Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 60

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 58

→

"...cautioned against studying the Bible independently"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article currently states, "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature." None of the cited references explicitly supports the claim that JWs are "cautioned against reading other religious literature", rather, the references show a "caution" against reading "books like this one" and "religious literature that promotes lies". I've edited the sentence to: "Regular personal Bible reading is frequently recommended; Witnesses are strongly discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications.". --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The context of "religious literature that promotes lies" is very clear and refers to religious literature that teaches anything contrary to JW beliefs (or as they would call it "present truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses"). I have supplied an additional reference.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

New World Translation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As editor Jeffro77 stated, "I agree that only a brief summary about the NWT is necessary at this article." [23:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)]

I believe the section here on 'Criticism of NWT' can safely be approximately halved, and I plan to perform that edit soon. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Term "lawless" undue without context

The article 'Christian theology#Sin ' states, "In Western Christianity, "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4)". Obviously, Christians use the term according to a unique theological sense, rather than according to the sense in which the term is typically understood (see 'Lawlessness'). Certain editors have been relentlessly insisted that the article must include this imprecise, easily-misunderstood term (see threads from August 2011, July 2011, and the introduction of the term in February 2011). I've removed the term "lawless" from this article, because including the required contextual discussion of the particular term would unduly weigh the term, and without such context the term is POV "loaded". I've removed it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In the context of a religion's doctrine on a religious concept, the term is perfectly acceptable. BlackCab (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tam regarding this issue. The word 'Lawlessness' could be easily misunderstood without explaining its context. Given WT society have published thousands of articles in the past 100 years, its easy to take one article and interpret it without considering the whole context--Fazilfazil (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Lawless" is the specific term used in the source, in an article about "lawlessness", and the sentence in question specifically states that "lawless" is the description used by the JW literature. If there are legitimate concerns that the term may be confused, the wording can be replaced (or supplemented in the reference) with a brief quote from the source giving their context of 'lawlessness'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at those earlier threads, the term "lawless" is equated in the Feb 15, 2011 Watchtower with "sin" and "wickedness". It is reasonable and accurate to explain in the Wikipedia article that, as with those who are expelled, any member who chooses to voluntarily and formally exit the religion (disassociate) at some point is explicitly described in paragraph 15 as lawless, a sinner and wicked. BlackCab (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. In view of above two editors opinion, I don't mind using "lawless". But I would also suggest to include the fact that 'Sin is lawlessness'--Fazilfazil (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Simply stating that 'lawlessness = sin' would ignore the context. JWs believe that everyone sins, but the source article describes former members as "those who unrepentantly practice lawlessness" rather than simply as 'sinners' in a more general sense (a third of the article is about how to treat former members; nearly half without the introduction and conclusion). As stated previously, if 'lawless' is considered too vague on its own, the wording can be replaced with a brief quote from the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the term "lawless-" is here undue because it's use requires explained context, but the explanation would further weigh the term beyond any usefulness its presence provides. Again, the Christian Bible itself explicitly connects simple "sin" with "lawlessness". Explicitly. To my knowledge, the terminology "lawless-" was used in connection with former JWs in just one issue of one Jehovah's Witnesses magazine; if the teaching is so notable that it must appear in Wikipedia's main article on the religion, shouldn't it be better supported? I've again removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" used as source

I have a comment regarded Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. It is used as source in this article and other JW-related articles, but it is not public accesible. It is appairently leaked on the internet, but a similar case regarding a letter headed to elders in JW congregations was dismissed as RS from most "independent" editors at RS noticeboard (I have to clearify the case is not yet closed), as the letter was not published on a reliable website, or confirmed by WTS, and was not concidered as "public accessible". I concider a similar request, but a broad concensus here about the book would remove the need for such action (or of course I could be talked away from it). Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The central issue concerning the letter was that because it existed only as a Sendspace download, its origin could not be confirmed, and I accept that view (though no one seems to doubt its authenticity). The Shepherd the Flock book, however, is indisputably published by the WTS, though its official distribution is limited to congregation elders (all half million of them globally). Regarding ease of access to the book, WP:SOURCEACCESS states: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." BlackCab (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only real difference I can see, is the existence of the Shephard-book is formally confirmed by TWS (and a few others). Published exemplares seems to be irrelevant, as long the source isn't accesible. I am aware I could be wrong about this one, but the question would probably come up anyway, so getting it clearyfied would be great... Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As already pointed out from the relevant policy, ease of accessibility of a source does not determine whether it is considered a verifiable reliable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The source appair not to be according to the description in Wikipedia:Published. I'll quote from the sector "discussion": "The idea behind requiring a source to be 'accessible' is to allow a third-party, unaffiliated, person to review the source ... The third party is someone who is unaffiliated with the editor, publisher, group or institution in control of the source," and a qutoe from examples: "Any item that is inaccessible, due to zero copies being available to the public at this time (even if copies were available to the public once upon a time) is 'inaccessible'." As far as I can see, no exemplares are legally accessible for the public. I can most likely not review a copy of the book by visiting any public library, or buy an exemplar. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt at all about publication of the book. Claims about 'legality' of distribution of the book are tenuous at best; although religious sanctions may apply to a JW elder who gives away his copy (or lets a 'sister' bind the book[1]), such would not be 'illegal'. It is not the case that 'zero copies are available to the public'. The real question is, Why all the (attempted) secrecy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why, as the content out of what I've seen in most cases doesn't appair to be very controversial. If they don't want it leaked, it is understandable they take precautions (even though the precations could be discussed). It appairs we are agreed about the book could be proved to be published, but we are not agreed about if the book could be counted as public available, and neither if the book is a RS (for this and a limited numbers of related topics), as I am questioning if it is ok to use a book not public accessible as a RS, concidered the pretty broad concensus from independent users regarding the letter. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A request is raised at: RS Noticeboard. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is not closed, but it appairs the books Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock and the "Shephard"-book can't be used directly as RS. I suggest to find other sources for the statements (like if the quotes are published through a RS), or remove them after some reasonable time is given. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly preferable to use other sources if available. Since the book is readily available online for the foreseeable future, I'm in no rush to go hunting for every reference to the publication in citations. It would be dishonest to selectively remove instances that are considered to be negative in order to censor information. However, notable points should be available from other sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree it is no rush, as long as the article isn't about to be nominated for an FA, as the sources doesn't appear to be used to push a POV. It could however be a problem if the statements are questioned, and some of the content could be taken for original research, as the book is may readible, but is not published through a reliably source (website). Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is at: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 119#"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" used as source. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Christians

Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian. Christians believe that Jesus is God and also believe in the Trinity. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe either doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.125.96 (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Read those many topics first.

"Christian" (Archive of this talk page)

"Christians" (Archive of this talk page)

The IP editor should be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum and the Talk page is not for general discussion of JW beliefs.

--FaktneviM (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous editor's claim about JWs is a No true Scotsman fallacy. This issue has been discussed at length, and the current wording is correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Most persecuted religion of the twentieth century"

"Controversy surrounding various beliefs, doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses has led to opposition from local governments, communities, and religious groups. Religious commentator Ken Jubber wrote that "Viewed globally, this persecution has been so persistent and of such an intensity that it would not be inaccurate to regard Jehovah's witnesses as the most persecuted religion of the twentieth century."[284]

Cites Ken Jubber's article "The Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Southern Africa", in which this quote actually reads: "the most persecuted group of christians of the twentieth century". Should be changed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.164.140 (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Google Scholar supports this wording and not the other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek Septuagint

Willietell wants to mention the presence of the tetragrammaton in the Greek Septuagint as a basis for using Jehovah in the NWT's New Testament. The fact that the tetragrammaton appears in original texts of the Old Testament is undisputed, and it is unnecessary in the context of this general article to go into this degree of detail. This article doesn't need to try so hard to 'prove a point' about the NWT's use of Jehovah in the NT. It may be suitable to address the point at New World Translation if it is not covered there already. Additionally, writers in the first century clearly did not refer to copies of the Greek Septuagint from the middle of the third century, so the point is not directly relevant to the beginning of the sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The point made by the source was that the Tetragrammaton appeared in copies of the Septuagint until it disappeared from the Septuagint in the middle of the 3rd century C.E. and was thus present in Septuagint in the 1st century C.E. and was therefore available and quoted by 1st century bible writers. Not, as the editor has insinuated, that 1st century bible writers quoted from 3rd century copies of the Septuagint. Willietell (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is why it is not directly relevant to what was used by NT writers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why NWT is mentioned in the critic section in the article about JW, because the claimes there are rejected and could not really be considered as critic of the organization. Critic of the translation is not the same as critic of the organization (JW is not NWT, even though NWT is a product (the translation is, not the Bible, of course) of JW). I would prefer a own section about NWT on more neutral terms. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there is a rebuttal of the criticism doesn't negate the criticism. Jehovah's Witnesses produced the NWT for their own use, and part of the criticism is that it was written in a way to support their unique biblical doctrines and interpretations. It is therefore appropriately part of the JW article.

I still think it then would be more natural to have an own NWT-section, instead of just a critic-of-NWT-section, if it is like JW made their own translation to support their own doctrines. NWT do also have an own article, with a possible spin-out article, confirming my suspicion of cherrypicking content into direction of POV-pushing the article (Like "handling of sex abuse" is more relevant to JW than NWT???) Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your basis for comparison in saying that abuse is more or less relevant to JWs is unclear. The NWT is directly related to JWs. No other group uses the translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Removing "Handling of sexual abuse cases" from critic section

Please read the above discussion and give your valuable input. The discussion is if critism against Jehovah's Witnesses' policies regarding child abuse is relevant for the main article about Jehovah's Witnesses, concidered the sources given. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just read the section now. It appears to be short, well-formulated and well-referenced. It also leaves further details to a larger separate article. I personally see no problem with it. If such a short text appears to have too much visibility because of a subtitle, I would not object to it being included in a more general Criticism section as-is, though. Actually, if the Criticism section is small enough, its different sections might not need the subtitles either, perhaps. These however help to clearly separate the topics and to reference them in the Table of Contents... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Section: I agree with the above IP editor. The section is short, neutral and well-referenced to reliable sources such as CBS News and BBC News. It in no way claims that more JW commit child abuse than the members of other religions. It also fairly covers JW's response to the criticism. Eastshire (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The sources doesn't claim JW do have bad policies for child abuse, they interview some random who claims they have. Have you seen the sources (for the first two sentences)? Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources interviewed a person who makes that claim. That's pretty much how any criticism is going to be reported. The section handles it fairly and presents the JW response. In fact, if anything, the section is slightly biased in JW favor. Eastshire (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I haven't supposed something else, but is it significant for the article? If CNN interviews an unemployed man, and the man says the president doesn't care about poor people, and he suggest 20000 people lost their jobs because of him, would that get a section in the article the US president, with the interview as a primary source? Most likely not, because it is not a significant topic. Is critic for sex abuse handling, based on interviews of some random, without any proof for verifictions, relevant to the main article about JW? Considered the fact, as stated in the article, that JW appear to have clear instruction for handling sex abuse, the critic doesn't appear to be relevant. Several RS states that sexual abuse is not more common among JW than outside the organization.Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been covered by various current affairs programs in various countries, and is therefore a broader issue than the example of a single television network interviewing a single individual. As I stated in the section above, the issue reported in the media is usually about policies making abuse more difficult to report rather than claims that abuse happens at all or that it is more common than in other social groups. Additionally, the JW media website provides specific statements about their policies for reporting sexual abuse, which were largely developed and improved in response to the coverage of the issue in mainstream media. Even if it were the case that abuse no longer occurs at all, the issue is still recent and notable, and notability is not temporary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with it personally but if JWs have policy, which should avoid sexual abusing (what is logical to have that rules in all religions), therefore this shouldn't be placed in criticism section. Instead, briefly describing that the church have functional policy against sex abuse would be appropriate in somewhere else in article. Specific accusations examples should be placed on 'Criticism of JW' article and be described as accusation and not as absolute fact. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The article reports a notable controversy. It is not especially notable on its own that an organization has policies about abuse. The issue is notable because of the controversy that has surrounded it, which has been reported by various media outlets in several countries. The coverage in this article is brief and fairly neutral, tending slightly toward a favourable view of the organisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it is an important information (aka 'notable' from encyclopaedic viewpoint). I only noticed that 'logic' of whole section in the article is fuzzy if we consider the fact that exist independent article concern on criticism. It seems like the religion is criticized twice. Thus it is certainly not neutral and try to portray this group more defamatory than is necessary. I also points out that section so called 'analysis' is not analysis, because do not contain no less than one 'normal' valuation of JWs. It contains only criticism, thus is falsely named 'analysis'. You should find some due/undue sociologist opinion or merge this section to article about criticism. The section 'practices' contains blood transfusions and separateness which I encourage you to think over place that rather into article 'Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses'. I agree that section 'practices' in the 'main JW article' is neutral and well-balanced, despite also contains a little of controversy and thus I encourage you to consider placing that blood and seperateness section in 'Criticism article' as well. // Please, bear in mind that I do not want to be a part of Wikiproject JW again, so it could be said that I am likely impartial person and not 'JW editor' (what is Jeffro77's and BlackCab's wikipedia's slang idiom). Thanks if someone is willing to consider my suggestions. --FaktneviM (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Criticisms" section is a very brief summary of the main Criticisms article you refer to. The summary is of appropriate length. It nowhere states the accusations are absolute fact. It refers to "accusations", which have been covered by major current affairs programs in the US, UK and Australia. BlackCab (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

FaktneviM, regarding your claim that the 'analysis' section is not "more normal", you're welcome to provide additional reliable sources that provide an alternative sociological analysis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think the "sociological analysis" contains only criticism. The JWs are proud of their uniformity of belief and see their reluctance to interact with other religions as part of the proof that they are the "true" religion. They also see their friction with secular authorities as indication that they are following God's way, rather than seeking to gain approval of "the world". Is it criticism to suggest the JWs feel they have absolute truth? Is it criticism to note that they see correlations between historical events and the outworking of God's purpose? The last time I studied the Revelation: Its Grand Climax book, it was full of such claims. Why would you want to relegate a sociological analysis to a criticism section? BlackCab (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of questioning the topic was to get a picture of if the critic section is discribing for JW. When "JW and sex-abuse" isn't a notable topic for the critic section, why should "JWs handling of sex abuse" be notable? I can honestly not say I believe JW is known for their handling of sex abuse, even though it being mentioned by former JWs in rare occations. I suggest not to use this article for pushing a rarely mentioned claim, even though the section in it self is balanced. Another thing is, other topics more known to be related to JW, like their beliving Jesus not being crucified, is spared just about a sentence in the article, maybe because the fact is clearified in the main article about their believings. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Another question: How could the criticism of JWs handling of sex abuse be suggested as relevant, when it obviosly not bear any substance? A bad policy when it comes to handling reported cases of sexual abuse, would necessery give more cases regarded to sexual abuse, among JWs compared to anything else (society outside the organization or other Christian denominations). If it not is significant more cases (of sexual abuse) regarded to JW, than among other Cristian denominations, or among non-JW in general, how could occational mentioned claims regarded to their sex abuse handling be considered as relevant to the main article about JW? Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

suggestion

I have a suggestion that the criticism section could be titled (as in the criticism article) in to three or two sections each retaining or merging the present contents. It allows to standardize the section titles in an encyclopedic way and to avoid vague discussions on which criticisms to be highlighted here. Further it would help to avoid arbitrary selection of criticism subsection titles.

Doctrinal criticism - Merge the failed prediction and New world Translation sections together
Sociological criticism - Merge the Suppression of free speech and thought and Handling of sexual abuse cases sections together.--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: I had the same idea ----after reading the whole criticism section in the article---and before reading 2 sex abuse related sections on this talk page. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The current section is an appropriate summary of the major points of criticism contained in the spinout article. Your suggested headings would group together criticisms that are barely related. BlackCab (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak oppose. It is a good suggestion, but I do agree to the point in BlackCabs comment here (and is criticism of NWT really "doctrinal criticism"?). I think merging the whole section could be an idea, just left critism in different paragraphs, as the criticism isn't suggested to belong to any specific section, at the other hand, it wouldn't invite to adding relevant content. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose both and Keep section as is. (Got this RfC invite from the RfC Bot, but have been involved in some related discussions before.) Jeffro has summarized the arguments nicely, and, if anything, as he pointed out, the entire thing is slightly biased towards a favorable view of the JW religion. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 19:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

* Comment I don't think any of the points other than the New World Translation are particularly notable, and I also feel that they are out of place here, as is the entire criticism section in general. I think merging the entire section into the criticism article, with the exception of the New World Translation, and leaving a link to the criticism article, would be best. Willietell (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article is a spinout article from the main JW article. WP:SUMMARY states: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic." That is what has been done. There is therefore no need to "merge" the criticism back into the main Criticism of JW article. You state that: "I don't think any of the points other than the New World Translation are particularly notable", but the Criticism article has an abundance of sources that indicate notability. BlackCab (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of WP:SUMMARY for including long paragraphs of all kinds of criticism looks like cherrypicking for POV-pushing. Why spend so much space for such a topic as criticism of JWs handling of sex-abuse, when not even "JW and sex-abuse" is found to be notable? Other topics more known to be relevant to JW, like persecution, or believings like their view of how Jesus died, should have more space in the article compared to a narrow topic like critics regarded how they handle sex abuse. Percecution of JW is a lot more described in academic sources than JWs handling of sex abuse, and also got supporting articles, but is spared only slightly more space in the article. The criticism is also obviously misleading, as bad practice when it comes to handling sex abuse, necessary would give more cases among JWs than either non-JWs or compared to other Christian denomination, and the lack of academic sources supporting such criticism is not supporting its notablitiy in the main article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The existence of academic sources has never been a measure of notability. But the issue has gained widespread media attention, which denotes notability for inclusion. At the moment the coverage of opposition and persecution in the main JW article is three times as long as that of "handling of sex abuse cases". BlackCab (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of "widespread media attention" doesn't match mine, as I think the media attention is to poor and random to be used as a single reason for coverage in the main article about JW. Media is coverig traffic accidents and bizarre events, without that makes any of those notable, so I suggest media covering of roumors or random claims like those presented in the references is not stand-alone good reasons for spending significant room in the main article about JW. This article is defined as an article covering a controversial topic, and claims like those given, should be backed up with supreme verification, even though it is presented as criticism in the article. JW is not known for a particulare bad handling of sex abuse, and as I stated above, the criticism is also obviously misleading, as bad practices when it comes to handling sex abuse, like the claims in the given sources, necessary would give a higher rating of cases among JWs than either non-JWs or compared to other Christian denomination. The point is, if a statement is obviusly wrong (it is no proof of more witnesses than non-JW are involved to sexual abuse, and a bad handling of known cases would necessary give more victims, or else it could hardly be considered as bad handling of the cases), it shouldn't be included in the article, as its only purpose is to push a POV, based on loose claims. If the purpose is to describe JWs handling of sexual abuse, it could be done in another part of the article, and without the claims from the first two sentences. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right: our perceptions of widespread media attention are markedly different. If the media had given it a passing reference, like a traffic accident, you might have a point. But when news organisations on three continents devote half-hour investigative documentaries on the issue, that becomes notable. The fact that those news organisations devoted that much attention to the issue demolishes your claim that "JW is not known for a particulare bad handling of sex abuse". The basis of those stories was not that JWs are more prone to sexual abuse, but that the organisation had a flawed method of dealing with cases that came to light that allowed pedophiles to remain in congregations and continue offending. It was absolutely a criticism of the religion. It absolutely gained notability because of the media attention of those news organisations with a good reputation for fact-checking, BlackCab (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article briefly covers a notable issue as reported in the media in several countries, and isn't about specific incidents. The analogy about specific traffic accidents doesn't directly apply, though traffic collisions in general are certainly notable, as are certain specific road accidents.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If three different media channels report from a JW convention, does that make mentioning the convention automaticly notable for including in the main article about JW? I don't buy it, because media considered serious mentioning a case based on interviews, and the media reports mentioning JW, won't automaticly make a casee or statement worth including in the main article about JW. When the claims are refused by JW as partly or complete false, other media sites claims that JW do have good policies for reporting abuse cases, with specific examples of JW elders reporting specific cases got to their knowledge as a confident case, to the police, and JW officials stating the elders were doing accordingly to the policies, makes the critic misplaced in the main article about JW. I'll also give an exempel to show that mentioning older cases or practicies could be misleading: Like fourty years ago physical punishment (within limits) of own kids were common, at least where I live. I think it is reasonable to think JW practiced this the same way as non-JW. If a person claimed he was physical punished by his parents, and connects this to JW, and maybe even claims his parents were encouraged to do so, it would be somewhat questionable to use the claims in an article like this and present it as a current practice. The claims presented in the articles, are obviously wrong, as a bad practice of handling sex abuse cases, where pedophile persons are protected, would necessary produce more cases among JW than among non-JW, which is not. To present the critics, and not mentioning the claims is based on a former practice, or former lack of practice, for handling such cases, is POV-pushing, as it in an unfair way connects JW to sex abuse. It is pretty much like blaming USA for being a country systematicly discriminating black people, in the main article about United States, without mentioning the critic was about conditions decades ago, and suggest it to be notable, as notabality doesn't disappair and the staement being well documented. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are still confusing the concepts of reporting the issue with reporting specific instances. It is not notable to report on specific JW conventions, however JW conventions in general are mentioned in JW-related articles in a manner consistent with their notability. The section on abuse does not report on specific instances of abuse, but reports the issue. The claim that a bad practice of handling sex abuse cases, where pedophile persons are protected, would necessary produce more cases among JW than among non-JW, which is not is not verifiable, because it relies on information that is not available, and the reason the information is not avaialable is intrinsic to the issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My claim is a logic conclusion, based on the fact it is no more cases of abuse among JW than it is among non-JW (I could find sources confirming it, but I can't see any proof of the opposite anyway, as I consider such controversial claims as added to the article should be supported by some actual facts), and my suggestion for removal of the section could be strengthened if I added sources that proves JW elders are reporting cases of child abuse, against the offenders will, and confirmation from JW officials of the action made is according to JW policies, but I see the problem, by adding the source won't be a hard evidence of the opposite never is happening, or have at some point been happening. Anyway, the claims presented in the article is based on what looks like gossip re-told through media, and the fact JW got official guidelines for handling cases, makes it an unsignificant and biased addition to the article. I suggest to be more careful about using sources based primarly on ex-members of pretty much anything, as former member of denominations (not only ex-JW) does often seek to damage the denominations reputation by posting claims, and they use gladly media as a tool. Bryan Wilson wrote in The Social Dimension of Sectarianism: Sects and NewReligious Movements in Contemporary Society: "The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of selfjustification. ... Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or produced as books (sometimes written by 'ghostwriters')." The critic in the article is clearly within the boarders of what can best be described as general claims denominations like JW is hit by from time to time. I suggest to remove the critic, until it could be confirmed as relevant from a more academic point of view, like the rest of the critic section. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A comparison of whether there are more cases of abuse within JWs than outside it is irrelevant. The guiding principle here is WP:N and the section on sex abuse meets the requirements of that policy on the strength of the media coverage. WP:N does not depend on academic sources (though this study may provide just that information). We are now starting to repeat ourselves, which is becoming tedious. BlackCab (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we definitely have a case of POV pushing here, as Grrahnbahr has stated. I personally have never seen a single news report, or read a single news article that even suggested than Jehovah's Witnesses have a higher than average occurrence of sexual abuse cases among their members,. Nor have I ever seen or heard of any reliable accusation that such limited occurrences as have happened have been handled in any way which protected the assailant from criminal prosecution. My personal experience within the organization for over twenty years helps me to recognize that such an accusation is at best absurd. To state in one sentence that Jehovah's Witnesses who violate biblical standards for personal conduct unrepentantly are disfellowshipped and shunned, and then in a different section to make claims that they disregard child molestation and allow the molester to remain in the congregation and cover up his actions is inconsistent and illogical at best and absolutely ignores reality for the sake of POV spin as this is simply not the case. Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization hold their members to the highest moral standards of any religious group of which I am aware and to suggest that they allow, without recompense, child molestation within their midst is a blatant falsehood. To allow such unsubstantiated claims to find their way onto the main JW article without solid evidence is unacceptable. This type of unreliable raillery needs to be restricted to the criticism article if even allowed to exist on Wikipedia at all. Willietell (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. Three uninvolved editors (76.10.128.192, Eastshire, JohnChrysostom) responded to the RFC, and each indicated that the section is an appropriate summary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've pointed to a clearly POV-issue, and can't do much more about it. I think this could be a issue redebated when, and if, the article is nominated as a FA. The weird thing about the section, is it needs a fully explanation about JWs policies to child abuse to be able to include the claims. The claims are raised primarly by former members of the organization, and is relisted in the stories, clearly with the intention to damage the organizations reputation. The lack of critic to the sources is regrettable, and is not improving the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I'm late for this discussion. The criticisms here are too long and distracting; an interested reader can easily peruse the linked 'Criticism of JWs' article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If a newspaper/blog claims that the religion was encouraging child molesters to continue in church(that is what this section essentially says), with lack of any reliable study/evidence to confirm it, then would it need a section on religions article? probably not. It is also interesting to see that the policies for JW's to report the evidence to authorities were published even before all these accusations were occurred. So there is no point in citing random claims from some victims to suggest that JWs do not report cases to authorities as a serious criticism in the main article. I don't personally have a Strong insistence to remove the section since I think the section would help to remove the misconception spread by anti-JWs online. I'm pretty sure that this section would be an issue if nomination revision was done for FA, since we would get independent editors for discussion. Though we have a vast range of criticism, the current subsection headings seem to be sharpened based on preferences among some editors to make it appealing rather than based on proper weight using Reliable Source. If nominated I would oppose on these grounds and would suggest to keep a single reduced section for whole criticism with separate paragraphs or generalized subheadings. This thread with strong arguments from user:grrahnbahr shall be posted back in that case--Fazilfazil (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There was already an RFC. Various independent editors responded that the section treats the subject fairly, and that if there is any bias, it is in favour of JWs. The article doesn't 'cite random claims', it cites various documentaries in various countries which each reported on various cases.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

