 April 2007, page 6: "In the near future, God’s Kingdom—a government now established in the heavens with a compassionate Ruler, Christ Jesus—will exercise full authority over the earth"
The Watchtower 1 December 2006, page 6: "Indeed, Satan, not Christ, is 'the ruler of the world' and 'the god of this system of things.' ... This explains why Jesus will soon eliminate all human governments and become earth’s sole Ruler."
The Watchtower 1 September 2003, page 32: "What will be the living conditions when Christ rules over the earth? Those living under Christ’s world rule will enjoy..." (Christ is in general indentified, at least for a longer period, as the king of God's kingdom in JWs literature)

I suggest to change the statement in the article, so it reflects the believings of JWs as represented in literature recently published by JW. Eventually contradicting views could be stated, but then identified as a contradicting view (The source given in the text is also more than 40 years old). Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes you've provided are consistent with what I've already said. I think the confusing part may be that JWs believe that God has ruled invisibly over earth since 1914, but that at some future time God's kingdom will be physically manifested on earth. I'll attempt to modify the relevant sentence accordingly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor Grrahnbahr is quite correct: the article was wrong to state, "They believe 1914 marks the restoration of God's rule over earth after being halted for 2520 years since 607 BCE". I have edited that to, "They believe 1914 marks the restoration of God's kingdom representation on earth after being halted for 2520 years since 607 BCE".

The matter is discussed succinctly in this reference:

The Watchtower, November 1, 1993, pages 8-9, "In 1914 the appointed times of the nations ended, and the time of the end for this world began. The Davidic Kingdom was restored, not in earthly Jerusalem, but invisibly in “the clouds of the heavens.” ...Who would represent on earth the restored Davidic Kingdom? ...Without any doubt at all, it was the small body of anointed brothers of Jesus who in 1914 were known as the Bible Students but since 1931 have been identified as Jehovah’s Witnesses."

Incidentally, I've noted before that this Jehovah's Witnesses article interjects "1914" excessively -- nine times! in the main article on the religion! Again, the repeated consideration of the date in the main article seems excessive.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That was clarifying. It is one question left, about referencing. Is the source misused (in an unintentionally way, of course), is the source given unaccurate, or is it not a source for the statement at all?

Another thing, some of the details here are really small potatoes. The paragraph is really short, concidering God's kingdom as important regarding JWs believings (at least JWs considering this topic as important to their believing). And is 607 and the calculation/2520yrs, and "earthly representings" really important regarding JWs view of God' kingdom (concidering the length of the paragraph)? Could it even have been done changes to the article to give room for a secular source? (Intentions would be good, and the resault could be good, but it could also give the article more inaccurant or give topics in the article a somewhat out-of-the-mainroad-view). I am not completely agreed about the article is overfocusing on 1914, as it both by the witnesses, and by secular and opposing sources, is concidered as an important year in JWs believings. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, this Jehovah's Witnesses main article would be of more use to the typical Wikipedia reader if editors removed granular detail that is well-discussed in related articles (articles which are not the main article on the religion). For example, like editor Grrahnbahr, I believe this article need not include 2520 years, 607 BCE, or nine instances of 1914. Regarding the editor's "one question left, about referencing": For now, I have hidden this point's ref to Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die. The work is referenced several other times in the article, but it doesn't seem necessary to support here. Another editor may wish to provide the work's 'quote for verification' with which Grrahnbahr seems interested.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the Rogerson citation. He explains how the Witnesses arrive at 1914 as the end of the "times of the Gentiles", noting that JWs diverge from secular historians on their dating of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. That citation supports the statement that the JWs "uniquely" adhere to that date. BlackCab (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Again... Another editor may wish to provide the work's 'quote for verification' with which Grrahnbahr seems interested.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a lengthy paragraph that includes the words "secular historians put this date as 586 or 587BC but the Witnesses, following Russell, place it at 607BC." It is well known that the date is a point of contention between JWs and secular historians, so the continued removal of a secondary source that notes this is unwarranted. BlackCab (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The provided quote doesn't state that the JW belief in 607 BCE is "unique", so an editor who insists on including this ridiculously tiny (dare we suggest...unnecessary?) point in the Jehovah's Witnesses main article will surely recognize that he should at least provide that part of the supposed quote.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Rogerson is sufficient to support the statement that JW assertions about 607 conflict with the dating by secular experts. I do not see that Grrahnbahr is actually seeking a quote from Rogerson to verify this. WP says that sources must be cited for any statement that is challenged, or likely to be challenged: can I clarify, AuthorityTam, that you disagree that the JW assertion on 607BC is disputed by secular experts? This has been frequently noted by authors and has been widely discussed on talk pages here, so I'm somewhat puzzled by why you keep deleting a secondary source that acknowledges that mundane fact. WP uses the word "uniquely"; I'm not confident that's strictly true, for there may be the odd academic who thinks 607 is the correct date, so there is probably a better way to express this, but certainly JWs are on their own as a religion in making that assertion. Quite what are you seeking here and why do you continue to delete a quite uncontroversial secondary source? BlackCab (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

