Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 62

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 60

Awkward wording

I rolled back BlackCabs change: "and are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality" was changed to "and are also warned they should minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality". The wording is just to awkward... Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't really awkward. But I've changed warned to told. I have retained the word should, which maintains the aspect that it is within the realm of advice (though it is really closer to a direction). Warned may imply there is actually 'danger' whereas in typical cases it is only that JWs may believe such 'danger' exists. The quotes from Watch Tower Society literature previously provided at Talk are much more direct than merely suggestions. Told they should is a more accurate presentation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oki, it it maybe my limited knowledge to English, but I do really feel for connecting "warned" to "against" something rather than "to do" something. Anyway, it looks better... Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It is true that someone is normally warned against something. However, it is also appropriate to warn someone to do something to prevent a [perceived] negative consequence. The new wording is more accurate though. (Also, in the phrase warned they should, an optional that could go after warned, which some readers find less awkward; using that in this manner is less common in US English.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say the connotations of the original word "advised" are more accurate than the connotations of the word "told". Various scriptures dealing with "bad associations" (1 Corinthians 15:33) are shown to the congregation, reasoning upon those scriptures is presented, and each member makes up his own mind what to do according to their conscience. Each person's circumstances differ as to how much outside association they have. For examples, Witnesses in business may have much association with non-Witnesses in the course of business dealings. And those who are married to non-Witnesses obviously have more outside association with not only their spouse, but with their spouses's associates. Page 23 of that Watchtower cited in the references supports what I just said. G.Larson (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Exhaustively discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67#Jehovah's Witnesses without any support for "advised". The article is clearly referring to social rather than business interaction. BlackCab (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Being married to a non-Witness and spending time with their friends is "social" isn't it? G.Larson (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "instructed" as presented on that talk page is more accurate than the word "told" with its connotations. The "instruction" is based on scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The word "told" can connote some arbitrary thing said by someone. Does that make sense to you? G.Larson (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As if I need to explain, I was responding to your red herring about business association. There's really no need for me to discuss with you the ways JWs and their leadership negotiate this issue, or even why a religion would feel the need to tell its members who they should, and should not, mix with. It's sufficient for the article to note briefly that JWs are told to limit their social interaction with non-members, and that most do as they're told. Your citing of a Bible text to support the use of a particular verb in a secular encyclopedia is rather a pathetic appeal to authority. The word appears in the New World Translation, not in all Bibles; in either case it's irrelevant. BlackCab (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What makes citing a verse "pathetic"? We ARE talking about a religion's teachings aren't we? To my knowledge, most religions base their practices on some form of scripture. And mentioning business was not a "red herring" as you put it. It was one of two examples. I also provided the example of marriage and the spouse's associates that affect one's circumstances. BTW: The word "instruction" does not appear in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the NWT. The principle does. G.Larson (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wording it this way would be more accurate: "Witnesses are taught that association with "worldly" people presents a "danger" to their faith,[238] and instructed to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality.[239][240][241][242]" I'm not sure what your problem would be with that rendering. Apparently there is some problem there for you. G.Larson (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have decided against "advised", which is where you began today's discussion, I have no objection to that wording. It is both a teaching and an instruction from the leadership. BlackCab (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't decided against "advised" so much as I am against the word "told". ("Advised" is accurate, according to dictionary definitions.) But "told" has the wrong connotations as I said. I'm willing to go with "instructed", because the teachings are based on something (the Bible) that most Christians view as an authoritative source. They are not arbitrary rules made up by someone in the "church". Does that make sense? It seems like we agree somewhat. G.Larson (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And despite previous arguments on the older talk page to the contrary, the dictionary meanings of "advised" here are correct: "to recommend as desirable, wise, prudent, etc.: He advised secrecy." "to offer counsel; give advice: I shall act as you advise."

What concerns me is that these meanings of "instructed"... "to furnish with knowledge, especially by a systematic method; teach; train; educate. " "to furnish with information; inform; apprise. " ....will not come through in the article as it stands. G.Larson (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am using the word "instructed" as a synonym for "taught", not for "ordered" or "told". It would be more accurate if it read: "Witnesses are taught that association with "worldly" people presents a "danger" to their faith,[238] and learn that minimizing social contact with non-members better maintains the Bible's standard of morality as they understand it.[239][240][241][242]" But I'm sure that's out of the question here.G.Larson (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's ridiculous. BlackCab (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That new suggestion is awful. 1) It subjectively implies that their belief about 'association' is factual in that it is supposedly learned. 2) It subjectively asserts that JW teachings are equal to 'the Bible's standard of morality', and is a subjective appeal to authority in regard to the Bible itself. 3) It's a wordy euphemistic attempt to water down the official stance despite quite strongly worded 'warnings' in JW literature. So... No.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I did make several reasons for why the word "advise" should be used, and made a suggestion a fully change of the article's text as well, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67#Jehovah's Witnesses. Both use of the words "told" and "instructed" indirectly indicates some kind of consequences for violation, if nothing else, than some loss of social character among fellow Witnesses. I supported the fact that it is no consequences for violating the advise, with a quote from the Norwegian psychologist and author Ringnes. The fact that User:G.Larson does bring this in separately from my concerns, indicates the inaccuracy of BlackCabs version of this matter, and does also make a difference in how consensus is on this matter. Even the wording in the WT quotes indicates this for being an advice, or a principal, rather that a strict morale rule (it would be wise to do so and so). Not seeing that, proves a lack of understanding when it comes to the understanding of JW's "legal system"/morale conduct-system, which clearly separates advices (principals) from laws (rules). Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To BlackCab and Jeffro: I don't see my wording as "ridiculous", though I realize it's a stretch from where the article is now is. You each have a point of view. I have another. "The Bible's standard of morality as they understand it" is a rational statement. (I am also polite enough to have kept my personal thoughts about your own comments to myself, though I have seen a number of put-downs directed at mine.)

There is a basis for the views Witnesses hold. Christianity in general, and Judaism, view the Bible's scriptures as a reliable basis for decisions about morality. The words "as they understand it" are self-explanatory and do not hold up the JW's view as the only proper one. G.Larson (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

On the older discussion page, Jeffro posted this:

"The Watchtower, 15 April 1993, page 16: Limit your association to spiritually minded Christians who really love Jehovah.
"Our Kingdom Ministry, September 2009, page 7 [Instructions for a pre-rehersed 'demonstration']: Interview one or two young publishers who have returned to school and who realize the need to limit association with unbelieving classmates.
"The Watchtower, 15 October 2012, page 30: Living “in the last days,” we are surrounded by people who are “disloyal,” people “having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power.” (2 Tim. 3:1-5) As much as possible, we must avoid such bad association.
"The Watchtower, 15 February 1994, page 24: We must also be on guard against extended association with worldly people. Perhaps it is a neighbor, a school friend, a workmate, or a business associate. We may reason, ‘He respects the Witnesses, he leads a clean life, and we do talk about the truth occasionally.’ Yet, the experience of others proves that in time we may even find ourselves preferring such worldly company to that of a spiritual brother or sister. What are some of the dangers of such a friendship?
"The Watchtower, 15 January 2004, page 28: The trouble that “brought ostracism” upon Jacob started because Dinah made friends with people who did not love Jehovah. We must choose our associates wisely.
"The Watchtower, 15 July 1997, page 18: Of course, we must also guard against bad associations. We can be cordial with neighbors, workmates, and fellow students. But if we are really walking wisely, we will avoid getting too close to those not pursuing Christian virtue.
"The Watchtower, 1 November 1997, page 25: Although Epicureanism disappeared in the fourth century C.E., there are those today who adopt a similar now-is-all-we-have viewpoint. These people place little or no faith in God’s promise of life eternal. Yet, some of them have relatively high standards of conduct. A Christian might be tempted to form a close relationship with such ones, perhaps reasoning that their decent qualities justify friendship. However, though not considering ourselves superior, we must bear in mind that all “bad associations”—including those whose influence is more subtle—“spoil useful habits.”

And unlike some here, I also see this as "advice" or "guidelines" based on scripture. It's not an order or a rule. Each Witness is free to decide what to do within their own relationships with those who are not Witnesses. JWs continue to have social interactions with non-Witnesses, many JWs are the only one in their families, new people become Witnesses, and the same kind of advice is repeated as reminders. G.Larson (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You have not presented any argumentation that is not consistent with the wording told they should.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the verb is dictated by whether a Witness is punished for ignoring an instruction - and the corollary of whether that makes it a rule - doesn't hold much water. The Watch Tower Society has said publicly that JWs who accept blood transfusions are not disfellowshipped, yet the religion's stand on blood transfusions is very clearly not "advice". We need to be guided by reliable secondary sources and one such source uses the word "dictum" in describing the instruction to Witnesses on social interaction with outsiders. The present wording is fine. BlackCab (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Blackcab, JWs who accept blood are viewed as "disassociated". It's the same as "disfellowshipped". The same announcement is made: "Such-and-such" is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses". So your analogy is flat wrong. There is no similarity. There are no consequences for merely socializing with others. Further, some "reliable" secondary sources used appear to be selectively chosen and/or too much is being "read into" the statements.

There's no "dictum', unless one refers to the Bible's "dictums" -- like "Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals." (New American Standard Bible)

dic·tum /ˈdiktəm/ Noun

  1. A formal pronouncement from an authoritative source.
  2. A short statement that expresses a general truth or principle.

Synonyms saying - adage - byword - maxim - saw - aphorism

G.Larson (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro, if you were reading JW literature for what it says instead of what you want it to say, you would see that Witnesses are not "told" in the meaning of "ordered". Relevant scriptures are presented, and reasoning is given. Further, each person also is able to read--on their own, in the course of their personal Bible reading--all the examples of bad outcomes from associating with the wrong people that are related throughout the entire Bible. So each person makes up their mind what is right in their own life. I've repeatedly stated that. You've given me nothing to indicate that JW are "told" in the way you want them to be.

The JWs taking the lead don't make up the "rule" or "order". The one who "tells" Christians what is wise and is good policy is God. (And though I know you personally don't believe the Bible is what it says it is, most Christians say they do believe.) The same scriptures are inside all Bibles, though many people out there fail to read Bibles and their churches may fail to use them much. (In my own long-time experience in more than one "main-line" church, I saw they mostly failed to use the Bible.) So many people are simply unaware of the rules and guidelines set forth inside the scriptures themselves. Counsel on good and bad association doesn't originate with the organization. It originates within the scriptures themselves. The wording in the article gives a false impression. G.Larson (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The words "counseled" or "advised" are accurate. But the "counsel" or "advice" comes from the scriptures. "Told" or "instructed", with the connotations that some editors are apparently wishing to convey, are the wrong words. G.Larson (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Blackcab: An earlier point has been on my mind, so I'll bring it up: You said in response to my previous post: "The article is clearly referring to social rather than business interaction." Then you referred to my mention of "business" as a "red herring". Perhaps you were unaware, but when you get to a certain level in business, you are expected to "schmooze" with suppliers and customers as well as your associates. So yes, "business" can be "social". Doing lunches and dinners, going to bars and pubs and attending overnight and multi-night events held at hotels and resorts are an expected part of doing "business". A side point, but that is why I referred to "business". Are we clear? G.Larson (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You've said a lot, but haven't really added anything. JWs are told they should limit socialising with so-called 'worldly' people. The statement is entirely accurate, and completely compatible with your stance that it is 'counsel' or 'advice'. See also WP:DEADHORSE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ringnes stated it is ok for members of JW to socialize with non-members, even though befriending other members of JW is described as "the ideal". Stating the one thing without mentioning the other (it is in general considered ok for JW to socialize with non-members/a significant portion of JW do occasionally socialize with non-members), is inaccurate, as it represents a selective use of information that does not include notable views (Holden did also described an inconsistent practice on the matter). I've supported contexts, and information from Norwegian sources, which could be used for support for both views, as the purpose of the article is to give a correct view of the topic (I didn't have to mention "the ideal"-part or any of the fractions given in the Dispute noticeboard, or quote to give any context, as no one of the non-Norwegians users would ever find out anyway).Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

JW literature repeatedly and consistently raises the issue, warning about the "danger" of association with non-members, so it is clearly not OK to do so. As I stated previously, WTS literature warns members against having friendships with outsiders. Independent scholars observe most do exactly that, and the article states that. BlackCab (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro posted: "You've said a lot, but haven't really added anything. JWs are told they should limit socialising with so-called 'worldly' people. The statement is entirely accurate, and completely compatible with your stance that it is 'counsel' or 'advice'."

Arbitrary break: "There are no rules or orders"

I have explained the true case in a way that you apparently don't want to accept because it doesn't fit your preferred version of the facts. Otherwise, if it is "counsel" or "advice", why shy away from using those words? Jws are taught scriptural "guidelines" in this matter. There are no hard and fast "rules", and no "orders". G.Larson (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The term 'scriptural "guidelines"' is essentially meaningless, as it's their (the leadership's) own interpretation of their own translation of 'scripture', and 'scripture' isn't really an automatic authority anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In the context of how independent scholars have described the "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" power structure of the religion, that would appear to be a deeply flawed perception. These authors have come to the view that the Watch Tower Society has a very strong hold over the daily behavior, thinking and - yes, social interaction - of JWs. It is a religion with such a powerful and elaborate system of control that some "rules" barely need expressing.

Andrew Holden: "Any indications of disloyalty or failure to adhere to the Society's principles can lead to suspension or ostracism which, in terms of its own beliefs, could lead to the risk of transgressors' exclusion from the utopian Kingdom to come." (Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, pg 11.)
Andrew Holden: "The structure of the movement and the intense loyalty demanded of each individual at every level demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism ..." (op cit, pg 32)
Andrew Holden: "One of the key means by which the Watch Tower Society is able to prevent the undesirable influences of the world from threatening its doctrines is to heighten the Witnesses' awareness of risk. I have shown how the primary purpose of this concept is to establish moral parameters for the demarcation of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in order to ensure that the daily conduct of devotees is consistent with the movement's principles. In the end, exposing themselves to risk carries penalties that jeopardise salvation ... Witnesses who transgress the Society's prescriptive boundaries gamble with eternal life." (op cit, pg 174).
Andrew Holden: "As I have stressed throughout this book, the organisation operates in such a way that to question its teachings is tantamount to questioning the divine authority of the leadership." (op cit, pg 183).
James Beckford: "One of the major implications of ideological absolutism is that the Society, to which the Witnesses are taught to owe exclusive loyalty, is able to prescribe detailed moral regulations for them. Authors of the Society's 'improving' literature reason that, since they alone have the privilged benefit of God's direct guidance and since truth or goodness is an absolute property, there can only be one true and good course of action in any situation, and they alone can know what it is." (The Trumpet of Prophecy, pg 199).
James Beckford: "Dogmatic, black-and-white patterns of thought are so deeply engrained in the minds of Witnesses that even relatively slight differences of opinion among them can precipitate major divisions." (op cit, pg 205).
James Beckford: "To be a Witness is therefore to have accepted the legitimacy of the doctrinal rulings that issue from headquarters and are diffused through official publications. The habit of questioning or qualifying Watch Tower doctrine is not only under-developed among Witnesses; it is strenuously combated at all organizational levels." (op cit, p2. 221).
Mathew N. Schmalz: "The Watchtower's ability to enforce such strict discipline gains strength from a powerful ideology emphasizing self-denial and the dangers of independent thought ... all Witnesses must therefore display unquestioning devotion to God and his organization. The presence of these themes and symbols constantly reminds Witnesses that independent thought is fraught with peril and that any apparent fault within the organization lies with them ... Thus an article in 1979, referring to disfellowshippings in the wake of the 1975 prophecy, emphasizes total obedience in addition to the danger of lukewarmness in proclaiming God's Truth. Not only do Witnesses have little authority to question the Watchtower, it is in fact their duty not to question at all ... their ideology demands total obedience to the theocracy as proof of their dedication to Jehovah." ("When Festinger Fails", Religion, October 1994.)
Mathew N. Schmalz: "In spite of their vigorous efforts to proselytize nonbelievers, Jehovah's Witnesses have little sustained social contact with those outside the organization ... because the Watchtower proclaims itself as Jehovah's theocratic government, there exists a tremendous pressure to conform obediently to this defining element of social interaction within the organization." (op cit).
Joseph F. Zygmunt: "One was the movement's provisions for the social-psychological insulation of its membership from other groups whose value orientations were different. The cultivation of social exclusiveness, the discreditation of other groups, the debunking of secular authority and the elevation of internal group roles to a position of dominance in the life organization of members, were among the major ways in which this was accomplished." (Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity," American Journal of Sociology', May 1970.)

In this context, use of the word "advise" or "counsel" is very clearly inappropriate and would convey an impression to readers that would be absolutely wrong, failing to indicate the real force of that "advice". BlackCab (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no rules or orders on the subject of association. Your choice of quotes primarily deals with completely different areas. Association is left to discretion, though most Witnesses choose to follow the Society's advice. G.Larson (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you know that the very same James Beckford you cite above also states this in an affidavit dated in November 1998: "It is wrong for Mr ...to say that Jehovah's Witnesses regard their own organisation as 'the only absolute spiritual and political authority'. On the contrary, they proclaim their loyalty to God: not to an organisation."