But unfortunately we did not got good independent editors here to comment. A brief history of those editors commented show they have opposed JW supportive editors/stuff before. Having noted the changes happened during this articles GA nomination process, I said we may continue discussion about this during FA nomination(if any) were we would get number of independent comments--Fazilfazil (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see that User:Eastshire has ever commented on JW articles before.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Fazilfazil may think about the trinity of you, BlackCab and JohnChrysostom. I won't make any big case out of this isolated, but it is within a pattern of bias related to the article, and an exempel of cherrypicking content. The arguments used to keep it within the main article, is pretty much what keeps content like the last sentence in the section about «Persecution», were the logic is, as long as something is mentioned by someone, it should be included (works mostly one way), no matter how illogically a statement is. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Trinity?? Are you implying collaboration? It's probably not a good idea to speculate about what Fazilfazil thinks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Critisism and other content

By having an own section with critism, isn't it reasonable to collect obvious critisism to this section? Examples mentioned, is like note 4 in section "Organization", and like large parts of the section «Persecution», where critism regarded JW's "motives" for being prosecuted (I'm sure it is several other issues). Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of a criticism section to weed out anything that might be perceived as slightly negative from other sections so that the other sections sounds like apologia, which would constitute an attempt to censor the rest of the article. The section is for presenting notable criticism about specific issues. A scholar's opinion of a particular group or belief, even if negative, does not automatically belong in a 'criticism' section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr, you seem to be attacking the Criticisms section on several fronts. The section is a summary of the spinout article, but other notable criticisms (including Franz's observations about the stress placed on obedience to the organization) may be noted briefly in the main body where appropriate. The observations by Harrison, Whalen etc on what they saw as an incitement to governments is obviously directly related to the issue of persecution and is a significant viewpoint on the cause of some of that persecution. It should therefore be included in that section to provide readers with the full picture. BlackCab (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not attacking the critic section, just trying it. Some of my questioning of critical sections/parts, are also supported by other users, but blocked by a couple of users. It appears this article do have a bias against JW in several cases, especially when compared to sholars writing on my primary language and other related languages. I am also working at smiliar articles in other languages, and different solutions is chosen there, and that before I was into the articles at all. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is being blocked. You know that Wikipedia functions on the basis of consensus. You sought outside comment about removing sexual abuse from the criticisms section and found no outside support for that proposal. BlackCab (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It were like five or six users involved, and no really agreement about the content should be included or not, so, indeed, an overwhelming consensus. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if more editors responded. But of those who did respond, there was a fairly strong consensus. Only JW editors thought the section should be removed, and whilst their views should be considered, it also has to be weighed against inherent bias. The independent editors who responded to the RFC agreed that the section is presented fairly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Is JV considered a sect or not?

Several of the sources used in this article includes the word "sect" in their title, but otherwize the article does not mention the word sect. Is JV considered a sect by authorities on the field, or was it considered a sect previously? Mange01 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Many academics, including Bryan R Wilson, call them a sect. Anthony Hoekema calls them a cult. Joseph Zygmunt calls them a sectarian movement. In the October 1883 Watchtower Charles Taze Russell said the best term for the Bible Students (as they were then called) was "sect". Its use is quite subjective though, and generally judgmental and pejorative. Jehovah's Witnesses avoid the term "Christian denomination", although they have used that term themselves when dealing with authorities. Wikipedia has therefore used that term, which is probably more neutral. BlackCab (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have heard that the word "sect" is considered a perjorative in Europe today, much as the word "cult" is considered a perjorative today in the US. Under those circumstances, they become basically "words to avoid" unless the specific negative connotations are being addressed. Personally, as a citizen of the US, I wish the word "sect" hadn't been hijacked in such a way, because it is a great deal shorter and easier to deal with than "Christian denomination" or other similar terms, but it has been, so we should deal with that unfortunate reality. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In technical terms as employed by sociologists of religion, JWs is correctly both a new religious movement (a more general term) and an institutionalised sect (a more specific term) per those terms' technical definitions (see Sociological classifications of religious movements). In general colloquial use, the term 'sect' has connotations that are not intended in the technical usage. Articles therefore avoid using the term 'sect' unless it is clear that the technical usage is intended.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course JVW is a sect in the sense that the organization does not accept any (other) christian denomination, and does not like ecumenical activities. But is JVW a sect in the sense of unhealthy environments for certain individuals from psychiatric point of view, e.g. due to mind-control and manipulative leader style? Are there for example reports of members who did not need psychiatric help before joining JVW, but who have made suicide attempts after leaving the organisation? Mange01 (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that with few exceptions virtually every extant religious group could have both "yes" and "no" given as answers to the last questions above. I have encountered reports of mind-control within the 1 billion member Catholic Church, which would lead some to call it a sect or cult, despite the fact that there are also many people who are members in one sense but very actively critical of the group in other senses. Also, unfortunately, regarding the second question, there are often, if not generally, other factors than religion involved, even in the limited number of cases included in the specific terms offered. Issues such as economic conditions, family environment, undiagnosed existing conditions, and others are often involved as well. I believe there have been reports of the kind indicated about the JWs, but there have been just as many reports about other groups as well, and they are often not as clear and absolute an indicator as some people would want. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mange01 poses a loaded question (argument by innuendo) about suicides attempts. The onus is on the editor to present sources supporting such a claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the question was asked because of the situation on Swedish Wikipedia. Some experienced editors are of the opinion that articles on minor religious denominations should contain a section with criticism aimed at the movement in question so as to get a balanced view. There’s no problem finding juicy stuff to add for that purpose. Up to recently the Swedish version of the Jehovah's Witnesses article consisted to a considerable extent of accusations and critical statements,some of them rather defaming. Another Christian denomination, Swedish Livets Ord (›Word of Life›), a modest movement if one regards the number of members only, has got what I think was called a ›critical section› inserted. Most of it is based on claims from former members of this ›manipulative sect› (I should add that the term ›sect› in colloquial Swedish is synonymous to ›dangerous cult›) that they've been subject to various forms of abuse, as reported by the vociferous counter-cult group FRI, ›Free the Individual›, and one can also learn that some members have tried to kill themselves due to having participated in the Livets Ord Bible school, as asserted by some of their relatives. In contrast, the Swedish articles on the Roman-Catholic Church and the State Church of Sweden don’t contain anything resembling criticism at all. (Neither does the article on the FRI organization, by the way.) My opinion is that by not only allowing but also (as it seems) adopting a policy of entering criticism of this type in articles on religious minority groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses in the name of fairness and balance, Wikipedia risks becoming a destructive force. There’s no end to the number of sites dedicated to ›exposing› each one of these groups – who clearly are underdogs already – so it isn’t as if people wouldn’t be able to find critical opinions if critical opinions, true or false, are what they want. An objective approach may well include information about things criticized but I'm not sure the result would be an objective one if the purpose is to find negative statements and accusations (for example, about allegated high suicide rates among Jehovah's Witnesses) and similar information. I apologize for being so long-winded but this makes me rather concerned. / --Minor-en (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should include notable criticism that is covered in reliable sources. However, it is indeed not appropriate for articles to contain every little thing ("juicy stuff to add for that purpose") that has been said about a group that is not found in reliable sources. The English article on the Catholic Church has a section called Contemporary issues, which is ostensibly a criticism section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Letters

I have reverted User:Brotherlawrence's addition of the statement that members can write 'to the Governing Body' (the cited sources actually indicate that letters can be written to the Watch Tower Society, not the Governing Body), because it has no direct relationship to the statement about members being able to critique or contribute to doctrines. The cited Our Kingdom Ministry states—after recommending that members should only write to the organisation after having first tried to find answers to their questions from JW literature or from their local 'elders'—that members may ask questions. In such an event, the organisation sends a response providing the organisation's view on the matter. The sources indicate that the provision to responding to such letters is only to get the Society's views rather than as any mechanism for challenging or contributing to existing doctrines. The cited Watchtower article also indicates that quesions are ignored if the sender doesn't include their name and address (e.g. by requesting an answer via The Watchtower instead), which may also make it more difficult to indicate criticism in such correspondence, due to fear of subsequent involvement by local elders.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The WT article was published 52 years ago. From memory the WTS has in the past year or so requested members not to write to them with questions. But you're right: the situation Beckford described in 1975 still applies today in that rank and file members have no process by which they can challenge doctrines or propose adjustments. As discussed on the talk pages earlier, most other churches have such systems and processes, so it's therefore a notable fact that the WTS doctrines are not up for debate. BlackCab (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From the Archives I see this was thoroughly discussed. It certainly states the facts.Brotherlawrence (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues in the history section

It appears to be some issues of interest in the history section. The article claim the organization had a number of 50000 members. The WTS confirms the number of congregations, but according to a Norwegion source, the organization had about 5000 "proclaimers" (or publishers, both word is covered with a single Norwegian word), where the source base the numbers from upgifts from the Norwegian Branch Office of JW. I find both numbers given less likely, as the first one could be too strict regarding counting members, as publishing appearently not was a rank-and-file activity among the Bible Students those days, and also would suggest an average of about 10 publishers per congregation. The source given in the text is on the other end of the scale, and suggest an average of about 100 per congregation, far more than JW got even today as an average each congregation (numbers of publishers / numbers of congregation, would suggest about 60-70 each congregation; I am not familiar with average sizes at New Bible Students movements). I am not very familiar with the source, but my experience with encyclypedias from early 20. century is rather mixed. Futher, it could be used in a futher extend in the discussion we've seen on the talk page, regarding members leaving during Rutherfords precidency. A very high number of Bible students about 1916 would give support to modern Bible Students claim about numbers and factions disappaired, a very low number would give support to JWs claim about extraordinarie growth and limited impact out of the dispute. My impression is it also makes the article unaccurate like it stands.

Another issue, under "Reorganisation"; The sentence "In June 1917 he released The Finished Mystery as a seventh volume of Russell's Studies in the Scriptures series without prior approval of the board of directors" is left without verification. According to the JW history book (Proclaimers), "the completed manuscript was approved for publication by officers of the Society and was released to the Bethel family..." (p.66), but the book also mention the removement of four of the members of the board, at the same occation as the book was released. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point, but on the second I can say that there is a discrepancy between sources on whether the directors were previously aware of the book or not. From memory even WTS publications disagreed on this point. It was some time ago that I researched this (mainly for the articles on Rutherford and the leadership dispute), but I'll have another look and add some sources or reword it to acknowledge any disagreement. BlackCab (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one: I doubt it were 50,000 bible students in 1916, even though a hundred years old source says so, and I can source otherwise (at least to some extend, as publishers and members isn't the same). Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (WTS, 1954), it states (pg. 70) that Rutherford, his vice-president Pierson and secretary-treasurer Van Amburgh commissioned Fisher and Woodworth to write The Finished Mystery without consulting the board of directors. "It came as a bombshell. Completely surprised by its release, the opposing members of the board of directors immediately seized upon this issue ..." In fact the WP article already cites Robert Crompton's Counting the Days to Armageddon which reads: "One of Rutherford's first actions as president ... was, without reference either to his fellow directors or to the editorial committee which Russell had nominated in his will, to commission a seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures." (This is currently ref. no. 54). I'll add the Divine Purpose reference to the article. BlackCab (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Crompton suggest Rutherford did not reference (implied a single one of) the board of directors, while the Divine Purpose suggest at least two of the highest ranked directors were supporting Rutherfords decision, a suggestion supported by the proclaimer-source, also from WTS. All sources suggest, at least to some extent, that Rutherford did not conference with the editorial committee, nor to the "opposing members" of the board (the four members who were about to be dismissed from the board), but out of both WTS-sources, it appears that Rutherford was supported by at least two high ranked board directors (no 2 and 3?) from the board in his decition. The sources actually suggests all three (Rutherford, Pierson and van Ambourgh) were behind the decision. The claim indicates that the publishing was made by Rutherford (alone), without support from any of the board members, while two of the three accesible sources we have been taken into consideration, suggest at least to some extend, otherwise. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

All sources agree that Rutherford told only the other two executive members of the board. In the context of the "tyranny" and secretiveness with which Rutherford was accused, it has some relevance, but in such a brief summary of history it is hardly worth mentioning. I have deleted the reference. BlackCab (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(I am aware it is somewhat clumsy wordings here) Another issue in the history section: Several claims about the number of bible students leaving, is based on original research and defector literature (several, if not most, JW defectors have historically wanted to portret JWs as a "false prophet", "exposing" JW and attacking Rutherford in their texts, so I suggest connecting defectors to the sources is relevant here (my statement here is, at least to some extend, supported by several independent researchers, among them Hege Kristin Ringnes)) and it appears the the sources is not really supported nor by WTS literature or by independent researchers. Futher, the focus about the doctrine developement is to some extend giving a narrow view, as it is focusing largely on a mistaken believe rather than the developement of doctrines whitch is still known to be of importance when it comes to relevance to JW. Among change of docterines I suggest is of more importance today, is they quitting celebrating several holydays, their view of use of the cross, their development in their view of eschatology, and the in the article mentioned development of the organizational structure in direction of "theocratic" ruleset. Among the researchers suggesting otherwise than the statement given in the article, is Andrew Holden, who in the book Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement states at page 151: "The Society's record of prophecy failure has undoubtly played a part in volentary defection ... the 1925 return of the prophets Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... But it was the failure of Armageddon in 1975 that had the most devasting effect on Watch Tower membership". (He wouldn't suggest something like that, if the majority of IBSA/JW left because of the 1925-incident) To draw a conclusion of the numbers given in Divine Purpose looks like original research, and is not really supporting the claim in the article, as it doesn't give up the numbers of attendance to the memorial service in 1931, and thus not is confirming a majority of the attendance did leave. It does also only calculate the numbers of adherents as attended to the memorial service, while JW historically have calculated the number of adherents as number of active publishers (The Divine Purpose shows also a steady growth of numbers of publishers, almost whatever period selected). Futher, the conclusion in the article that the drop of adherents is directly connected to the 1925-incident is not sourced by any neutral source, and is on thin ice, and as WTS sources suggest other reasons for the drop of adherents, like a growing cult around Russell as person. When all this is said, the WTS confirmes a drop of adherents in periods around 1914 to 1919, and in the mid 1920s, and to some extend suggest this related to "disappointness" connected to certain events.

I suggest to reconsider whether the 1925-prophecy is of major interest of the JW history, and if it is of such interest as being the only doctrine worth mentioning, and futher reconcider whether the statements in the article actually is proven (it is maybe of more interest in the critic section or in the section about their eschatology). I do also suggest a rewriting of this section, so it gets closer to official versions of the JW history the actual period. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: This is a comment to the second paragraph in the section "Reorganization (1917–1942)". Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. BlackCab (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added another reference (from Stroup) discussing the schisms following Rutherford's rise to the presidency, prompted by their disappointment with him. Further academic sources are available on the defections post-1925 and I will add those. It is not WP:OR to cite the attendance figures from the Divine Purpose book; it confirms the acknowledgement (already contained in WTS books) that many left after Rutherford's election and again after the 1925 prophetic failure. There is no need at all to rewrite the section to conform to "official versions" of the JW history of the period. The WTS has never been completely candid about its own history; an encyclopedia must look beyond the statements of the subject about itself and use the observations of outside researchers. BlackCab (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Another issue: «Rutherford later claimed that this and other changes he had instituted fulfilled biblical prophecies in the book of Daniel.[77][78][79]» Later than what? The references is about Watch Tower articles from before the mentioned changes, and thus the references is not supporting the text. The statement is also pending of Rutherford in person did write those articles (all articles?) in the WT magazines. One of the refernces does appearently not suit in as a support to the text at all. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Later than what?" Fairly obviously... later than the change was instituted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Another issue from the history section: "Reflecting these organizational changes, publications of Jehovah's Witnesses began using the capitalized name, Jehovah's Witnesses". There is no referencings proving the change of capitalized name is a result of organizational changes, and the statement do have interest of English-speaking countries primarly, as Jehovah's Witnesses do not use a capitalized name in, examples given, any of the major Nordic languages (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Finnish). For defence, this is the article in English, and a significant part of JW and their administration are English-speaking. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The beginning of the sentence could be changed to simply state, From [year], publications.... Usage in languages other than English is out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "failed predition"

I support the statement given by fazilfazil, as I find it more accurate ("It also states that members are willing to accept adjustments in doctrine, and that it would be 'foolish to take the view that expectations needing...' "), as the statement is supported by Holden as he writes in Jehovah's Witnesses - portrait of a contemporary religious movement, page 32: "The movement has been successfully in persuading its members that such change comes from the Almighty who never tires of teaching them new things[.]" Note successfully; the quote is somewhat indirectly, as persuading members is not exactly the same as the members accepting, but by not accepting new doctrines, any JW will be counted as "spiritually sick" or even in some cases disfellowshipped (if proclaiming another teachings without repenting or similar). Another point that could be used as a support for Jeffros change, is that JW got a high level of turnover, but it need futher documentation to be a prove for being a result of changing doctrines, as most disfellowshippings are results of fornication. Jeffros change is appearantly more neutral, as it does not take standing, but I think the sources added, and Holdens observation is making fazilfazils statement accepted, at least until other sources claiming otherways could be included. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm okay with his edits, but removed the usage of Quotations which seems unnecessary and looks distracting . Meanwhile I added the statements about similarity between failed expectations on modern times and first century Christians. I think it was an important missing part in the rebuttal, since I went through at-least 10 articles mentioning that--Fazilfazil (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the part about first century Christians supposedly behaving the same way. Whether they did or didn't do so (which is a subjective interpretation of scripture) is not especially important, because the suggestion that any particular action is 'right' or 'good' just because 'first century Christians did it' is a POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you interpret it as a POV. Jehovah's Witnesses have Strong rebuttals against their critics doesn't mean that those things should not be included in Wikipedia because it may debunk the criticism. Below are some sample references I found regarding the same, I'm sure there are more references in WTS publications--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Proclaimers Book, WTS page. 633, "In this they were somewhat like Jesus’ apostles. The apostles knew and thought they believed the prophecies concerning God’s Kingdom. But at various times they had wrong expectations as to how and when these would be fulfilled. This led to disappointment on the part of some.—Luke 19:11; 24:19-24; Acts 1:6."
Reasoning from scriptures, WTS page. 134 "Have not Jehovah’s Witnesses made errors in their teachings? Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets. They have made mistakes. Like the apostles of Jesus Christ, they have at times had some wrong expectations.—Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6."
The Watchtower, 09/01, 1997, page. 20, "Ridiculers may well have mocked faithful Christians because these had as yet unrealized expectations. Shortly before Jesus died, his disciples “were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.” Then, after his resurrection they asked whether the Kingdom would be set up right away. Also, about ten years before Peter wrote his second letter, some were “excited” by “a verbal message” or “a letter,” reputedly from the apostle Paul or his companions, “to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.” (Luke 19:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; Acts 1:6) Such expectations of Jesus’ disciples, however, were not false, only premature. Jehovah’s day would come!"
Insight from Scriptures, WTS page.1181, "The minas (Lu 19:11-27). Spoken as Jesus was on his way up to Jerusalem for the last time, 33 C.E. (Lu 19:1, 28) The reason for the illustration, as stated in verse 11, was that “they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.” "
The Watchtower, WTS, 12/1 1984, page.16, "True, some expectations that appeared to be backed up by Bible chronology did not materialize at the anticipated time. But is it not far preferable to make some mistakes because of overeagerness to see God’s purposes accomplished than to be spiritually asleep as to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy? Did not Moses make a 40-year miscalculation in trying to act ahead of time to remove Israel’s affliction? (Genesis 15:13; Acts 7:6, 17, 23, 25, 30, 34) Were not Christ’s apostles overanxious to see the Kingdom established, not to speak of their complete misunderstanding as to what the Kingdom really is? (Acts 1:6; compare Luke 19:11; 24:21.) Were not the anointed Christians in Thessalonica impatient to see “the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the day of Jehovah”?—2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2."
The Watchtower, WTS, 12/1 1984, page.10, "Freethinkers and even some of Christendom’s theologians claim that the early Christians believed that Christ’s parousia, or presence, was due to occur in their day. Some even suggest that Jesus himself believed he would come into his Kingdom very soon. But in his illustrations of the talents and the minas, Jesus showed that it would be only “after a long time” that he would return in kingly power and settle accounts with his slaves to whom he had entrusted his belongings..... In his work The Early Church and the World, C. J. Cadoux states: “Irenæus [second century C.E.] and Hippolytus [late second, early third century C.E.] both thought it was possible to calculate with some degree of accuracy the time when the end would come.” Some, due to faulty chronology, thought that 6,000 years of human history had nearly elapsed and that the advent of the seventh millennium was near. They were wrong, of course. But at least they were endeavoring to keep spiritually awake.--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to a direct quotation making a claim about first century disciples; your previous wording was not a direct quotation, but included a POV implication. However, the statement about 'scoffers', ~~even as a direct quote,~~(which was dishonestly quoted, but does not appear in the original article) adds nothing to the article. The purpose of the superfluous quotes here from Watch Tower Society publications is unclear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Jeffro77. I am apart of your continuous disputes with other editors. For me, as observer here, these endless discussions are ugly and adding nothing.