JW themselves admits their view of 607 differs from the most common seculary view of 607, so the statement is not controversial at all. But I still think 607 and destruction of Jerusalem is mostly irrelevant for JWs view of God's kingdom, even though the year do have some tiny connection because of the calculations and the "times of gentile", and if the year is right or wrong is even more irrelevant, thus this paragraph should not deal with whether JW are right or wrong (correct me if I'm wrong about the latter). It could, however, be of interest, if JW are uniqe about believing God's kingdom was etablished in 1914, but probably not more than coverage in a part of sentence should do it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The belief that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and that God established his kingdom then is absolutely central to JW belief. It is entirely appropriate that an encyclopedia (as did Rogerson and others in their books) explain how the JWs arrive at that date. Since you agree that Rogerson's quote is uncontroversial (and supported by WTS statements), would you like to revert the last edit so it once again appears? BlackCab (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was me you was asking, but anyway: The original issue, "restoration of God's rule", is solved. I haven't read Rogerson's statement, so I don't have an opinion about his statement (about statement, I ment the statement "that JW assertions about 607 conflict with the dating by secular experts" (quoted BlackCab)), but I was raising a question about the ref from his book was a reason for the undersection had one or a few unaccurate statements. Even though the two belivings mentioned is central to JW belief, I do not think how 1914 is calculated, is essential to the undersection "God's kingdom", but as long as statesment is correct, or, if disputed, both or all reliable sources are mentioned, I have no problem if it is concensus for mentioning the statement. In the statement "607 BCE, the date they uniquely assign to the destruction of Jerusalem", however, I agree the use of the word "uniquely" is somewhat questionable. Even though it is a chance for it to be true, it is a decent chance the statement will be questioned later, so my opinion is it is best to remove the word "uniquely", whatever concensus reached on the rest of this discussion (if "unique" is from Rogersons book, it could be mentioned someway that it is his statement, but the actuallity of such a statement could have been changed, since other more or less reliable sources could have stated otherwise since the book was published in the 60's). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the word "uniquely", which adds nothing to an understanding of JW beliefs on God's kingdom. Rogerson can continue to be used as an uncontroversial source to note how the Witnesses arrive at 1914 as the start date for the kingdom at the close of the Times of the Gentiles. BlackCab (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "uniquely" was not actually supported by the provided sources, so it is good to see it removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