And this: "Mr ....'s statement that 'all members of the sect are obliged to carry out' its decisions is equally erroneous. Jehovah's Witnesses stress that it is important for each of them to exercise free moral agency in choosing to study the Bible and to live in accordance with their interpretation of its message.G.Larson (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're still complaining. But are you seriously claiming that JWs are not "told they should limit association with non-members"??? Do you really not understand that the word 'should' does not ultimately limit individuals' discretion, while at the same time properly reflecting the strong 'advice' in JW literature?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Witness's magazines and the second-source I quoted above; and, apparently, Grahnbahr's book present a very different version of what you want the article to convey. There is no indication anywhere in the Wiki article that JWs are free to make their own choices. Even the line in the third paragraph of the opening section: "most limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" does not demonstrate it. The point that Witnesses are free to make their own choices in the area needs to be clearly made SOMEWHERE, and especially in this lower sub-section of the article. The entire article gives a wrong impression to a reader who is unfamiliar with the religion, (as has been repeatedly pointed out by others over the years). G.Larson (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(BTW: Schmaltz's assertion posted above: "because the Watchtower proclaims itself as Jehovah's theocratic government" is a beyond-strange statement. But I see no reason to take time to argue about that here.) G.Larson (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Even this would be an acceptable and close-enough part of the sentence:"...and it is explained that it is best to minimize social contact..." G.Larson (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The quote by Stark and Iannoccone from the article under "Criticism" is true: "Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as 'part of the power structure rather than subject to it'."[92]

And I know personal experiences carry little weight here, but I knew of an individual living in Alaska, USA (when I lived there) who wrote for the Watchtower magazine. There's just not the dichotomy that this article conveys. G.Larson (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of your 'example' of someone in Alaska writing for The Watchtower is unclear. There are JW members in places other than New York who contribute articles to The Watchtower, subject to the approval of the JW 'Writing Committee'. The fact that you know of such a person in Alaska is unremarkable, and not at all relevant to JW freedom of choice. However, it should also be pointed out that whilst articles such as 'life stories' or 'general interest' articles are contributed by such JW members (though such 'contributions' are considered a 'privilege', and JW members in general are not able to freely make such contributions), articles containing subject matter about teaching are only provided by the JW 'Teaching Committee', which does not include such external contributors.

You want to use a wordy phrase like 'it is explained that it is best' instead of 'told they should'. The longer wording is a redundant euphemism, and there are neutrality issues with your selection of the words 'explain' and 'best'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Awake once published an article of mine. (I now cringe at it). Does that make me an authoritative source on anything? BlackCab (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab: Even your experience shows there's not such a huge divide between those who write for the Society's publications and those who do not. Your statement partially supports my view. The article makes it look a bit like those poor hoodwinked Witnesses are at their mercy. G.Larson (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro, the ones overseeing the magazines are the "writing committee". And the brothers on the Governing Body who serve on the various committees--like the teaching committee and the writing committee--were once a part of the "rank and file". My understanding was that the brother in Alaska wrote articles that had to do with scriptural study. They were edited by the writing committee before publication. He continued to write for them. I mentioned him only to illustrate that Witnesses do not view those in the lead as "rulers". And those in the lead (including the Governing Body members) have all come from the "rank and file". The article gives a different impression.

Also, Jeffro the "only neutrality issues" with that choice of wording are apparently your own. And there's nothing redundant or euphemistic about the wording. It's accurate and neutral. G.Larson (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you do not understand that it is not neutral to assert a religious opinion in an article as if it were a fact, then you probably should not be editing Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro wrote: "If you do not understand that it is not neutral to assert a religious opinion in an article as if it were a fact, then you probably should not be editing Wikipedia articles". Where have I tried to do that? On the other hand, it's interesting that the two people who have controlled the content of this article for some years have been showing me a hatred for religion in general and/or JW's brand of religion in particular. That cannot be a neutral point of view. G.Larson (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today you made the claim that in JW literature "it is explained that it is best to minimize social contact". If you do not understand that the assertion is a subjective religious opinion, you should not be editing articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens. The articles are there for all sorts of people to read. And JWs are only one of many religions. I have not said that their interpretation is the right one. That would be inserting a religious opinion.

The sentence winds up with the words "to better maintain their own standards of morality.[239][240][241][242]" It's very evident that it is the Witnesses' own interpretation of the scriptures discussed there. It's totally neutral wording. G.Larson (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Your defense of the statement is even more subjective. There's really no evidence that 'JW morality' (as variously interpreted by the JW leadership at any particular time or of its individual members) is inherently 'better' than the morals of all non-JWs (or even any non-JWs), nor that association with non-members could not improve JWs even by their own standards.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just going back to revise the words "interpretation of the scriptures" to "interpretation of morality", and your post appeared. The sentence makes it clear that it's JW's particular brand of morality that is being discussed. Whether you like it or not. I'm not stating their brand is better than anyone else's. Where do you get that? G.Larson (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject here is that Witnesses are advised to minimize contact with non-members to preserve their own particular brand of morality, (even if others supposedly have better morality). G.Larson (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The article currently correctly states that JWs are told they should minimize contact with non-members. The current wording already more accurately reflects what is stated in JW publications than the circumlocutory you have suggested, without suggesting superiority of any particular belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And I disagree, as does Grahbahr. The entire article has a negative slant. It's not neutral. The wording I provided -- rather that being "circumlocutory" -- states a fact. Why are you afraid of it? This discussion make me wonder if you understand what the meaning of the words "their own" is. G.Larson (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"The entire article has a negative slant. It's not neutral." Give me a break. It has passed extensive review to gain a GA status. It is comprehensively sourced to solid reliable sources, and is balanced, accurate and editorially neutral. Welcome to the real world: this is a secular encyclopedia, not a propaganda vehicle for the Watch Tower Society. If you genuinely believe the whole article is biased, then feel free to raise it at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. BlackCab (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Though it's not what I see as "right", I'll live with this version of that particular statement for now. G.Larson (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(If anyone has some irresistible urge to look at previous edits of my last sentence [a friendly smile here], I am letting him know in advance that I changed my mind about expending more effort for now on correcting the article's statement re: "instruction" and "morality". I also made edits to be certain that the sentence conveyed my intended meaning and not some other. G.Larson (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

That the Jehova's witnesses' treatment is a part of the Holocaust history,[1] also US persecution, needs mention in the lead. The lead is a summary of what is important, why is the Holocaust unimportant in relation to the JW? I am amazed that there is a 1x2 edit war.[2] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to cite in the lead detail relating to events from 70 years ago that are not central to the beliefs or development of the religious organisation (in much the same manner as it is not necessary to mention JWs in the lead of the Holocaust article). Aspects relating to the JWs during World War II are properly mentioned in the body of the article to the degree necessary, and are given broader coverage in other specific articles that are already linked from this one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

JW's may not be central as far as the Holocaust goes, but the Holocaust is important as far as the JW's go, they were jailed and killed for their faith; that is important. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, only a very small proportion of JWs were affected at all by the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not 'central' to JWs as an international organisation, but the issue is given appropriate coverage in various articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How many people in contemporary history have been and have by choice accepted death as a matter of choice. The JW's were "voluntary prisoners". The Holocaust museum has various testimonies that declare individuals who took non-Jew identities to escape persecution, the JWs preferred imprisonment and death to giving up their faith. The JW behaviour during the Holocaust years is a defining JW characteristic. (Similar arguments are valid for the US persecution) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A comment to provide more information: A review of the book Kirchenkampf in Deutschland (Fight of the Churches in Germany), by Friedrich Zipfel, said regarding the Witnesses: “Ninety-seven percent of the members of this small religious group were victims of National Socialistic [Nazi] persecution. One third of them were killed, either by execution, other violent acts, hunger, sickness or slave labor. The severity of this subjection was without precedent and was the result of uncompromising faith which could not be harmonized with National Socialistic ideology.” Further, In Austria, 25 percent of Jehovah’s Witnesses were executed, beaten to death, or died from disease or exhaustion in Nazi camps. This was huge for Germanic JWs. Using your reasoning, Jeffro, one could say that most Jews throughout the world were not affected by the holocaust, so it's no big deal. G.Larson (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no denying that JWs suffered intense persecution in Germany and Austria, and that government persecution has been a notable characteristic of this religion in its relatively short history. I researched the subject to turn the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany article from a very scrappy piece of work [3] into the comprehensive and balanced work it is today. I felt a great deal of pity for the rank and file members who continued to obey Rutherford's instructions to keep harassing the government, which in turn intensified their persecution. JWs as a religion also attracted persecution in the United States, as Yogesh Khandke notes in his edit, though for most ordinary members it was obviously nowhere near the level encountered by their German brethren in the 1930s and 40s. However JWs have also suffered persecution in Canada, Cuba, Malawi, the USSR, Austria, Singapore, Georgia and Hungary. These facts are mentioned in the body of the article, as well as at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jehovah's Witnesses and governments, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States and other articles. Naming some of those countries as places where persecution took place involves values judgments on which cases of persecution are the most serious to warrant special mention there. The present wording, noting that the JWs have encountered conflict "with some governments. Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted and their activities are banned or restricted in some countries" is therefore sufficient without going into detail. As with all material in the lead section, it is expanded and elaborated on in the main body of the article. A sentence that reads "The religion's position regarding conscientious objection to military service and refusal to salute national flags has brought it into conflict and resultant persecution, such as in Germany and the United States" is a very clunky structure. (Conflict with whom or what? "Such as"? Why wouldn't you say "notably" when using specific standout examples?) Not every fact and detail needs to be squeezed into the lead section. It's a summary and the present wording does an adequate job of providing one. BlackCab (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The attempt by G.Larson to parallel the experiences of JWs in the Holocaust with that of the Jews borders on offensive. Just as it is not necessary to specifically mention the Nazi regime in the leads of the articles on Romani people and homosexuality, it also is not necessary to mention in the lead of the main article on JWs. This does not minimise the experiences of those JWs (or Romani or homosexuals) who did suffer under the 'Third Reich'. It simply assigns proper scope to the broader subject, with further detail as well as wikilinks within the body with more detail on the subject. (Also, re Maunus' retracted comment, JWs don't 'own' the Holocaust. Though JWs in parts of Europe did suffer badly, they were neither the only group to suffer, nor the worst treated group. The matter is treated in a balanced way in this article and in other articles covering the subject.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that semantically, the Holocaust refers to the attempted genocide of the Jews during World War II (and, arguably, the attempted genocide of the Romani people as well). The Nazis' attempts to get rid of the Bibelforscher were not racially motivated, and were therefore not part of the Holocaust per se.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@BlackCab: If it is the construction of the statement which is a problem it may be tweaked as necessary. 97 percent persecuted isn't a "detail". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust museum disagrees with Jeffro, in that it acknowledges the treatment of JWs in Germany as part of the Holocaust. I believe the museum has more credibility. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, you are misrepresenting me. The "detail" is the range of countries where persecution has taken place. Which do you include, which do you omit? And I don't mean to nitpick, but Detlef Garbe, author of the most comprehensive treatment of the JW experience during the Nazi era, said (as noted in the lead section to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany) that about half of all JWs in Germany during that period were imprisoned, including 2000 who were sent to concentration camps. An estimated 1200 died in custody, including 250 who were executed. Not 97 percent, though still a vast proportion. BlackCab (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, actually, the Holocaust Museum says that "Jehovah's Witnesses were subjected to intense persecution under the Nazi regime". The actions of the Nazi regime are not synonymous with the term Holocaust. Please get your facts straight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro posted: "The attempt by G.Larson to parallel the experiences of JWs in the Holocaust with that of the Jews borders on offensive." It would be offensive if you ARE LOOKING TO BE offended. I paralleled them because the Nazi regime persecutions and its killings of Witnesses and Jews is of defining significance in the history of both. The experiences can't be minimized for either group. You were minimizing as far as the Witnesses were concerned--so perhaps Witnesses here should have been offended by your remarks. (Besides German and Austrian Witnesses, there were also Polish, Russian and Czech Witnesses in the camps. Further, records exist of the atrocities Witnesses endured.) As has been pointed out, there is a section in the Holocaust Museum dedicated to Jehovah's Witnesses. And yes, I read and understand your last comment to "Yogesh". The biggest difference is that the Jews were persecuted and killed for who they were; and, the Bibelforscher for what they believed and their resistance to military service and Nazi ideology. G.Larson (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: I don't view this discussion as my fight. I originally pointed out a couple things in support of Yogesh's view. G.Larson (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: BlackCab, this question has been on my mind for a while. You'd posted: " I felt a great deal of pity for the rank and file members who continued to obey Rutherford's instructions to keep harassing the government, which in turn intensified their persecution." Since it was the letters of protest from Witnesses in other countries that prompted Hitler's vow to exterminate the German Witnesses, would if have been better in your mind for the Witnesses in the rest of the world to ignore what was going on in Nazi Germany? Would it have been better if they had not published the plans and locations of concentration camps very early in their existence, even though the world mostly ignored the information? And would it have been better for the Witnesses in Nazi-controlled Europe to just go with the flow as most people there did? Just wondering... G.Larson (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer those questions at your talk page, where this discussion belongs. BlackCab (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've thought more about this. Garbe says the JWs were the first Christian denomination to be persecuted in Nazi Germany and also suffered the most. It's therefore reasonable to note that in the lead section. I'll propose this wording in the lead section: "The religion's position regarding conscientious objection to military service and refusal to salute national flags has brought it into conflict with some governments. Jehovah's Witnesses were the most extensively persecuted Christian denomination in Nazi Germany; they have suffered persecution in several other countries and and their activities remain banned or restricted in some countries." Comments please? BlackCab (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. G.Larson (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This tidbit doesn't matter much, and I can't come up with the reference now though I have been looking for it. (Apparently it wasn't something published by the Watchtower Society.) But, I once read that the Bibelforscher were the first people to go into a concentration camp, even before the Jews started going in. As I recall, Hitler tried them out on the Bibelforscher, probably figuring they would cause less trouble for their keepers than the Jews. Again, it doesn't matter in the scope of the article. But I appreciate the paragraph's addition. G.Larson (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@BlackCab: 97 percent is a figure that I see quoted from Kirchenkampf in Deutschland (Fight of the Churches in Germany), by Friedrich Zipfel. (Shared with us by G.Larson) I would suggest naming JW experience in two countries, Germany and US where the persecution was relatively more intense.

@Jeffro77: The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators... During the of the Holocaust... Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals.[4] So regarding the interpretation of the Holocaust museum's definition, you are right, my bad I stand corrected. But the boundaries are so porous that we have scholars use sentences like Jewish and non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust[5] Simone A Schweber (2007), Jehova's witnesses as forgotten victims of the Holocaust[6] Sybil Milton, ed: Hans Hesse (2001). The Holocaust experience/ and the US one is central to JW history, thus lead material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is where it starts to get messy. I'd suggest Canada was as much of a hotbed of official persecution than the US. And doesn't forced evictions in Malawi, eastern Europe and Africa count? What about the jailing of old ladies in Singapore for carrying a Bible? The US incidents gained more publicity, but does that make them more serious than what happened in Canada and elsewhere? I'd prefer to name only Germany in the lead section. BlackCab (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to include a couple of notable cases. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, apology accepted. A matter should not be reported as 'central to JWs' merely on the basis of the focus they give it; it has to be supported by reliable third-party source. However, BlackCab seems now to have provided relevant sources to that effect. (Because the main JW article should be broader in scope, there is also a mild issue of neutrality in regard to promoting JWs experiences with the Nazi regime in the lead due to the the implication that persecuted by 'Nazis' implies some quality of contrasting 'goodness' [see Godwin's law].)

Regarding G.Larson's claim that I 'minimised' the experiences of JWs, I actually explicitly stated that the absence of mentioning the Nazis in the lead of the JW article (or the Romani people or homosexuality articles) is not to minimise anything at all, but is in respect to article scope, as I already quite clearly stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There are numerous sources above that mention the Holocaust and the JWs in one breath, which of them aren't good? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Godwin's law. That's too funny. We need to be aware of Jim Penton's allegation that the Watch Tower Society's public affairs department and academics such as Christine King and Gabriele Yonan have been "riding the Holocaust bandwagon" since 1991, but I still think the level of persecution—and the fact that the religion was singled out for particularly harsh treatment—is worthy of brief mention in the lead. BlackCab (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor issue, "Sources of doctrine"

It is a minor issue under "Sources of doctrine". The article states: "The Society also teaches that members of the Governing Body are helped by the holy spirit to discern 'deep truths', which are then considered by the entire Governing Body before it makes doctrinal decisions." Even this may is according to the current beliefs of JW, it is not how it is described in the given source ("When the time comes to clarify a spiritual matter in our day, holy spirit helps responsible representatives of 'the faithful and discreet slave' at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood. The Governing Body as a whole considers adjusted explanations. What they learn, they publish for the benefit of all"). Note that according to the source, responsible representatives of "the slave" is helped by holy spirit. I suggest to look for a suitable quote from the Watchtower, 15. July 2013 for a source reflecting the statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objection is. The "representatives of the faithful and discreet slave" referred to in that Watchtower were logically members of the Governing Body. If any clarification is needed, it could say that "the Society also teaches that individual members of the Governing Body are helped by the holy spirit ..." BlackCab (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Governing body is in the mentioned article (15 July 2013) considered as the faithful and discreet slave, not as «responsible representatives» of it. To conclude whether it is the members of GB as individuals who receives «holy spirit», or if it needs to be the GB as a group, seems as interpretation of the source, as: According to the article of July, the members of the GB "humbly recognize that as individuals they are domestics just like all the rest of Jesus’ genuine followers". Do also note that, at page 22 in the same article, "the slave" is identified as the members of the Governing Body as a group only, and the decisions made by the Governing Body are thus made collectively. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of the recent change in doctrine, the purportedly "responsible representatives" are still individuals. The description is therefore still accurate. Both before and after the change announced at the 2012 Annual General Meeting of the Watch Tower Society (and provided to JWs in general several months later), the reference to "representatives" as given in the source was intended to mean members of the Governing Body. At no time prior to the change did other self-professed 'anointed' JWs have any control over doctrines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Details about the Governing Body (Organization)

Watchtower for July 15. covers the footnote about Governing Body. I suggest to replace the note (note 1) with a single reference to the WT. It does also state the 8th member of the body did serve from 1. September. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The governing body actually consist of 7 members, and that if you look at the Jehovah Witnesses yearbook of the U.S. it will actually say 7. (User:Alexandrhnh2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrhnh2 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your information is out of date. There are 8 members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sociological analysis

I have to raise objections to this section. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are not man-made sectarian edicts as the section seems to indicate. Everything Witnesses believe is framed by what is written in the bible. For the most part daily decisions are guided by bible principles. For example Psalms 11:5, Proverbs 6:17, Isaiah 2:4, Matthew 26:52, and many other scriptures show that violence is something Jehovah God hates. In principle this would mean Jehovah's Witnesses would try to avoid violence films, violent television shows, violent video games, violent music, violent books, and other forms of violent entertainment. The "Sociological analysis" does not show the positive aspects of the religion on family life (such as resulting in less divorce or less separation of parents) or society (such as many people turning their life around and becoming law abiding members of society). Gorba (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses, like those of all religions, are established by men, based on their interpretation of scripture. That section of the article describes the organizational structure of the religion, which is also very definitely determined by men. BlackCab (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My point of contention with this section is that it provides a one-sided viewpoint of the negative aspects the religion has on society, as interpreted by sectarians, and completely ignores any of the benefits they have to society. In order to give this article more credible weight Sociological Analysis needs to include a "positive" aspect the religion has to society. If none can be found then the article becomes an unbiased source of information. Gorba (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bible is itself written by men and contains 'man-made sectarian edicts'. Apart from that, if you have additional reliable sources from third parties presenting additional sociological analysis, please present them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If a boss directed his secretary to write down his words for a letter who would you say the letter came from? The secretary or the boss? Your answer will answer the fundamental question of who authored the bible. Over the span of 1,600 years men wrote the bible, but, like a secretary, they only recorded God's inspired words. The author of the bible is Jehovah God. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Gorba (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The addition of a cosy little column in an apparently minor newspaper by a professor of sociology adds precious little to the section. Worden's article has little evidence of academic rigor. His statement about the incarceration of German JWs in the Nazi era is wrong (half were imprisoned, but only one-fifth of that number went to concentration camps; his claim that 2500 to 5000 died overstates the actual death toll by a factor of two to four). His single reference to a sociological term (social margin) is a joking reference to them interrupting a sports event on TV. How does that provide the "credible weight" our editor seeks? BlackCab (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence for the fairytale analogy about a 'secretary' being 'directed' by a 'boss' to write 'the Bible'. But aside from that, the (archived) website is not a reliable source. Its 'about' page says the page's creator "is one of Jehovah's Witnesses and was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses." It is hardly a neutral source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

To Gorba: Several of the JW-related articles already are unbiased source of information. If you may have a look at the connected article, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, you'll find that five out of six books listed in the bibliography, are written by ex-members of the movement. Regarding this article, do you think the photo selection of three men in the history part of the article is random, or is it a discrete way for critics of the religion to point out this is a man-made religion? You can think for yourself.