I am OK with your changed wording in latest revision.

I agree that Fazifazil's previous edits were closely to POV slight and appeal to authority, what was your objection to revert him.

I later cited from sourced article. Only transformation I did in my edit was word "scoffers", because it was WTBTS' intended meaning in that article and original word "ridiculers" seem like non-existing or at least grammatically incorrect, when I used vocabulary to find more appropriate and grammatically fine word. ... I am not happy that you assumed that changing from 'ridiculers' to 'scoffers' were from my side something "dishonest". (or your imputation is intended to Fazilfazil??). I would like to see your apology. AGF next time.

--FaktneviM (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What a strange way of saying you agree with me. I didn't actually check who misquoted the source, but I did search for the quoted text, and did not find it. How about you assume good faith, and if you don't accurately quote sources, don't get upset when other editors point it out. You can't just alter quoted text without indicating that it is not what was actually stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing weird that sometimes I agree with different editors (like Fazifazil, BlackCab, John Carter, Jeffro77 or anyone else). Objective viewpoint is not dependent on who says something, but what says. Even if I can agree with some certain information, it is still "only my opinion". If someone disagree with me, it is "only his opinion" too.

I am not interested in any further discussion here. I only noticed that you accused me of dishonest in source' citation and asked for your apology. (It is true that I should been notice that single change in 'edit summary'. Although, Ï supposed that everyone can easily check it and find that original sentence.) --FaktneviM (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it is weird that you agree with me. What was weird was the way you said you agree. Specifically, you made an irrelevant observation, then said you agreed with my edit, then complained about the result of your own misquoting of a source.

I said you misquoted a source because you misquoted the source. End of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what was irrelevant from your viewpoint, but it is not important for me to know it. Once again, ridiculers is non-existing word, and if at least exist, it has the same meaning like word scoffers. Put synonym into place of one single word is not misquoting the source. In any case, meaning is exactly the same like the sourced article. --FaktneviM (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Baptizm

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the text that JW do practice baptism for grown-ups rather than infants (forgive me if I've missed it)? Even not unique for JW, I find it of significant interest.

Baptizm is one of the great rites, and is concidered as the highlight of their spiritual/"Christian career". Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I support including that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, as I doubt its contentious...I would hardly expect JWs to do infant baptisms. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think any statements about the religious practices of this sect should be cited from at least a primary source (their publications). Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 15:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Were you referring to something specific? The points about baptism are already sourced. In general, it is preferable to establish notability from secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For some reason Grrahnbahr said the issue "should be mentioned somewhere in the text". I have no idea what he meant, and I said "at least a primary source". Thanks for your feedback. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

When Grrahnbahr first mentioned it, infant baptism hadn't been mentioned in the article. It was added by another editor, as stated above, and then I cleaned up the text after that. Feel free to have a look through the rest of the article and offer any suggestions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

NWT

Willietell sought to replace their own Bible translation with the wordy a modern language translation of the bible completed in 1961 by the New World Bible Translation Committee under the direction of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and available worldwide in 108 language editions. His replacement text said they prefer to use a translation produced by a committee (without disclosing that the committee were JWs) for a corporation (which is composed entirely of JWs). The number of languages in which the translation is published is superfluous to the context of the statement (but is appropriately covered elsewhere). I have restored the simple, direct statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell also claimed that "own" expresses an opinion. Though this claim is silly on the face of it, the cited source also states that the NWT is their own translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Willietell and Fazilfazil have both in the past couple of days been deleting the word "own" (as in "they prefer to use their own Bible translation, the New World Translation"). They have objected to the word on the basis that:

It could mean that only JWs use the NWT;
It's unnecessary and ambiguous;
It expresses a point of view; and
It expresses an opinion.

I have pointed out already that two sources use the word "own" in describing the religion's use of the Bible. I have my own shoes, you have your own car, the JWs and the WTS have their own Bible. There is no opinion, no point of view, no ambiguity. It is a fact and the use of the word "own", rather than being unnecessary, adds clarity that it is the Watch Tower Society's translation. Removal of the word "own" does not remove any opinion or point of view; it simply removes clarity. Let's not turn this into another great debate about what is a very ordinary English word used here in a very commonplace manner. BlackCab (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Emphasize on OWN is unnecessary and ambiguous. First of all Jehovah's Witnesses and Watch tower society are not the same. The copyright of NWT is not for every JWs, but only for the Watch Tower Bible and Track Society of Pennsylvania. Inc. Not each Jehovah's Witness was involved in the translation to claim its their own. Further NWT translation is not exclusively reserved for Witnesses, but is made available to all to read. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that 'own' is ambiguous here. The NWT is the JW's own translation in the same sense that the NAB is American Catholics' own translation. In no way does that suggest that it belongs merely to the USCCB, even though every US Catholic does not own the copyright. Few Catholics were involved in the translation of the NAB, and everyone is more than welcome to read the NAB. Fazil's argument has no weight behind it. Given that the word is supported by sources and is unambiguous, there is no reason to omit it from our text here. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not dying here for removing the word "own". But my view was the emphasize on "own" at the lead itself is unnecessary and misleading, since the sentence can convey the intended meaning without using "own". Regardless I couldn't find in Catholicism article that the catholic read their own church authorized Bible, though it is true as you said. May be because Catholics never read the Bible in general, other than venerating it by randomly opening a page each day in a separate room in their houses. The mentioning of this preference in the lead have something to do with the traditional Christians' assertion that NWT is heavily biased, as if their own versions are highly accurate. Independent scholars however praise NWT as the most accurate version of the Bible presently available. This reminds the situation happened after the release of KJV in the 17 th century, which was initially thought as a heavily biased translation, but later venerated by many as a milestone in the accuracy of Bible. The same phenomenon have started already on NWT, which in recent years many independent scholars believe as an accurate translation. No wonder why JWs prefer to use it. Indeed unlike Catholics many believing in the infallibility of their Church Bible, JWs continue to use traditional Bibles in languages in which NWT is not available, and the WT publications continue to quote from other Bible translations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with Fazilfazil here. It is in no way true that Catholics all read the ~~NWT~~ NAB. I am a Catholic, and I personally prefer the Jerusalem Bible and the old Anchor Bible that was around when I was a kid. There is not in the Catholic church any particular emphasis on telling the members that they should read one of the "approved" translations, although those translations are used during services, obviously. I am stunned by the statement that the KJV has been venerated for accuracy. I have never to my knowledge even seen any independent reliable sources which have even made the claim that the KJV is accurate. Some of your other comments about Catholics in general seem to be in the form of attacks on Catholics, and I would very strongly suggest that you perhaps read WP:TPG to prevent you from encountering more problems regarding such violations. And, yes, while it is true that the word "own" does not have to be used, the far longer statement you preferred actually didn't really say much anything more than what could be conveyed with the word "own" and wikipedia guidelines indicate that excess verbiage should be avoided. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume you meant NAB in the first line, not NWT? --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry John Carter, just a note here. Claim that Catholic Church have not their approved translations is simply not correct. At least in Europe, C.C. have strong recommendation to use the Catholic Jerusalem Bible (mainly produced by the "Dominican Order", what is a separation group aka sect inside Western Christianity aka Catholic Church). C.C have favour for translators and biblical exegesis' experts with exclusively catholic theology' backgrounds. If C.C sometimes use ecumenical (aka protestant') bibles, there have to be official recognition first by the church that such non-catholic translation is appropriate to read for Catholic adherents. There are many catholic dogmas, which protestant groups rejected. Jehovah's Witnesses are even more different than those ecumenical-friendly translations. Hence, there is not surprising that almost every church 'uses its own translation'. Although, in JW article, word "own" could be perceived by the reader like something non-usual. But in fact, it is very frequent amongst most churches. Thus I agree with objection that word is unnecessary and could cause misleading a reader. Even if book-source used in the article contain word "own", (I didn't check that), it is rather unnecessary evaluating. (I am not interested in any discussion, so respect that I will not react again, thx). --FaktneviM (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The comparison is flawed. It is unsurprising that an organization with over a billion members might have its own translation. It is more noteworthy that an organization with fewer than 10 million members worldwide has its own translation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@JohnCarter: I am from a Catholic background and the things I mentioned about them are from my experience with my relatives. I'm sorry if it was offensive to Catholics. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is even more noteworthy they in average need 20 copies each to cover their spiritual hunger. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that including 'own' is misleading; it is supported by RSs and is unambiguous. Moreover, your writing itself betrays an understanding and use of the word in the way we advocate. You wrote, "as if their own versions are highly accurate." [emphasis added] Clearly if you use the term yourself, you understand how it is used, and I presume that you do not intend disrespect or offence to members of Christian denominations. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this section on the talk page. I personally don't have a lot of problems with the use of the word "own" though I think it is intended as a "POV" slight in this case. I do not think however that the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have translated the bible which they predominantly use is particularly notable and don't think it is necessary here. The rewording I provided was presented as a solution to what was seeming to become edit warring between a few editors and I inserted the accurate and sourced statement as a compromise solution, since no discussion on the talk page had taken place at the time and I had only a little time to spend. I actually added the bit about the 108 languages as an afterthought, thinking it would be somewhat informative as to the broadness of the use of the NWT. Still I agree with Fazilfazil That "OWN" in the context used here is POV, as the intention in its use is to slight not only the translation, but the religious group as a whole. The point he makes that no one says that the Catholics have their "OWN" bible, though they have made several translations of it, points to a consistency issue here with regards to notability. Additionally, the point brought up by Jeffro77 that " His replacement text said they prefer to use a translation produced by a committee (without disclosing that the committee were JWs) for a corporation (which is composed entirely of JWs)" is entirely false, because the statement clearly reads that the NWT is " a modern language translation of the bible completed in 1961 by the New World Bible Translation Committee under the direction of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" , thus it clearly identifies the relationship. The wording I have provided is better, more accurate and less POV. However, we can open this up to a RfC if the need arises and see if we can get a broader input Willietell (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell's latest claim [2] that the removal of his unnecessary explanation of the NWT in the lead section is disruptive editing is way out of order. He may like to review the article at WP:DISRUPT and see how much of his own long-term editing behavior (refusing to get the point, edit warring, failure to accept consensus) are evidence of disruptive and tendentious editing. The first reference in the article to the NWT contains a link to the article on that translation; any further elaboration properly belongs in that article. Again, there is no point of view expressed in the simple statement that the NWT translation is that of the WTS. BlackCab (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the RfC is in fact needed here, can someone assist me in doing it, as I have never done so and am unsure how to go about it. thanks. Willietell (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Two other uninvolved editors have already expressed the view that there is no problem with the use of the word "own". I have previously urged you to keep in mind that that RfCs should be reserved for major issues, not such trivial points. BlackCab (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Willie, do you honestly think that including the word 'own' is meant to be a POV slight? If so, perhaps you might accuse your confrere of the same POV slight against "traditional Christians" since he himself, earlier today, on this very page, spoke of "their own versions" of Bible translations. Please refrain from being a risible SPA editor making a mountain out of a molehill. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As we are all colleagues here, Fazilfazil is no more my "confrere" here than he is yours. I read the remark. I did not comment on it because it had little to do with the subject at hand other than the point of notability, which I did comment on. Yes, I think the inclusion of "OWN" in this particular case to be a intentional POV slight. I also believe if it wasn't we wouldn't be having such an extended conversation over the subject as the edit I made is much more encyclopedic and therefore should be the more acceptable edit if POV pushing isn't the purpose. The wording and the sentence comes across as "they have their "own" bible", emphasis on "OWN". To deny this is simply to be in denial of reality. The POV pushing needs to stop on these articles. Willietell (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Being more wordy does not make something more encyclopedic. Your argument does not follow. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see only one uninvolved editors making a comment here, who is the other one? Willietell (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, perhaps then, you shouldn't make such a trivial point into a major issue. Willietell (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I go about opening an RfC? Please.Willietell (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is simply no benefit in replacing the simple direct unambiguous statement that JWs have their own translation with a wordy statement that unnecessarily refers to an anonymous committee of JWs instead. Based on the fact that various editors have already clearly indicated that there is nothing wrong with the unambiguous direct wording, as well as your previously demonstrated attitude that editors are supposedly 'biased' unless they agree with you, there seems little point in raising an RFC. However, no one is preventing you from doing so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@John Carter. As I recall New Jerusalem Bible was published by Catholic Church, which contains "Yahweh" throughout the old testament nearly 7000 times. Later because of the Pop's letter that God's name should not be used in churches, unofficially on its fear that it may add confusion to Trinity doctrine, they again started substituting it with GOD or LORD in new versions. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to read any Bible, even I use other translations, and if you check their recent public Watchtower they quote from many traditional Bibles. I agree that KJV is having medium bias, for example it renders the same Hebrew word "Sheol" as pit, hell, graveyard in different scripture allowing bias to the traditional Christians teaching of Hell. My view that KJV was initially criticized by church leaders and later accepted widespread, was not of myself, but found in the book, Truth in Translation:Accuracy and Bias in English Translation of New Testament by a catholic professor who teach Greek. NWT uses consistent rendering of Hebrew/Greek words, and is a highly literal translation. I never find anywhere an impartial analysis, clearly showing a impossible rendering example of Greek in any of the NWT scriptures, except for the use of Name "JEHOVAH" in New Testament which is again semantically correct in the sense of applying it to father as understood by Jews. But I can see a lot of clear bias and inconsistency in all other Bibles, one being using the word "worship" to Jesus instead of "obeisance" in Mathew 28:16-17 for the Greek word proskuneo. Ironically other major English Bibles including NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, AB, LB and KJV render the same word proskuneo as "bow down" or "obeisance" in contexts not applying to Jesus in Revelation 3:9, Mathew 18:26, Mark 15:18-19 etc. Back to the discussion, my view is that it is not necessary to use the sentence on NWT in the first paragraph of the lede, along with their source of beliefs, since the beliefs were established even before the NWT was published. Its better to keep it down to the third paragraph or inside the article --Fazilfazil (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Fazil, this discussion is not about the merits of the NWT. The aim of encyclopdias is to enlighten readers with notable facts. In this case multiple sources have made a point of stating that JWs prefer to use the NWT, which their religion has produced and published. If you are a JW, you know this yourself, that 99 percent of scripture readings from the platform are from the NWT, that everyone but newcomers at meetings follow along in the NWT and read from it, and that 99 percent of scriptural references in WTS literature are from the NWT. It has particular notability in this case because of the widespread criticism that certain key parts of that translation were written to reinforce preexisting WTS doctrines. The reference to the JWs preference for their own Bible is not a criticism; it is a notable fact. BlackCab (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As was brought out before, it is no more notable than the Catholics preference to their own bible/bibles and I already provided a perfectly acceptable (and well sourced)alternative to the word "OWN". If you don't agree then lets initiate a RfC and get this thing cleared up. Additional input is likely to be helpful. Willietell (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil, Do you know how to initiate a RfC, because I don't know how to go about it? Willietell (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Willietell ... you just said "their own bibles". It's a fairly commonplace expression, you'd agree? Fairly harmless, yes? There are now two issues here, apparently: whether "own" is an intended slight, and whether reference to the NWT should be made at all. Dear God. BlackCab (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to twist what I'm saying here. First, this isn't the article page, so If I say " their own bibles " here , it isn't the same as stating it in the article. Secondly, my objection is to the intended slight, not just the use of the word "own", which I previously stated that normally I wouldn't find objectionable. I got involved in this because of the edit warring that was going on over the sentence and I tried to provide an acceptable alternative to end the edit warring. The alternative was rejected in favor of the edit war, so don't try to make me out to be the bad guy here. Willietell (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab - its a notable fact. But using it along with the sentence on source of belief at the first paragraph is misleading, and is not notable enough there. I have moved it to the third paragraph, were its owes a place if at all. @Willietell [see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment]--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the statement to recombine the two statements in the lead about the Bible, reversing the non sequitur that was introduced by your edit. I don't specifically object to the statement being in whichever paragraph of the lead, however it is logical to keep the thoughts about the Bible together, and it is logical to indicate the biblical interpretations with the other comments about their source of doctrine. If you can logically keep those thoughts together in a different paragraph, without detracting from the current logical flow of the lead, go ahead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what the 'intended' 'slight' is meant to 'intend', nor by whom it is supposedly 'intended'. It seems that the 'slight' inferred by Willietell is of his own imagination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is manifestly the same thing to say "their own" in the article as in a talk page. The meaning of English words and phrases is not changing from this page to that page. We haven't entered another language game when we come to the talk page. To claim that "their own" means something different when used in M than in N is ridiculous. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I just love the way that you pretend to not understand already clearly stated objections while continuing the same circular arguments to avoid addressing the issue at hand....This is the very reason that an RfC is needed. Willietell (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not that editors don't understand what you've said. They've simply stated that your point isn't valid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do support use of the longer explanation. In general I do agree it would be correct to be as short as possible, but when the short version is challenged, or could be insufficient, I do not think the consideration of a short text is of bigger importance than accurate and neutral wording. This discussion reminds me of the discussion whether the possibility of reinstatement of disfellowshipped members should be included in the lead, and could be considered as attempts to add content of potensial negative value to one side, and exclude a balancing statement, excused by the consideration of a short text (aka "not necessary" or "not needed"). Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been no legitimate 'challenge' of the simple, correct, unambiguous wording about JWs using their own translation. There is no relevance to anything about disfellowshipped individuals.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The argument that a reference to Jehovah's Witnesses preferring to use their religion's own Bible translation "could be considered as attempts to add content of potensial negative value" is simply jumping at shadows. The level of defensiveness here is not just incredible, it's becoming comical. It's a factual, neutral, accurate and properly sourced statement. Why a handful of JWs are raising such a range of objections to what is blatantly obvious, and stated in their own literature, is an utter puzzle. It was previously pointed out that in the November 1992 Our Kingdom Ministry the WTS stated plainly enough that Witnesses prefer to use that translation. It is an undeniable fact that the translation was produced and published by the religion, predominantly for its members, therefore in any common English parlance they prefer their religion's own translation. BlackCab (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree it is a minor issue, but they wanted other users opinions. I think Willietell have presented decent and legal reasons for why replacing (I can's see he seeks to remove content, just replace it) "own" with a fullier explanation. I want to turn the comical defensiveness the other way, as it is comical to deny the fullier explanation when several users is agreeing it is necessery, and the fullier explanation is uncontroversial. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Information in the lead section of the article needs to be brief. The relevant sentence contains a wikilink to the NWT, which explains everything. There is certainly no need in the lead section to the JW article to explain that the NWT was produced by a committee, the year it was published, its features or the number of languages in which it is available. With their comments here, even opposing editors have inadvertently demonstrated the appropriateness of the word "own", which has an unambiguous and neutral meaning. BlackCab (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