607

Like editor Grrahnbahr, I'm convinced that a reader can get a good understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine of God's kingdom without considering their opinions regarding whether the Siege of Jerusalem was in 587 BC or 597 BC or 614 or whatever. The mini-point might be discussed at JW beliefs or Criticism of JWs, but a granular grain like this doesn't belong in this main article on Jehovah's Witnesses; I've removed it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The tautology of a "granular grain" aside, I have no problem with removing reference to 607 at that point (and therefore from the entire article). Even the reference to 2520 years raises more questions than it answers, and mentioning 607BC at that point then raises conflicts with the link in the sentence to an article called Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC). The Encylopedia Britannica Online website mentions 1914 without explaining where that date is plucked from; nor does What Man Believes: A Study of the World's Great Faiths or the BBC's JW entry in its section on religions. Many casual readers might be surprised to learn that Jesus's Second Coming took place almost a hundred years ago without their noticing it, but the origin of that date is explained at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. BlackCab (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like some kind of concensus for this section for now, so good work. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was changed to "They believe 1914 marks the restoration of God's kingdom representation on earth after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians." It is misleading to imply that they believe the start of the period was 587 BCE (the correct year for the event, but the wrong year for their doctrine). Either include reference to 607 or leave out the siege altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it struck me as odd when I first read that. Use of the term "restoration" would logically require a reference to what was being restored. That entire sentence could be deleted without any loss of information. BlackCab (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, you both are right about the latter, if not already fixed, it need to be done. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Question: According to the clearifying change made in the article, new new statement is: ... "and that Jehovah's Witnesses serve as representatives of the kingdom on earth". It could be conciderer somewhat unaccarate, as it is a minor part of JWs who actually is believed to be serving as representatives. The waste majority is described as envoyers/ambassadors (or similiar), and is representing the kingdom that way, but not as representatives. I won't count out the possibility the article is perfectly accurate with the standing statement, as representative may could be defined as one who is representing something, but I believe the most common way to see a representative as it is written in this particular setting, is as a member, or part of, the kingdom on earth, more like how the anointed is concidered. JWs believings appairs to be that the waste majority of its members, is not representing the kingdom as a representative, but is concidered as its [minions (?)]. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure you mean vast (=store) rather than waste [=avfall]; subjects is probably better than minions. JWs on earth (including the anointed) are all considered to be representatives of the kingdom only in the sense of being subjects. Other than the members of the Governing Body, JWs claiming to be 'anointed' are not considered as having any special authority, and none are officially considered to be 'rulers' of the kingdom until after they die. JW publications refer to JWs in general as being "representatives of the kingdom" (in the sense of 'ambassadors'), and don't make any special distinction about members claiming to be 'anointed' (while still alive). (This should not be confused with JW publications identifying the Governing Body as representatives of the faithful slave class.) The article is accurate in this regard, but I have no objection about changing representatives to subjects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was more like question (and it is vast, of course). I do not think an eventually minor error here would make the article unaccurate. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this thread, the current wording is superior to its recent predecessor. Incidentally, JW publications consider anointed adherents to be ambassadors, but 'other sheep' adherents to be envoys (The Watchtower, August 15, 2008, page 16, "Dignity is displayed by anointed Christians, who are “ambassadors substituting for Christ.” (2 Cor. 5:20) The “other sheep,” who loyally support them, are dignified envoys for the Messianic Kingdom.").--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Source with unaccurate statements

I find the use of one of the sources in the lead somewhat questionable:

Leo P. Chall (1978). "Sociological Abstracts". Sociology of Religion 26 (1–3): 193. "Rutherford, through the Watch Tower Society, succeeded in changing all aspects of the sect from 1919 to 1932 and created Jehovah's Witnesses—a charismatic offshoot of the Bible student community."

I am not questioning Chall as a RS, but the statement appairs to be unaccurate in some ways, and it makes me ask if the statement in the article about changes within the organization stands stronger without the source given, or, preferable, with other sources. The source, as I see it, could in worst case be taken for being POV-pushing (I don't think an explanation would be neccesary). Here are possible issues in the single sentence quoted:

Rutherford did not succeed "in changing all aspects of the sect" (even the use of the word "sect" about JW is unaccurate, but was yet quite common until late 1980s), as most of the basic in the doctrines still was accepted, but the organization went to big changes, as stated in the article.
JW is not charismatic, as stated in the source. As Holden states: "The 'knowledge' required for full membership of the Watch Tower community is fundamentally different from the emotional intensity often associated with, for example, evangelical Christianity. Reading textual material is more intellectually demanding and time-consuming than making a sudden decision to offer one's life to God at a charismatic revival meeting." Beckford do also confirm Holdens findings.
Stating that JW is as an offshoot of the Bible Student community is some questionable, as it appairs to be more common to look at the incident as a change of name rather than the appair of an offshoot.