Regarding the raised issue: I do actually agree to User:Gorba's objection about POV-issues to the section, though I do think a scholary view is needed to address the issue correctly. I'll give an idea about what positive aspects of the religion may include. Hege Kristin Ringnes' statement: "If the movement solely had been characterized by negative control and monitoring, it would have been difficult [for it] to keep [it's] grown-up members, particularly in societies whitch maintains liberal and individualistic values. It is no reason to believe that the stories researchers receive from members of mutual care, support and simply pleasant connections within the society, should be advertising only, and without true values. (...) Jehovah's Witnesses can be a nice place for the conformal and convinced, but a difficult place for opposing persons and those who openly doubt." (original text: "Men om bevegelsen utelukkende hadde vært preget av negativ kontroll og overvåking, ville den hatt vanskelig for å holde på voksne medlemmer, særlig i samfunn med liberale og individualistiske verdier. Det er ingen grunn til å tro at de beretningene forskerne får fra medlemmene om gjensidig omsorg, støtte og simpelthen trivelig kontakt I miljøet, bare er reklameinnslag uten sannhetsverdi. (...) Jehovas vitner kan være et godt sted for den konforme og overbeviste, men et vanskelig sted for de opposisjonelle og de som åpent tviler." (Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie (2009)))

There are scholary works describing "positive" aspect the religion has to society. Noone knows about any such work? Give me a break. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Two editors here appear to be criticising the article for being unbiased. A bias exists if it presents only one side of an argument. If it is unbiased, it provides balance. Grrahnbahr, your conspiracy theory about the illustrations on the article is laughable. And as in any other academic field, it is natural that those who choose to write about a subject do so because of a close interest in the subject. The fact that the authors of several books about the JWs are members of the religion doesn't render them useless as a source. Penton's first book on the JWs was written while he was a member. A careful, balanced approach will stand on its own merits. BlackCab (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for not commenting the addresses issue at all. Discussing everything but the issue, is why we all not are here. I've earlier pointed out problems about Penton as a source. He represents an extreme view of JW, and to address specific issues, he describes Jehovah's Witnesses, and especially JW in positions, as racial intolerant, and goes far in introducing suggestions of JW as anti-Semitists, a view with no broad support among current and independent scholary researchers of JW. He do also describes JW with "simpler" jobs as simple-minded, a generalization any serious academic researcher would abstain from. Those issues alone are enough for me to rethink about Penton as a "reliable" source. I am, despite out disagreement about Penton as a source, interested to get a balanced view of this section. I've pointed out one possible positive aspect, and I think of it as at least a notable rebuff to the current statements in the section. Since you seems to have knowledge about JW as a topic, it would be interesting to know if it is not a single positive sociological aspect in addition to the one I've already mentioned, to include in the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's intriguing that you see only negatives in Beckford's analysis. An assertive leadership? Specific objectives? Control over the quality of new members? Reluctance to co-operate with other religious organizations? A low rate of doctrinal change? Strict uniformity of beliefs among members? Witnesses frequently praise themselves in their magazines and at conventions for just those qualities! Identifying historical events as relating to the outworking of God's purpose? Absolutely! A conviction that the Watch Tower Society dispenses absolute truth? A core belief! A capacity to motivate members to perform missionary tasks? They'd think they were failing if they didn't! A conviction that Witness doctrines have a rational basis devoid of mystery? They say the same thing themselves. Grrahnbahr, you accuse the article of bias for noting key characteristics about which the JWs have enormous pride. The Pew Research Centre's survey findings also paint a picture the organisation would be mighty proud of. BlackCab (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

For sure the comparative study organized by the Pew Research Center make some balanced view about JW, but it is not intentionally added to give a balanced view of the topic, as it only reflect factual information about JW, and also include possible negative facts like their opposition to abortion and their intolerance to homosexuality, either it is a part of their beliefs or not. The last part of the section is actually the best balanced part, but it is on the edge of sociology, and close to demography. Further, it is not representing a rebuff to the given statements about JW as "Totalizing" (as in the article with capital T), as given by the Beckford study from 1975, like the interdisciplinary study edited by Ringnes makes. Further, Wilsons "listing" is not a standalone list for JW, but a standalone list of "common characteristics of the model sect", according to Wilsons own definitions. According to his article, JW and four other religions ("sects") are just "in considerable measure" maintaining the characteristics, without stating the degree of maintaining for each of the five groups. He further points out JW and Adventists as far more organized than the other religions ("sects"). It is problematic to use a list for Wilsons "model sect" as a description about JW, regardless of Wilsons opinion whether JW suits in there or not. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you here, but you seem to be seeking something that is not required, nor possibly even available. Balance in the article is achieved by presenting a range of opposing viewpoints where they are available. There is no obligation to present an opposing view of a statement just because some readers may regard it as negative, just as a positive statement about the religion does not need to have a rebuttal. In any case, I have just shown that much of Beckford's statement could be considered strongly positive, depending on your viewpoint. Neither the Pew research nor the Wilson observations are there to rebut Beckford, they simply present more information. There may not be a rebuttal to Beckford's classification of the JWs as "totalizing". It may just be an incontrovertible fact.

Your earlier comments about Penton having an "extreme" view of JWs seem to suggest you have a very strong bias that is not based on facts. Penton is very widely cited by academics, and I have previously provided a list of books by authors who do that. I think if Penton suggested JWs ate babies or kidnapped and brainwashed dissidents he could be labelled as extremist. He is a respected religious academic who is frequently critical of the religion, as many other authors are.

I have read your translation of the Ringnes comments; I don't see that they easily fit into a section dealing with sociological analysis. There are certainly many members who regard the JW congregation as a place of warmth and friendship (and Holden, Beckford and probably Penton have acknowledged this), but this has no direct bearing on the sociological classification of their organisational structure. BlackCab (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a complementary answer, now we're talking. I have to make a correction. It is dr. Pål Repstad who have written this section of the book, which is edited by Ringnes and Sødal. Repstad is a dr (professor) within sociology of religion. Dr. Repstads comment is a balancing/rebuffal of a reference to Jim Beckfords description of 1975 (p.85), where Beckford have described JWs leaders policies about encouraging to "report any sign of deviation" (translation and retranslation of the quote may makes the quote inaccurate). Dr. Repstad is connecting his statement/observation, by referencing to Randall Collins' description of emotional energy. The section of the book is named "Sociological views about Jehovah's Witnesses" (Sosiologisk blikk på Jehovas vitner). Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

the prominent member Prince

should it be mentioned that Prince (musician) is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses ?

--Über-Blick (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In his article sure. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince's status as a JW is not "prominent" or even notable.

Prince's affiliation with JWs is already mentioned at that article. It is not necessary to mention him at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Prince, Michael Jackson and the Williams sisters have gained extensive media coverage for their religious affiliation. Perhaps the time has come when a brief section, or paragraph, could be added to name a few famous JWs or former JWs. In addition to those mentioned, Hank Marvin, George Benson, Mickey Spillane, James Penton, Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Gary Botting, Geri Halliwell and Kate Langbroek would add to the roll call; all have gained media mention on this point. This website has a few more. BlackCab (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that for several of those people listed, it isn't clear whether the individual was ever actually a JW, or they were merely raised in the religion. A passing mention of a person's family's religious affiliation does not necessarily constitute 'media attention'. Such a section would not add much to the article, and may become misleading and sensationalist. If such a section were to be included, it would need to quite clearly indicate the criteria for inclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those I've listed have gained widespread media coverage of their former affiliation. Several have spoken in interviews about their experience, positive or negative. There would need to be a fairly high benchmark for inclusion, avoiding that awful JW tendency to embrace as one of their own someone rumoured to have once had some connection. BlackCab (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In general, people should only be indicated in Wikipedia articles to hold (or have held) a particular religious affiliation if their notability relates to their religion, and generally not if their (former) religion is only incidental to their notability (e.g. Penton/Harrison/Botting = probably; Halliwell/Langbroek = probably not; Prince = probably not, but subject to discussion as conversion post-dates fame). A celebrity might mention that their parents were Catholic, but that would not justify listing them as 'notable Catholics'. It would also be very misleading to suggest that famous members makes them "prominent members", as their 'fame' is not at all related to their religious affiliation, and affords them no official status in the religion whatsoever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If notable people have spoken about the impact (positive or negative) on their lives of their JW membership/lifestyle and this has been reported to an extent that is in itself notable, then their membership would be worth including. Many or most of those mentioned have spoken at length about it. BlackCab (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

When a celebrity makes a passing comment about how they feel about growing up as a JW, it does not warrant listing them at the main JW article as a 'notable JW'. It may warrant a mention at the article about the individual, and this is generally already the case for such articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Twice now I have referred to extensive media coverage and you have responded with references to passing mentions or comments. I don't know if you are opposing the whole concept or trying to make a distinction between extensive and passing reference. I see no problem with listing a few people who have been well-known for their membership. BlackCab (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all of the names you listed above have received "extensive" media coverage relating to their affiliation with JWs. I already provided examples above of such distinctions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jeffro77 on the Prince point. Prince is not famous for being a JW, he is a famous person who happens to now be a JW. That doesn't seem to me to meet the requirment for "prominent". Doing a quick "Google" search on the issue, I was unable to find anything other than JW sites (or other religious sites) who make more than a passing reference to Prince as a JW (typically saying "While he converted in 2001" or "Prince converted to JW"). I haven't even seen proof that he's been baptized yet. It's more of an afterthought. Vyselink (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree Prince is not famous for being a JW. Who are? Members of GB, a very few authors and scholars, where some (may even most) of them are former members of the religion rather than current. Do we have famous catholic/famous member of the LDS? We do have the categories, but not undisputed. Prince's religion do have achieved media coverage, but I suggest it is relevant to the article about him only. Prince is known for being an artist. I've not seen claims for Prince having some impact to JW the religion any way. On the other hand, I've seen claims for the religion to make impact to his career. Scholars relevant to JW the religion as current or former members, could be mentioned as current or former members of the religion in the article. Penton or Macmillan are may notable regarding receiving an article in Wikipedia. To state any of them to be famous, would be quite a claim, so the question is whether to have a notable members of JW section. But then again it would look strange mentioning Macmillan and not Prince. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get too high-minded about this. Wikipedia is recognised for its depth of popular culture coverage. The Scientology article has a list of notable members, and the List of Latter Day Saints article has a long lineup of members from different fields of endeavour. I am proposing a sentence that would include a list of well-known current and former members who would be widely recognised in the fields of entertainment, sport and literature, but whose membership (or previous affiliation) might surprise many readers -- hence the inclusion of Halliwell and Spillane (and ~~an evolutionary scientist whose name will come to me soon...~~ Paul Davies, the physicist was the one I was thinking of .... I have a vague recollection of once reading he had been raised as a JW, but since Mr Google doesn't have that claim, I must be mistaken. Forget him...) BlackCab (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As already stated, it is already mentioned in the articles about certain people that they were raised as JWs (and this should only be the case if reliably sourced). This does not automatically mean the person is a 'notable JW'. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to 'surprise' readers with irrelevant trivia, especially where such a list may imply greater affiliation with the religion than is actually the case. See WP:BLPCAT, which applies to lists as well as categories ("Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. ... These principles apply equally to lists").

Halliwell (for example) was briefly raised in the religion by her mother, which doesn't confer any notability of Halliwell as a JW—and certainly not enough to merit listing at the main article.

The list of celebrities at the Scientology article is not directly comparable, as it relates to people whose notability actually includes Scientology 'PR', rather than individuals who might simply have said they 'didn't like being raised as a Scientologist'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro got it right here. Russell and Rutherford are covered within the article; Prince and Benson becomes trivial. The authors (Penton, Franz and other) are mentioned in the article, if referenced to. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

New World Translation

When reading this article, one could get the wrong impression that the NWT is widely accepted by scholars. However, the introduction of the name "Jehovah" in the NT is considered wrong by the vast majority of them, including Jason BeDuhn (who praises it otherwise). The name Jehovah, in fact, have never been in the NT since the text was written in Greek from the beginning and that the quoting of the OT are based on the Septuagint, a version that replaced in the 3rd century BCE the Tetragrammaton with Kurios, Theos and other generic Greek words. Therefore, I suggest to modify this part to show that the introduction of the name "Jehovah" in the NT is widely considered wrong by scholars, except for very few of them. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the name Jehovah here. The NWT uses that name, and the article states that fact. Discussion about alternative names for 'God' belongs at articles such as Jehovah, Yahweh, Sacred Name Bibles, etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not with the merits of the name Jehovah, but on the decision to introduce it in the NT (replacing "Lord" or "God"). This decision is criticized by most scholars, for the reasons explained above. However, it's not clearly stated in the article. I propose to modify this part to reflect the academic view on this topic. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed at the main NWT article. Seems superfluous here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the end of the section: "Watch Tower Society publications have said the name was "restored" on a sound basis, particularly when New Testament writers used the Greek Kyrios (Lord) when quoting Old Testament scriptures that contained the Tetragrammaton. That view is endorsed by Bible scholar George Howard and R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.".

This should be replaced by something like: "Watch Tower Society publications have said the name was "restored" on a sound basis, particularly when New Testament writers used the Greek Kyrios (Lord) when quoting Old Testament scriptures that contained the Tetragrammaton. However, most scholars agree that the NT writers were quoting the Septuagint, a text which already replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kurios and Theos long before the NT was written.".

George Howard and R. B. Girdlestone are not representative of the scholars' opinion on that subject. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nazi arrests of German JWs

User:ChercheTrouve has altered the statement under "Persecution" that had read "In Germany, about 10,000 Witnesses were imprisoned" to "In Germany, the Jehovah's Witnesses where about 20,000 in 1933. Among them, between 5,000 and 10,000 Witnesses were imprisoned." He cites page 10 of Hesse's Persecution and Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses book. Page 10 (a preface by Michael Berenbaum) in fact contains no such claim. Hesse, in the foreword to the book on page 12, writes: "Of the approximately 25,000 members of this religious community at the beginning of the Third Reich, nearly 10,000 of them were arrested for various terms."

Firstly, the 25,000 figure is widely referenced by academics including Penton and Garbe, because it was a memorial attendance figure and included children, but as Penton notes (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Third Reich, page 375) the WTS counts only active persons as "ministers" as members of its community. For that reason Penton places greater emphasis on the 20,000 figure, (quoted in the 1974 JW Yearbook) which counts active "ministers".

Secondly, the figure of 10,000 arrests is the one on which academic consensus clearly rests. Garbe arrived at the figure through evidently careful analysis of prison and congregation records, and it also concurs with Michael Kater's earlier figure of 10,000 arrests. Penton (p.379-380) describes Garbe's data as undoubtedly the best that have been generated to date" and also accepts that figure. Penton's Appendix 1 of his book, "Numbers of Witnesses Imprisoned and Killed in Nazi Germany" (p. 374-381), discusses the full range of figures and explains why some are simply unreliable. Garbe devotes an entire chapter of his book (p.477-484) to the same issue. Hesse, in the timeline of persecution of JWs under National Socialism (Persecution and Resistance, p379-383) also uses the figure of 10,000 imprisoned.

There is no reason to muddy the waters with figures that have been discredited by academic research. You may also be interested in an earlier discussion of this issue at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 57#Nazi tyranny of JWs remembered. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I've corrected it. I misread page 10, which says that 5000 were sent to concentration camps (that is a incorrect figure, btw). The JW's figure is about 6'200 imprisoned, but the academic figure is 10'000. WP should rely on academic figures, not on JW's one. Thanks. ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the "Criticism" section

I've read the article quite carefully, and I think it really deserves the "good article" label it currently has. I want btw to congratulate the people who have worked on this article, because it's informative, well written and neutral... except for the "Criticism" section. In this section, one gets the impression to see four times the same schema: "the critics say this; the Watchtower answers that or uses these people to defend against them, and this is our conclusion". It's not a neutral way to present critics, and I would like to propose another approach.