When brevity is sought for the purpose of POV pushing rather than for the sake of brevity itself, there is a problem. The use of "their own" here is an intended slight on the religion in a subtle manner, so as to conceal its purpose. The longer language is necessary for clarity and to eliminate the POV pushing. The additional information about the number of languages of availability adds important information that clarifies to the reader the broad availability of the NWT. The year the NWT went into use gives the reader a clear perspective as to when JW's started using the NWT and stating that is was translated by a committee under the direction of the WTS lets the reader know it is a translation internal to JW's. The edit offered is clearly superior to the wording "their own" and should be restored. Willietell (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't just keep claiming that there is an 'intended slight' (what POV? what slight? intended by whom?). The simple statement is unambiguous and accurate, and is entirely suitable for the lead. This article isn't about the NWT; ancillary information about the translation is not required in the lead of this article and is covered at the linked article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth should Willietell keep suggesting it is necessary to go for a fully explanation, if it didn't meen anything? "Their own" could easily meen "adjusted to their believings" or "primarly used by" instead of "translated by JW", so why keep the readers guessing? Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell seems to be convinced that anything that could even remotely possibly be a slight against JWs is a slight against JWs. But the simpler and more likely explanation is that "their own" means theirs, belonging to them, as it has been used throughout this discussion inadvertently by persons on both sides of the discussion. He has no evidence that when it is used in the article it is a slight, and that when he or Fazil uses it here it is not a slight. AGF would govern that there is an assumption, both here and on the page itself, that "their own" is not a slight, but is a concise way of referring to something belonging to a group of persons. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So "their own" means now "is belonging to them"? What does every member of JW needs in average more than 20 copies of a bible for (8,000,000 x 20 = 160,000,000)? It becomes even more clear why Wilietells suggestion should be taken serious. I do though have a suggestion for a middle way: The NWT is published by WTS, it could be stated something like "JW tends to prefer to use NWT, a translation published by WTS" (rewritten to suit in to the current text of course). It is briefer than Willietells suggestion, and is more accurate and neutral than "their own" translation. You can't negotiate what truth is, but the middle way is may uncontroversial and close enough to a concise statement about the topic. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think it means "paid for by them" and, basically, "used almost exclusively, and very possibly factually exclusively, by them". I don't know if any Bible Students groups use it, and I assume that some JW splinter groups use it as well, but that would be expected. I think it would be most neutral if we addressed which version is used in services. If we had "JWs use in their meetings the NWT, which has been prepared and published by them" (exclusively?) that might be the most informative and useful to the reader. Clearly, if the language in use is some very minor language, they might use some other translation available in that language - that would be expected. But that would be an unusual situation, and I don't know how many such cases there actually are, and what the numbers might be. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the wording to necessitate Grrahnbahr's implication that a certain number of printings equals a certain number of people, or that any particular JW has any certain number of copies (though they typically have more than one), or that a JW has never replaced their copy, or that JWs don't also place them with people they visit. The only basic fact is it is a translation ostensibly produced by and for JWs. In answer to John Carter's question, yes, the NWT is produced exclusively by the Watch Tower Society, which 'employs' (volunteer labour) only JWs, and the Society is the sole copyright holder.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So if you wants to push the opinion that "the only basic fact is it is a translation ostensibly produced by and for JWs", then the current wording is perfect. It is given a well qualified reason for why a longer explanation is needed, and Willietell is supported by a number of users, so my suggestion to Willietell is, if reverted, to raise a RfC. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is accurate, neutral and concise, which is what an encyclopedia should be aiming for. I see no point in rewriting and expanding the lead section further in order to tiptoe around some imagined "intended slight" against the JWs by stating that they prefer to use their church's own Bible translation, the NWT. There are now three sources cited that use that term. No editor has yet explained what the "slight" is, or how it could possibly denigrate the subject of the article. If that change is done, what will be the next phase: objection to the use of the word "they" or "prefer" on the grounds that this, too, is a subtle form of attack? In a talkspace that often degenerates into pointless debate, much of it sparked by Willietell's endless and baseless accusations of "POV spin", this is one of the worst. BlackCab (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one fighting tooth and nail over making a minor change to the wording to avoid clarification and to keep in place terminology that several editors have clearly stated they find to be inappropriate and less preferable to the suggested alternative language. I will also remind the editors, I am not the one who initially brought up this point, but have simply been one to help carry it forward. I think the 2006 edition of the NWT states a printing of 174 million copies and that type of worldwide distribution clearly indicates that the NWT is being used by a significant number of people who are not JW's. The suggested language is simply more informative to the reader, less likely to be misinterpreted, and less POV. It should without question be reinstated. Willietell (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are at least one, however, who is violation WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in your above comments. The number of Bibles being printed is in no way evidence regarding who, if anyone, is actually using them. In fact, drawing any such conclusion would seem to violate the guidelines above. Please refrain from further efforts in drawing conclusions not directly supported by evidence. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of copies distributed, the Bible JWs use is that of their own church; it was produced by the church, employing terms and phrases previously used by the church and reinforcing doctrines held by the church. The argument that the use of the word "own" in some way suggests no one but JWs use the Bible is very weak indeed. When a phone retailer tells a customer that the iPhone uses Apple's own operating system, he means no insult, he is stating a fact. Yet you have claimed the equivalent statement about JWs' use of the WTS's own Bible is an "intentional POV slight". Again, adding elaborations on a bible is unnecessary in the lead section of an article about a religion. It's time to move on. BlackCab (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, if you're convinced there is a POV issue at stake, you'll get the widest response at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Take it there and let's end this. BlackCab (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Willietell can see it isn't a simple POV-issue, but an unaccurate statement with several different outcomes, depending how to read it. It is well documented here, as opposers of a fully explained statement aren't agree what "own" means like it is precented in the text. This is obviously more a RfC than an issue for the POV-noticeboard. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this POV and that is why I split the statement and placed the less important statement to the third paragraph in my recent edit which clearly removes any dispute. But user:Jeffro77 reverted the edit claiming that it is not tastily fitting with the flow of the article, as he did to almost all my recent edits. NWT has nothing to do with the Witnesses beliefs, unfortunately it is in harmony with their beliefs due to greater accuracy with the Biblical manuscripts--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I need help in learning how to open the RfC, as I don't really know how to go about it. Step by step instructions would be nice, as I am somewhat confused by the directions given at WP:RfC. Willietell (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Check out my previous RFC edit here. I don't have time for another RFC process since it would take days to finish, you may proceed as you wish--Fazilfazil (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

On past experience, religion-based RfCs draw few non-involved editors, and in this case two editors not regularly involved in this project have already stated that the existing wording is accurate and neutral. Yet still the three JW editors complain the wording is inaccurate and injects intentional bias. Despite Grrahnbahr's objection, both Fazilfazil and Willietell are primarily concerned about what they claim is a negative point of view being expressed. The proper forum for their complaint is the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where a wider range of editors will comment. This discussion is clearly not resolving the issue. So now it's time to put up or shut up. BlackCab (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the "uninvolved" editor of which you speak. I'm am assuming you either mean John Carter, who has a number of times interjected comments on JW related pages and always in support of whatever viewpoint is currently being held by Jeffro77 and yourself, or you refer to carl bunderson who on his user page identifies himself as a Catholic priest and can therefore hardly be termed an "uninvolved" editor. I therefore count ZERO uninvolved editors making comment here. I have already clearly indicated that I would like to do the RfC but don't know how to go about doing so. I am not sure that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is the proper venue, but its better than no resolution at all. I will wait for comments from the other editors involved to see which avenue we should take. Willietell (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind what your JW friends think. It's YOU has repeatedly claimed there is an intentional drive to insert a POV statement. If you don't raise it with the NPOV noticeboard, I will in order to end this absurd discussion. If you have no intention of seeking outside advice and accepting it, you'll be reported for disruptive editing. Your purpose here seems to be to simply argue and continue your arguments ad infinitum. Maybe you just crave attention. BlackCab (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And again, we come back to the question of what Willietell would consider suitable criteria for someone to be an unbiased (or uninvolved) editor. 'No not him, he's disagreed with me before; no, not him, he's a Catholic...' It's pretty obvious that Willietell only consider someone to be 'unbiased' if they agree with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I could reverse that and state exactly the same thing about you Jeffro, as you have stated numerous times how you feel certain editors are "Pro-JW" editors, indicating you feel they are biased. There is an old staying that "people is glass houses shouldn't throw stones", perhaps this is advice you should carefully consider. Willietell (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is quite flawed. Although there is a case for saying that members and former members of a group may hold particular biases that are directly relevant, you attempt to label any view other than your own as biased. It's not clear (or important) how your opinion of me has any bearing on the reliability of third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is way out of where it should be. BlackCabs caracterizing of "JW-editors" and "JW-friends" is not belonging anywhere, as I don't have selfidentified (I got my reasons, and I'm primarly not known for my religious views, or lack of those), and I've earlier dismissed to fit into a caracteristic of "JW-editor". I am somewhat suprised BlackCab uses such caracteristics within so short time after pulling AutTam to the admin notice board. Having a somewhat positive and open attitude for a topic, is a good basis for contributing, being obsessed into expose JW, is probably a not so good basis. It is now up to Willietell if he wants to go on with the case. I think personally there are other issues more worth attacking than actually this point, even if I agree with Willietell here, and some of the sections in this article is still not very well covered. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Persecution section - Former Witness authors

First off all the given claim itself is foolish, that Witnesses/WT are very eager to jump in to get beat up to prove that they are true Christians. Watchtower society' publications have warned thousands of time in their magazines that "witnesses should be very careful to not get in to trouble". Regardless in any case, if that sentence need to be here, its very important to mention who claims this. Their motives are clearly evident, to beat up their former religion. All the three members book contains many obvious false claims as per other historians. The catholic author mentioned here is having a clear background on defending the Catholics. His article shows that he have published specialized apologetic pamphlets for Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalists etc to make them come back to his religion. --Fazilfazil (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are able to prove their former or current religious background, it is information worthy enough to note that in the article. When BlackCab took it back, and you again gave it inside, you should bring forward some encyclopaedic sources about their religious interest past and current. --FaktneviM (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I did 'null edit' after your edits to avoid speedy revert of your latest changes. This should resolve in a way of consensus. BlackCab claims that is case of WP:Label. However, those 4 writers are affected by their past and current experiences. No-one is immune and no-one is able to be objective in the matter of past experiences. Catholic writer or former-JW could write about JWs in objective way, (yeah... it is possible), but influence of experiences on their writing "there certainly is" and thus neutrality of source is legitimately disputed. --FaktneviM (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt among historians that the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses was because of their religious beliefs which is very different from traditional Christians. There are sources which even states that the clergy class of the Christendom was partly responsible for inciting persecution. Many books exists on the persecution history of Jehovah's Witnesses from historians, none of them states that the religion incited peresecution. These former members are essentially claiming that the WTS encouraged them to get persecuted. Given there is no reports from any historians, I believe this itself is a fringe theory, primarily from the former members who are quite disturbed by the level of media importance later Witnesses got regarding persecution.--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that 'non-inciting persecution' could be maybe find also in some editions of WTBTS literature like Watchtower Study, Our Kingdom Ministry, Organized book, Bearing book, JW-media.org, JW-russia.org and elsewhere.

Thus you point out the factual accuracy of their statement and not their religious backgrounds. In that case, it is even more important. Although, per WP:true factual inaccuracy of statement inside reliable sources is not reason for not including such sources 'per se'. Thus sources and claims should persist there in the article and with including information about religious background of authors. That's it what you already done.

--FaktneviM (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with indicating the former JW authors (assuming they actually are all former members). I'm not sure it is necessary to indicate that the other author is Catholic, which seems like a foot in the door for claiming that any non-JW source is necessarily biased.

I'm a bit concerned about the supposed "null edit". Performing an edit with no other purpose than 'to avoid speedy revert' (though it's unclear how it really avoids anyone reverting anything) sounds a bit like an attempt to 'game the system'. There is no need to perform 'null edits'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NULLEDIT is commonly used in cases when you don't need change content of the article and want to save actual state in cache or for using within watchlist. For example, is used in articles with after edit-warring or avoid that continuation of some dispute. When continuous disagreement between certain editors, it should do 'third person' in some dispute. Factual bit-size was "-1". In the case that all four writers are former JWs, current Catholic affiliation of one of them, I agree, is not important to note. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The page you link doesn't back your statement. Refreshing the cache has nothing to do with 'saving actual state in cache', nor does it have any effect on watchlists. The only valid purpose indicated on the page you linked is to provide a brief message in edit summary that might not be worth going to Talk, such as amending a previous incorrectly entered edit summary. You've explicitly stated that the only reason you made what you called a "null edit" was to "avoid speedy revert". WP:NULLEDIT says nothing at all about making such edits for that purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For example, if someone put in the article 'wikilink' ((A wikilink (or internal link) links a page to another page within English Wikipedia. Links are enclosed in doubled square brackets like this:abc is seen as "abc" in text and links to page "abc" article.)) have similar result like null edit in some cases. End of talk. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't make irrelevant excuses. You didn't 'add a wikilink', or anything similar. You specifically stated that you were trying to 'avoid a revert' (though such action is pointless).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil makes some extraordinary comments about books I doubt he has even read, claiming, "All the three members book contains many obvious false claims as per other historians." He may be interested in these quotations from the cited material.

Grizzuti Harrison: "The more trouble the outside world gave them, the more they made themselves the butt of opposition, the more secure they became in their beliefs. To be buffeted and racked by wordly forces, they chose martyrdom, to excite the animosity of a crowd satisfied some hunger in them, gave them rest of a kind, rest from self-doubt .... They were the victims of mob violence; they were jailed, molested, tarred and feathered; and it is not extravagant to say that they altered the history of civil liberties in the United States. There is reason to believe they were complicit in their own victimization -- manipulating national fears, milking national traumas to invite opposition, in order to enhance their own self-esteem. In their persecution, they found a kind of peace."
Rogerson: "The cycle of events from 1930 onwards was ominous. Throughout the United States, for instance, arrests, trials and persecutions continued on a scale greater than that of 1918. Undoubtedly the Witnesses themselves contributed to these attacks by constant provocation. One of their characteristic actions when a township threw out some of their publishers was to gather hundreds of Witnesses from the neighboring territories and stage a mass "witness" in the town in question. They regarded the persecution as further proof that they were the true servants of God in a hostile world ... While the Witnesses feel that this persecution was because they were God's chosen people and was simply one method of attack by Satan, the evidence indicates that it was due to their neutrality stand and incitement of the authorities."
Whalen: "The Witnesses wore the cloak of the underdog with a measure of eagerness. In many cases the most sympathetic observer would have to admit that the Witnesses asked for it. It took more than general appeals to tolerance to pacify a Catholic crowd which watched out-of-town Witnesses parading in front of their parish church with "Religion is a racket" signs on Sunday morning. A fistfight or arrest put the Witnesses in the category of the persecuted while the provocation was forgotten. Drawing its new blood from those elements in society which made up the dispossessed and the prolotariat, the Society could bring itself to their attention by such incidents."
Schnell: "It now became the studied policy of the Watchtower Society to make Jehovah's Witnesses hated of all men -- by their way of preaching, by the methods of their preaching and by what they were preaching. They thus hoped to put themselves in the position where they appeared to be martyrs for the sake of religion. It is for this reason they instituted Sunday witnessing parties .... (in) small exclusive communities ... which liked to spend Sundays in peace and tranquility. Complaints soon poured in ... when the police accused the Witnesses and asked them for their licence to peddle books, they naturally refused ... sensing martyrdom, they now came back oftener than they would have done otherwise .... The authorities, harassed by irate and panicky citizens, played right into the hands of the Witnesses by making the initial arrests. Once that happened, the Witnesses came back again and again, courting mass arrests and mass sentences, which they immediately appealed. ... By their very audacity, the Witnesses irritated the courts to a point where they gave them their desired martyrdom in the form of fines and jail sentences. In this way the Jehovah's Witnesses made it appear as if they were being arrested, tried and convicted for practising their religion ... These battles accomplished another important purpose. The Watchtower Society appeared as the magnanimous champions of what they adroitly called the 'people of good will.'"

Three of the authors above are ex-JWs who have delved deeply into the religion's history for their books. One worked closely with Rutherford in Germany and the US and played a prominent role in the organizing of mass witnessing displays that were undeniably designed to stir up communities, antagonise authorities and clerics and attract public attention. One is a Catholic author who has written a series of books on minority religions. They all see the same thing. They describe it cogently and with logic. Dismissing their observations as "fringe" is a lazy way to disagree with their careful argument. The statement in the article is clearly presented as the view of those authors and attributes that view to the proponents by name. Describing those authors by their religion (or past religion) is unnecessary an itself presents a pejorative and dismissive POV.

It's also worth noting that in his book Between Resistance and Martyrdom, German historian Detlef Garbe devotes several pages of chapter 11 to the "polemic" being published by Rutherford in the early 1930s that was clearly designed to antagonise the German National Socialist government and church officials. A series of mass-distribution pamphlet campaigns were also organised outside Germany to be conducted within the country by loyal German Witnesses at a time of rising domestic tension. It was left to the German Witnesses to do the work, and then suffer the inevitable consequences as Nazi authorities hunted down those who had spread the JW propaganda and reacted more forcefully to repress the organization that insisted on creating confrontation. BlackCab (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so my position is clear (since past experience has told me that someone will later say I prefer that the religious identification is retained), in this instance, I do not object to the religion of the former JWs being identified, and I do not object to their former religion being omitted. In either case, I see no reason at all to cite the religious identification of the Catholic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab: WP:Truth makes information at Wikipedia always relatively true and thus I am not interested in definition of untrue truth. All what those writers wrote are "their opinions". Again "only" that. I am glad that you bring up here these citations. It seems me that "religious naivete and zealously doing what they believe is written in the Bible and Jehovah God requires from people is here by these writers presented and interpreted like intentional wish to be in troubles and self-kill." It is commonly known that Witnesses are "every time ready to suffer for the Lord if it is needed", but that is not the same like interpretation of those writers.

I can remind right now DVDs "Faith in Action 1,2" and book named "Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom" contain many explanations of their attitude on this topic and reasons of persecution by their opposers, what the call Satan's servants. (there is only Satan's side and Jehovah's side, they believe)

For example in DVD, Part 2 ... time 9:50 ... “But one aspect of their message would not always be well received. "No part of the world". Jehovah's Witnesses were proclaiming that the solution of the world's problems rests with God's government.” ,,,at time 10:20 and ongoing there is opposite viewpoint of their opposers explained.

For example in DVD, Part 1 ... time 39:20 ... “I don't think our work was ever to be confrontational, but it was to draw attention to the message. Confrontation came, because we were there, because we were doing the work. But the idea was to draw attention to what the message from the Bible is.”

It will be very interesting to read something more directly from WTBTS on this topic to understand their approach, what I already suggest to Fazilfazil to find some more.

--FaktneviM (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My claim that the books make false claim is not that everything is wrong, but that when written by ex-JWs it needs careful scrutiny. For example Alan Rogerson itself say that William Schnells book is not reliable at the end of forward on his own book.

In the book Between Resistance and Martyrdom, German historian Detlef Garbe p.17 states - "An especially large number of books were written by former members of the denomination with the objective of their own experiences to the public in order to warn people against joining Watchtower soceity and following the "wrong course" of Jehovah's Witnesses, and trying to persuade former fellow believers to turn away from the religion. Often these works make references to the NS period [which he describes as a biased report by German authorities],..They were written in the form of recollection accounts, describing either individuals had during the time of being a JWs or criticizing the direction of Brooklyn headquarters and its "confrontation". These works mainly published by Church owned publishing houses, often reflect the authors great personell disappointment and bitterness concerning their previous membership, which they subsequently consider as "wrong course" and oppose. These factors must be taken considaration when evaluating their works. Details[like aforementioned] about persecution can be found at...Alan Rogerson's report A study of Jehovah's Witnesses"

Their is nothing wrong in stating William Whalen as a Catholic writer, since he is not a historian, rather he is an English language expert and a devotional Catholic. His works primarily focuses on apologia writings defending catholic church and justifying their historical actions. He served as a popular writer in “U.S. Catholic” magazine for a long period of time. His publication Jehovah's Witnesses (1965) was imprimatur-ed by the Catholic J.C.D. Administrator & Archdiocese of Chicago, C. F. O’Donnell. --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Being Catholic could be relevant, but not necessary. I think each source have to be concidered separately in this matter, as Cathololics, and their background and motives, could be different from person to person and case to case. I've translate a relevant quote from one of the most known Norwegian books about the topic JW, written by several scholars with different specialist fields, in separated parts (the last part in the book is written by a current member of JW, Rolf Furuli, but the quote is from the prologe by Hege Kristin Ringnes and Helje Kringlebotn Sødal): "Another challenge is related to the striking difference[s] in how current and former members describe the [nomination's] teachings and practice. The relatively large [amounts of] defector literature is highly subjective and critical, but is still of value as source, because ... " (explanation why, and mentioning it still is used as sources in some of the chapters (parts) in the quoted book, but only after clearly identidication of the source as a former member) "[We find] the same issues in another kind of critical literature, the scholary-apologetic [literature], whitch, [based] on normative-theological reasons, will show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and disseminates heresy." (from Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie, 2009.)

That several defectors do push the same point of view, doesn't give a statement credibility. The list above do also lacks Pentons nazi-claims. Pure provocations with the purpose to get oneself or another killed or hurt, is against JWs believings, both as they are taught to avoid to provocate, and also because JW are taught not to put oneself in unneccessary danger. JWs are, from a more psycological point of view, going through a "mental mobilization" if challenged in extreme situations, because they have to take a stand pro or against, like the situation during WWII. One example of another situation of such a mental mobilization is if in a situation where using blood transfusions is an option; even members living in the edge of the JWs practice, and may not be attending meetings or doing much publishing, tend to fight against blood transfusions, as it was more important then to follow the JW literature's advice than anytime else. JWs in areas with prosecutions does also tend to be more active than in countries with stable conditions (the latter statement could be of other reasons too).

Another problem with several defectors, and even scholary peoples, quotation of eachother, is a not "established truth" becomes one. One example is R. Franz's story about what happened within the Governing body short time after 1975. Franz, in his book, does pretty much want to be the critic hero, asking the critic questions, for the best for the whole organization, and in any way not put the governing body in a good light, pretty much a bitter mans story. Several issues in his story is not challenged, because he probably is the only former member of the body writing books about it, and JW officials haven't accepted or dismissed his story and view. Penton is using Franz as source when writing about the time between 1975 and 1980. Holden is quoting both of them, an so on...