The source is used to support a statement about the organization, and is not used for supporting a sociological related subject. The lack of accuracy reveals either lack of knowledge, or pushing a POV, from the author. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Rutherford instituted a great many changes to Bible Student doctrine, especially during the 1920s, and those changes are a matter of record. See also Development_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_doctrine#1920–1929. Also, from the perspective of sociology of religion, JWs is properly defined as an institutionalised sect, and in any case, there would be no valid reason to alter Chall's quoted text.
Chall's description of JWs as a "charismatic offshoot of the Bible student community" in the 1920s and '30s is not directly comparable with studies about JWs of more recent decades.
Though not acknowledged by JWs, other Bible Students groups still exist, so it is entirely false to merely claim a 'name change'.

Because you acknowledge Chall as a reliable source, it's not really clear what you're proposing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was proposing the POV-pushing statements in the quote was adding negative value to the statements sourcing, and could be revealing the author's possible lack of knowledge about the subject. I think the statement is more convincing without the source, but think another source is preferable. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The author's description properly employs the term 'sect' as used by sociologists of religion, and his description accurately describes the separation of JWs from other Bible Student movement groups during the 1920s and '30s. His descriptions therefore doesn't suggest a lack of knowledge about the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing «Handling of sexual abuse cases» from critic section

I suggest to remove the section, or to move it somewhere else in the article if concidered to be important. It barely mention critic in a vague way, and with a weight on older cases (20 yrs +). It appairs JW do have decent policies for handling sex abuse, and it is yet to be proven to be a bigger problem among JW than other religious groups. The section is nearly as long as in the underarticle Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, but the legnth could be necessary to keep the section balanced if first mentioned. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue that receives attention is not that there is more abuse than in other religious groups, but in the way the cases are handled, and the article does not misrepresent the issue. The section is six sentences, four of which indicate the policies JWs have in place to prevent abuse, and is well sourced.