According to me, the critics that are based on corroborated facts should be presented as such, without opposing them to the answer of the Watchtower. For example, the section "Suppression of free speech and thought" could be renamed "Control of speach and thought" or "Mind control", and simply demonstrate that the Watchtower doesn't allow its members to question its doctrines and counsel, a fact that the Watchtower doesn't deny. Another example is with the "Failed predictions". As there are written proofs of them, and proofs that they were presented as "approved by God", there is no need to provide the false Watchtower excuse that it has not claimed its predictions were "the words of Jehovah", or the Chryssides POV that the changes of dates are mostly due to change of understanding rather that failed predictions. To be fair, the article can say that things have improved in the last decades. There is currently no date annonced for Armageddon and the way JW's now deal with sexual abuse cases is much better.

What do you think? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick thought. Changing "Suppression of free speech and thought" to "Control of speech and thought" or "Mind Control" does the exact opposite of what you are claiming to try to do. Both of those are much less neutral POV's, and automatically bias the reader to either an impossible thought ("Control of speech and thought") or a universally reviled/equally impossible one ("Mind Control") Vyselink (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's very similar to say 1) that you deny someone the ability to freely speak or think; 2) that you try to control what someone say or think; 3) that you try to control his mind. But anyway, this is by far not the most crucial point here. The idea is to avoid an opposition between two unreconcilable positions, and to get a synthesis that is in between instead of concluding in favor of the same one each time. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your suggested changes amount to original research. The source of valid criticisms must be from critics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the source of critisisms must be the critics, but I disagree that the conclusion of each criticism should necessary be the Watchtower's defense on it. Isn't there a more neutral and academic way to present them? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clearer, I propose the following pattern: 1) Critics; 2) WT anwser to them; 3) Academic point of view for conclusion. According to me, this is the only way to stay neutral. What do you think? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed a portion of the section that conveys an unnecessarily apologetic tone. The statements I removed would be better placed in a more specific article about what JWs believe rather than a criticism section. The general statement that JWs deny accusations of being a 'false prophet' has been left intact.

I don't see a problem with the general approach you've just suggested. Though I'm not entirely sure that on every point there will necessarily be an academic point of view distinct from the criticism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to take an example, in the first section "Suppression of free speech and thought", Holden is sometimes labelled as a "critic" and sometimes is used to defend against "critics". This is misleading for the reader. Holden is a sociologist, and his book is based on academical reserches. He is neither a "critic" nor a "defender" of the movement. His book, among others, should therefore be used to conclude the debate with the academic point of view, instead of being part of the debate. The critics should be more of less limited to former JW, and the defense against them should be more or less limited to WT publications. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The term critic could probably be reduced, replacing it with the actual profession of the individual where appropriate. It is certainly not the case that 'defense' should only come from WT publications. The section should properly include notable academic commentary for or against criticisms about the group.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. My main concern here is to conclude with the academic point of view instead of the WT's one, and not mix it with the "critics" or "defense" when not necessary. I will try to propose a text tomorrow. It's very late now. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Bonne nuit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think ChercheTrouve's general approach is sound, though I suspect that in some cases the criticism may originate with Beckford or Holden, which would require the WTS rebuttal to follow, and possibly conclude. The issue, as long-time editors here are aware, is that the page has been often been an intense battleground as JW-sympathetic editors strive to remove criticism, refer to any academic criticism of the religion's behavior as coming from "critics" (thereby conveniently categorising them as people approaching the subject from a negative baseline), and dismiss certain authors as ex-Witnesses (and thereby "apostates" in the JW argot). Much of the present form of the Criticisms section has therefore taken its shape as the result of long-term negotiation and compromise. BlackCab (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think it's a bad idea for a fresh approach though. If it doesn't work, it can be wound back.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Suppression of free speech and thought

As you have noticed, I've started rephrasing this section to fit with a more neutral approach. The idea is to present things in the following order: 1) facts 2) critics 3) defense 4) academic conclusion. I feel the new presentation is much more neutral than the previous one, but there are still area of improvements. Sociologists should not be labeled with the generic and misleading word of "critics", and their academic conclusion should not be mixed with the ex-JW's or religious criticisms. To be more precise, I think Beverley, Rogerson, Beckford, Holden, Chryssides and Muramoto would better be called "scholars" that "critics" and should have the last word. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are probably better terms than 'scholar', such as sociologist or doctor, as relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. That's fine for me also. Just to come to another thing, you have put back the sentence "Andrew Holden rejects the idea that Witnesses are brainwashed" instead of "Andrew Holden is unwilling to accept the brainwashing thesis". Could you please explain? Holden rejects the idea of "brainwashing" not only for Witnesses, but for any group or person. The first sentence seems to me less clear to express this fact than the second one. Could we please try to find a compromise? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Your preferred wording regarding "the brainwashing thesis" is misleading, as there isn't really a specific "thesis" being referenced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. For the time being, I've removed this part, and for me it's ok now. If you want to put it back, then could it be stated like that: "Andrew Holden is unwilling to accept any brainwashing thesis" or something similar, specifying clearly that the "brainwashing" is something Holden denies for anyone, and not only the Witnesses? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a simple language-barrier issue. 'Thesis' is a bit too formal for the sense intended. It's probably better to simply leave out the phrase.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

ChercheTrouve is actually suggesting academics and their sources not should or could be counted as critics and criticism. Is Penton a critic? According to BlackCab he's an academic. According to ChercheTrouve academic's opinion should be listed last, and not as criticism. It isn't like Holden can't express, or isn't expressing, criticism to JW the religion, just because he's an academic, and not a notorious critic. A problem with ChercheTrouve's approach (critic - JW-standing - academic standing as a conclusion) is, it is suggesting a POV as correct, rather than presenting the different POVs, and let the reader make a conclusion (critic (academic, religious-critical or other notable source) - rebuff if available (JW-published, academic or other notable source)). The criticism section is already occupying quite a bit of the article, an improvement would be to limit the section to the most notable cases.

I would also like to suggest to limit criticism of NWT to the NWT-article, with a notification and a link from the JW-article, that criticism of NWT is to be found in the NWT-article. The most notable cases of criticism of NWT is most common not criticism of JW. Dr. Furuli have, despite being a JW and mostly a defender of the translation, also pointed out sentences and expressions he would have translated otherwise. He would probably not qualify for being a critic of the translation, but I think it makes a point regarding criticism of the translation versus criticism JW the religion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Academics like sociologists are "critics" in the sense that they are paid to say what they think, and present their own subjective opinion. However, some critics can easily be considered neutral because they have no personal reason to love or hate the JWs. On the opposite, some others are not because they have been personally involved (like Penton, Furuli, etc.). According to me, the article should present neither the JW POV nor the anti-JW's one as a conclusion, because this is against NPOV. It should conclude with the academical and neutral POV (Holden, Chryssides, etc...), and fairly show both sides' POV before that. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

James Penton's Wikipedia entry states that he "is a professor emeritus of history at the University of Lethbridge in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada and the author of three books on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses", so yes, he would certainly count as an academic. His works remain widely cited by other academics, who accept his findings. But he is also a former JW, so naturally his criticism (and his praise) of the religion would be treated very carefully here, and it would be stated clearly that he is a former member. For that reason it would usually not be appropriate for him to be accepted as a neutral academic whose statement concluded a discussion of specific criticism. BlackCab (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As suggested above by ChercheTrouve, a critic can be anyone who provides a critique, which may be negative, positive or neutral. However, that doesn't change the fact that critic generally connotes negative criticism. The general structure ChercheTrouve suggested for presenting criticisms about JWs sounds reasonable. However, there will be some overlap about who is considered a critic or an academic. This is especially the case for aspects where JWs consider a particular critique from outsiders to be negative, even when critics are saying essentially the same thing JW literature says.

Furuli isn't a reliable source for information because he's pro-IKEA.[7]. ;) --Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Critic of JW isn't like critic of a book, which could be positive or negative. H. K. Ringnes describes defectors publications as "strongly subjective and critical", and does also states that "[t]he same applies to a different type of literature, the academic-apologetic, as in normative theological basis will show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and conveys heresy." (Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie, p. 11) That is an issue that should have been included initially to the critic section. It is also relevant where the critique comes from, as it makes an impact of the critic's credibility. Most ex-JW, and also some apologetic academics as well, do indeed have strong interests into giving a rather negative picture of JW, both as religion and individuals, rather than portraying an objective picture of it/them (ref. organizations like AAWA). The same applies to other denominations, like the LDS-movement and the Brunstad Church, and particularly when the denomination do practice expulsion/shunning, and do support controversial views on fields as abortions and homosexual activities. Critics of JW are not neutral, but Wikipedia should be. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And here again, the kneejerk reaction to label any and all former members of the religion as biased sources. I have already pointed out that Penton is widely cited by respected academics publishing papers on the JWs, who clearly value his insights, observations and historical research. Commonsense and judgment are clearly required here, rather than a rash generalisation. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The academic's POV is the one shared across the academic community, not the one of a particular person. Penton can be right and accurate in some things, and wrong in some others, like any other person dealing with a subjective topic. So to present the academic POV in an honest and neutral manner, one should base its research on as many academical authors as possible.

The previous presentation was not respecting NPOV since the conclusions for each sections were based on the WT's rebuttals of what was considered as unfair critics. However, I can't agree that people like Holden, just to take an example, are unfair critics. Holden is a academic, he knows the subject quite well, and he has never been personally involved. So it's better in respect of NPOV to use its words as a conclusion instead of mixing them with the "unfair critics".

Now, this doesn't mean that Holden is always right, and we have to be careful and check whether or not he is in line with the other academics on each topic. But the important thing is that the academic POV should conclude each section, and not the WT's rebuttal (like it was the case previously). --ChercheTrouve (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't my words. I was only referencing to what academics independent of the movement states. She didn't mentioned Penton in particular, but it's a fact Penton is using generalization and selective quotation through at least some of his works. Problem with his works are already fairly pointed out by AuthorityTam at this talkpage, so I see no point to repeat that. Regarding the previous presentation; a rebuttal is not the same as a final conclusion. A rebuttal is a fair way to keep a balance to a topic, when one part or source is giving claims of some kind. If a controversial claim hitting a company or a person is given by media, an opportunity for rebuttal is often given, but the rebuttal is not the same as the claim is wrong or mistaken, only an opportunity to give a contrary view of a case. When ChercheTrouve's states that "it's better in respect of NPOV to use its words as a conclusion instead of mixing them with the 'unfair critics'", did I hear an admission of "unfair critics" being present in the article? Sorting out what kind of sources for representation of an academic view, is status quo. It's better to use those academic sources in presenting the critique, and eventually presenting the rebuttal. To make a new way to present the information, where the user's opinion about what to be a worthy academic conclusion, is not the Wikipedia way. The Wikipedia way is to present academic and otherways notable views, both way if not representing fringe, and let the readers make their own conclusion. ChercheTrouve is being brave, but as I see it, the suggested change does not represent the Wikipedia way. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the rebuttals of the WT are, by definition, "unfair critics" (too positive in this case). So concluding with this (or putting this last if you prefer) is against NPOV. If we really want to follow the Wikipedia way, we should then not even quote the WT at all here, as well as we should not quote any other non academical source (pro or against). The only remaining valid sources would then be people like Beverley, Rogerson, Beckford, Holden, Chryssides and Muramoto. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Penton's works were not "fairly" pointed out by the charming AuthorityTam at all: reading further down that thread reveals the clear misrepresentation of those supposed critics of Penton's. Many of those authors generally accept his work and commend him for it. BlackCab (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Candace Conti-case

The Candace Conti-case was added to the "Handling of sexual abuse cases"-section. I removed the whole thing. It could be relevant, and an eventually Supreme Court case would out of question make the case on it's own relevant, but the edit didn't include Wikipedia standards when listing up sources, used outdated sources (the punitive damages was by the court heavily reduced), failed to mention the case is appealed, and added a conclusion that needs a reference at it's own. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This case should definitively be there, with the latest news. Could someone put it back and update it? --170.148.215.156 (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored and cleaned up the paragraph. The court documents are a matter of public record.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You did it quickly and well. Thanks! --170.148.198.156 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I still have doubts this case is relevant to the main article about JW. Despite the media attention: The relevance for the statements is probably limited to a final result in Watchtower Inc's disfavor; otherwise this will just be another failed suit. If the case is settled or ends up in plaintiffs disfavor, it is just one of many cases. Or am I completely wrong? Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr, I think it's ok to speak about this case here, as it's quite recent, widely covered by the press and a very good example to illustrate the problem caused by the "internal justice" of the JW. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, was meant as an open question what to be counted as relevant to this topics main article. Actually I disagree on this to be "a very good example to illustrate the problem caused by the 'internal justice' of the JW", because the core in this case is a) weather Watchtower Inc. followed the laws when the molesting found place twenty years ago (plaintiffs point), and b) whether Watchtower Inc. is responsible for the actions of a random raf-member (defense's point), and not about JW's current practice. The case itself is raising interesting issues, but it is misleading to use the case to prove a vague (and easily disproved) point about criticism of JW's current practice regarding child sex abuse. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is User:Fazilfazil. I am at office and forgot my login, so using a radom username to hide my IP. User:jeffro77 has reverted some of the edits of mine claiming that the amount was reduced based on an appeal. An appeal is only made to a higher court, the verdict was reduced by a motion. A motion is just a legal procedure followed widely in the same court. The initial verdict was given by a jury based on sheet of paper as directed by the Judge. However the Judge is the final authority in a lower court and he did found the amount as too much. Also the reason for giving damage is primarily for WT soceity not disclosing the voluntary confession by the member. The statement added after "or" in that para is not correct, since they are not required to report as per law and its not found in judgment. (This case will turnaround most likely from a legal perspective and plaintiff might need to pay the legal expense at last. Much hype is made by apostates but history says JWs have very few instances of anybody winning a case again them regarding the subject. And the possibility of they losing financially is much less since most corporations take liability insurance.) I am no longer interested in reverting edits but if any honest editors find it useful they can contribute. More information regarding the subject is found at recent argument in Australia. [8] Thanks

I have made a minor change in relation to your objection based on semantics. Your use of the word primarily is not pertinent, as concerns about disclosure to authorities is an aspect specifically presented in the case. Your speculation about what might happen is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear how the submission to the Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations in Australia is relevant to the Conti case, nor does the submission itself contain any conclusions reached by the Australian inquiry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your infatuation with the JW buzzword "apostates" is noted, but is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about "WT soceity not disclosing the voluntary confession by the member" implies that the finding is a violation of clergy-penitent privilege, however this is misleading for two reasons, both raised in the court case:

JWs supposedly have no clergy class.
Confessions by members to 'elders' are not kept confidential, but are revealed to other elders, and other personnel at Watch Tower headquarters including the Society's lawyers who act in the interests of the Watch Tower Society and not the penitent or the victim.

The claim that 'apostates' raise 'hype' is also not supported by the suggestion that JWs have not often been found guilty, which more likely is a factor of information that is withheld by the Watch Tower Society from law enforcement personnel, also borne out by this case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note 2 is a controversial third party critical opinion

Resolved

Note 2 is the critical opinion and commentary of a third party. It does not belong on this page as a note or otherwise. It belongs on the page dedicated to the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there is a WTB&TS article to be cited, then cite it, instead of citing a third party's opinion. --Corjay (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz cites Watch Tower publications, which form the majority of the 'note'. Additionally, Wikipedia articles should not rely on primary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I find this to be biased and inflammatory. Is there nothing against such critical citations as "reliable sources", especially when it comes to disaffected ex-compatriots who are known for twisting the facts to suit their agenda of opposition? The only thing it can be counted on as reliable in regards to is demonstrating that a controversial criticism exists. You might as well include a third-grader's report on the Civil War with dinosaurs and rocket ships.--Corjay (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have simplified the note. Your analogy about a third grader bears no resemblance to a former high-ranking member of an organisation. In any case (and as already stated), the note is (and was) a collection of statements by the Watch Tower Society collated by Franz.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction, the original note referencing Franz was him providing an inflammatory claim suggesting not only the frequency, but the effect of that frequency. Thank you for the adjustment. --Corjay (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Note 4 is a controversial third party critical opinion

Resolved

As with note 2, this is a third party critical opinion and commentary belonging on the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page. If there is a WTB&TS article to be cited, then cite it, instead of citing a third party's opinion.--Corjay (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Note 4 is in reference to the Failed predictions section under Criticism. It is therefore unsurprising that it includes a critical opinion. It is properly cited as such. It is unsurprising that a note about criticism of JWs does not cite a JW publication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just realized this was already posted in the right section. Sorry for the trouble. --Corjay (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact

Resolved

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The words "although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible" is an opinion and may be considered inflammatory. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I most certainly do not give the publications "almost as much weight as the Bible." That may be the view of an outside observer, but it is not fact. It is conjecture not shared by the membership. The membership's sole guiding publication is the Bible itself. We heed the publications of the WTB&TS as coming from shepherds with divine backing, not divine inspiration. I'm fine with the statement being in criticism, but seeing as it is not established as true, it does not belong in the Beliefs section. The publications are published by fallible men with an accounting to God and reflect the errors of men from time to time, if rarely, and the membership is kexpected not to contradict and also to speak in agreement, that does not mean they must always believe every word without question as is implied by the above statement. There are channels for airing disagreements through the elders, or through a letter to the WTB&TS, and we are instructed to wait on Jehovah to correct either us personally or the organization eventually. --Corjay (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that someone can 'air disagreements' is slightly irrelevant when the outcome is that the person must then ~~'wait on Jehovah'~~ accept the current Watch Tower Society teaching anyway. Members may be shunned if they don't shut up after being told to 'wait on Jehovah'.