Extraordinary statements needs extraordinary sources, the defector sourcing is not good for such a claim as given in the article (I've pointed to this issue quite recently, in another discussion, about numbers of killed in the kz-camps). Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite Grrahnbahr's earlier protest [3] that he is not a JW editor and doesn't want to be identified as one, he retreats to the safe sectarian ground of denigrating all JW defectors as bitter people who can't be trusted to tell the truth. Raymond Franz's name has not been raised in this discussion, yet in a thread dealing solely with four authors writing in quite different time periods, Grrahnbahr suddenly invokes Franz (the bete noir of the Watch Tower Society) as being supposedly typical of any author who has left the religion. Please stick to the facts and avoid your irrelevant and unhelpful generalizations. Fazilfazil has claimed these viewpoints are fringe theories; Grrahnbahr now calls them "extraordinary statements" that apparently require a source of a higher standard than any other.

Yet perhaps not so extraordinary. Three of the four authors clearly qualify as reliable sources (Schnell is marginal, but is often cited in academic works) ... and here, now, is a fifth source. It's an address given by Jayne Persian of the History Department of the University of Wollongong to a University of Tasmania conference in 2005; Persian's analysis of the banning of the JWs in Australia was later published in the Flinders Journal of History and Politics, by Flinders University. In her address, Persian wrote that: "Generally, scholars agree that Jehovah's Witnesses have been variously complicit in persecution they have received worldwide." She introduces the quote by Grizzuti Harrison by saying: "Commentators have come to view this period as one of self-inflicted persecution ... this rejection and vilification of secular society to feed a self-fulfilling martyr-complex led to persecution during the 1930s and 1940s." I don't know what religion, if any, Persian has, but it's one more scholarly statement that supports a fairly obvious trend by Rutherford in that tumultuous period.

I'll also point out that Fazilfazil's quote from Garbe dishonestly misrepresents the source. On page 17 of his book Garbe explicitly refers to authors writing in pejorative terms about the conduct of German JWs in Nazi-era Germany. None of the quotes I have used above refer to the German experience, although Rogerson (pages 62-63) does cite two German authors, one of whom was selectively quoted in The Watchtower in August 1963 with certain critical omissions. Those pages from Rogerson's book are not, and have never been, included in the citation of this Wikipedia article. BlackCab (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be true that at times JWs took a zealous/bold stand against Church/State requirements in the past, but it does not mean that it was "to pursue a course of martyrdom in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society and also reassure members of the "truth" of the Watchtower", as per ex-JWs claim. Further Schnell's bitter claims are exclusively wrong when he states that JWs are arrested not for their religion but for agitation. Therefore I don't object keeping that opinion here, but stating the background of the authors is clearly necessary as I stated before. Further per NPOV, I have to find WT sources to clearly state its advice to members regarding avoiding persecution.--Fazilfazil (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fazilfazil: That's what I'm saying too. See my impression on this from previous edit. It is obvious that "holding strictly Bible rules" is not easy in a world, which does not support it. JWs are in problems worldwide (even nowadays as well - for example India, Georgia, Azerbaijan, France, Russia, Turkey, South Korea, Arabic countries etc. ... includes many democratic and totalitarian, state-religion, non-secular regimes) because "they preach" publicly and freely, "not listening governments when forbid preaching" and because "they refuse to serve in armies" and "refuse blood transfusions what is in many countries normal medical option" (=bloodless surgery is somewhere completely unknown). Letter by Rutherford to Nazi regime he would has not to sent if Nazi regime would not restrict JWs preaching, congregation meetings and several discrimination rules for non-Catholic church members in Germany. Argument of those writers is due of that entirely odd. However, WP:True is reason for include them despite of the facts. --FaktneviM (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added to the article the qualifier that the authors' comments all pertain to persecution under Rutherford's leadership. The books I have read make plain that the principal reason for governmental persecution of JWs in wartime and in recent times has been for their political neutrality. Yet those authors also observe that Rutherford appeared to be determined to create conflict between government authorities and the JWs for the reasons stated in the article. Since Rutherford died, the organization has not followed the same course. BlackCab (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rutherford died during WWII, the world changed drasticly, and a lot of countries have had their longest continously period of peacetime through modern history since WWII. Human rights has also developed drasticly. I think geopolitical reasons could be as well as likely as a change of course. JW didn't stop critisizing the catholic church, and the publishing was done in a larger scale after Rutherfords dead, than before; JW do still refuse to ask for permission ofor doing publishing, and so on... Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BlackCab please don't discuss me, but the case. And save me and the other users for lies like "he retreats to the safe sectarian ground of denigrating all JW defectors as bitter people who can't be trusted to tell the truth", which I never have stated, I quoted a RS. Me pulling in Franz was in a fully legal context to explain how a statement not neccessery is reliable, even with multiple sources, and I'm probably not the only one seeing Franz' book like a long story of whining about his own poor situation and his wasted life. Several fully objective scholars do limit sourcing defectors literature (but not neccessery defectors, as they use interviews and similar methodes) as a lot of the defectors literature are considered as unreliable and subjective, with the purpose to expose JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly discuss your motives when you introduce an entirely unrelated issue and start unloading your opinions on those who leave the JWs. Franz has been cited by dozens of academic sources, who accept his outlook. It seems to be only JWs who use such terms as "whining about his own poor situation" and "bitter", an opinion they seem to form without reading his books. Let's return to the issue now. BlackCab (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oups, it looks like I hit a soft spot. What happened to good faith? I dismissed your claim, as it was an unrelated issue, as I used it in a context to prove a highly relevant point. Me attacking a source is not at all an exuse for attacking me, and it is certainly not about my motives. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab reply: That's brilliant to put important notice in the article which specifies what the the authors comments. Very useful. //// As WTBTS often reminded (in DVDs and literature), Rutherford have had completely different personality than C.T.Russell. Although, at this moment I can see only that Rutherford was not man of compromises, especially in a matters of Bible truths. Russell also changed many of his previous presumptions, when he carefully studied some crucial doctrines of mainstream Christianity (and e.g. eastern religions) in a light of the Scriptures. Hence, Russell did not compromise in faith too. Rutherford only follow firm stand against harassment from governments. As I know, later presidents of WTBTS after him and Governing Body since 1970's, both, still follow firm direction in matter of "loyalty to God instead of to men." ///// If otherwise, please put book-source which submit opinions on that supposed 'changed course'. I am not familiar about any big change in this. From 1942 to 2012 is low change in "the loyalty question" in JWs. --FaktneviM (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Faktnevim, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is this an attempt at sarcasm? You seem to be mixing a lot of personal viewpoint about the religion with your suggestions about encyclopedia content. The article currently notes that a range of authors have made an observation about why much of the persecution took place under Rutherford's leadership. That's all; there's no need to defend the religion on the talk page. BlackCab (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab reply: I am not defending anyone. I am just convinced that if some writer can express his opinions in a book, thus everyone has the right to do the same. Opinions of those writers are valuable, but if other observer see something different, it is appropriate to raise a supplementary questions. And that is what I did. Last question was: Have you got any sources which offer point-of-view about 'changed course' since Rutherford's death? Put them here, please. I would like to examine those opinions, if they explicitly claim this idea and why. --FaktneviM (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that they no longer hold placards outside churches, organize "witnessing marches", descend on small towns in their hundreds in order to be arrested, vilify churches and governments on a network of radio stations or use sound cars to blast residents with the sonorous tones of Judge Rutherford denouncing the clergy, I'd say it's fairly self-evident. I don't need to cite sources for stating such obvious facts on a talk page. BlackCab (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab reply: Yeah. That could be true. However, I suppose that different methods of preaching in period from 1910's to 1940's, and different methods in "newer times" have other reason than you mentioned. Simply "Times have changed". In Russell's and Rutherford's times overwhelming majority of inhabitants in the world were believers in God and open to Christian ideas. 20th Century this finished and nowadays overwhelming majority of citizens in the most developed countries are unbelievers, agnostics, apatheists, atheists or adhere some alternative spiritual way. Thus methods of preaching can not be like "use sound cars to blast residents with the sonorous" in Rutherford's times when almost everyone in USA was Christian, but with no knowledge what to be Christian means. In some edit about month ago, I said that every time think about something "from perspective of the time" when happened. Maybe you remember it. --FaktneviM (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)'

I'm not that old! But I have obviously read about it. The point is the persecution of the JWs began in Rutherford's era, in places like Canada, the USA, Germany and other eastern European countries. Some other religions held similar views about neutrality, but few were persecuted to the same degree. One reason JWs attracted so much attention was the way JFR provoked authorities with the methods I;ve just mentioned. That's what those authors have written about. To return to the initial point, I believe the religion of those writing about it is immaterial .... but the consensus at the moment seems to be to include the religion where it's known. As always, I accept consensus. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(LOL. I think FakTNeviM might have meant that you may remember his edit from about a month ago.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not so funny. I meant it seriously. For example, I remember some of your edits from year ago. I am used to memorize data. Some of them are unimportant, what feeling me sad. Habit to memorize huge amount of data was most common in early history of Jewish and Arabic ethnicity. (=which they both are part of Semitic, a Noah's son - Shem's descendants). However, they were much much better in memorizing than today's people including me. End of Off-topic. --FaktneviM (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ability to remember information is not at all specific to any particular ethnicity (which is just plain racist), especially when referring to an allegorical character from a flood myth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hooo! racist?? and allegorical?? You should read something about. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The "habit to memorize huge amount of date" was not "most common" among Jews or Arabs or any particular ethnicity. All cultures have had oral traditions, and people of any ethnicity can have good memories. Only a very small minority of people consider the story of Noah (a reinterpretation of a story from the older Gilgamesh epic) to be literal, and there is no evidence that such stories are based on anything other than local floods. Maybe you should read more about the topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I read about the flood, ancient history of Jewish nation and records from different secular scources, much more literature than you even know exist. Old opinion which supposed similarity between Gilgamesh's sing epic and the Biblical historical record is already disproven. You should not read Wikipedia articles only. End of Off-topic. Be careful on WP:NOTCHAT. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't presume to know what literature I know about or have read. But yes, off topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab: I respect opinions/observation what you and those writes may hold. It's up to you, but I noticed that this thinking is still only opinion (aka point-of-view aka POV, and original research). I implicate this to myself too (POV aka observation). Put equal sign between word "provocation" and "holding firm stand in Bible based faith" should be considered the same way, thus POV. However I have no more objection to current standing of persecution section in this article. Only with one exception, someone here promised that he is going to find statements on this from WTBTS and put it in the article. Wikipedia only report on all commonly held opinions. --FaktneviM (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:YESPOV. It is perfectly acceptable to use the opinions contained in reliable sources in an article, as long as those opinions are not presented in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. The current wording leaves no doubt that these are the viewpoints of those authors. There are no POV or "original research" issues involved here; there would be if I chose to add such viewpoints as the product of my own thinking. BlackCab (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are sufficient neutral sources (i.e. not JW or former JW), it may be sufficient (but not essential) to just use those sources in regard to Rutherford maintaining policies that caused JWs to invite persecution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is still a possible violation of WP:WEIGHT, as a wide field of scholars have presented alternate reasons for why JW were prosecuted, and it seems noone or very few of them is actually supporting a view as presented in the last paragraph in the section. Even though several sources is listed, it is doubtfully presenting a significant groups opinion, or a scholary view. Would also like to mention "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship". Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have so far presented similar statements from five different sources from the UK, the US, Germany and Australia; authors and an historian. How much of your objection is simply "I just don't like it"? BlackCab (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

4) @Grrahnbahr: Please read already suggested ways how to add 'non-initiating sources' to get it in more balanced report there. [4], [5]. There is a need to report also sources, which disclaim 'provocation theory', what is massively supported opinion right now in the article. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not merely a matter of 'changing times', and the JW leadership has never really been too concerned about changing their methods just to 'keep up with the times'. There are other Christian denominations that still go out with placards, march the streets in large groups, and have radio stations (some of which are downright nutty). It therefore comes down to a decision by the leadership.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Hence at least 3 or more editors agreed that we have a consensus for "current 'Catholic' affiliation is neither important, nor neutral if we know that he was Witness", I am not sure how to cope with this in the article.

Have we any prove that William J. Whalen is former Witness? In that article is nothing about JWs.

2) (former Witnesses) Grizzuti Harrison, Rogerson, Schnell, ... Whalen (maybe former JW, now Catholic) and Persian (unknown university educated man?) [6] and historian Detlef Garbe agreed on 'provocation theory' [7]. The same historian also said "An especially large number of books were written..." [8]. Both informations should be included in the article, but there is a need to be very careful on Wikipedia not taking any sides and NPOV policy. Could anyone suggest some neutral encyclopaedic statement and put it in the article?

This looks not good: ‘Former Witness authors Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Alan Rogerson, William Schnell which later converted perhaps to atheism? and William Whalen perhaps former witnesses who later converted to Catholicism? have claimed that under Rutherford's leadership the ...’

3) From this edit [9] I am not sure if those pertains are meant to whole period from 1917-1942 or only to period during WWII (1939-1945), although Hitler came to power sooner, in 1933. Moreover, it is not clear if those authors claims this idea to whole world or only to Germany.

4) Look at the point 4 above (response to Grrahnbahr)

--FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On what basis are you suggesting that Whalen is 'perhaps a former JW'? Why do we need 'proof that he was'??

Though it may be relevant to point of that an author is a former JW, it is not necessary to further discriminate against authors regarding their current specific religious affiliation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no mentioning of Germany in the source and the given quotes above talks about arrests in United States, I have added that in the sentence. In addition since the claim is focused on Rutherfords period, if there is any official WT article during his period which states that Witnesses should not incite persecution, that shall be added per NPOV. But I don't have access to old magazines now, may be other editors can do it later--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

All the three former witnesses from US just accuse without any evidence, and generalizing one event from Whalen in US to the whole religion is a POV. And whalen in not a former JWs, if that was the case WT publications would never have quoted him in their publications. I have seen WT articles quoting his positive review on the religion. --Fazilfazil (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see why anyone should just accept your view that the authors "accuse without any evidence". Do we have any evidence that all of these authors restricted their comments to discussion of the 1930s?? Do we have any quotes? What about Canada in the 1940s? What about direction by the leadership for members to refuse to purchase party cards in Malawi in the 1960s? Surely authors have addressed these matters as well?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I still say accuse without evidence because "an act of JWs opposing something zealously based on their Biblical conviction in past does not mean that it was per official direction to get beat up, to be martyr, to get killed etc" as the ex-JWs claim. They can write anything upon WT's motives with bitterness, forgetting often that the people in HQ are just as the same people, often appointed after long term full time service in local congregations. Can any of these authors provide any written or oral/secret evidence from WT showing that "Witnesses should die to make the religion famous?". Did they hear from Rutherford/or any official saying that Witnesses should get persecuted to became famous? After joining Wikipedia I can seriously understand how hypocritical the former-members books are, justifying thoroughly their dis-fellowshipping/disassociating from the religion. Its of mere foolishness to correct such haughty, jealous, twisted, prideful and dishonest people even if they are intelligent rather than leaving their blind, blatant-lie accusations. No wonder why most ex-JWs claim to be atheists, so that they get a false mental feeling that they are smart and not accountable for their sins. Its hard to edit in Wikipedia, when people use such unqualified individuals as source. Its also very annoying to see why User:Jeffro77 repeatedly follow my edits to undo it, and interpret the WT publications in the most critical way possible. Having taken these things in to consideration, along with the time needed for my new software project, I think I am going on a long WikiBreak. I just understood that no Wikipedia article/internet/book is gonna revolutionize the world, and it was never the motive of JWs. I'm satisfied that I was at-least able to remove some obvious bias--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit or don't edit. That's up to you. However, your claim that I have 'followed your edits' is a false accusation. I edit articles on my Watch List as I see fit. Your suggestion that I "interpret the WT publications in the most critical way possible" is also a lie.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

section improvement need

As per this pre-latest change [10] I included all informations what you all presented here and I would like to ask you for improving and clean-up to wiki standards. Thank you. These claims should be added in specific article Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses too. Although, main article section Jehovah's Witnesses#Persecution needs your help. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The section in this article is a summary of the main article; the section does not need to be the longest section in this article. Some of the information removed might be suitable at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses if not already included there.

The quote purportedly taken from the Watch Tower Society's Proclaimers book is not found in the publication. There was no mention of 'persecution' in the quotes, and no indication that the quote was specifically in reference to the opposition discussed by the authors in the paragraph before. I do not object to a more clear rebuttal from a Watch Tower Society publication about the idea that Witnesses incited persecution during the Rutherford era.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you/(or other English speaker) do it? --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I might, if I get time. Some of the material you added could probably be added at the Persecution article. The other article could probably have the information in a Summary or History section before the Countries section.

Can you confirm the specific ref for the Proclaimers book or provide the correct quote (here) so it matches the publication, and possibly provide a quote that actually refers to persecution? (If the quote is only from the DVD and not the book, there is no need to mention the book.) Ideally, such a statement would be specifically in reference to the Watch Tower Society responding to claims that JWs incited persecution (rather than that they merely encountered opposition).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Improve (not delete) this edit [11], please. Certainly exist more than these 2 quotations from DVD Part 1 and 2. I mentioned book 'Proclaimers', because there is much more on the persecution than in the DVDs. Although, I have not access to Proclaimers book at the moment and will take few months to me. I am on holidays now. Sorry, citing the book despite no direct quotation from the book was wrong. It was rather like a suggestion to look inside for WT approach. Check also Watchtower Library for more. I already summarize suggestions of all of you, but nobody takes an action from this talk to implicate into article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, that edit (the diff you've linked) made the section too long. The section is a summary of a separate article. Additional information belongs in the other article, not here. The matter of persecution of JWs is not so significant that the subject should have the longest section in this article.

The quote from the DVD doesn't say anything about persecution, or refer to any specific period of time. The statement has insufficient context to determine whether it has anything at all to do with claims about inciting persecution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay taking your advice "edit or not edit" I have added references from the WT publications during second world war period, per NPOV. Also Clarified who Whalen is, he is not a historian.--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've simplified your edit but left the sources intact, and to simply indicate what either side says rather than trying to highlight a supposed contradiction. It is synthesis to make conclusions by joining separate quotes from entirely different sources, so that has been removed. It is not necessary in English to capitalise 'writer'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The so-called rebuttal of authors' observations about provocation is now almost twice as long as the original statement. I'm unconvinced of the relevance of Pierce's comments: a significant section of the addition is simply an editor's interpolation of his comments; the editor also notes that Pierce's active involvement in the religion came a decade after the peak period of persecution in which the commentators claim the JWs were provoking authorities. Precisely what persecution was he referring to? A more complete transcript of the DVD in the talk page to explain the context would help clear this up. But since he wasn't there, an "I don't think" comment has limited value as a rebuttal of the observations resulting from historian's research. BlackCab (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all the extra ordinary statement caused a NPOV issue. Per NPOV all view points regarding the subject should be clearly stated. The GB members statements is particularly relevant here, because he is specially talking about confrontation in the past and present. Please avoid saying historian, the author claiming confrontation is a writer, and the opinion that "JWs leadership killed the shepherds" is primarily from ex-members. Remember "I just don't like it" as you have mentioned else where--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am still asking User:FakTNeviM, however, to provide proof that Pierce's comment is directly relevant to the issue of persecution of JWs in the 1930s. If Pierce is not discussing that, the "rebuttal" is worthless. BlackCab (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the quote from the DVD (which I have not verified), the GB member claims that JWs didn't intend "ever to be confrontational", which would implicitly include the 1930s, though it would be nice to know the actual context of the statement. In any case, it is not necessary to have four WTS citations to make this one point. I have therefore retained one contemporaneous and one modern source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact it's difficult to know what era he was referring to. If the use of "Religion is a racket" placards outside churches, long "witnessing marches", the swamping of small towns with hundreds of Witnesses, the vilification of churches and governments on radio, or sound cars parked outside churches blaring Rutherford's haranguing speeches wasn't confrontational, then I don't know what it was. Either Pierce is in serious denial .... or he is talking about a different decade and locality of persecution entirely. The relevance of the quote is highly dubious. BlackCab (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab. 'Theory of provocation' is generally build on presume that will to reach 'the message' to as many people as possible is the same statement like "Kill me, I want to be a martyr." Although, some statements from WTBTS could be considered in this way (if someone/you use masochistic imagination and inspire itself from many existing conspiracy theories). To be specific, read for example this another significant statements.

“The wonderful thing about persecution, if I can call it that, is that it demands...it demands a firm decision.”

“No matter how much opposition we may face or what form or shape it may take, our trust in Jehovah will never let us down. He's backing us up.”

“As true disciples, Jehovah's Witnesses have had to accept hardship. But no hardship can diminish their joy. Their perseverance through all manner of tribulations is evidence that their faith is not misplaced and that the God they worship is real!”

Everything from the "Faith in Action DVD, Part 2 - Let the Light Shine" almost completely about persecution.

Is intended meaning of these statements supportive to provocation theory? I don't think so. It only reveal that they will not make compromises in their faith despite whatever kind of hardship.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how believable you consider what you call a 'provocation theory' to be. The article provides what has been stated by reliable sources. It would be desirable if there were a specific Watch Tower Society statement about those claims, but very little has been presented. The quote from the DVD is very general, but it will probably have to do, but it can only be cited as the opinion of the WTS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"a specific Watch Tower Society statement about those claims [provocation theory]" is hardly to exist, neither chance for such claim in future. Why? Because Jehovah's Witnesses don't read neither uninvolved "religion studies or historians observations, nor "apostates' opinions. And they definitely not read Wikipedia' articles about JWs. Even less chance to response on that claims from Governing Body's members. Statements about persecution already given, although you seems them very general, are the only ones which can be achieved by WTS. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So although the WP article refers specifically now to persecution in the 1930s, Pierce here is talking generally about persecution that could include any era and any country, including Nazi era persecution in Germany, about which none of those citations mention. Thanks for clearing that up.