It's not clear where else in the article the section could be put, or what moving the section somewhere else in the article would achieve.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As one of the main areas of criticism of the JWs contained in Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, that section needs to be retained (the issue has gained significant newspaper and television treatment) though I take your point that it is almost as long as the section in the Criticisms article. I think the first two sentences actually suffice as a summary; the rest can safely be deleted. BlackCab (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be concidered seriously if the critic is relevant, as it always will be critics from different hold, published or quoted within the definition of RS (like JW being bad parents), without real substance and relevance. I'm not stating every single JW with children is a good parent, or growing up as a JW is always the best way of childhood, but critic in the direction appairs to often be made for sensation or for building a negative image of JW as group concidered. The accuses are build on references quoting ordinary peoples opinion, where one was (most likely) a victim of child abuse, and at least two of the quoted objects former JWs. I think the accuses in the first two sentece are to vague to be concidered as a RS, and it not is representing a common professional view of neither JW or critics oriented to JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The criticism is not based on the individual cases contained in the CBS report, but the claim that it is (or was) very widespread, and that then WTS policies contributed to ongoing abuse. Bowen gained widespread, and balanced reporting from major news organisations. Neither of the reports here are sensationalist and both go the trouble of seeking comment from the WTS. BlackCab (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I can still not see any RS claiming it is (or was) very widespread. The sources just quote a former member of JW, claiming it to be widespread. Widespread is a question of definitions, and considered JW is an organization with several millions members, it would be surprising if not single incidences occurred. It could also be several other reasons for parents not reporting abuse to the police (like lack of evidence, or to shield the child from unwanted attention from media the local community). The claim of "WTS policies contributed to ongoing abuse", is questionable in it self. It is all relying of the "two or three witnesses"-statement. It is more likely lack of policies could be a problem, than the exciting policies would be, but it would either way be speculations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the section on 'sexual abuse' is mainly an US centric issue which is popularized primarily by former witnesses using the media. In eyes of media JWs are expected to follow higher standards than other religions and when a few failed to do so it is celebrated by them. This is the whole reason for the big criticism section. The points user:Grrahnbahr mentioned are valid. I would agree in removing the section --Fazilfazil (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added another source for that section, this time from Australia. The program that source refers to was a national Sunday morning current affairs show and was, again, anything but sensationalist. It dealt with criticisms that the religion's processes for dealing with pedophilia cases were flawed, allowing pedophiles to remain in good standing in the congregation without anyone knowing what they had, in some cases, admitted to. The YouTube footage (which can't be used as a source for copyright reasons) is contained here; some months later a subsequent program returned to the problem. The issue of pedophilia cover-ups in JWs was also covered very well by the BBC program Panorama, which is here. Hopefully those links may help to allay your concerns that it is a local problem restricted to the US. The extent of the coverage indicates its notability as a significant criticism of the religion. Speculation about whether the problem is worse in JWs is irrelevant. WP does not try to compare the problem with other religions. It just notes that there has been criticism. BlackCab (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's opinion that 'JWs are held to a higher standard' is incorrect and irrelevant. The problem generally reported in the media is not that abuse happens nor the frequency of abuse in particular, but that the policies (and sometimes actions of elders contrary to official policies) have made reporting abuse difficult for members, and that such policies have made it easier for abusers to go unpunished. (Just to be clear, I am stating here what has been reported in the media, not my own opinions of JW policy.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've raised a RfC, as I concider opinions from outside this discussion could be useful here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:04, 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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[5] 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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)

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 [which synonym of control/exercise authority/whatever is used]. 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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)

Removed sentence in the section "Separateness"

I removed the following content:

Because of perceived dangers from "worldly" association,<r*f>Make Sure of All Things, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1953, page 279, "Association in a social way with those outside the truth is dangerous."</r*f>

The sentence's context is somewhat unclear, as it appairs to be talking about spiritual danger, even though JW believes spiritual danger is indirectly connected to danger as we know it. The statement is poorly sourced (60-yrs-old book for a current believing). Even though it should be JWs opinion today, it need to be better sourced. The content, like it is presented, appairs to give a more extreme expression of JWs believings than it actually is, or at least is proven. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the statement, with a more recent source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also reworded the sentence to make it more clear that the 'perceived danger' relates to something that might affect their faith.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

Is it some consensus whether use of populare cultur section in articles? JW are pretty mentioned several time in popular culture, like the simpsons and in at least a few major Hollywood productions, and documentaries like Knocking. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A list of references to JWs in pop culture would be trivial; such a list would almost certainly be incomplete, and is very unlikely that any such references are notable. Documentaries about JWs may be cited as sources if they meet normal criteria for reliable sources; Knocking is already cited at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and could be cited at other articles if they would benefit from listing it as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your right. I thought it may was something like that, even though I've thought I have seen similar in FAs about more narrow topics. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When the topic of an article is itself about pop culture, then it might cite other pop culture references to that topic, if reported in reliable sources; for example, The Simpsons mentions South Park' references to the show. Religious topics generally don't warrant the same kind of treatment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources of doctrine

Suggestions for changes within "Sources of doctrine":

I've removed a ref of Penton in the sentence "...although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible." , because I can't see the reference was supporting the statement (the statement is not about the theology, but about Andrew Holdens study's conclusion).
«Jehovah's Witnesses believe their religion restores the doctrines of "true" Christianity.» The source indicates the restoration of the Christianity as it was in the first century, as I believe would be a more accurate statement. JW believes the first Christian was true Christian, as they consider themselves, but using the "" could be considered as a weak POV-push, as it indicates the statement is false (it's not up to us to decide). I am not sure on the latter, so leaves it here as a proposal for change. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a major objection to the removal of the Penton reference, because the current wording only directly addresses Holden's statement. However, if other editors later claim that Holden's statement is an isolated observation, the Penton quote should be restored and the referenced sentence re-worded/expanded to refer to both sources.