JW literature does not endorse members just going directly to the Bible for 'counsel'. Instead, members are told to consult the interpretations provided in publications of the Watch Tower Society (euphemistically identified as the "faithful and discreet slave"). For example:

The Watchtower, 15 May 2011, page 5: "If you allow your decisions to be guided by what you read in the Scriptures and in publications of “the faithful and discreet slave,” you will experience the refreshing and stabilizing influence of Jehovah’s inspired Word."
The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, page 30: "Before they make judgments respecting fellow believers, elders need to pray for the help of Jehovah’s spirit and depend on its guidance by consulting God’s Word and the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class."
The Watchtower, 15 February 2012, page 27: "When facing a challenge, it is important to seek Scriptural counsel from publications of the faithful and discreet slave class and from the elders."
The Watchtower, 15 April 2012, page 30: "One way we can benefit from Jehovah’s loving direction is through personal study. By means of the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, Jehovah provides a wealth of Scriptural counsel."
The Watchtower, 15 July 2012, page 26: "Each of us does well to ask himself, ‘Do I immediately apply everything I read in the Bible and in the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, even when it requires making personal sacrifices?’"

It is therefore clear that JWs are expected to adhere to what is taught in Watch Tower Society publications, and not just the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement make it clear that it is the observation, and viewpoint, of Holden. Your comments are loaded with JW jargon supporting the unquestioned acceptance of WTS dogma and your viewpoint is no more "fact" than his. He's a reliable source and his comment is valid. BlackCab (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, you may be one of the very very few that doesn't take an almost dogmatic view of what's in the publications. It's pretty much implied that you have too, I have never rad any publication that implies otherwise. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Those quotes only show that we get our direction from the publications. As you say, "adhere to what is taught". None of those claim the publications to be direct extrabiblical inspirations by God, which would be required in order for it to be taken as the "almost equal to the Bible". If a pastor of any religion tells you "The Scripture says...", does that mean the pastor's word is to be taken as the "almost equal to the Bible", or is he simply quoting the Bible and it is the Bible that is looked to as the inspiration? That is all the publications are doing. They are shepherding us by means of them, just as if with a talk. Nothing more. Inspiration can only be determined when a truth, such as the fact that the Bible doesn't teach hellfire or the Trinity, continues to stand tall through increasing understanding. In the far future, it may be determined that this and that publication from the organization proved to be the inspired word of God, but we can't make that claim at this time when we're still in the midst of receiving it. We can only take it as direction, as instruction, as guidance as coming from a shepherd, as from a person giving a talk. --Corjay (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me use an example, JW's don't watch rated R movies. It's defacto not allowed, why because of things like "Young People Ask", likewise nothing in the Bible says anything about holidays. Why are these not allowed? Because the society says they aren't, what would happen if one of the congregation members celebrated Thanksgiving, or some other holiday? They would be considered "bad association" and not allowed to take part in certain parts of that organization. I respect the fact that you choose to live by that religion but when the publications say something it is presented as defacto edicts, similar to papal bulls. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Holden didn't say anything about the publications being "inspired" (an ill-defined and unprovable term) or that the publications are "equal to the Bible". Those are irrelevant conclusions you're making on your own.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said he did, but it's required to put our publications on the same footing as the Bible.

All religious organizations have written precepts, without exception. Let's look at the statement "almost equal". It's a writing. It's scriptural. And it's spiritual. Technically any writing that follows that criteria could be called "almost equal to the Bible" because it's using the Bible. But to call it out as if we're somehow unique in that matter is unfair. What religious organization doesn't have writings with the same status that we give to our publications? So to call it out with us and not them is to imply that we are somehow sinning. Why are we somehow special in that regard? --Corjay (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm drastically mistaken or missing something, no other religion I'm aware of makes such a wide range and vast publishing efforts that the Watchtower society does. Maybe Scientology, and Mormonism. That makes it pretty unique. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely! Do you not think that the sheer volume of our publications demonstrates that we take the medium for granted, not as one would for something as sacred as the Bible? We easily put down and disregard out-of-date publications. I should say that's a clear demonstration that we don't hold our publications in near so comparison to the Bible. --Corjay (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also different because when you go door to door, you aren't just taking the bible you are taking a watchtower and awake, tract or special brochure. You will pull a bible out to show some vs but the meat and potatoes is the publications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You actually think we use the publications that way because we hold them "almost equal to the Bible"? They are preaching tools. Pamphleted sermons. So when someone writes down a sermon it's automatically counted "almost equal to the Bible"? I don't think so. Whether I speak a prepared sermon or hand out a pamphlet with a sermon on it, it's still just a sermon. A sermon that directs the student to the Bible and instructs the student with the Bible and about the Bible, not in the publication itself. --Corjay (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the publications aren't the "meat and potatoes". The Bible is the meat and potatoes. The publications are merely the utincils used to cut it up and make it edible in small, digestible bites.

I know they are, without a doubt. 1914 is a good example, nothing in the bible says 1914 it says the "end will come as a thief in the night". The publications state it was the date that Christ came back and is taught as Dogma. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's unfair to the onlookers, and you know it. That's well-explained in the publication, Daniel's Prophecy, and it uses ample Scripture references to explain it. We don't just claim "1914" as if we pulled it out of thin air as inspiration from God. We use the Bible to show it and well so. EVERY Christian sect attempts to explain prophecy. There's not one that doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corjay (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

But the key is that the publications are used to state this as fact, therefore any good witness will agree. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So now I'm not "a good witness" because you failed to prove your point, and every "good witness" would agree with you because you declare it? I think this discussion is over. --Corjay (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry what was meant is any good witness would agree. it's meant to prove a point how it is conveyed in the publications not towards you personally. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no difference. The discussion has ended. --Corjay (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are conceding the point you were trying to make? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're dangerously close to harassment. Go any further with it and I'll report you. --Corjay (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is called discussion but if you feel strongly you can file that report here WP:ANI, don't forget to notify me when you're done. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not resolved. Please don't put the resolved note on this until it is. --Corjay (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are willing to discuss it? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't. Just don't pull any of that concession talk again. I've countered every point you made. If you have more, I'm glad to discuss it, as long as you don't rehash old points or harass me with concession talk. --Corjay (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, 1914 is not 'clearly explained from the Bible', nor did you get it "from thin air". It's a convoluted interpretation borrowed and adapted from the Millerites (mid-19th century) based on a bunch of cherry-picking of unrelated scriptures that can 'only be understood' by 'studying publications from the faithful slave'. In fact, you've had defend it by citing a Watch Tower Society publication, which well demonstrates the point Holden made that you are arguing about..--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And your opinion matters how? Question: Have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever read the publication in question? --Corjay (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion matters at least as much as yours does, except that your conclusions about Holden's statements are of your own imagination and are not what is stated in the article. Your other questions are irrelevant attempts at ad hominem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is not harassment, if you quit discussing it, that means that you were conceding that no changes will be made. If you still want to discuss then it isn't resolved. Do you have any sources that can show your point of view? You have countered every argument but without reliable sources it's only opinion. Also to answer your question, yes I was. I have participated in many events and given several talks as well as going out in field service. I even still read the publications and I absolutely love the dramas. I have a lot of respect for the people that choose that lifestyle, it's not an easy one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jeffro, they are particularly relevant. First: If you are a disaffected witness, then you are the LAST person that should be editing the Jehovah's Witness page because you CANNOT be objective. Only a person who has NEVER been a Witness and is NOT involved with an organization that opposes Jehovah's Witnesses can actually be objective. Secondly, if you are an ex-Jehovah's Witness or pretending to be a Jehovah's Witnesses, I will refuse to speak with you any further, as you should know, as it is mentioned on the page.

And it is important that if you have a comment on how we explain a prophecy, you need to be familiar with the prophecy. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air that means nothing.

Mine are not opinions. Mine is insider knowledge. I AM one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which qualifies me to speak on the matter. You are not.

Hell in a Bucket, I'm not speaking to you any further. That's not concession. That's being worn of you. And since you admit to be an ex-witness, for that reason alone I will not speak to you any further. No concession. --Corjay (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in superstitions about JW members being scared of talking to former members. I'm only interested in improving the article.

If you are a witness, then you are the LAST person that should be editing the Jehovah's Witness page because you CANNOT be objective. Only a person who has NEVER been a Witness and is NOT involved with an organization that supports Jehovah's Witnesses can actually be objective. (See what I did there...)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your statement exemplifies why we can't accept what you are stating. It's Original Research. Your statement also exemplifies why you shouldn't be in this discussion either, you're nuetrality is questionable just as you want to impugn Jeffro's. you can't cherry pick who is acceptable to work here and who isn't Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I have not been editing the page and will make no attempt to. I am making an appeal for a qualified person to make the edit. You have edited this night. I'm in a discussion on the talk page about editing the page. There is nothing that disqualifies any of us from being able to participate in this discussion. But since Hell in a Basket is an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, I will speak to him no further. Your refusal to answer the question of whether you are an ex-Jehovah's Witness is to me an answer in the affirmative, therefore, I will cease speaking with you about the organization or spiritual matters as well. (If you have never been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, then we can continue to tal.) That includes any further discussion on this page. Elsewhere about non-spiritual matters affecting a different page is a different story. If you have never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then it is because you hold such strong feelings regarding Jehovah's Witnesses that disqualifies you for lack of objectivity. --Corjay (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, you have something of a problem. I'd suggest that most people with sufficient interest to edit and improve this article do so because of an interest in the subject, probably because they are, or were, a JW. I am intensely interested in maintaining the standard of the article as an accurate and reliable information source and I am an ex-JW, and rely on Wikipedia policies to protect its integrity. Your religion's edict (found nowhere in the Bible) that JWs should not speak to ex-JWs creates rather a barrier to your interaction on this talk page. BlackCab (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, I will discuss wherever discussion happens to lead. As prevously stated, I'm not remotely interested in superstitions about who you can talk to and about what.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just have one comment to this case: I've pointed out the initial issue mentioned by Corjay in an earlier discussion here on the talk page. In the Norwegian article I've included some kind of "rebuff" to the statement, as Rolf J. Furuli, who is a scholar (dr.) and a JW himself, had some interesting and colliding viewpoints, as it is mentioned in "his" section of Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie ("Jehovas Witnesses - An interdisciplinary study"), edited by Ringnes: "When critics therefore argue that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in 'the Bible and the Watchtower', as if the two were juxtaposed, this shows a lack of knowledge about Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 161, in Norwegian) Furuli spend some room explaining the context between the Bible and Watchtower.

Regarding JWs/ex-JWs participating here, you can't oppose or deny someone in participating here, as long as contribution to the article is the purpose. You can though point out possible biases in this and related articles, like you've done here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

May I just ask a question? What happens when the Bible says A and the Watchtower's publications say B? In that case, can a Witness go against the Watchtower unbiblical teaching and still be considered a JW? If not, then the WT's publications are really considered as having an equal value as the Bible itself. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the last change that started a new discussion because this is directly related to the about the overall question about the Holden statement. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've anyway prepared an answear out of the same quote from Ringnes' book and my knowledge about JW. I think it is within this talks scope: ChercheTrouve asks the question like it is A as opposed to B. The example above, about R-rated movies, shows A as an option to B, but unlike neccessery being the opposition. The JW interpretation of this example, is made out of for them a logical line of reasoning, where the Bible says God hates the one who loves violence, and therefor a true servant for God should not be the one who loves violence. If violence and enterteinment is connected, is a comletely other issue, but JW believes the advices given by GB complies to Bible teaching. Whether A is opposing B is more likely a question about what the witnesses believes, rather than doing A in opposition to B. Furuli writes: "Each witness' relation to the Governing Body is comparable to Norwegian citizens relation to the [Norwegian] government. The government is obliged to follow Norwegian laws, and when regulations are being issued, we expect that they comply with the laws. (...) Similarly Jehovah's Witnesses expect that the Governing Body's organization of the congregations and their teaching program is fully consistent with the Bible and in the best interests for each of the individual members. But in the same way as the Norwegian law is standing over the Norwegian Government, the Bible stands over the Governing Body."

That reads like a yes and no answer. Can you be a little more concise or am I just that dense lol? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps something has been lost from the translation from Norwegian, but the intended meaning of the claim that 'the Bible and the Watchtower' are not "juxtaposed" is not clear, and doesn't seem directly related to Holden's statement. Watch Tower Society literature provides the JW leaders' interpretations of scriptures, including some abstruse interpretations about matters that are not directly mentioned in the Bible. I already provided quotes above from Watch Tower Society literature that convey the importance with which JWs are told to view Watch Tower Society publications.

Regarding ChercheTrouve's question, in most cases it is not as simple as "the Bible says A and the Watchtower's publications say B", but more akin to "the Bible says A and Watchtower's publications conclude that A also means XYZ." However, there are also cases (as with many religions) that it is more a case of "the Bible says A but the Watchtower says the Bible 'really means' B". In both situations, JWs are expected to accept what is published in Watch Tower Society publications.

For example, in 1968, Watch Tower Society literature provided interpretations from the Bible that organ transplants amount to "cannibalism", and JWs who accepted an organ transplant could be subject to shunning (Awake!, June 8, 1968, page 21: "Christian witnesses of Jehovah,... consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism.") In 1980, Watch Tower Society literature again provided interpretations from the Bible that organ transplants are acceptable, and that equating them with canniablism was only the view of "some Christians" (The Watchtower, March 15, 1980, page 31). (The 1 August 1961 issue of The Watchtower had previously also stated that organ transplants were permitted, but did not cite any scriptures for or against the procedure.) Though the Bible says nothing at all about organ transplants, in each case all JWs were required to accept what was published. Hence Holden's statement about Watch Tower Society publications being given "almost as much weight as the Bible" is accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The answer was already given in the last part of the very first paragraph in this discussion. I said, "the membership is expected not to contradict and also to speak in agreement, that does not mean they must always believe every word without question as is implied by the above statement. There are channels for airing disagreements through the elders, or through a letter to the WTB&TS, and we are instructed to wait on Jehovah to correct either us personally or the organization eventually." I have no problem with that myself. There's no conflict. I have had differing ideas and I eventually was either corrected or the organization corrected itself. There have been many instances where I waited and the organization was corrected. This has the result of strengthening my faith, not weakening it. It also strengthens my faith when I realize I myself was wrong. Jehovah has never failed to answer my prayers or my questions. At this time, every last question I ever had has been answered, and every last thing I disagreed on regarding the organization has been resolved...because I waited on Jehovah. Opposers that are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses are such because they didn't wait on Jehovah. God is not our creation, but we are his. --Corjay (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your personal experiences about how you believe your prayers have been answered have no bearing on the article, and your statement that JW teachings might be changed ('corrected') in the future has no bearing on the fact that JWs are told to accept whatever is taught in Watch Tower Society literature at the time. Further, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to provide your own theological opinions, particularly about the actions or motives of 'opposers', and especially about other editors. The fact remains that Holden's statement is accurate, as has already been demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro77's comment makes it look like the organization contradicted the Bible regarding organ transplants, but it didn't. The organization has left it up to our conscience regarding organ transplants BECAUSE the Bible DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT. That's merely making a statement that it is not their responsibility to restrict it. IF they restricted it, THEN it would be taking responsibility of doctrine. --Corjay (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No. That's not what I said at all. Go back and read what I actually said.

And they didn't simply say it was 'up to your conscience'. They said it was okay, then years later they said it was cannibalism, then years later they said it was okay again. All supposedly based on 'scriptural principles', but as you correctly point out, "the Bible DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

ChercheTrouve can now see that the organization corrected itself. Someone's prayer was answered, and everyone that waited on Jehovah was blessed. --Corjay (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about whether the organisation 'corrected itself' in 1961 when transplants were ok, or in 1967 when transplants were prohibited or in 1980 when transplants were okay again. Who knows, maybe it will be 'corrected' again to cannibalism. And at any particular time, whatever is the most current view in Watch Tower Society literature is what JWs must accept as 'truth'. This confirms the validity of Holden's point. The claim that a 'prayer was answered' and that 'everyone was blessed' are irrelevant theological opinions, particularly for the people who died waiting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My personal experience directly affects the answering of ChercheTrouve's question by giving a demonstration of how it has no negative effect on one following the counsel to wait on Jehovah. --Corjay (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The point behind it is at that time they were still expected to tow the line indicated in the publication even if it meant death and not disagree. The fact that it was fixed later is non sequiter it's the statements made in the publication that were expected to be followed. Before you get your panties in a twist I'm not saying right or wrong just the observation about the publication dictated what a "good witness" could do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point it is clear that the discussion has devolved into nitpicking over whether one provides external proofs and picking at straws about this and that. Opposers are just trying to fit in every little question they can. I'm just going to tell you that I have an answer for everything the opposers have to offer and leave it at that, because I've already demonstrated that I do. (And of course one of the opposers is going to pick at that statement as well. What's new.) I'm not trying to convince anyone with proofs because this matter of ChercheTrouve's is completely meaningless to the discussion regarding Holden. The question has been asked and answered.--Corjay (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you are so very better then the stumbled. Have you ever considered that by not acting with humility and humbleness you help push that person a little further down the line? It really is hateful and hostile that sets a bad example for people that know nothing about the organization to see that. I really hope that you think about that, maybe discuss with your group of elders. Remember Jehovah sometimes acts through the people outside of the organization and this could be your correction for your attitude which is more akin to that of the rude person who berates you for preaching. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ta da! --Corjay (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously I mean that in total respect for the organization. Please talk about it with your body of elders, show them the thread. Just because I don't actively attend meetings doesn't mean I don't read the publications and occasionally go for a public talk and the memorial. I am also a member at jwbrothers.org. I'm not sanctioned by the Kingdom Hall either through reproof or disfellowshipping. Maybe take a break and calm down a bit. I think you're taking everything that's being said here as against the organization and it's not. It's just a disagreement about how the publications are conveyed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Corjay, but I don't understand you when you say that you have been "waiting on Jehovah". Do you mean by that that you where waiting on the Watchtower to change some of its teachings? Or do you mean the Bible was not clear enough and it had to be "clarified" by the Watchtower on some points? Can you please explain? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether by the organization correcting itself, or by my personal study of the Bible, or very often simply in prayer it hits me, or yes, even through a clarification in a publication, or I might simply view an explanation given in a publication in a new light, or in a talk from the platform, or in a discussion with an elder, or any number of ways. But if the organization is the one with the misunderstanding, then clearly I wait until the organization is corrected, but that's not as often as I'm the one in need of the correction. (No one knows everything about the Bible, its prophecies and meanings. Not even Jesus himself. Jehovah is the one who reveals those secrets in His own time.) --Corjay (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And Jehovah reveals his secrets not only from the Bible, but also from the Watchtower. Isn't it? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In essence it's not the watchtower, that's only the vehicle of conveyance the clarification comes from the Faithful and discrete slave. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is what Holden's statement actually says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(juxtaposed was ment to translate "likestilt", side by side or equally worth, I think it may was better translated in the other tread) This ain't leading somewhere. Furuli's conclusion was, JW consider the Bible above the GB. The whole question whether JW preferes WT or the Bible, is all about interpretation of the Bible. To state that JW follows WT in the same way, or rather than the Bible, it depends of an easy answear what the Bible say or how it is should be interpretated. The core here is whether JW states their ambitions to follow the Bible or WT. Regarding the organs transplantation, it is not mentioned in the Bible, so an easy answear here, is, whatever JW believes regarding organ transplantations, it does not say anything whether they consider the Bible or WT to be the core source for their beliefs. The JWs change of understanding ('doctrine' is may more neutral) regarding this teaching, it is either way an expressed will of following the Bible. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