You have repeatedly drawn a link between martyrdom and death with your excitable references to "kill me, I want to be a martyr" and your odd suggestion that only masochists and conspiracists would draw that inference. None of those authors give any suggestion of being a masochist. Each of them clearly and rationally states the basis on which they draw their conclusions. Schnell is particularly interesting, because as a district overseer he was directed by Rutherford to stir towns up to the point where police would intervene to arrest the Witnesses. None of the cited authors suggests any Witness wanted to be killed, as you claim. They did, however, follow the directions from Brooklyn to antagonise populations and authorities and expected to be arrested and jailed. That is provocation. Their subsequent arrests, and sometimes beatings, were the "persecution" from "satanic" governments that Rutherford told them was a confirmation that they were suffering for Jesus and proof that they were on God's side.

You are saying they simply had an urge to preach to as many people as possible. Why then did they carry out those specific actions that antagonised authorities, holding placards outside churches and invading towns in their hundreds? If that was a tactic designed only to preach to more people, why do Witnesses not do that today? Why do Witnesses today not drive around suburbs with loudspeakers berating churches? Answer: Because they no longer aim to antagonise and provoke authorities. It was a deliberate tactic of Rutherford's designed to attract media attention and prompt the arrests of Christians. It was an inflammatory tactic that was later abandoned after it had served its purpose. Set aside your emotionalism and consider the evidence. BlackCab (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

FakTNeviM's 'admission' (though he's in no position to make such an admission) that there simply is not and is not likely to be a specific rebuttal by the WTS basically ends any discussion about whether the article should include any such rebuttal. Articles are to present all notable views; if the WTS has no notable view, it is sufficient to just state the other view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that "Jehovah's Witnesses ... definitely not read Wikipedia articles about JWs" is readily disproved by the presence of JW editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong premise. JW editing Wikipedia are close to or behing of apostasy. Nobody of active Witnesses could willingly support this website. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... so much for free speech. I wonder what other JW editors think about FakTNeviM's categorical attack on their motives and their standing with their religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

FakTNeviM claims one thing. When Jeffro gives an answear to the claim, FakTNeviM shoots out with another completely different claim. I am sure JWs uses encyclopedias in pretty much same degree as the rest of the world, and would be highly suprised if not a large number of JWs have read this article. I have also observed a large number of self-identifying JWs commenting to news reports about JW-related topics, so would be suprised if not at least some few of the editors are JWs. But FakTNeviM got a point in another issue: If a claim is known from being a product of defectors (probably not needed to be even uniquely from defectors), it is at least plausible it could be standing unchallenged by WTS, as WTS, using more general terms, is rejecting defectors and their claims. My observation of what to be rejected by the WTS by using more specific terms, is claims that have become widespread among the general public. At least some of the claims that have been put through about JW, and do have a limited audience, is unchallenged by WTS. Some of these claims are dismissed in other sources. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources other than the WTS that explicitly dismiss the claims made by other authors, then those authors could also be cited to briefly provide rebuttal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the earth flat? The fact that neutral scholars or the WTS is not supporting, or even mentioning the claim, doesn't support a view of the claims to be of any importance to the article. The article about Holocaust doesn't mention Holocaust denial in the article (it is mentioned as a related topic, but not in the articles main text), even though it is way more known and described from a scholary view. There are sources claiming JW were prosecuted for other reasons, as mentioned in the article, so there are RS claiming something else. The claims are of a controversial caracter, proposed primarly from well known critics of JW, and is not supported by a scholary view. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The viewpoint is clearly presented as such. It is a significant and notable viewpoint and is supported by several authors who qualify as reliable sources. The statement is followed in the article by an opposing viewpoint. Holocaust denial is a fringe theory and a comparison is irrelevant: content in Wikipedia articles is not determined by arguments about what is, or is not, in other articles. See WP:OSE. Whether "scholars" have written about the issue or not is also irrelevant. WP relies on reliable sources and is not restricted to material about which academic papers have been written. BlackCab (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement is representing a narrow viewpoint, and does have marginal relevance to the article. There is not presented any valid reasons why the viewpoint should be represented in the section, as the statement is not representing any facts, and as the section is lacking information with broader coverage. The viewpoint is not reworking already known information, and could therefore be concidered as a primary source for an undocumented viewpoint, rather than a secondary source about prosecution of JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. It is not up to you to decide what is "fact" or not. The statement is a notable viewpoint. The books that contain that viewpoint have been available from publishers since the 1960s and are therefore not new. The books are clearly secondary sources. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlackCab You said Set aside your emotionalism and consider the evidence. ... I am unemotional all the time. That's why co-workers and co-students often presume that I am upset or in bad-mood etc. But in fact, I just have extremely neutral feeling nature most of time every day within contact with people who are not compatible to my personality and trying to be above it. As Rutherford said "Face the Facts!" ... In this situation I imply it for recognizing what 'the fact' is. ... Fact is that every statements of authors is only opinion, and Wikipedia only can present that opinions. Nothing else can Wikipedia does it. The fact that one JW defector supports another JW defector doesn't mean that more people have truth. It could be completely falsehood or relatively true, but certainly still it is only opinion. Interesting one, but that is all. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with many of the points you provided, including the fact that marching with "religion is a racket" or "going to church goes place to preach" could not be interpreted as inciting confrontation per official direction. Even today witnesses go to areas where church goers are high(typically two pairs), expecting more to listen than getting persecuted. The primary reason for the rebuttal here is to deny the "provocation/conspiracy" theory which indicates that Rutherford had a hidden agenda to sacrifice the lives of the sheeps. The WT explanatory book on "acts of apostles" say that early apostles went in to the Jewish Synagogs, especially in places where the Jewish proselytes live to preach, because they are more receptive than the Pagans due to their knowledge in Law. Its true that many were beaten to death per biblical account, but it was not an intentional jeopardizing, though at times if they know about danger they tried to avoid persecution without losing their boldness/zeal. +1 for "Nobody of active Witnesses could willingly support this website"--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear and respectful to everyone, especially to BlackCab, I would like to say that I respect that he believes the provocation theory is a matter of fact.

From my side, I don't think so. At least I am not completely sure of that, and I am taking this opinion like one of possible explanations.

Rutherford has been quite conflicting personality and some critics also claim that he drunk alcohol or lived in luxury while his co-believers ('spiritual' brothers and sisters) were very poor in 1930's and 1940's. (= There is no way to prove it or disprove it, because each existing source on that taking sides).

Thus, provocation theory could be truthful and could be completely wrong. Claiming that provocation theory like indisputable fact is not possible. Those authors who claimed it like that are neither objective nor neutral, despite they claim they are so.

However, as I said, it could be partially true or completely true or completely false.

This theory assume that adherents in that times were idiots and very willing "to suffer for the leader of the sect", even in situations when it was not needed and it was easy to retreat from the firm decision (=soften their approach). However, every provided statements by WTBTS here in talk or in articles suggest rather opposite meaning than provocation theory. They were not horny to self-martyrdom, they just "not to retreat from their principles" when hardship came. It needs strong will and strong confidence of what they believed. You said that “The WT explanatory book on "acts of apostles" say that early apostles went ...”, early Christian apostles were focused on witnessing to other people, including Jews, in the similar way like JWs nowadays to other people, including members of Christendom etc., despite they have had to admit hardship because they preached.

It is not purpose of Wikipedia to support different opinions from each reliable source, just report them.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the view (which you call a 'theory') presumes that they were 'idiots' (or "horny to self-martyrdom"—that wins the bizarre comment of the day award). It is indeed the case that some people might consider their zeal to be idiotic, as they might also consider the actions of those who die for rejecting a blood transfusion (or who died when organ transplants were viewed as "cannibalism"), or for not purchasing an inexpensive political party card in Malawi. Though it may mean they naively became convinced of enduring unnecessary difficulty for some greater 'cause', it doesn't necessarily require they be idiots.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. The point, which overwhelming majority of public do not understand or even admit its possibility, is that that each Christian witness of Jehovah believes in resurrection and everlasting life. In that case current life have [relatively] small value. In that case, they believe that there is no equivalent out there in the world. Thus for some people they are idiots. However, they believe that there is someone else whose opinion is more important for them. //Thanks for award. You're allowed to place it on my talk page. I give one exception now. --FakTNeviM (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope of some form of 'afterlife' is hardly unique to JWs, and it's particularly naive to imagine that 'only JWs' 'understand' such a concept. But it doesn't make it any more likely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with first long sentence. ,... Second sentence could be modified like this: “But it doesn't make it neither more unlikely.” [...=Existence of more than one religion is not in contradiction that one view of there existing could be right, [-[especially if bear in mind biblical explanation of that currently confusing stage ... as I know only JWs are aware of answers 'why']-] ...]. On the other hand, this completely OFF-TOPIC again. --FakTNeviM (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that "only JWs are aware of answers 'why'" is particularly naive. JWs believe they have 'answers' to questions about 'why...', but many other groups also have their own (equally irrational) 'answers' for 'why'. Many people are comforted by believing they have 'an answer' to philosophical questions, because they feel it is better than 'having no answer'. However, having an answer (particularly one that is untestable and unprovable) does not mean a group has a correct answer. If x + y = 50, and x and y have definite but unknown values, it might be more comforting for a person to think (and try to convince others) that x = 10 (or some other particular number) than for them to admit, I don't know, because x could have any value.

It's also a poor tactic to assert your own point of view, and then try to prevent any alternative viewpoint by saying it's off-topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

“The comparison is flawed.” (you like this sentence and use it very often, isn't?). There is way how to recognize 'the right key' amongst other existing keys. There is a way how to recognize a value of 'x' and 'y', and thus it is not only some kind of empty 'philosophizing', but analysis based on known informations, which are provable. As I said here and you agreed, indeed, there exist 'many answers', but if someone is able to recognize each separately, all incorrect answers have wrong numeral results and thus it is testable that it is wrong 'numeral value'. Wrong answers are simply ballast. // Right to answer with your viewpoint certainly you have. Although I realized that we are doing WP:CHAT and thus it's not useful to continue here. --FakTNeviM (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please quit this hit-and-run propagandizing. JWs don't have some 'magic answer', and even if they did, you shouldn't be claiming it here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And, no, I did not agree with you. JWs (and other groups) provide an 'answer' only in the sense of saying something. It does not mean that any such groups have provided 'the correct' answer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazi tyranny of JWs remembered

Read this article from JW' official website and consider some of informations incl. book citations there to implicate in this article. A 15-minute exposé of Nazi tyranny remembered 75 years later --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In his book Between Resistance and Martyrdom (by far the most comprehensive and thorough of the many books dealing with the issue of JW persecution in Nazi Germany) Detlef Garbe analyzes the figures quoted by various authors, and the WTS, of the number of victims (see pages 477-484). He is quite critical of King's assumptions, which are based on vastly inflated numbers. On pg 484 he provides his own set of figures, which differ from what the WTS is claiming in this media release. Given the clear disagreement by sources, not to mention the difficulty of gaining accurate figures in the first place, it is odd that the WTS has now released a set of numbers that not only differs again from what Garbe's detailed research found, but contradicts figures the WTS itself has previously used. It would have been more helpful if they had explained the basis on which their numbers have been revised. Why, for example, has their statistic on the number executed risen by 82 percent compared with what they claimed in their detailed report in the 1974 Yearbook? BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you place here numbers of victims + pages in books from Garbe's book and from 1974 Yearbook, please?

(((= Report about Germany in the Yearbook is on pages 65-253, so I'm not willing to read such exhaustive amount of text only due 1 or more number))). If 1974 WTS and 2012 WTS numbers differ, it could be caused by newer historical evidence since.

It is also expectable that secular sources based on Nazi's report were biased, incomplete and combat to real numbers of persecuted Witnesses. I highly doubt that German governments have had accurate report about number of killed, arrested, or liquidated by means of lost job, property, economic saves, sacking pupils from school etc. Jehovah's Witnesses religion, amongst other genocides to Gypsies ethnic, Jews ethnic, or some minor religious groups or some few number of individuals who rejected to serve in Army, Hitler-Jungen and be supporter of everywhere-present Nazi' propaganda.

(((= As I read few months ago, almost all other religions have inaccurate and vague knowledge about real number of practising members. JWs have many claims about reliability of their reports from several 'religious studies' experts, who stated that 'their annual reports are very accurate and reliable'. I know about falsified reports about non-existing or already dead people, for instance, from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Numbers about practising members of Baptist Church, Catholic Church or Sunni Islam are 'at best' approximate and optimistic. There is less than 5 religions which have 'close to real truth' reports about 'practising' or at least 'formal' membership numbers))).

On the other hand, when some congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses were lost someone of their members, WTBTS have had enough agenda to know about that. At least, contemporary congregations in each town knows about number of members (even for regular attenders, students of WT' Bible publications, unbaptised publishers). I suppose that primary source should be more accurate because of that than other sources in this case. However, comparison of numbers from all achievable sources and ask for origin of such data is important to note here.

From your answer, it seems that you mixes "the real truth" with Wikipedia. It is not purpose of Wikipedia 'dish up' (=bring forward) only true informations ((anyhow no-one can know which statement is true)), but just report about different opinions which are notable and reliable. WTBTS' statements in that linked article are notable and reliable. It doesn't matter what is true number, despite I would like to know it too.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to do your research for you. You created a link to a WTS article here, presumably expecting other editors to write something from it, though all it does is (a) quote another "worldly" author and (b) quote figures that conflict not only with what historians' careful research has found, but with what the WTS has previously used. You then disparage what is without doubt the most detailed examination of JW persecution of the Nazi era on the basis that the book is a non-JW source -- without having read a word of the book. Am I correct in assuming that you rely on just one source for all your information about the world around you? If you think Wikipedia is a pack of lies because it does not unquestioningly repeat the pronouncements of the Watch Tower Society, why are you here? I don't mean to be rude, but your comments just betray your ignorance and narrow-mindedness. BlackCab (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just noticing the conversation here, but that comment is uncivil and uncalled for. An editor is simply expressing his opinion, an attack upon his character is both unnecessary and uncivil. I think you owe him an apology. Willietell (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to find anything what irritates him so much, but vainly. No single sentence from his last reply is useful. Let imagine and assume that reader has not access to neither 1974 Yearbook of JW, nor Garbe' book. Okay? I just try to be even more and even most direct what I mean, though my previous edit was, I hope, clear enough what is about:

In his book Between Resistance and Martyrdom (by far the most^{[citation needed]}^{'citation needed' who said, what is his/her knowledge} comprehensive and thorough of the many books dealing with the issue of JW persecution in Nazi Germany) Detlef Garbe analyzes the figures quoted by various authors^[who?]^'who', and the WTS,^{[clarification needed]}^'clarify' of the number of victims (see pages 477-484 - ok). He is quite critical of King's assumptions^{[peacock prose]}^'really?', which are based on vastly inflated numbers.^{[citation needed]}^{('citation needed' who said} On pg 484 he provides his own set of figures,^{(present opinion as fact)} which differ from what the WTS is claiming in this media release.^{(present different opinion than other person, and present opinion of first person as fact, while second person must be wrong)} Given the clear disagreement by sources,^{[clarification needed]}^'clarify' not to mention the difficulty of gaining accurate figures in the first place, it is odd that the WTS has now released a set of numbers that not only differs again from what Garbe's detailed research found, but contradicts figures the WTS itself has previously used.^{[citation needed]}^{('citation needed' I already asked you at what page I could find that opinion)} It would have been more helpful if they had explained the basis on which their numbers have been revised. Why, for example, has their statistic on the number executed risen by 82 percent compared with what they claimed in their detailed report in the 1974 Yearbook?^{[clarification needed]}^{('clarify' serious allegation without will to bring up on demand the original source numbers)}

--FakTNeviM (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What a stupid debate. If there is an additional source, just state that the extra source, which should be clearly indicated as a primary (JW) source, also gives figures of whatever. And please don't start the same thread on four different Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw that article from JW-media.org, what I believe contain many valuable encyclopaedic informations. Read WP:AGF - what Jeffro77 and BlackCab completelly missed to assume. If BlackCab refused to say and confirm what other non-JW sources really claim, it seems that only one source achievable and obtainable at this moment is this article from JW-media.org, because other sources are not available neither on demand, what I already ask for in polite manner. If someone can bring up those non-primary citations here, it will be very appreciate. Otherwise only primary source is available to include in this Wikipedia article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On what basis are you accusing me of not assuming good faith?! I said to cite the source in addition to the existing sources. You may now apologise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no requirement for sources to be 'available on demand'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In other words, only this is available? In that case it should be reflected as only existing opinion at the Wikipedia. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You already know (or reasonably should know) that it certainly is not the only source. It is quite unlikely that it is the only source 'available' (if you mean 'easily accessible), and even if it is the only easily accessible source, it makes no difference because suitability of Wikipedia sources is not determined by ease of access.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the statement sourced to Laqueur/Baumel's Holocaust Encylopedia that 10,000 to 12,000 German JWs were sent to concentration camps during the Nazi era and replaced it with Garbe's figures that about 10,000 Witnesses were imprisoned, with 2000 of that number going to concentration camps. His calculation is that 1200 died, of whom 250 were executed. The Garbe statement also replaces the statement sourced to William Shulman's A State of Terror that as many as 5000 Witnesses died. The Google books reference doesn't make clear the source of Laqueur/Baumel's estimates, but they may be from estimates in 1969 by Michael H. Kater. Kater had criticised earlier statements by Annedore Leber and Friedrich Zipfel and his new figures (that 10,000 had been imprisoned and 4000 to 5000 had died in concentration camps) were subsequently used by Christine Elizabeth King.

The WTS in its 1974 Yearbook reported that 6019 were arrested, with 2000 being placed in concentration camps; 635 had died in prison and 203 had been executed. The Proclaimers book gave figures of 6262 imprisoned including 2074 sent to concentration camps. Garbe's detailed research (outlined on pages 477-484) suggests that the number of imprisoned JWs was higher than the WTS's previous estimates. He examined records from as many congregations as possible, which reinforced his view that earlier claims of the number of deaths were greatly exaggerated and that the death rate was around 3 percent, not 25 percent as previously suggested. Garbe has located death figures from specific concentration camps and also based his calculations on those. In short, the numbers provided by Laqueur/Baumel and Shulman are exactly the sort of figures Garbe claims are completely wrong. Based on the depth of his research and his critique of figures provided by other researchers, I don't think there is a better source than Garbe. BlackCab (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just thank you for those awaited numbers. (from different sources). --FakTNeviM (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As to content and your deleting other secondary and primary sources, because you believe Garbe's opinion is superior....

WTBTS reported ≥6000 and ≤7000 Witnesses, when other sources suggested nearly 12000. That doesn't looks good for Garbe's claim JW primary source is "greatly exaggerated". In fact, the opposite.

Each of sources is estimate, and should be noted in the article as a claim. Something like this: “Estimates about number of victims varies per source.”

From the generic view, number of molested JWs by Nazi regime (and its supporters from public, schools, newspapers, other religions, etc.) would be much more interesting than these stark estimates. To know how many Witnesses experienced "ruined lives" [=despite being alive] 'thankfully' to Nazi regime. Maybe close to 20 000? Or even more? Each JW-person in Germany (plus countries conquered by Nazi Germany later) during 1930's and 1940's?

Holocaust Encyclopaedia is reliable secondary source, so why delete it? Just because you believe it is not correct? There could be more variants, than just one, in the article. (in related persecution articles too)

--FakTNeviM (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Garbe's figures: 10,000 Witnesses imprisoned, including 2000 sent to concentration camps. 1200 died including 250 executed.
US Holocaust Memorial Museum figures: 10,000 imprisoned, including 2000-2500 sent to concentration camps. 1000 German Witnesses died in custody, plus 250 executed.[12].
WTS figures (1974): 6019 arrested, including 2000 sent to concentration camps. 838 died in custody, including 203 executed. (1974 Yearbook).
WTS figures (2012): 8800 imprisoned, including 2800 in concentration camps. 950 died in custody, including 370 executed.[13]

What is your problem? Reading the detail of Garbe's calculations, yes, I do believe Garbe's opinion is superior. If you have a better source, please discuss it. I know of no figure detailing the number of Witnesses whose lives were adversely affected. It would be very high, but without a reliable source it's all just conjecture. BlackCab (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia editor cannot decide which source is the best and placed there as only one reliable published source if there are also significantly different sources. .... Just should be noted in the article as a Garbe's claim with addition of this sentence: “Estimates about number of victims varies per source.” behind Garbe's observation. --FakTNeviM (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to just clearly state the estimates of both secondary sources rather than 'guessing' which is a better source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since those three sources are in broad agreement, there is little reason to include in the article a couple of much earlier estimates, since discredited, that are widely divergent. The Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany article may be the appropriate place to include the full range of estimates, but that article needs a significant overhaul and I think that small detail is fairly low in the article's priorities. BlackCab (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Again. You cannot assume which source is more correct. // The funny thing is that WTBTS's estimates on their own loses are still significantly lower than every other (secondary) source. Thus Garbe lied when he said that "greatly exaggerated" is the primary source (WTBTS). Do you consider a liar as more reliable than estimates from former Witness' authors (aka defectors)? If Garbe, so called "historian" is a liar, are you even interested about his thoughts? Despite of this, there should just sentence "Number of victims during Nazi' persecution varies per source from 6 000 to 12 000, while most probably estimation is about 10 000 by histrian Garbe" --FakTNeviM (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I clearly said that Garbe's calculations produced a figure higher than that of the WTS. The claims that 12,000 JWs were sent to concentration camps and that 5000 died were made by other researchers. Your claims about Garbe—a respected historian—being a liar are stupid in the extreme. You seem to be determined to be offensive. If you have no constructive input to make, leave this page alone. BlackCab (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I only noticed that historian Garbe deliberately wrote that estimates by Watchtower Society are "greatly exaggerated", what is seemed as incorrect and untrue. That's all. If you are not able to discuss in polite manner, I will wait for other editors if they think that in article should be placed only this information: "Number of victims during Nazi' persecution varies per source from 6 000 to 12 000, while most probably the best estimation is about 10 000 victims per historian Garbe". Or can anyone suggest better sentence? --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Every comment you make shows the depth of your ignorance. Garbe commends the WTS for its 1974 estimates. His criticism of "exaggerations" were about the claims of other researchers. Your insults about Garbe, who is very respectful of your religion, are ill-informed and offensive. Perhaps you could do yourself a favour and read his book. BlackCab (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be that I perhaps misunderstood it from your comments. If that is the case I am sorry.