On the second point, the quoted source is fairly weasely ("unbiased people can clearly see"... hmmm...). Aside from that, I don't see a problem with replacing restores the doctrines of "true" with is a restoration of first-century, so long as it still states that it's a JW belief and not a fact. (So it would read, Jehovah's Witnesses believe their religion is a restoration of first-century Christianity.) I'm not sure about saying their current doctrines are a restoration of first-century Christianity, because many of their interpretations have been developed (and subsequently modified) only in the last century, and were clearly not known to first-century Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added "taught by Jesus and his early disciples" to reflect the source and avoid ambiguity regarding "true" Christianity --Fazilfazil (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced with the wording I suggested. Your change did not address Grrahnbahr's concern about the quotes around true, and there is no way Jesus could have taught various specific JW doctrines developed only in the last century.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Penton-source, I'm sure the text could be changed, so the ref would suit in, like mentioning "a suggestion supported by (the historican/former member etc) Penton" or so, as you got a point about possible later claims from other editors, but like it was, it looked like Penton confirmed it was Holdens observation. By the way, I support the change in the article at the second point, as it appears to be more accurate. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's some more here:

Ref 141:"Is Religious Truth Attainable?". The Watchtower: 6. April 15, 1995. :The ref doesn't directly state that JW believes they are the restoration of the first Christians, it only states some (claimed) similarities. I am sure it is more directly statements in another sources.
«Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism over Watchtower teachings and "not advocate or...» Leadership from who? Should maybe have been clearified. And is "Watchtower teaching" describing for what JW learn?
One of the sources is quoted twice (one of the sentences fra Our Kingdom Ministry), is it necessary, or could one source have been moved, or the longest quote shortened down? Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The "leadership" is obviously the Governing Body. This should be fairly clear from other article content, but "leadership" could be changed to "Governing Body" in this sentence if it's not clear.

I hadn't noticed the over Watchtower teachings, which is not very good wording. Perhaps change to about teachings in the Society's literature.

I've removed the duplicate reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am aware Holden uses "Watchtower Teachings" in some of his work. I suggest a change to something like "about teaching in literature published by Watch Tower Society".

About the leadership, if it is clear from context, I wouldn't insist for a change. My consern is if it could be mixed up wth leadership in a more general definition, or like leadership within the congregation as well. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:36, 9 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)

I didn't "have to go back to 2008" to demonstrate anything. I picked up the first magazine I had available off a small stack of older magazines and it just happened to be the one on top. However, I think that the magazine displays that the WTS utilizes other bible translations in the Public edition much more frequently than was common practice prior to the inception of the public edition, which was the entire point I was trying to make. If you feel that this makes me dishonest, then you are entitled to your opinion, but you seem to make this uncivil type of accusation fairly regularly as an attempted form of character assassination and I will ask you again to desist from this uncivil behavior. Willietell (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems little point in dragging this issue out. You had earlier said that the public issue of the Watchtower is "heavily dependent" on Bible translations other than the NWT and that Awake "often" uses scriptural references from other translations. That would be a personal observation, and could probably be fairly described as "POV spin". It also differs from mine: I'd use the words "occasionally" or "sometimes" to describe the frequency of non-NWT usage. But either way, your opinion isn't supported by sources we can quote. And even if it was true, it is a detail that is so trivial and unremarkable that it just isn't worth noting in this article on Jehovah's Witnesses. The article simply notes (as reliable sources do) that JWs prefer to use the NWT. This is the sort of argument that can spin out of control. It hardly needs further discussion. BlackCab (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