~~That's what I thought you meant (about 'juxtaposed'). But Holden doesn't say they're considered equal, so the comparison is not valid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)~~

I was considering the statement as presented in the article, not Holden's exact comment in the cited reference. However, aside from the ambiguous term "inspired" (which JWs give special meaning distinct from 'directed' (though they have never actually provided any practical distinction between the two supposed mechanisms), Holden's statement is accurate, and the way it is presented in the article is entirely fair.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial, for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and their marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart." (Hebrews 4:12) "But his delight is in the law of Jehovah, And in his law he reads in an undertone day and night. And he will certainly become like a tree planted by streams of water, That gives its own fruit in its season And the foliage of which does not wither, And everything he does will succeed. The wicked are not like that," (Psalm 1:2-4) That's what we follow. I'll leave the interpretation up to you. --Corjay (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If I try to summarize: according to JWs, Jehovah provides direction via two main channels : the Bible and the Faithful and discrete slave (who uses the Watchtower to communicate). The Bible alone is not enough to understand Jehovah's will. It has to be completed by the FDS teaching that - like the Bible - comes from Jehovah. So if it's that way, then I think Holden is right when he says that the publications are almost as important as the Bible itself. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is very accurate. It is all based off the interpetation of what the bible says and then is communicated to the membership through the Watchtower or other publications. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"True, some are preaching the Christ through envy and rivalry, but others also through goodwill. The latter are publicizing the Christ out of love, for they know I am set here for the defense of the good news; but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are supposing to stir up tribulation in my bonds. What then, except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being publicized, and in this I rejoice." --Philippians 1:15-18 --Corjay (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As that previously called for uninvolved editor, I would like to suggest that about 90% of this discussion is inappropriate. This is not the place to argue theology. This is, and must be, only a place to discuss improvements to the article. When we decide whether or not to include the Holden, the question is not "is Holden accurate"--the question is, "Is Holden a person of sufficient expertise and importance that his opinions meet WP:DUE and thus should be included in the article?" So confine the discussion to Holden's status, to whether or not he's cited by other authors, by where the statement was originally published, etc. That's how you determine what goes in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be a lopsided battle. Jehovah's Witnesses don't have as many opposers as the presence of their opposers on the net would indicate. However, to try to find even a single page owned by one of Jehovah's Witness or a dispassionate reviewer of their religion that says Jehovah's Witnesses "do not believe that the WTB&TS publications are almost equal to the Bible" is pretty slim, and to find such a statement from an independent scholar is even slimmer, considering that scholars aren't typically interested in such an issue unless they're opposed. I've written substantially on the organization in the last 16 years and this is the first discussion I've ever had on the subject. Yet you will find a couple of thousand opposer web pages that say that we hold the publications "almost equal to the Bible" or even "equal to the Bible" or "greater than the Bible". But perhaps that's the key. To demonstrate that opposers are not agreed upon which statement is true? By demonstrating a division of thought on the matter, the stand will be disqualified? Would that be possible?

(I removed the "resolved" sign because Qwyrxian apparently wishes to get a definitive dispassionate answer.) --Corjay (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a rather fair statement, it gives that Jw's say that the bible is the final authority in all things but that academics specifically Holden disagree. Both are presented in a neutral tone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The JW editors here have agreed that 'clarification' of scriptures is provided by the 'faithful slave' in Watch Tower Society publications, and those 'clarifications' must be accepted by members. Holden's statement is accurate and is presented in a neutral manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay is still going on about a 'battle' and 'opposers'. The discussion is (or at least, should be) about the statement by Holden. The statement is accurate. Supposed 'battles' with 'opposers' are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between my statement above and the ones prior to it. Before, I was talking about the opposers on this page. Now I am talking about the opposers in general regarding the subject at hand, not regarding this discussion itself. My statement was not ad hominem as Jeffro77's is. --Corjay (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The distinction you're attempting to make about various alleged 'opposers' is irrelevant. The discussion isn't about any 'opposers'. It's about sources. And your accusation about ad hominem is ridiculous in view of the fact of your previous 'demands' in order to 'determine' who you're 'allowed' to talk to. Please stick to the topic of sources or leave the discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Picking at straws is really tiresome. The red herrings are making me dizzy. Can we stick to the subject at hand, please? --Corjay (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The subject at hand is Holden's statement. The statement is accurate, as has been demonstrated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been asserted, opinions do not matter. Just as it is my opniion that it has not been demonstrated to be accurate. As Qwyrxian rightly pointed out, it is not about whether it is "accurate", (as it is subject to viewpoint) but whether it has substantial enough support to be included in the body of the Beliefs section. As to the reference to "opposers", the matter of opposers is significant to the discussion, because they represent an extremely biased viewpoint, but whether the statements of those opposers can be taken as significant is dependent upon the demonstration that their viewpoint is accepted by a majority or by a significant enough minority to contend for acceptance. --Corjay (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is semantically redundant that opposers are biased, but JWs are also biased about JWs, and the argument is entirely irrelevant to the subject, unless you are claiming that Holden is an opposer. And even then, any other 'opposers' are still unrelated to the discussion at hand. So, if you like, you can provide sources stating that Holden is biased, otherwise the discussion should be closed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you search Wikipedia for the word opposers, two of the results on the first page of results are for JW-related articles, and for article Talk pages, it's six on the first page of results. JWs clearly have a penchant for the word opposers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if he wants to call us opposers, go ahead it doesnt make it true. What he fails to understand is that it doesn't further his rationale in the slightest, it just sets a bad example for the organization and doesn't accomplish anything other then vague ranting. I don't see one shred of support for the viewpoint he's putting forward so frankly it doesn't matter. We guide it by consensus and consensus is clear here. This is HiaB BTW 8) 203.210.13.5 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A search for "Andrew Holden" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" on Google scholar provides a substantial number of academic journals that have cited his book. I think his integrity is fairly clearly demonstrated. BlackCab (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is proof that authorities cannot agree on the viewpoint of whether Jehovah's Witnesses view their literature as "almost equal to", "equal to" or "superior to" the Bible:

Equal. European-American Evangelistic Crusades claims that we believe our literature to be exactly equal to the Bible: http://www.eaec.org/cults/jw/jw2.htm
Lesser. Dr. Paul P. Coulter claims that Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Bible as the only source of doctrine, and though claiming us to be a cult, and even highlighting that many cults claim their literature to be equal to or superior to the Bible, and giving negative opinions on other matters, he makes no attempt to contradict the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on this stand: http://www.paulcoulter.net/Writing/Cults.pdf
Superior. The following book, edited by Rick Miesel, claims that we hold our literature as "normative", and implies that we do not hold the Bible as such, thereby implying that we hold our literature as superior: http://obinfonet.ro/docs/nmr/nmres/textb/cults

As an aside, by way of correcting something I said earlier, I just saw where I did indeed write on this subject. It was in regard to claims that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. (We don't need to branch off into that subject here.) I wrote: 'What about the publications themselves? Do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watch Tower Society's (This is merely a legal entity) publications equal to or near equal to the Bible as some claim? No. The Bible is the ultimate authority to Jehovah's Witnesses. But Jehovah's Witnesses take seriously the mandate to 'speak in agreement'. (1 Corinthians 1:10) The publications help keep our members on the same page, so-to-speak and well-informed of current understanding, and have proven to be an excellent means of promoting unity to a degree not seen in other religions. Do they replace the Bible or promote ideas outside the Bible? No. Just like any sermon given by a pastor, they contain ample Scripture references (I just opened one Watchtower and it had 44 Scripture references in a single five-page article; you will not get that in any sermon) and a discussion of Bible subjects. (Opposers quote our literature more than we do. We quote the Bible more than anyone else.) On the job, I had to listen to a Christian radio station, and you would be shocked to hear more than two Scripture references in any sermon.' Yes, it's my opinion, but I find it a fitting statement. --Corjay (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing you've provided says anything about Holden, and the only source you claimed supports your view is from an article that calls JWs a cult, and that source doesn't actually say what you're inferring. The word "only" does not appear at all in reference to Coulter's examination of JW's view of the Bible.

Holden's statement doesn't say or imply that JW publications replace the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Coulter doesn't simply say that cults "claim their literature to be equal to or suprior to the Bible". Coulter actually says, "All cults have a source of authority other than Scripture—many cults have a source of authority that is equal to the Bible or even greater than it. This maybe the authority of tradition, the organization, an individual or another book."

My point was to show that Holden's viewpoint is not significant enough, being countered by others. --Corjay (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided counters Holden's point, either explicitly or by implication. In fact, all three support Holden's statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, none of those three references would meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I am not trying to provide an entry in the article, therefore those guidelines don't apply. I'm trying to demonstrate that there are countering viewpoints among academics. (Published or not. Dr. Coulter's report is a dissertation.) I can also demonstrate that two of those viewpoints are pervasive. --Corjay (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the Rick Miesel book is a published work.--Corjay (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course there will be a range of opinions. Christian bookshops are probably full of self-published books dumping on the JWs, but those opinions are irrelevant in this context. The opinion of a sociologist who has written widely on religions, however, and particularly when he explicitly addresses the issue of the source of JW doctrines, is relevant. I think your efforts are a little futile. The article fairly states Holden's significant view. I don't think you've yet made any comments about the issue on the specific page that's been set up to address the issue of the inclusion of Holden's comment. Will you be doing that? It may be the best way of overcoming this impasse and will bring in further outside comment. It's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care for maintaining multiple pages concerning one discussion. I have enough on my plate just addressing this discussion. Feel free to make me look as bad as you like on that page. --Corjay (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of assumptions of bad faith here on the part of Corjay. I am asking that you remember WP:AGF. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If I were acting in bad faith, I would have simply made the edit myself. You are actually acting contrary to the page you cite, because it says to "assume good faith", which you yourself are not doing. You are assuming bad faith on my part. I have no such bad faith. I wish only to make the page objective, and I don't think Holden's comment is objective. He is not just a researcher. He is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses as his many, many publications specifically written about us establishes. That's certainly not objective. That's a poison pen. No objective academic, in his right mind, would take Holden seriously. Also, according to the criteria mentioned about published sources, Holden is self-published, not through an academic peer-reviewed publication, which makes him a lesser source, not so well-established as some have claimed.--Corjay (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that I am assuming bad faith on the part of others, then not overtly so. Yes, I believe several here are opposers to my faith, but I believe they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the article. But I believe their bias invalidates their claims and their efforts. So I assume good faith on their part, but with bad motivations rather than bad intentions. I also felt I had ample evidence toward their bad treatment of me, such as Hell in a Basket's trying to force me to accept concession. Bad faith toward me, but not bad faith toward the article. --Corjay (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're grasping at straws. Holden's book was published by Routledge, a major publisher and clearly qualifies as a RS. I have already said he is widely cited by other academics. I have never before heard him described as opposed to the JWs and your view that "no objective academic would take him seriously", simply because you disagree with one of his conclusions, is childish. If you don't wish to address the very point you're raising at the best place, you seem to be wasting everyone's time. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

you apparently missed the part where I said I am Hiab or Hell in a BUCKET, I am assuming English isn't your first language since you can't seem to get the username right. If you refuse to discuss the issue by our standards that is concession, if you notice I haven't brought that up because you are discussion it now. Huge difference. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we forgo the insults, please. I have done none myself. As for my assumption, I couldn't find a publisher associated with his book. But okay, looking at Routledge and Google, we find out things about Holden. In a Google search, we find he has seven or more published papers through Lancaster University that make every effort to highlight every mistake made by Jehovah's Witnesses and giving very little respect to them as a religious organization. In fact, such are the ONLY things he has published in his position as Sociologist there. (Doesn't sound like he's doing much with his job other than obsessing over Jehovah's Witnesses.) He has no published works on any other religion. He authors books about tourism at Routledge. So how is it that a travel researcher comes to only publish about Jehovah's Witnesses and no other religion? Clearly, he has a point to make, showing a clear bias. If he were not so heavily biased, he would write more objectively and about other religions than just Jehovah's Witnesses. Can someone tell me what his qualifications are? I can't find ANY, anywhere, about his degrees and qualifications.--Corjay (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as someone critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, he is outstanding. I'm not slighting him that. But that's exactly where his comments belong BECAUSE he is a critic with a clear bias (And I think I can safely say, a "vendetta",) against Jehovah's Witnesses, not an objective researcher. --Corjay (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Andrew Holden is no more qualified than the sources I cited. --Corjay (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I must make one correction. Andrew Holden has written one book favorable toward Muslims based on a paper he wrote about their religious tolerance and cohesion. In it, he does not provide any of the venom toward Muslims that he does toward Jehovah's Witnesses. So one has to ask, what's the motive? Yes, there's a motive. Lancaster University initiated what they call the "Burnley Project", which is an interfaith initiative. Who are two of the members of the board of this project? Andrew Holden and Hamid Qureshi. Thus, it's his job. He wouldn't write about it if it weren't part of his role on this committee. If given a choice, I think he would rather have written another caustic piece on how evil Jehovah's Witnesses are.--Corjay (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment to explain why I can talk to the ex-Jehovah's Witnesses here about Holden. Once Qwyrxian turned the discussion towards Holden's qualifications and the qualifications of his works, it was no longer a religious matter. As long as we do not discuss spiritual matters, or the organization itself, or get cozy, I can speak to them. Keep it professional-like and it's fine. --Corjay (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly your spoke objection is that you consider it critical? How does citing both not keep a NPOV it States JWs believe the Bible is the authority, an expert doesn't. 203.210.13.5 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

[edit]The statement about the organization's doctrine is a factual statement, not an assessment.[/edit] It's not the critical analysis so much as the source. Andrew Holden is an outright opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses as his writings bear out. That's not just critical. According to WP:NPOV#Religion, such statements are done as "critical historical treatment". Someone who is opposed is not providing a "historical treatment", but is providing an attack. There's a gulf of difference. The very purpose of "NPOV" is that the article accomplishes a pure neutrality. You cannot accomplish a pure neutrality if you are providing an opposer's negative assessment without also providing a positive assessment from someone else not associated with the religion. So unless you can provide that, his statement should not be included. But if anyone can't provide a positive viewpoint of a third party to counter the opposer's assessment, the opposer's assessment must be removed to achieve NPOV, because, as stated earlier in this BOOK (I speak of the discussion) by one of the wikipedians, The religion's own assessment of itself, or the assessment of it by one of its members, cannot be included, which is fair, because it wouldn't carry any weight anyway. So a third party assessment is needed. It's not my responsibility to provide that third party assessment. I only need to challenge the right to include the opposer's viewpoint on account of the fact that the third party positive assessment is missing. If someone else wants to provide the third party positive assessment, then this discussion will be finally over.--Corjay (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Holden is not an "opposer", but a sociologist. He has never been JW, and his POV on them is accurate and neutral. When JW deal with blood transfusions, for example, they rely on what the Watchtower say, not on what the Bible say (because the Bible writers never heard about blood transfusions). So this is absolutely true to say that the WT teaching has almost the same (if not exactly the same) value as the Bible. JW are ready to die for something that is not clearly stated in the Bible, but only clearly stated in the publications, and changes over time when the WT's understanding change. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you know he has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? An "opposer" doesn't have to be an ex-Witness, but I strongly suspect he is an ex-Jehovah's Witness just because of his obsession, which is a tendency of many ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. (This is because of a failure of such one's to seek out new relationships and new beliefs. Even Holden highlights that much in one of his conclusive rants.) Does this statement sound neutral to you? "Ethnographic analysis reveals the dependency of this quasi-totalitarian movement on the very physical and cultural resources it condemns. The paper concludes that the Witnesses’ anti-mystical faith is both an inverted form of corporate ‘branding’ and an anti-modern quest for certainty in a hostile world of relativism." Does this article title sound neutral to you? "Cavorting With the Devil: Jehovah’s Witnesses Who Abandon Their Faith"; Or how about these chapter headings: "Private beliefs and public disapproval", "Stretching the boundaries: tension within the family and marriage", "suppressing ambivalence". Does this sound neutral to you? "I have argued that Watch Tower rhetoric cannot always override the individual’s sense of duty towards those with whom they have long been bonded or for whose welfare they are responsible." That's more than opinion. The paper was for the purpose of proving a point. Or how about this one: "At present, the movement shows few signs either of relaxing its quasi-totalitarian doctrines or of slowing down its evangelistic mission. In the end, if devotees and their unbelieving relatives wish to live amicably together, they may be forced to do tolerance." Really? So tolerance is a bad thing? As demonstrated in that statement, throughout the article he lays the fault of a family's intolerance on the Witnesses, not the family. His persistent use of such terms as "quasi-totalitarian" and "Watchtower regime" demonstrate his so not neutral stand. Whenever he talks about Jehovah's Witness beliefs, he does not use clinical descriptions, but imbues the description with the darkest language he can conceive of. [Emphasis mine.]