Could you provide .pdf link for his book?

“My religion”??? WP:NPA I only noticed that informations which you wrote about what Garbe claimed seemed me as untrue.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New viewpoint

Why is this article full of promotional material from this cult? It should be purged of all of that and use mostly secondary sources. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Every opinion, no matter who says something, but what says, is interesting, especially if is it notable and reliable source. Religion leadership statements are notable and reliable in the same way as opinions of someone else (aka secondary, tertiary, forthiary, etc.) --FakTNeviM (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you believe is the promotional material? BlackCab (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything published by this organization is questionable except as a primary source giving evidence of what they claim to do or believe. Secondary sources are vastly preferable. If a substantial portion of this article is based on material published by the organization being reported on, it is promotional. Why should we as an encyclopedia repeat anything they claim about what happened during some alleged persecution except as a footnote to what secondary sources corroborate or dispute? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 04:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific about your concerns. The article—including the section about "alleged persecution"—is based on many non-JW sources, and most of the JW sources are in relation to their beliefs about themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The material in the "Persecution" section has 12 separate citations; only five of those are Watch Tower Society publications. Two of those are so-called rebuttals of a claim by multiple non-WTS sources; I don't see that there would be any realistic challenge to the remaining three WTS citations. Throughout this article effort has been made to use secondary sources where possible. Primary sources are used mainly to support statements about what the WTS explains are JW beliefs and practices, or as rebuttals of claims by others. BlackCab (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How can their publications be taken as a WP:RS for rebuttal of a secondary WP:RS? This is like Scientology publishing something detailing their claims of not being a pyramid scheme disguised as a religion (just a hypothetical example). Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 05:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Further, in light of general Wikipedia practices, interpreting a primary source is not acceptable. This includes most cases of paraphrasing it. What this organization publishes about its practices, beliefs or history may be relevant as direct quotes but should not constitute any substantial portion of the article. It should be trimmed down to genuinely reliable sources. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 05:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you identified a couple of examples. BlackCab (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

All paraphrasing of "Watchtower" publications in this article. Would you like me to remove it or is there something further to examine about whether paraphrasing (interpreting) primary sources meets the standards of WP:RS? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 05:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And an example of where the article interprets a primary source? BlackCab (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this will be faster and less frustrating for both of us if I just delete every case where something published by this organization is paraphrased for an article about itself. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 05:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It may save a lot of trouble later if you discuss it first. BlackCab (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

While trying to be polite and understand potential miscommunication, I do not understand the confusion over which portions of the article would be examples of paraphrasing primary sources. I've gone ahead and removed the most obvious from the initial portions of the article. I hope this makes clear what WP:RS entails and that the burden is on the editors who restore material to provide reliable sources, which don't involve paraphrased primary sources, to my understanding. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 06:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not prohibit the use of primary sources. It urges caution when using them. None of the material you have deleted is an interpretation of the original WTS sources. WP:PRIMARY says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." BlackCab (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is idiotic to remove, for example, the fact that Russell died, just because the reference is drawn from The Watchtower. You have also removed observations by Schnell and Rogerson about defections after Rutherford's election as president. Citations are required for material that is, or is likely to be, challenged. There are certainly some statements in the article for which secondary sources can be found (Russell's death is an obvious one), but as with all articles it's a work in progress and it is illogical to remove those facts simply because WTS sources are in place at the moment. BlackCab (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the absolute minimum after Obotlig's hack job of the article. It seems that the hacking of the article may be retributive in nature after the editor's concerns were not immediately accepted. Restorations primarily relate to:

Fundamental events in the group's history and doctrinal development
JW sources for JW statements of belief
Removing non sequiturs
Secondary sources
Information that is likely to be challenged
Sources quoted in prose

Policy does not require that primary sources are never used. If there are elements that also need secondary sources (though this is not necessarily the case for uncontested information or statements of their own beliefs), those can be tagged.

Alternatively, other editors may wish to restore the full original text if further discussion is required about content that I have not restored.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if that seemed like WP:POINT, and I agree about the article being a work in progress and that the more obviously correct material should stay. However, it is difficult to imagine where you are drawing the line between reliable statements from the Watchtower and tenuous or biased ones. Since the publication(s) reflect disputes within the organization at times, and there is an obvious and necessary bias by an organization such as this, anything published might be highly questionable. There is no presumptive validity to any statement from the Watchtower (even about events unrelated to the organization) due to the nature of it as an obviously biased or even willfully false propaganda vector. This is not Random House, it's not Oxford University Press (which very well might have Christians publishing material about Christians - but under scholarly circumstances). This is a self-regulated organization which promotes WP:FRINGE beliefs, with the premise that members (or other readers) ought to blindly accept anything published, by their own admission (which would still require the extant validation by secondary sources). It is on the whole far outside what the majority of Protestants or Catholics publish, and what other sources would report. In my opinion, on the whole this must WP:FRINGE, paraphrased from other than WP:RS. To even restate something that might be questionable is interpreting it. This is like the restrictions on using the manifesto in the Anders Breivik articles, to my understanding. To me, this is another article (like the stunning examples of most articles about cities, regions and even nations) which is excessively influenced by people who wish to use it to promote the organization in question. I don't think this needs to be taken to arbitration or WP:RSN since rectifying the problem over time should be straightforward to editors. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 15:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We cannot mixes "the real truth" with Wikipedia. WP:Truth. Anyhow no-one can knows which statement is true or at least close to truth. Neither is possibly achievable to know what the real truth is. Everything is simply opinion. Same value have opinions which differ from WTBTS claims. We cannot sort 'between reliable statements from the Watchtower and tenuous or biased ones'. Nor we can say that opinions different from WTBTS' approach are right or wrong, or at least partially. We cannot claim that one opinion is wrong and the other one is correct. We must report only, not rate. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

False. Please read WP:RS regarding primary sources, WP:FRINGE (clearly applies), etc. As the template for primary sources clearly states, it is against Wikipedia practice to rely on primary sources for an article about the subject/publisher/organization of the primary sources. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your point of view is noted. When users known for being critical editors (they may not agree to the description themselves) supports the current use of primary sources in the contexts it is used now in this article, and the article is recently approved as a good article, I can't see any real reasons to do major changes without using the talk page actively. It is not controversial to use sources published by WTS for verifying content regarding their own believes and religious practice. It is useful to include references to those sources, as a lot of the claims in the article could be challenged by readers with connections to JW. Seculary sources support a broad view of statistics published by WTS regarding their own activities and memeber counts, as highly reliable, and they are also known for reporting reduced activity and other statistic material with possible negative value. I agree to Jeffro it would be useful if you could point out where the sourcing is misleading, and promotional claims. I am strongly disagreeing this article is written in a promotional style, as it contain critics, and even an own section with critic against the organization. Claims with a possible positive content is — claims with a possible positive content, not promotional material. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My objection is not that I suspect any part of the article of being false, or "positive". It is that using the sources in this way is inconsistent with what I have seen on other articles. There is a fundamental problem of not knowing which elements of their material may not be reliable. Even if the tone of the article is balanced and it seems "true" it is an improper use of primary sources which seems to have skated by the good article assessment (possibly affected by the overall polish and appearance of the article, I don't know). I think I've taken enough of everyone's time with discussing this objection. It would seem that editors who are (presumably) critical of this organization are satisfied with the article being balanced. It would be more worthwhile to take this sort of issue to less prominent articles with genuine NPOV problems. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that similar articles about other religious groups like Church of God, LDS, Catholic Church, Lutheran and Reformed Evangelical churches has similar amount of primary sources. It is also obvious that most of secular sources are critical to churches and religions (not unique only to JW) and thus negative claims must be balanced with primary rebuttal. Otherwise it will be blocking of achievable sources and leading to permanent censorship which helps to critics of the religion (not unique only to JW). It is also interesting and paradoxical that JW-related articles contains many statements from WTBTS, which are in fact self-critical or could be viewed by reader as negative to JWs. I think that most of articles about JWs use quite balanced amount of accusations and rebuttal.

I'm not going to revert this immediately, but wait for other' view. However, template "primary" should be used in articles, in which are presented only primary sources or in articles with hugely predominant of primary sources. This article is not that case.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig, a great deal of what you removed (which made no attempt to maintain flow of the article) constituted JW beliefs about themselves, various significant aspects of development, and various points that are not contested (and a few secondary sources as well). It is quite unreasonable to dogmatically apply a policy where doing so is detrimental to the article. A more balanced approach would have been to add fact tags for those points that are most in need of secondary sources (i.e. factual statements rather than statements of belief). Instead, you've managed to get the non-JW editors and the pro-JW editors offside.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The mass removal of the article contents formed after the contribution of various huge discussions over years is just unreasonable. In any case if their is any question on the truthfulness of the article, its better to specifically address the issue --Fazilfazil (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Obotlig has already stated that he wasn't specifically claiming the article, or parts of it, were untruthful. His concern was the number of primary sources used. The WTS has proven on many issues to provide a highly biased, sometimes untruthful, representation of its past. It is reasonable to question the use of primary sources from such a publisher, and the Scientology example is an apt one. However he also acknowledges that Wikipedia editors who have been involved in this article are happy to keep those sources and are satisfied with the article's neutrality. This article has, in many ways, been shaped by editors who are either for the religion or against it (I am one of the latter). But we should all be aiming to ensure the article, like all WP articles, relies as much as possible on secondary sources. In fact I rarely see any pro-JW editor adding any material that is not from the WTS. I have no issue with any of the primary sources that still exist, because none of them appear to be interpretations of the primary source material. But this exercise has shown that there are still citations that can be substituted with secondary sources (Russell's death is one, but there were several others). And so long as primary sources exist in this article, we run the danger of other non-involved editors coming along and doing exactly the same thing Obotlig did. BlackCab (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The lack of reliable secondary sources is a problem when it comes to this topic. I got access to several studies in Scandinavian languages, primarly Norwegian and Swedish, if found of any interest, but also got an understanding of English sources to be preferable when it comes to the English version. I support to replace primary sources with reliable secondary sources. In several cases I think it is preferable to just add the secondary sources, like it already is done several places in the article, with the reasons mentioned above in mind. When it comes to replace primary sources with highly biased secondary sources, with the only intension to replace a defined primary source with a defined secondary source, I find it somewhat questionable.

Use of biased secondary sources have afflected parts of this article, like somewhat overweight to topics like governing body, 1975, disfellowshipping and absurd claims like the one recently discussed from the prosecution section. If dismissing any use of primary sources, and blindly approve JW deflectors publications as RS and good secondary sources, I think it would be reasonable to be concerned about how the articles POV will develop. Grrahnbahr (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, as you mentioned, lack of reliable secondary sources. Why? Because they [likely] don't exist. There are several defectors from the religion and very few of current members of the religion. Nobody else care and have enough deep knowledge about Jehovah's Witnesses, to write a book. I think that best secondary sources should be government's documents, university's works, or historian/sociologist writings. However, it is very sad, that most of these sources are, in fact, not sources, because only repeat+copy existing opinions which are included at Wikipedia! and some blogs, apostasy websites, or spread commonly public myths about JW. Thus we are in ugly magic circle from what is no way out, until someone trustful write seriously and unbiased good book. Hopefully more than one. The second best source should be opinions of those, who have deep theoretical and practical knowledge about JWs, are not current members, but neither are defectors. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your attitude regarding secondary sources about JWs reflects the official JW view about non-JW sources about their religion, including their views of mainstream media (see for example, http://dciscorp.com/qwotes/bewarethevoiceofstrangers.htm, which provides the text of a script talk from JW conventions in 2003 [time index 18:38 for media comments]; the talk was also summarised in the 1 September 2004 issue of The Watchtower). JWs are taught to view any external comment about their religion with suspicion. However, for the purposes of Wikipedia, any sources that meet the criteria for reliable sources, regardless of how JWs might personally feel about those sources, are acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence response: And I didn't say otherwise.

[I mentioned about source of many sources which are hugely based on existing sources and give nothing new, especially while criticism suits author's view.].

And NO, I not meet any official JW policy, neither I am interested about its approach.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you intentionally reflect the official view is beside the point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Template PS

I'm not going to delete template immediately, but wait for other' view. However, template "primary" should be used in articles, in which are presented only primary sources or in articles with hugely predominant of primary sources. This article is not that case. :::--FakTNeviM (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC), --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started chipping away at the WTS sources and I have to say I'm struck by how many there are. The task of replacing them with secondary sources is quite enormous; certainly much bigger than I first thought. The PS tag should remain until many more of them are replaced. It's not a good look to have so many statements sourced to the subject of the article. Obotlig's surprise that this wasn't picked up during the GA assessment is quite justified. BlackCab (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. ... I am watching what several editors including you are recently doing with the article. ... Just be very careful to avoid deleting opinions which are considered like rebuttals and different approach, (=without adequate primary or secondary substitution) than those holding by secondary source. Otherwise will be presented only one viewpoint, especially when is rather critical to primary sources. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Questioning of article status

I would like to raise a concern about the current situation for the article is according the good article criterias. The rapid change of content and sourcing policies, and also a higher frequense of reverts not related to obvious vandalism, is not supporting a view of the article as stable.

The change of sources are also a threat against the recently achieved progress in balancing the articles POW. Some of the content removed, is presented by the sources defined as PS, but is not disputed, nor challenged by any known sources as far as I know. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

GA status does not force development of the article to a halt. WP policies strongly discourage the use of primary sources and I am working my way through the article trying to find alternative secondary sources where they exist. There are no major changes to the article as a result, though such a close review of it, section by section, does provide the opportunity to examine the existing sources and remove a few redundant comments, particularly where they are unsupported by, and unlikely to be ever supported by, secondary sources. I am endeavoring to maintain the article's neutrality and balance and I'm sure Fazilfazil, who has also substituted some sources, is keen to do the same. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing all primary sources, and its not at all possible. However, one may replace the existing primary sources with secondary sources when available. But I'd rather prefer books written by third parties, ie. not a JW nor a former-member, otherwise in future other editors may raise a POV issue. I see BlackCab using penton & franz as sources, though they may be right, its obvious that they have bias. Also I request editor BlackCab not to remove sentences in the name of the reason you provided, if you can't find sources post it here, we can discuss and may I can find it. I'm not sure of then statements which he removed. Editors may find this tool good for finding third party sources. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I request not to take this as an opportunity to removes rebuttal statements, in the name of Primary sourcing.--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have previously argued against removing all primary sources.[14] I agree that some are necessary. What we've done so far is ample proof that many, however, should not be there and are easily replaced with secondary sources to bring this article closer into line with Wikipedia policy. Fazilfazil may "prefer" that books by ex-JWs not be used, but works by Franz and Penton happen to be among the most comprehensive of those about the JWs. The books (like those of academic authors with no prior JW affiliation) contain criticism, but also contain information of encyclopidiac value. I've been careful to cite statements from those books that are clearly factual (dates, doctrines etc) and from memory none of those substituted sources have entailed significant changes to the wording of the article that would add any bias. In any case, it is a very dubious argument that replacing a primary Watch Tower Society source with a non-WTS source introduces bias. The very presence of primary sources from the WTS implies bias, but towards the subject of the article.

As to this revert by Fazilfazil: I don't think it's necessary, but I have no strong objection to it remaining. BlackCab (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The qualifications for baptism include many different thinks and certainly understanding "God's spirit directed organization" is just a factor. This is in fact used by many anti-JWs claiming that JWs are slaves of WT society. So its necessary to emphasize clearly on "to whom" the dedication is done --Fazilfazil (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a redundant sentence, which in essence say the same existing sentence in a different way. --Fazilfazil (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is not necessary to remove all primary sources, particularly for citing JW beliefs, and primary sources are certainly suitable when stating that a particular (notable) thing was published by the WTS. Where a secondary source makes the same point as the primary source it replaces, I do not see how this could be said to 'introduce bias', even if the secondary source cites is written by a former member.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of Franz's works are per definition primary source: "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Franz, as a former memeber of GB, used to be an insider in any and every aspect, and some of the claims he represents, are not written or presented anywhere else, and is without any doubt only based on his own experience the time within the organization. Replacing sources from WTS with sources from Franz is pretty much replacing one primary source with another. Penton is only "directly involved", but his biased view of JW have to be taken in concideration when refering him as a source. Penton is just barely mentioned in the interdisciplinary book Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie, and then as a former member of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the book is mostly discrediting sources from former members, as describing them as highly biased. Works by Franz and Penton happen to be among the most critic and biased descriptions of JW, and are written with the purpose to "expose" JW. I certainly support the use of secondary sources like Holden and Ringnes, but shares Fazilfazils view of using former or current members description of the subject. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the generalities: since the latest purge on primary sources began, I have replaced just one WTS source with one from Franz. That was to support the statement that "previous baptisms performed by other denominations are not considered valid." [15] The source is Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom, where Franz reproduces several Watchtower articles to discuss the society's doctrinal changes over time about whether re-baptism is required for a person leaving another denomination. The statement in the Wikipedia article is unchanged. The Watchtower article that had been used as a citation in the WP article was clearly a primary source; Franz's discussion of Watchtower statements is, by definition, a secondary source and is therefore superior. I also took that opportunity to remove from the WP article a footnote discussing Franz's opinions about current WTS baptism procedures. It's about time you stopped your paranoid generalisations about ex-JW authors. We are all here to improve the article and I will continue to use the best secondary sources available. BlackCab (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Content of article is frequently changing. ... Because this article is since my last year' appeal to admins locked and banned for unregistered and new registered editors, there is fewer edits since, but we are able to maintain quality and focus on continuously continue on improving of content. ... However, many IP editors we lost since that time and some of them would be good editors. Not everyone unregistered is vandal. The fact that article is locked, as well as, the fact that holds Good Article status at English Wikipedia, has influence to future-possible editors do not try to enter and edit. That is more sad than useful in most cases. I think that threat of vandalism would be significantly lower ((than before GA status)) even if article would be open again. .... I think that current status as "Good Article" is rather optimistic, than real. On the other hand, there is significant quality in the article and I assume it is above average of Wikipedia' articles. Comments? --FakTNeviM (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on past observations of vandalism when the article has not been locked, I think it is rather optimistic to believe that the article would not be vandalised more if the article were not semi-protected. Nothing prevents editors who are serious about improving the article from registering an account. If there is an increase in the number of edit requests by anonymous editors (approximately 0 at the moment), it might then be worth re-considering the semi-protection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Progressive revelation

I notice that FaktneviM added a link to Progressive revelation (Christianity) (which was reverted). However, that concept is not the same as what JWs call progressive revelation. The more general term refers to the belief that the New Testament helps provide a fuller understanding of the Old Testament. Whilst JWs may indeed believe that the NT does help explain elements of the OT, their use of "progressive revelation" is not restricted to that. In JW usage, "progressive revelation" includes modern changes in JW doctrines. Regarding their own use of the term, the 1 March 1965 Watchtower claimed: "THAT God gives his people on earth a progressive revelation is a thought that has never occurred to most persons of Christendom." This clearly indicates that their use of the term is distinct, and it would therefore be misleading to link the JWs' belief about their 'Governing Body' providing 'clearer understandings' with the more general term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As to Jeffro77's objection here, ... “modern changes in JW doctrines” are based on “their current understanding of the Bible” . Nobody thinks that "truth" from 1880 was absolutely true, neither "truth" in 1950 was absolutely true, nor "truth" as of 2012 is absolutely true. It was true and sufficient too in that proper time it was. This is simply based on what they understand to be direction from Jehovah God. This is "JW views on progressive revelation". They do not believe that each statement or even sentence from "Faithful and Discreet slave" (neither from all anointed person, nor from Bethels' staff, nor from Governing Body's members) is inspired. Articles in the Watchtower etc. are considered to be "spiritual food" .... " by whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time " But that doesn't mean that each sentence and paragraph is inspired, though could be influenced by God's holy spirit. They don't think that their leaders have any special miraculous capabilities. They just scrutinized in the Bible. And that's it! There is several same-meaning statements what they believe on this in the Proclaimers book, Faith in Action 2-parts DVD, and surely some articles or notes in their other publications.