It is said that JWs are politically neutral. What does that mean concerning general elections? Do JWs go to vote? Are there any statistics? --Awaler (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is stated in the article, under "Separateness". Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Official Website change

There is a report that I heard regarding change in the official website effective June 2012. All the three websites are going to be merged in to jw.org. Reflecting these changes I found the June 2012 Watchtower magazine at jw.org website have its official website at the last page as jw.org rather than watchtower.org. Keep on the watch for the new site change so that we might need to update the info box--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewriting (Persecution)

The sentence "Their doctrine of political neutrality and their refusal to serve in the military has led to imprisonment of members who refused conscription during World War II and at other times where national service has been compulsory" do have an american POV, as conscription have been compulsory in a lot of, if not most, countries, for longer periods after WWII, and in some occasions still is. I have not any suggestion for the rewriting. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is worded that way because of the notability associated with JWs' refusal of conscription. If there are lot of secondary sources reporting on JWs' rejection of conscription in other countries, it should probably be re-worded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The jw-media site is listing cases from other countries, like South Korea. In Norway, male JW (and other refusing conscription) were sent to work camps in rural areas for up to 14 month until about 2003 (the camps works as prisons today), but I don't have any sources by hand. The jw-media site should be good to give a more internationalized view of JW's refusal for conscriptions. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is one more thing, I do not think using the Watchtower magazine as ref. for number of witnesses in the kz-camps is a good idea, as readers could questioning if the numbers are right. I personally think it is no reasonable doubt about the numbers, as they could be hard to calculate excactly, and seems modest compared to the number of JW in Nazi-Germany, but the fact that JW opposers, or a critical reader, could claim JW wants to booze the numbers, is a good reason for adding another source, as I have seen questioning of the numbers of inmates and victims in other occations/articles. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've grabbed a ref from another article and reworded to give a range suggested by both sources. (booze=alkohol; boost=øke)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefere booze :P Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Watchtower 15. October 2007 gives up some other numbers, appearently more modest and accurate. It states some 13000 were suffering reprisals because of their faith, 4200 were sent to kz-camps, while 1490 died. What I've done in the article in Norwegian, is giving up the numbers from the source above, as it is the most modest I could find, and made a note, where I included a statement that the numbers are difficult to estimate, and some examples in the boarder of the range. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the links, to the russian website about "Operation North", isn't leading to any place of relevance to the article or the statement given. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the dead link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

From the lead: "They are directed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders in Brooklyn, New York, that establish and authorize all doctrines." Since "group" (in "group of elders") is singular, the verbs should also be singular - "establishes and authorises". 203.129.63.108 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thank you. I've taken this opportunity to delete the word "authorizes" which is redundant. That word replaced the word "controls" after objections were raised by some editors; I still think "controls" is accurate when referring to the body of doctrines; "authorizes" refers more to the establishment of new teachings. If the Governing Body establishes a doctrine, it has obviously authorized it. BlackCab (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