Does he provide any objective viewpoint about Jehovah's Witnesses having positive impacts on those around them or law or anything else? No. His articles don't provide any positive viewpoints. He highlights every negative he can find, such as discrepancies between the viewpoints of various Jehovah's Witnesses, or between their beliefs and how they execute those beliefs privately. All he is doing is highlighting the negatives of human nature within the organization, without ever talking about ANY positive aspects or coming to any conclusions that indicate anything positive. He's a doomsayer in everything he writes about the organization and only focuses on their mistakes as an organization or the mistakes of individual members. I'd call that opposition. In one article, he sets out to highlight the division Jehovah's Witnesses cause in family. In another, he sets out to make ex-Witnesses look like victims. His focus is very clearly to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad under the pretense of objectivity. Objectivity anyone can achieve through the use of a neutral tone. But a neutral tone does not mean a neutral stand. --Corjay (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me attempt an explanation to you Cherche. He can not see it, I don't mean that he is incapable of it, just that he can't even think of it being neutral. If he did and someone saw that he would be subject to shepherding calls, if that didn't work and the elders deemed it serious he could be publicly reproved (can't participate in preaching or commenting at meetings among other things.) and if it continued it would lead to disfellowshipping (basically no one that is a JW will talk with you or even acknowledge your presence). Imagine everyone you know acting like you didn't exist, and keep in mind these are the only people you are "encouraged" to associate with. It's a scary prospect, my sister was disfellowshipped, my parents won't even eat with her. They will me because I was never disfellowshipped. The statement that tears down his entire neutrality is made above "If someone else wants to provide the third party positive assessment, then this discussion will be finally over." he will only accept a positive source and neutral is something that presents both sides of the coin. The statement provides the Jw's side that the bible is the final authority, the other-side is what's presented by Holden. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay, please stop ranting about your uninformed opinions and generalisations about 'apostates' (a pejoratively used by JWs). In fact, your opinions about the actions and motivations of 'apostates' are based only on what you have read in Watch Tower Society publications. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Either provide sources supporting your claims about Holden, or don't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You all are putting words in my mouth again. I never said I would not accept a neutral statement. And I never said "apostates" anywhere. I said the negative statement by an opposer requires a positive statement by a third party to counterbalance. I will not address your flaws affecting doctrine. --Corjay (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get on a soapbox. I provided proof that Holden is an opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses. --Corjay (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

My sources: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/search/?q=andrew+holden --Corjay (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your 'sources' don't support your view about Holden or his statement in the article. You seem to have a distorted impression of neutrality. Neutrality does not mean only making conclusions that 'you' agree with.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Corjay where does it state he is an opposer? It must say it, you can't infer it. It would violate WP:SYN and constitute original research. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So a zebra must actually say it's a zebra before you can call it a zebra? --Corjay (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you care to read our policies yes. BlackCab correctly also pointed out that it is techinically a violation of WP:BLP as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Yes"? You're being ridiculous. The SYN affects content of articles, not discussions. I do not need to have a statement from Holden saying "I am an opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses" just to say that he is. I proved it through his actions. That is enough. If a person murders another person, does he have to actually say "I'm a murderer" in order to call him a murderer? Your reasoning is severely flawed. --Corjay (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

To quote the guideline "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages"

This page is not a biography and I am not asking for the inclusion of biographical information. --Corjay (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You all are getting pretty desperate if you're having to resort to mischief by decree. (Daniel 6:4-8) --Corjay (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I repeat Holden is not against JWs. Otherwise why would they have accept to open their doors to him and talk to him when he was preparing his study on them? Your POV on Holden is not backed up by serious source. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I request that current and former members of the faith please decist from lengthy arguments on this page. A suggestion here or there is fine, but protected wrangling about ideology is a misuse of Wikipedia, and could lead to you being banned from this topic. Please let the dispassionate, neutral editors take the lead in editing. Thank you!

What Holden says is obviously his own opinion. If he is a notable person in his field of study, his opinion can be included and labelled as his, and it can be balanced with the opinions of other notable commentators. Jehochman ^Talk 10:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying this one thing: No one has presented any evidence that he is "noted in his field". --Corjay (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

False. BlackCab previously indicated that many academics have cited Holden, and this is verifiable using Google scholar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Granted by means of your link. I accept it. --Corjay (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see why Holden shouldn't be used. My opinion is he's among the very best English-writing authors when it comes to JW from an outside view. I am pretty often fronting another view than BlackCab and Jeffro when it comes to choice of sources for this and related topics, but I cannot see one single reason for excluding Holden as a source. He's accurate and is presenting JW in a good faith (when reading Holden, it is obvious he's writing to give for him a neutral POV about JW). I support to reference to Holden's published works, but if disputed by other notable sources, or disputed, it should be referenced to as Holden's opinion, as he's a sociolog, not a mathematician. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where a dispute involving this subject is pending. I am not involved with this article, subject or it's editors. As I see this is marked as resolved can I assume the dispute has been resolved or is that a continuation of this discussion?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please close the associated dispute at DRN. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading about JW fundings

The recent addition of a "Funding" section is misleading at several points. The source (I am not familiar with the source) is using revenue to estimate wealth. Is Egypt more wealthy than New Zealand? Is Statoil from a tiny European country one hundred times wealthier than the wealthiest New York company was in 2001? Further, it is from 2001, and do not say to much about the current economic situation.

The comparison with the Vatican city is not relevant here, as it is the economic situation for an independent country with 900 citizens, these numbers from 2001 as well. Further, the Vatican is an institution. WTS is a major publisher, publishing near one billion magazines each year, for usage of members in several countries. For comparison, use LDS, or the Church of Norway (revenue app. USD 600 million for 3.8 million members, two thirds from the tax payers).

For money spend on "caring for special pioneers, missionaries, and traveling overseers", updated numbers are available. Why use numbers from 2002 when 2012 is available? The estimated value of the New York buildings seems ok, but it is most likely not net assets (an ongoing case, Jane Doe v. Watchtower, is using estimates of WTS' total assets to appr. a billion dollar, and available assets (cash (?) to about 30 mill. dollar), as JW may take out mortages from owned buildings, like most other companies and people.

A summary is, if these numbers is relevant to this article, and if the numbers chosen, is representative for the current economic situation for WTS? My opinion is, it is interesting how JW are funding their work, and numbers are of interest if they're giving a correct picture. Mixing up wealth, revenue and the Vatican is not giving a correct picture. Net assets are interesting, change of net assets, funding and funding threads (if these does exists). Does JW have separate economy for each country? How much is spend on the publishing activity? That's questions I would like to have answeared, if reading about JW funding. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The first statements are about the revenues and expenses, and then it says about the wealth. The source is not "using revenue to estimate wealth", as you claim. And 2001 is recent enough to draw an accurate picture of the situation. It makes sense that the revenues and expenses figures are of the same year. I may agree with your idea of removing the comparison with the Vatican's revenues, but I feel the rest is fine. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the comparison with the Vatican may be a misleading, as the Watch Tower Society and associated corporations are essentially a publishing house. ~~I'll update the amount spent on pioneers etc from a more recent yearbook.~~ I don't see any other problems with the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would be less helpful to compare revenue to spending from a different year. I'll add a footnote indicating more recent expenditure instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oki, so we're agreed to have a funding section, and to not compare WTS with the Vatican, because of different purposes/structures. According to the Ringnes book (Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie), the Kingdom Hall's are owned by the local congregations (the exact reading is "by each congregation", but I doubt not a single Hall is owned by more than one congregation, as it is common in urban areas that two or more congregation are using the same Kingdom Hall). The book suggests that the 115 branch offices are contributing to JW's work in other parts of the world. Unfortunately the book isn't giving a comprehensive explanation of the JW/WTS funding structure, but it shows it is local and regional fundings as well as the funding of WTS. For me it appears as the book is somewhat inaccurate at this point, because some of the branch offices must then be net receivers of fundings, or it could be ment as the branch offices are contributing indirectly, through funding WTS. When JW at the doors are recieving contributions, it is to "the worldwide publishing work". AFAIK JW the members can contribute at their local Hall directly to the same purpose. I've never heard about contributing to the branch office, though it may have been suggested donations separately to extraordinary purposes. Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be describing the 'Kingdom Hall Fund', which is not the same as separate donations for "the worldwide work". See Kingdom_hall#Funding.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro, your edit on the article is fine for me. The picture is now accurate and up to date. Thanks! --ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it's still unsolved issues about the section. First, this article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, not about WTS only. Funding, in this article, should be about how JW are funded. WTS is only one of several legal units related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Including basic information, as the congregations being their own legal units (is it for all countries, or just a few?)

I don't but ChercheTrouves claim of the sentence about wealth ("richest") can't be read as connected to the statement abour WTS' revenue, as this is in the same sentence, connected with a "with". When it comes to funding, I actually think numbers from 2001 (or actually older, as the source is from 2001), as outdated. A lot of things have happened since 2001, sales of New York properties included It could be WTS is one of the richests companies in New York, but then it should be possible to find a newer source (if WTS is not listed in newer rankings, is then the statement false?). Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All the funding—local and otherwise—is accrued from donations (mainly from members). This is already clearly stated in the article. Most of those donations are sent to the 'worldwide work', a fund that is run by the Watch Tower Society. The distinction you're making between WTS and JWs is semantics only.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

(Congregations also maintain a local account for running expenses such as electricity. These funds are also from donations made by members. However, I'm not aware of a suitable source for that element.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the other point about 2001 revenue, if there is a newer similar source, it should be used instead. However, the source is not so old that the point is no longer notable at all, and though the amount may have changed, it's unlikely that it's suddenly become an inconsequential figure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles listed under multiple categories of the Category:Jehovah's Witnesses subject tree

I'm in the process of cleaning up some of the categorization of JW articles. Many articles are listed under multiple JW categories (which is sometimes appropriate) and many are listed under both sub-cats and parent cats (only appropriate for lead articles). In absolutely no cases am I removing articles from the JW category tree. If you have any concerns over my changes, just drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the overlapped categories have bothered me in the past, but never enough to do anything about it. Re this edit though, I'm not seeing Bible Student movement as an existing sub-category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of the categories added. I've left a note on the talkpage where it's done. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the category for one of the articles that provides specific detail about a notable current case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is about handling (policies and religious practice) regarding the topic, not an article about a single incident. The category does clearly specify it includes cases, not the topic in general. A single incident briefly mentioned in the article, doesn't justify the use for the category. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CAT states, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." The content of the article in question satisfies that requirement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not about a single case, and is not a list of cases. The category mention cases, and not child sex abuse in general. The same policy states: "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many articles that are in categories that only apply to part of the article. It's not worth arguing the point with you, so I'll leave this rather mundane matter to other editors to decide on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment that the article "is not a list of cases" suggests you've misunderstood your subsequent quote about categories, which says that a controversial category might otherwise be replaced by a list. It doesn't refer to lists being a member of a category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Millenarian etc

Re this request by User:John Stenson: The reason I reverted that series of changes:

"Millenarian" and "restorationist" were statements with strong sources. No reason provided for their deletion and replacement with "primitivist", which is now unsourced, but with footnotes that support the two deleted terms.
The deletion of the latter part of the sentence "The name Jehovah's witnesses ... was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other Bible Student groups and symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions" is unexplained. The statement is elaborated on further down with full sourcing.
No objection to the division of pre-1973 and post-1973 in the history section.
The insertion of wording in "elders may employ ecclesiastical privilege such as confidentiality in hearing confession of sins is dubious. Is this in the source or original research? I'm always dubious of editors adding material to a sourced statement.
The information about the now discarded "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine -- for decades a fundamental teaching of the religion -- has not been shifted into the history section as the edit summary suggests; it has been deleted. Why? Over to User:John Stenson to explain why he thinks unexplained deletion of sourced material is a good thing. BlackCab (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a section has already been started.

Restorationism is the more common term for Christian primitivism, which redirects to Restorationism anyway. 'Primitivist' carries more of a biased point of view, because it is used to imply a stronger connection with 'genuine' 'original' 'Christianity', and attempts to distance a particular group from other 'Restorationist' groups that developed from the 19th century onwards as part of the broader restorationist movement.

The break in the History section doesn't seem necessary, based on the amount of content in the third subsection. If the break is retained, it should not be called "modern era", which is a special term to historians that incorporates a much longer period. (Nor should "era" be capitalised in the heading per Wikipedia's Manual of Style.)

The additional wording about "confidentiality in hearing" is misleading (at best). Though JW elders rely on laws relating to "ecclesiastical privilege" regarding divulging of information to certain people (usually, law enforcement), JW 'confessions' are not kept confidential between the penitent and the elder ('clergy'?) who hears the person's confession, as is usually expected. Rather, the details are reported to other elders both locally and at other 'branch offices'.

My other concerns have been covered above by BlackCab.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for explaining both of you, I appreciate that. I was reading some of the articles on the LDS Church and a few other religious movements, and thought I saw some ways the formatting there could be used here. I looked over it quickly for areas where I didn't immediately understand what the meaning of the text was, and tried to make those areas smoother.

That is where I got the idea that "primativist" might be easier for the casual reader to understand than "millenerian restorationist", which is not necessarily intuitively clear. But if you think that is necessary in the lead then I will defer to you on that.
It seemed like the sources indicated that some changes were wanted from Russell's teachings, but "break" sounded a bit strong, as many of the core teachings were the same, but again it is not a large issue.
It seems from reading some of the later sources and doing a bit of my own investigation that a significant amount of changes have happened between the 1940's and the present, yet the 1880-1945 sections have five times the amount of material as the 1945-present section, so I was trying to split that in a way that allowed for more even coverage.
I haven't done extensive research on the confession issue. Saying "hearing" confession rather than just "confession" was again intended to be easier for the casual reader to understand. As it reads now, it seems unclear whether the elders enjoy special privileges in hearing confessions or confessing themselves, when it appears to mean hearing confessions. This was meant to be a change in clarity, not substance - is there another way to phrase this that could be clearer?
The organization section on most other articles does not have historical organizational structures, just the present one. I was trying to make it simpler to understand what is in the past and what is current. But this seems to be a recent shift, so perhaps that is the trouble.

Let me know what you think —John Stenson 04:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To summarize: I know that this is a GA, and that you probably have carefully scrutinized the prose. There are just a few areas that I wanted to refine. These areas seem unclear to outsiders (which is what an encyclopedia is for). The two that I found the most important are the need for a better balance in the history section (not 90% pre-1940) and making the organization section clearer and more direct. Those are just my thoughts, and I am very open to other ideas. —John Stenson 04:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with adding significant changes into the History section as necessary. Determining whether something is notable for the History section at this article should be based on third party sources. If there is sufficient text, there would be no problem dividing it with additional subheading(s).

The changes regarding the 'faithful and discreet slave' are indeed very recent. Though the change was officially made last year, members were only informed about it more recently (in the July 2013 issue of The Watchtower), and the change won't be officially considered in JW congregations until later this month.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated picture of Brooklyn HQs needed/available?

A member of the West Phoenix Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses meetup group sent me a youtube clip showing some of the signs on one of the main buildings being over-painted. In particular the "READ GOD'S WORD THE HOLY BIBLE DAILY" along with "Read the WATCHTOWER" / "ANNOUNCING JEHOVAH'S KINGDOM." Thus my question is: Would a recent picture of the two buildings show the large "WATCHTOWER" sign? I don't live in NY, so I don't know, nor am I sure where one could locate a Wikipedia-suitable image. Randyg271 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither an online meetup group nor youtube are considered reliable sources, and painting over the sign isn't particularly significant anyway. The picture doesn't really need to be changed until the headquarters actually relocates to upstate New York.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro77. I did not mean to imply the information is, at this point, sourced reliabilty. Only that, if the current picture with the WATCHTOWER sign is out of date, it would be nice to have an updated version. True, it is a minor point, although I remember an Awake! or Watchtower article that commented on the "READ GOD's WORD..." wording, not too many years ago. Randyg271 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Views on rape

Someone should add their views on rape, like under the Ethics and Morality section. They view rape without literal screaming as committing fornication and the woman can be shunned:
Watchtower 1964 January 15 pp.63-4: "Thus if a Christian woman does not cry out and does not put forth every effort to flee, she would be viewed as consenting to the violation. The Christian woman who wants to keep clean and obey God's commandments, then, if faced with this situation today, needs to be courageous and to act on the suggestion made by the Scriptures and scream. Actually this counsel is for her welfare; for, if she should submit to the man's passionate wishes, she would not only be consenting to fornication or adultery, but be plagued by the shame."
Watchtower 1968 June 1 pp.345-50: "So by no means would it be proper quietly to submit to rape, as that would be consenting to fornication."
Watchtower 1998 December 15 pp. 23-25: "Jehovah's servants do not cooperate in any way that violates God's law. For example, a Christian would not willingly submit to rape."
This site has a lot of articles about the subject quoted: http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/rape_is_fornication.html (They also say in the same articles that women are to blame for raising rapists and for dressing immodestly, and they should "treat him [the rapist] respectfully" but I don't know if that warrants a mention here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.80.168 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The statements from the 1960s are outdated, and the old view is not of significant weight to add to the main article about JWs. Whilst JW literature still encourages a person to scream as a means of attracting attention from others who may be able to assist a person to escape a rapist, it is not regarded as 'fornication' if the person doesn't scream. The Watchtower, 1 February 2003, page 31: "In understanding the application of Deuteronomy 22:23-27, we must realize that this brief account does not cover all possible situations. For example, it does not comment on the situation where the attacked woman cannot scream because she is mute, unconscious, or paralyzed with fear or is forcibly prevented from screaming by a hand or tape over her mouth."--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"it is not regarded as 'fornication' if the person doesn't scream" Wrong. It only says that if she's mute, unconscious, paralyzed with fear, or forcibly prevented." It's still repeated in the 1998 magazine, and in the 2003 magazine you're quoting, it says, "Even in the sad case where a woman is overpowered and raped, her struggle and screaming for help is not in vain. On the contrary, it establishes that she did all she possibly could to resist her attacker. (Deuteronomy 22:26) Despite going through this ordeal, she can still have an undefiled conscience, self-respect, and the assurance that she is clean in God's eyes." (bold mine) So yes, they still feel that a woman who is raped may have violated her conscience and is unclean in god's eyes. They still have a rape victim meet with a judicial committee (group of elders) and recount the entire occasion so they can determine if she needs to be shunned. The 1960's views have also not been rescinded or retracted in any way and were repeated in 1998, so they still stand. You and I may think they're outdated, but JWs have never changed their view on them. You list everything else they feel is immoral (masturbation, homosexuality) so why not quote their own words when they say rape is a form of immorality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.80.168 (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim that rape is considered 'fornication' is your own synthesis of the source material. The older sources argue (poorly) that screaming establishes that an assault was actually rape, but never states that rape itself is actually 'fornication'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your claim about rape victims meeting with a judicial committee is not supported by official sources. The elders' textbook, Shepherd the Flock of God (page 59) explicitly states, "One who was raped would not be guilty of porneia [the biblical Greek source word for 'fornication']." There is no mention of 'screaming'. The fact that individual JW elders might not believe that an individual was raped has no bearing on the fact that rape itself is not considered to be 'fornication'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

They use the term fornication in the 1980 Watchtower: "A Christian woman is under obligation to resist, for the issue of obedience to God's law to "flee from fornication" is involved." (bold mine) It's not my "synthesis" that they equate rape with fornication, it's their words.