I think that I mixed Continuous revelation with Progressive revelation (Christianity) as I did in one edit and later I corrected it. But my point was Writing better articles - provide context for the reader. I recognize that secondary source claims only that short sentence, but there is a high possibility for readers to common misconception what JWs really believe. Meaning of my edit do not change meaning from that book! Only provide more clear context what is about. There is no need to strictly keep wording from source in this case. Whole suggested text is summarized in BlackCab's undone here.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The JW concept of 'progressive revelation' is indeed more similar to the concept of continuous revelation (you 'corrected it' to the less accurate term). The JW 'distinction' in their semantic jargon about not 'inspired' (an undefined unprovable process) versus their claims of being 'spirit directed' (an undefined unprovable process) is essentially meaningless. If it were really the case that "they don't think that their leaders have any special miraculous capabilities", then the same applies to any religion. However, JW leadership does explicitly claim that it—and it alone—is God's channel of communication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your citation of "God's alone organization" is not in dispute here. That "almost every religion claims some direct divine help" is also not important. That is why approach of Mormonism, Pentecostal movement, Bahai, etc. is precisely the same like in article "continuous revelation". These and many other religions really believe in personal divine inspiration of their hundreds of prophets. But the approach of Bible Student Movement and Jehovah's Witnesses were during history always the same: they simply scrutinizing the Bible (all scriptures covering certain specific topic) first! and were praying for improve understanding. There is no "something made from nothing" like shocking revelation as invented by Joseph Smith jr., Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, or by Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim. JWs approach have never been in similar way like with other named religions. --FakTNeviM (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You have either not understood, or chosen to distort, what I said. I did not say that other religions claim "direct divine help" (though some certainly do make such a claim). What I meant was that if it were the case that JWs didn't think their leaders have any special source of information from God (as you claimed), then they would be no different to other religions that also receive no special information from God. JWs specifically claim to be God's channel of communication, which specifically means they claim to receive some kind of specific direction from God. Of course, in reality, none of those groups you've named, including JWs, receive any special 'direction' from God, and so there is never any explanation in JW literature of just how they are 'God's channel of communication'. Just like the others, they're actually just 'making it up as they go along'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No! That is another misconception. Claiming "Receiving special information from God" is not prove of being inspired or have holy spirit. Most of "inspirations" in the world is supplied by daemons and Satan. I know that you are laughing from that at this moment, but that is not important. Miracles could be (and most of them, as I studied circumstances behind them) in fact false signs with aim to deceiving people. Rest of "inspirations" which are not from daemonic source are invention of man's mind or psychic illnesses. The point is that JWs do not claim that everything what they are writing is divinely inspired. Neither they claim any materialistic miracle. But in fact, fulfilling prophecies, like 1942 Knorr's call and fulfilment of many written prophecies in New and Old Testament during history and in modern times too (despite fulfilment of prophecy could be always disaffirmed because of specific manner of what prophecy is, = baffling for readers/hearers until time of fulfilment really came and event came to exist). ... Just another off-topic. ... I am still sure that JWs' do not claim "continuous revelation" in sense in which is covered in that Wikipedia article. Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses views on revelation and divine direction would be accurate. But in the terms of current Wiki article named "continuous revelation" is not possible to implicate it to JWs. They are guided through studying the Bible. There is no prophetic revelation similar like from Joseph Smith's and several other prophets. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FakTNeviM, it appears incongruent that independent thinking or good faith independent theological study is discouraged, potentially considered sectarian or even apostate, and that progression of knowledge is expected. If a view dispensed by the Discrete And Faithful Slave or Governing Body is considered erroneous or false, an individual attempting to "reason" may be considered an apostate. Thus, even if in theory the DaFS is not considered inspired, they must still have the last word on every matter, despite being uninspired, imperfect humans. This is a very specific type of (questionable) "Progressive Revelation"... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take your discussion somewhere else? This is not the place to promote your religious views. BlackCab (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I already stated that I am not happy that we do not discuss my reason to this. It is appropriate to provide readers a context, as Wikipedia policy urges. --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Magical thinking about 'daemons' and 'inspiration' is not relevant. The specific mechanism by which the JW leadership claims to be 'spirit directed' is not stated (ostensibly, because it's made up). However, the fact remains that what JWs call 'progressive revelation' is not that which is described at progressive revelation (Christianity), though it would be accurate to described the claimed 'channel of communication' (by whatever supposed mechanism) as continuous revelation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. Do you think that for wiki-readers would be fit to provide context of this religious group's beliefs and implicate my wording with the decommissioning of that progressive direction christianity wikilink? --FakTNeviM (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I see with the above proposed change, is the justification that "customs" must be considered of pagan origin to be rejected. There is a more general issue of segregation (not only of pagan-originated customs) which the previous wording makes clear. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I reread the current version of the "Separateness" section and it seems reasonable... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FatkTNeviM's change to the lead section retained the citation of reliable sources but altered the meaning of (and in some cases contradicted) what those sources stated. The article must reflect the statements of reliable sources, not what some anonymous editor thinks. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change does not change meaning of author's view, but provide context for the readers. Otherwise would be right to keep it like before. I omitted two previous wikilinks. What about this:

„They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or whatever else they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Bible-based Christianity, what includes many religious as well as secular holidays and customs. Adherents commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth" with their body of beliefs, while "the present truth" constitutes current understanding of the Bible and continuous direction of God's will through the Faithful and discreet slave.^[1] Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and partially limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

As "76.10.128.192" wrote, it is covered in section separateness. This approach has huge effect on their views on beliefs and customs which they consider to be incompatible with Bible's early Christianity' pattern. However, original citation from Holden is unclear, sketchily short and ambiguous instead. I am not sure what is really objection on this. There is no major change, but is more understandable. --FakTNeviM (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. All Christian groups base their beliefs on their own interpretations of the Bible. JWs refer to their (leadership's) interpretations of the Bible as 'the Truth'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And "partially limit" is redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If I consider this objection, we can write it like this:

„They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or whatever else they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Bible-based Christianity, what includes many religious as well as secular holidays and customs. Adherents commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth" with their organization's body of beliefs, while "the present truth" constitutes current understanding of the Bible and continuous direction of God's will through the Faithful and discreet slave.^[2] Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

Exactly. Every religion (not only those espousing themselves to Christendom) has its own interpretation of the Bible and thus it is not relevant argument. It is like inform reader that "red is colour" or even that "colour is colour". It is obvious. Nobody is surprised by that unnecessary info. --FakTNeviM (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, no. You've said the same thing again, and you are distorting what the sources actually say. It is JWs' beliefs and interpretations that they refer to as "the truth", not simply 'the Bible'. JWs do not "commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth"" in the sense discussed by the sources. JWs often refer to their beliefs about the Bible as "the truth". Though JWs do believe [their interpretations of] the Bible to be true, when they refer to "the truth" or "in the truth", they refer to the beliefs of JWs, not simply the Bible on its own. The rest of your suggested text doesn't say much different to what is already stated in the article, and the existing wording has better grammar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No. They consider "to be in the truth" when they are part of WTBTS organization and believe in current understanding aka 'present truth', (check Watchtower Library for this concept). But "the truth" is different than "something being true at the specific time". .... "The truth" is absolute term and constitutes the Bible only (What they believe is inspired and inerrant word of living God). .... Different term: "Being in the truth" is by their believe simply "adhere their organization's body of beliefs at the specific time." (changing over time suggest that it is "relative truth", not absolute). ... citation: “Frequently they referred to their Scriptural beliefs as “present truth”—not with any idea that truth itself changes but rather with the thought that their understanding of it was progressive.”. For instance, C. J. Woodworth (member of organization who have been in prison with Rutherford and who also believed that in 1914 he will go to heaven, said that he is after all that still happy that he recognized the present truth and thus he does not leave from organization and stayed with Jehovah's Witnesses until his death). [= the specific wording you can find in that article.] This example is clear how they recognize difference between "the absolute truth" and "the present truth". Although it could be the case that some of members are mixing it together. But that is not purpose of encyclopaedia to speculate about how many people are aware of this different reality. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no source for your claim that JWs refer to 'the Bible' as "the truth" in this sense, and the current source doesn't support your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? That was 2 citations from Proclaimers book. For example, their year's text is based on (John 17:17) what implicate that the truth is the Bible, and not organization itself alone. (many references in WLib, most current reference in publication "Study scriptures daily 2012 Yeartext") 2012 Yeartext + comments by their organization, pages 6-7. There their leaders making clear difference. See also their reference works in Watchtower Library also for “absolute truth“, “truth“, “true“, “relative truth“ etc. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested change is badly written, wordy, ungrammatical and in parts simply wrong. The lead section correctly notes that JWs refer to the body of teachings as "the truth" and that a baptized Witness is "in the truth". I was a Witness for more than 20 years and know, as every Witness does (at least in English-speaking countries) that when one speaks routinely of being "in the truth" it is a reference to being part of the JW community and accepting those teachings. Some secondary sources that make this clear include:

Holden (pg 64): :It is not uncommon for Witnesses to ask each other how long they have been in the truth or when they first began to study." (emphasis in original).
Schmalz ("When Festinger Fails", Religion, 1994): "Witnesses describe their conversion as 'coming into the Truth' and use images of darkness and light to contrast their previous lives to their present membership."
Singelenberg ("It Separated the Wheat from the Chaff", Sociological Analysis, 1989): "Doctrines used to be inflexible and legalistic (which, to be sure, could be modified at a later date), so no confusion among the adherents could arise as to how to interpret 'The Truth'." Singelenberg also quotes an elder who told him: "Those who left were the ones who were afraid of 1975. But they were never really in 'The Truth'." Singelenberg, in footnote 8, notes: "'The Truth' is Witnesses' jargon, meaning the Society's belief system."
Stroup (The Jehovah's Witnesses, 1945, pg 90): "Some Witnesses take delight in displaying resentments toward those they consider to be inferior; thus church members and unbelievers are inferior because they do not accept 'the truth'." Stroup makes repeated reference throughout his book to the use of the phrase "the truth". He notes (pg 101): "Some of the word patterns have been employed since the movement's inception. One such is 'the truth' ... since that time (1895) most true believers have called their conversion their coming into 'the truth'. Today the phrase is heard among Witnesses more often than the word 'God'."
Botting & Botting (The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses, pg 70): "They refer to their world view and organization as 'The Truth'; to be a Jehovah's Witness is to be 'in The Truth'; and Witnesses call their beliefs 'truths'."

Yes, Watch Tower Society publications do commonly refer to the Bible as being the truth, but the use of the term in the introductory section of this Wikipedia article identifies its peculiar use by members to refer to their religion's teachings and the community that binds them. The article cites one secondary source and I will add Singelenberg's quite unambiguous description of what that term means. In all ways the existing wording in the lead section is superior to yours. You might as well stop now. BlackCab (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The main point is, and I suppose that secondary sources and you and most of people do not understand the difference is that two different truths within WTBTS exist.

T1relative) They consider "to be in the truth" when they are part of WTBTS organization and believe in current understanding aka 'present truth', "Being in the truth" is by their believe simply "adhere their organization's body of beliefs at the specific time." (changing over time suggest that it is "relative truth", not absolute).

T2absolute) "The Truth" is different than "something being true at the specific time". "The truth" is absolute term and constitutes the Bible only (What they believe is inspired and inerrant word of living God, what is never changes).

Again: + you confirmed: Watch Tower Society publications refer to the Bible as the truth (I already presented 3+ primary sources, +there is surely 100+)

Again: Although it could be the case that some of members are mixing it together. But that is not purpose of encyclopaedia to speculate about how many people are aware of this different reality.

Again: Your last paragraph seems like deliberate denial of primary source, what is unacceptable for editors.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is factual: Witnesses do commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth". It's a curious and distinctive belief by this religion, part of their doctrine that only they, of all religions, understand the Bible properly and are therefore God's channel. Those secondary sources have therefore noted their use of this phrase. It is neither remarkable nor notable that a religion believes the Bible to be true and beyond that your discussion about relative truths and different realities is irrelevant and difficult to comprehend. BlackCab (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is seemed like deliberately ignoring primary sources, especially in case, that primary sources deny secondary claims as incorrect and inaccurate understanding of what primary source (religious organization) really believe. Absurd situation, isn't it?

I realized that "Present Truth" is a concept, which is traced in very root of 'Bible Student Movement' as well as during whole existence of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. There are claims from 1892, 1899, 1914, 1952, 1955, 1966, 1977, 1993, 2012. Perhaps more. Just few interesting citations here:

It was first in 1895 that some friends of Zion’s Watch Tower suggested that this magazine is identified with “that slave”—“that servant.” (Matt. 24:46, Authorized Version) Enemies aroused violent opposition to this viewpoint of such friends, so that The Watch Tower of October 1, 1909, had this to say:

“Our friends insist that this Scripture indicates that in the end of this Gospel age the Lord would use not many channels for the dissemination of the Truth, but one channel . . . They hold that all of them received their knowledge of Present Truth directly from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society’s publications, or indirectly through those who have received their enlightenment through this channel. They are glad correspondingly to co-operate as ‘fellow-servants’ with the Society’s work, believing that thereby they are following the leadings of the Divine Providence, as well as the instructions of the Divine Word.”

Ministers? No, say the world and the nominal church, only ours who wear “clerical” garments and preach from our pulpits are God’s ministers. Yes, says the Lord, my servants (ministers) they are because they serve me, dispensing present truth to my household. I have sent forth the message which they bear. He that despiseth them despiseth me, and he that receiveth the sealing in the forehead which I send by them will know the doctrine, that it is of me. “My sheep know my voice.”

(See also the issue of February 1, 1899, paragraphs 6 and 7, under the heading “Is Present Truth Unreasonable?”)

C. J. Woodworth

To one who forsook Jehovah’s service because the anointed followers of Jesus Christ were not taken to heaven in 1914, C. J. Woodworth wrote as follows: “Twenty years ago you and I believed in infant baptism; in the Divine right of the clergy to administer that baptism; that baptism was necessary to escape eternal torment; that God is love; that God created and continues to create billions of beings in His likeness who will spend the countless ages of eternity in the strangling fumes of burning sulphur, pleading in vain for one drop of water to relieve their agonies . . . “We believed that after a man dies, he is alive; we believed that Jesus Christ never died; that He could not die; that no Ransom was ever paid or ever will be paid; that Jehovah God and Christ Jesus His Son are one and the same person; that Christ was His own Father; that Jesus was His own Son; that the Holy Spirit is a person; that one plus one, plus one, equal one; that when Jesus hung on the cross and said, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou Forsaken Me,’ He was merely talking to Himself; . . . that present kingdoms are part of Christ’s Kingdom; that the Devil has been away off somewhere in an unlocated Hell, instead of exercising dominion over the kingdoms of this earth . . . “I praise God for the day that brought Present Truth to my door. It was so wholesome, so refreshing to mind and heart, that I quickly left the humbug and claptrap of the past and was used of God to also open your blinded eyes. We rejoiced in the Truth together, working side by side for fifteen years. The Lord greatly honored you as a mouthpiece; I never knew anybody who could make the follies of Babylon look so ridiculous. In your letter you ask, ‘What next?’ Ah, now comes the pity of it! The next thing is that you permit your heart to become embittered against the one whose labors of love and whose blessing from on High brought the Truth to both our hearts. You went out, and took several of the sheep with you. . . . “Probably I look ridiculous to you because I did not go to Heaven, October 1st, 1914, but you don’t look ridiculous to me—oh no! “With ten of the greatest nations of earth writhing in their death agonies, it seems to me a particularly inopportune time to seek to ridicule the man, and the only man, who for forty years has taught that the Times of the Gentiles would end in 1914.” ---“Brother Woodworth’s faith was not shaken when the events of 1914 did not turn out as expected. He simply realized that there was more to learn. Because of his confidence in God’s purpose, he spent nine months in prison in 1918-19. Later he served as editor of the magazines “The Golden Age” and “Consolation.” He remained firm in faith and loyal to Jehovah’s organization right down till his death in 1951, at 81 years of age.---”

The article should reflect what JWs organization really believe in first place, more than what secondary source thinks JW believe.

--FakTNeviM (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses that are not covered in this article because they haven't passed the notability test. Included among them are the Sparlock character and the recent announcement that elders and ministerial servants may be removed if they attend university. (See discussion here.) Such subjects require mentions in secondary sources. I am still unsure of the significance of the "present truth" doctrine you keep referring to, but in any case, there is no basis on which to include it at the moment, so further discussion seems redundant. BlackCab (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is lot of unresolved issues and ballast. // I read that letter when first leaked to internet. However, in that letter is nothing what suggest 'university-ban' for baptised and unbaptised publishers. There is only stated that elders are taught to be careful when someone is / or wants start studying higher education (what takes much focus, time, money, worldly-like people around you, alcohol, girls, false-religion' and secular-religion' customs, +you know = "student's lifestyle"). Elders should be careful for such prospective students if such people at the same time want to be regularly in public 'ministry', active in 'theocratic ministry school' or even be 'pioneers'. It is obvious that for most of people is not possible to get done all of that at the same time. However, in that letter is no general concept that everybody studying university cannot do that. Someone may be able to do it and stay active in JWs' activities as before attending university. It is not general deny of education. Just caution. An individual cases are individually different. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The figurine of Sparlock magician as a toy in the video DVD 'is not changed approach' from WTBTS. JWs are very known that they 'deeply abhor with anything to do with' Spiritism, Nationalism, and 'Whore of Babylon-like' religions. It is long held approach that they deny all of that in every aspect of their lives. Even when is 'little touchable with subject of Spiritism itself'. Apostate websites are funny 'how they smearing every single mention with high-criticism-potential from WTBTS'. It is question if is it really encyclopaedicaly important that JWs were never been playing with toys significantly unchristian per Bible. Can you imagine that daughter of Apostle Paul in 1st Century (=He hadn't any children) is playing with symbol of goddess Artemis? I can't. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ..... I hope that you are now 'sure of the significance of the "present truth" doctrine I keep referring'. I am mentioning it, because secondary sources claims the term "the truth" only for "WTBTS itself" and for "WTBTS' Bible-based beliefs itself". For an unfamiliar reader, and for most of familiar with too, this would lead to misconception that "the truth" is synonym for "organization itself" only. Despite of common meaning (=using of this phrase) among members (((as Holden, Schmalz, and other refer = “It is common for Witnesses to ask each other how long they have been in the truth or when they first began to study.” / “Witnesses describe their conversion as coming into the Truth.”))), "the truth" is in Wikipedia article here described like "absolute truth" and about "present truth" is nothing there. Thus wiki-article not refer the fact that 'the Bible only' is by JWs members and JWs organization "only one absolute truth ever". (See primary sources, e.g. already mentioned: 'Scripture daily for 2012'). And that everything else (current understanding of the Bible = current doctrines = "Present Truth") is "relative". (=It is true teaching in particular time in history, but not absolutely true for whole history of mankind). Could you suggest better wording than my original edit in article? Otherwise I will do it again. Current information in article is incomplete. They refer to their beliefs as 'the truth' and 'to be in truth', but they know (someone from own first-hand experience) that it is 'relative' (present truth). Without this information is article incomplete and misleading to readers. --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'concept' of 'present truth' is merely an aspect of their belief that their current doctrines (at any particular time) constitute "the truth". This is already covered in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

'current doctrines' constitutes "The Present Truth" (They (WTBTS organization as publishing media of FaDS) believe "something being true at the specific time". Approach of Jehovah's Witnesses we can compare with science. Scientific knowledge in 15th Century were 'true during that specific time'. Since that time are many of that truths disproved and no longer held by 'most of scientific community'. Although, opinion held by 'most of community with some knowledge' 'is not prove itself that it is factual and true opinion'. In modern-day knowledge and science is the same phenomenon. Each year different 'scientific teams' present their "discoveries", (='points of view and opinions at the specific time in history'), which often differ than other scientists discoveries. Mainstream scientific theories are frequently changing and it is sad that most people believe that current scientific knowledge is absolutely true despite the willingly-hidden fact that is not absolute level of absolutely accurate knowledge. It is only true at this time, but could be changed and disproved maybe in next year. Truth held by scientist in 2000, 2010 and 2012 is changing and nobody is surprised. Some books written by 'religious studies' experts already recognized these "schools of thought" (Scientism, Atheism, Materialism, Capitalism, Communism is religion too.) as comparable to any other religious beliefs.' JWs have their "present truth", because everybody in the world who holds some opinions based on current knowledge of some specific subject has in fact "present truth". Everything is simply an opinion based on current knowledge. Human knowledge cannot be absolutely true in the specific time, because knowledge is changing. And viewpoint on specific information is changing over time too. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for these rambling lectures. Without secondary sources to cite, there is nothing to write. BlackCab (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if the current, updated knowledge was of utmost importance, there'd be no point holding the superstitious views of millenary traditions along with their creation myths (i.e. see Scientific theory, Scientific method, Evidence of common descent, etc). I'm sorry to have to post this here rather than contributing to the article, but FakTNeviM's talk page seemed inhospitable and unidirectional... I'll stop this discussion here, though. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the introduction at the very top of this page) and Wikipedia Article Talk pages' guideline with some useful links like WP:civil, WP:personal. If you want to contribute to content next time, avoid evaluating of subject focused in articles at Wikipedia. Although everyone is allowed to hold some opinion, unnecessary irrelevant comments ... (= e.g. "Beliefs of subject covered in article are idiotic" = possible explanation of meaning of last 76.10.128.192's edit here.) ... should not be posted. That would be brilliant if you stop stating personal opinions and comments unrelated to subject of content. Concept of Present Truth kept by both, Jehovah's Witnesses, and science, and every other possible form of knowledge out there, is not dependant on how much conceivable is viewed by anyone of Wikipedia editors. --FakTNeviM (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In the previous posts above, scientific consensus is labeled as opinion, when it is actually backed up by evidence, as required by the scientific process. The argument that it is merely opinion was used as the basis to propose changes to the article (which are questioned by the other editors), on the topic of "progression of knowledge", which could be reformulated as "the present truth" or possibly "progressive revelation"). I do not think that the article is lacking on that subject as it stands, especially that we also have the detailed Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine article with references. It might have appeared personal because I expressed my feelings about the sentence I was "welcomed" with on the talk page when I felt that the thread should be pursued there instead of bloating this page further, as it was borderline off-topic. Sorry about that. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

// I do not saying that scientific consensus/rivalry is true or untrue. In any case, it is just present knowledge which actually can or cannot be absolutely true. Very likely it is not. It can be only agreed that it is 'present truth' = relatively true and relatively complete knowledge = absolute truth at particular time in history. Today's scientific' Absolute truth may be proclaimed relatively truthful and obsolete. That's it! Okay, we should finish with with this unsolvable off-topic talk.

// BlackCab welcomed you, not me.

// I have been and I still am glad that you enter with third opinion and viewpoint. Originally you supported some short addition which correct incomplete claim of secondary sources on what is "truth" by JW. I suggested two times different text, latest this quote:

„They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or whatever else they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Bible-based Christianity, what includes many religious as well as secular holidays and customs. Adherents commonly refer to the Bible as "the truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth" with their organization's body of beliefs, while "the present truth" constitutes current understanding of the Bible and continuous direction of God's will through the Faithful and discreet slave.^[3] Jehovah's Witnesses consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses.”

, but BlackCab still believes that is "not worthy enough to include in article", while Jeffro77 believes that this important information "is already covered in the article". I disagree with this. There is nothing what constitutes "unchanging truth vs. changing truth" belief system of JWs in the article. Thus why books critical to JWs do not explain JW' beliefs correctly. It explains them only from one point of view. Neither article "Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine" provides sufficient context for readers. There is just phrase like "new light", "new understanding" ... with no explanation of influence on whole belief system in context to other changed beliefs throughout history. Just rubbish. As usually at Wiki.

// Sorry if you felt something by someone here unpleasant.

// --FakTNeviM (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

^ Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.
^ Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.
^ Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.

[1] Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.

[2] Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.

[3] Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0-415-26609-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]