New World Translation & The Trinity

The New World Translation of John 1:1 states:...."the Word was a god". Almost every other bible translation states John 1:1 as:..."the Word was God". It is hard to explain the Trinity if the bible source is corrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.143.37 (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not watchlist JW-related pages anymore, however the question is interesting. It seems me that you assume that JWs have two gods or even they admit that any other god besides JHVH exists. Both of that is wrong understanding of JW teaching. NWT only states that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God (not God the Son). Even reversely to the Trinity, John 20:31 states that Jesus is the Son of God. I agree that translating John 1:1 with "little g" is from my POV not the best way how to cope that he is not Sovereign Almighty God himself. Read their official explanations on Trinity issue The Truth About the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit including paragraphs "GET MORE FACTS" and "CONFIRM THE FACTS". Here is also great deal how they explain their view from April 2012 issue. They have some brochure on this topic Trinity. NWT is not unique to translate John 1:1 otherwise than "God". There is lot of Bible translations which use many variations here. See that brochure for list of translations. They believe that Jesus have (not only had) Godly origin, but he is not the Almighty, but second highest spiritual being. They believe that Matthew 28:18 is almighty authority given to Jesus (with permission from JHVH the Almighty) and he will returns all this power back to Father's "hands" when he will fulfil his works through God's Kingdom in which Christ is the King. They interpret this way because of 1. Corinthians 15:24-28. (Verse 27 also explains that Jehovah the Almighty is the only one who is never subjected to Jesus. Verse 28 reads that Jesus his tentative and purposed power will give back after He'll completes Father's will). They believe that John 1:1 should not be taken literally if other Scripture verses mean otherwise. Must Harmonize With the rest of whole Bible. To start with, there is disappointing citation, to quote the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, “the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in that prologue [John 1:1-18].” Scholar Philip P. Harner writes: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” “Hence, far from proving that there is a three-in-one God, John 1:1 does not even prove that there is a two-in-one God!” They believe that Trinity doctrine was "developed by human mind" in the 4th Century after Jesus' earthly ministry, thus it is neither teaching of the Bible', nor Jesus' himself. I wish you well.--FaktneviM (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor should be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum and the Talk page is not for general discussion of JW beliefs. Nor is it necessary for articles to try to prove JWs' views of nontrinitarianism. A few other translations (not really "lots") have a rendering of John 1:1 similar to the NWT. See the article, John 1:1.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 24 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, [57] many of which still exist.[58] By mid-1919, about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society[59]. 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."[60] William Schnell, author and former Witness, claimed that three quarters of the Bible Students who had been associating in 1921 had left by 1931.[61][62][63] Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large".[64]"

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)

It seems preferable to discuss non-JW Bible Students in articles and Talk such as '[Bible Students movement]]' and 'Talk:Bible Students movement'. There seems no reason to imagine or present here only a single reason for the increase; I've again reinstated the plain article statement: "From 1917 to 1942, their annual Memorial attendance rose from 21,274 to 140,450." --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 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.^[1]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [6] (note the reference in the elders’ manual to the disfellowshippable offence of "brazen conduct" that includes speaking to disfellowshipped persons) and [7]. 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,[18] adultery, apostasy,[19] bestiality, blood transfusions,[20] "brazen conduct" or "loose conduct",[21][22] drug abuse,[23] drunkenness, extortion,[24] fornication, fraud,[25] gambling,[24] greed,[24] homosexual activity, idolatry, incest, interfaith activity,[26] lying, [27] manslaughter, murder, "perverted sex relations",[28] polygamy,[29] pornography,[30] reviling, sexual abuse,[31] slander,[25] spiritism, theft, and use of tobacco[23].[32][33]

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 [8]) 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 Wikipedia 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 [9],[10],[11]).--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 [removing others' comments] 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 Wikipedia 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 [12] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 'Wikipedia: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[13] 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:

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 [14],[15],[16]). 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[17]; 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.[18]--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 [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "~~infantile~~juvenile", [19], b) an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM [20], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[21], c) a further attack on BlackCab's motives[22], d) dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[23], in addition to other edits retributively mocking other editors' preceding comments, such as a) after being told to stick to content[24][25], b) after indicating something was only his opinion[26][27], c) after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[28][29], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[30]. 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 "[point] 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 [editor BlackCab aka LTSally]" (namely, here) [emphasis added]. 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)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You've cited a comment I made three days later than my comment above in response to suggestions by other editors, after your uncivil responses at the ANI, and even then, the statement was conditional; the actual statement that you've partially quoted was "If AuthorityTam is not able to acknowledge his part in antagonising other editors and stop such behaviour, then a topic ban may be in order." As it appears that you have no intention of modifying or acknowledging your inappropriate behaviour, as demonstrated here, the ANI has been resumed as it was never resolved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 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)

^ "Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit". The Watchtower: 31. April 15, 1988.

[1] "Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit". The Watchtower: 31. April 15, 1988.

[1]