They still meet to establish if she resisted enough to satisfy the committee, that's their practice. "One who was raped would not be guilty..." but they decide if it was rape or not.

All of this material is just their words, not my conclusions or assumptions. I find it offensive that you would say it's my "synthesis" when I'm only quoting their publications. Their argument may be poor but it's still their argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.80.168 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You're just going round in circles now. It is not disputed that JWs are overly strict about 'proving' that an assault was rape, but they do not state that rape is fornication. Please stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not going around in circles by refuting your statements with their words, sorry you need to take it that way. All I said in my original post, and I stand by this, is that their statements about rape might be included. You have a section about morality and ethics that includes their views on sexual immorality. They bring up rape in the framework of "fornication" and uncleanness, not me. These are their words and views, made publicly and stated repeatedly and recently. If you don't agree that they should be included, fine, but don't insult me personally and don't tell me when to stop. Wiki is for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.80.168 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As already stated, their literature explicitly states that rape is not regarded as 'fornication', but that an assault might not be regarded as 'rape' if the victim did not resist. Aside from that, minutiae at this level are not necessary at the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Handling of Sex Abuse Cases

This needs an update. "Any person known to have sexually abused a child is prohibited from holding any responsibility inside the organization" is no longer accurate, as of the October 2012 letter to all elders, which says in part, "It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation." A copy of the letter was entered into court records for a case in Australia and a public record of it is here: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/Watchtower_Bible_and_Tract_Society_of_Australia_Appendix_1.pdf 24.160.80.168 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is already covered at the relevant article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. Further elaboration is not required at the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say elaboration, I said update. The statement on this article's page is not accurate and should be removed, even if it is discussed on another page. There's no need to even explain the removal on the page itself; if it's inaccurate, it shouldn't be there.24.160.80.168 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement you quote from the October 2012 is not a change in policy. They also previously stated the same thing for certain circumstances. The policy has always been that in such situations, many years would need to pass before any such appointment, if ever, and that it would depend on the specifics of the situation. See Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#Positions of responsibility.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Who said "change in policy" and what does that have to do with anything?

Yes, they previously said the same thing for certain circumstances, and now those "circumstances" have been lifted. Previously, known abusers were prohibited from responsibility; now they can have responsibilities, known or not. Call it a change, call it nothing; my point was and still is that you have an inaccurate statement on the page, based on the latest information they've released.

The "many years" part is immaterial; additional requirements have nothing to do with the statement on the page that is inaccurate.

"Make your decision on a case by case basis," means that the statement "Any person known to have sexually abused a child is prohibited from holding any responsibility inside the organization" [bold mine] is inaccurate. Change, not a change, new light, it's on another page, there are other requirements; none of that matters as it's still an inaccurate statement. Wikipedia is about removing even dubious statements and this one is outright wrong. I honestly don't know why you're resisting removing something that is in outright contradiction to their own statements.24.160.80.168 (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made a minor adjustment to the text. Not sure why you couldn't do that. Presumably you can stop complaining now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, because it's locked and I'm using my roommate's IP address and she already has a Wiki log-in so I can't create my own. I find it offensive that you would consider noting a needed change "complaining." I'm going to ask her how to bring this type of personal attack to the attention of moderators, your insults on this page are inexcusable.24.160.80.168 (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Using a computer that is used by another Wikipedia editor does not prevent you from registering an account or logging on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't explain or excuse your insulting nature. Wikipedia is for everyone and their input, and I was respectful enough to put suggestions on the talk page rather than get into an edit war. You didn't need to respond at all, much less with degrading comments. Good day sir. 24.160.80.168 (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made no "degrading comments", though I did make a single remark about you "complaining" that probably wasn't entirely necessary. However, the sections you've started at Talk strongly suggest that you're interested in picking on minutia that are not necessary at the main JW article, especially in regard to the section above. If you believed you couldn't create an account, then it wasn't really a 'decision' not to 'edit war'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Second-guessing my intentions is also insulting and unnecessary. Wikipedia expressly tells you to "assume good faith" and to "be polite" both of which you've failed at. I felt that their comments about rape-fornication fit into the section about morality since they brought out that information many times in the framework of morality; if you disagree, then just disagree without thinking you can read my mind. This section was also expressly necessary since you had incorrect info on the page. That's not minutia, that's good Wiki editing. Now since you've decided to veer away from the subject at hand and are just talking about me personally rather than sticking to the info that should or should not go on a page, I'm done. Feel free to get a last parting shot in if you feel you must but this page is supposed to be about the article, not your express thoughts on other editors.24.160.80.168 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have "incorrect info on the page", and it's not 'my' article. But once you actually got around to identifying the single minor error, I fixed it. Your other claims about "rape-fornication" are simply wrong, and are out of scope of the main article anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Info on the relationship with freemasonry should be given. --41.151.113.87 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on what sources? ChercheTrouve (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Well I would like to say that the location of the J.W headquarters changed last year. The beliefs written are not all correct. Which is a really big deal. All the articles listed at the bottom are over the top and unnecessary for the fact you can get articles for free from their official website, therefore over-complicating the information.

Christine Elena Kirk (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your claim about the headquarters is incorrect. The new headquarters in upstate New York is still under construction, and the Watch Tower Society has only indicated the future move in 2017.

The existence of the official website does not negate the suitability of having a Wikipedia article on the subject, and the official website can hardly be considered to be a neutral source. You should probably also read Wikipedia's standards about reliable sources.

Rather than claiming that the "beliefs written are not all correct", it would be helpful if you could be specific about which information you believe to be incorrect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1. Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. should be changed too "... and are sometimes shunned...."
2. although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible should be omitted (There are many errors in this book and it should not be used as a source)
3. Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications. should be omitted (There are baptized witnesses who openly criticize what they feel is wrong, they are not shunned nor discouraged)
4. Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. should be omitted. Personal opinions and private ideas can be shared
5. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, but that God is the final judge. should be changed to "... teach that they...." only should be omitted this has never been taught
6. Jehovah's Witnesses are perhaps best known for their efforts to spread their beliefs should be changed to "...efforts to spread the word of the Bible"
7. Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group. should be changed to ".... is encouraged to become baptized...."
8. Witnesses are told they are under a biblical command to engage in public preaching. "....are encouraged because of biblical command to engage...."
9. They are instructed to devote as much time as possible to their ministry and are required to submit an individual monthly "Field Service Report". should be changed to "They are encouraged to devote as much time as they have or feel to their ministry....." I asked this specific question and was told that the time you devote is completely up to you and how much time you feel is necessary
10. ....members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned. should be omitted I openly disagree all the time and I am not shunned, I am applauded for being a critical thinker
11. Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization".[307][308][309][310] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[311][312] and would "cause division".[313] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" and "mentally diseased".[314][315][316] should be omitted I openly question, I am applauded for my independent thinking, I openly disagree no one condemns me

Sources: I have been studying with this sect for 2 years now, and attending their meetings regularly, the above information I questioned the witnesses about. Please contact me if you need more sources, don't reject me readily I do believe in the accuracy of Wikipedia and depend on it at times, I have been donating money since last year to keep it up ad free so please consider my plea. Some of the the books published about Jehovah's Witnesses are biased, and the most recent one that I know of was written in 2002, over 10 years ago, I am pondering on publishing a newer book.

Rivlyb (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

1. The existing wording is correct. The process of "formally" leaving is to write a letter of disassociation. The Watchtower has explicitly stated that a person who does this is to be treated the same as a disfellowshipped person.
2. Holden's book qualifies as a reliable source. I have found only a couple of minor errors in the book, and neither are cited at this article.
3. The wording is correct and based on a RS. A JW who openly criticized teachings would be reprimanded and, if they persisted, disfellowshipped for apostasy.
4. The wording is correct and based on the Watch Tower Society's own literature as well as other RS.
5. The wording is correct. ~~I'll provide a source later.~~ The word "only" is used several times in the cited sources, directly from WTS publications.
6. Their best-known piece of literature, which they endeavour to share, is The Watchtower, which contains their beliefs.
7. The wording is correct. "Encouraged to" is JW jargon.
8. Ditto. Watchtower literature has repeatedly used the word "command" in relation to public ministry.
9. Definitely an instruction. The existing wording is correct.
10. See No.3 above. You say in your comments you are just "studying" with the Witnesses, hence presumably not baptised. Only baptised JWs can be disfellowshipped and shunned. JWs do allow a certain amount of latitude for prospective JWs to demonstrate their critical thinking and freedom of expression. This changes post-baptism.
11. The statements are correct and based on multiple RS. BlackCab (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

12: The teachings of JWs are all in accordance to the Bible. The difference between JWs and other Christians is that they encourage regular intake of Bible knowledge and to live up to Jehovah's standard to the best of one's ability, they like to follow the bible standards to the Tee and their best. And of course, the fact that there is a God whose name is Jehovah, which needs to be sanctified and well known. That Jesus is his son, and not God himself. The fact that there is no eternal damnation, because a God who is loving and merciful would never create a dark place for his own children to suffer in. God does not incite fear and demand devotion. He gives free-will. If one chooses not to follow, he will not receive the chance to live on this earth forever. He is not a puppeteer. He treats us like he treats his angels. He wants us to believe in him, and to obey him (live up to his standard.) His standards are not hard to follow, if understood and studied well, one will realise they are all in-built anyway.

Baptised/unbaptised witnessed are encouraged to be honest about their short-comings so that they can get help and counsel from elders of the congregation. They are not shunned. Shunned is a very strong word. Nobody is unwelcome at a meeting. They keep a keen eye on how a person repents, how they make amends and how they bounce back. There is no wrong in talking about personal views. They encourage baptised or unbaptised witnesses to challenge and question because JWs do believe, practice and prove the Bible right. That's why they call it the truth. The truth can never be wrong. They encourage discussions on various topics, no matter who. A disfellowshipped witness is allowed to attend meetings, is allowed to raise their hand to answer questions, but only in time are their answers taken. This practice encourages them to be persistent and never lose hope and work harder.

Yes they do say that in the end it is Jehovah who will be the final judge, they include themselves in the notion that only Jehovah knows what lies in whose heart. No witness/non-witness can mask that from him. Even they are susceptible to losing eternal life. Being an official JW does not guarantee eternal life. It only adds on to one's spiritual effort and life. How they make use of it, or allow themselves to be used for God's work, is up to them. ---

This page is not a forum for personal views on the religion or a place to proselytize. Someone has suggested some changes to the article and I have responded by explaining that the statements in the article are all based on reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bible prophecy

User:Undentman, in this edit, requested: 'Under "Failed Predictions", in the first sentence, please change "and has" to "and, through Bible prophecy, has"." The suggested wording is not entirely true. The article at that point cites the 15 July 1960 Watchtower which claims that "in 1942 the faithful and discreet slave guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up ... Once again the faithful and discreet slave has been tipped off ahead of time for the guidance of all lovers of God". Watch Tower Society publications have repeatedly claimed that God "revealed" matters to the JW leadership. The current wording is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected

I've fully protected the article for 10 days following a report at WP:ANEW to encourage discussion about the numerous disputes which seem to be occurring on the page over the last week or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Christianity

I was reverted when removing "Biblical" ("or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Biblical Christianity") from the lead section, a word recently added to the article. My reason for reverting was I've not heard about unbiblical Christianity, and the addition either way was redundant. It was left a notice on my talkpage, with claims of being disrespectful for using "redundant", as it was added to be contrary to nominal Christianity. I won't start an edit war about nothing, so leave it up to other to revert the added word once again.

To be nitpicking about the topic: JW does actually think they got the only true kind of Christianity, so if adding a descriptive adjective according to their believes, it may should have been "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as it is all about their consideration. True Christianity could also be a contrary description to nominal Christianity. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Grranbahr, I appreciate your response on your own talk page about this. (If consensus on here goes one way, of course I respect it, though I may not necessarily agree per se.) My points were basically these: I see that you work hard on this article, to keep it balanced and accurate, and careful. You and BlackCab. That's good, and I appreciate the work. But to be honest, there is a point about nominal "Christianity" that may even claim NOT go by the Bible all that much, by their own admission, and also the point too regarding the edit itself...of wiki and "no own".

Frankly, speaking. There is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. As even you seem to be conceding, in a way. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. I don't like the removal of my valid good-faith elaboration, simply because of "don't like", with the front (and in this case not wholly accurate) excuse of "redundant". And that's how it came across, honestly. No disrespect intended.

That mod is sourced and true. And just bit more clear. So? JWs don’t consider it compatible more specifically with BIBLICAL Christianity. Not just broad or nominal so-called "Christianity".

Yes, your suggestion about the term "true Christianity" in the context of what JWs themselves consider to be "not compatible with". But that is also what they consider "Biblical" Christianity.

Again, though, the term "Christianity" for a while now has been too broad or general...or nominal...and arguably not clear or precise enough, in the given context, as even you seem to admit. So arguably no need to remove that correct minor elab...in that particular sentence and drift. this is a wiki....the edit was good-faith and valid....

Not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical"...even by many of the churches in question themselves. Some consider themselves mainly nominal...that’s been known. It was not redundant necessarily, per context, but just more clear...as, again, not all "Christianity" is necessarily called or considered completely "Biblical". But many times just nominal or general. By your own admission. This is a wiki. No one owns the article. And my concern too was that removing valid good-faith (and sourced) minor modifications or elaborations because of "don't like" or maybe little misunderstanding of the point made, which was a contextually valid point in reality...was not necessary. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "Biblical Christianity" (ignoring the incorrect capitalisation of "biblical") is meaningless here and the addition of the word "biblical" does nothing to add information. The JWs consider Christmas, Easter etc to be incompatible with Christianity, period. BlackCab (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just to address the arguments or issues raised. Number one: though the "capitalization" matter is a minor point, and could go either way IMO, it's not an incorrect capitalization, as that form has been around and is sourced. But that's minor, as the term "Biblical" in general is what's in question, whether the "b" is small or cap. Number two: it's NOT "redundant" or "meaningless", as there is such a thing as just NOMINAL or general "Christianity", that's not necessarily considered totally "Biblical" per se. And it was just a minor elaboration, that did NOT need to be removed. It was not redundant necessarily, but just more clear... The term "Christianity" is broad and nominal, admittedly, and not clear enough to the point in the context...as even admitted by the other editor on this section...(did you even bother to read all that I wrote above, or did you just ignore it arrogantly and dismissively?) Number three: this is a wiki....no one owns any article... You have a hard time accepting that fact, BlackCab, as I've seen from your history and disputes on this article, going back for years now. And good-faith sourced edits or modifications should be respected on Wikipedia, not summarily willy nilly removed or dissed so quickly or hastily, with weak front excuses of "redundant" (confusing elaboration to bring more clarity with "redundancy"), and for "I don't like" reasons. Number four: this was a valid and MINOR elaboration, that was not inaccurate, and could have been left alone or respected, per wiki policy to only remove or revert vandalism, or truly unsourced or inaccurate things. Number five: I conceded to Grranbahr that his alternate of "true Christianity" might be better, as also possible and a good elaboration, per context etc. So I'm ok with that being used instead of "Biblical Christianity" (in case some might find that a little confusing or a little redundant). And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. Wiki...“No Own”... Stop edit-warring over this, BlackCab...seriously. This is minor elaboration, that is correct (despite your INcorrect notions about "capitalization" or "meaningless" or other things), sourced (the term "Biblical Christianity" IN AND OUT of Watchtower articles is there), and more clear than the general "Christianity", as that term is used many times in just a generic or even admittedly not very Bible-following way. I have reached 3RR on this, and I will not violate it. But if you revert again, I will wait past the 24 hours, to simply revert your unwarranted rude removal of a valid good-faith modification. (Or, as I said above, if big consensus goes one way, even if I disagree.) Again, you don't own this article, so it would be nice if you didn't act like you do. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

All Christian groups base their beliefs—including celebrations they deem acceptable—on their interpretations of the Bible. (For example, it could be argued that the use of wedding rings is an unbiblical and pagan custom, but this supposedly 'unbiblical' custom is happily observed by JWs along with other Christian groups.) Whether any particular group has interpretations that differ from the intepretations of another group (in this case, JWs) in no way means that those other groups are automatically 'unbiblical'. The use of 'Biblical Christianity' in the manner suggested is not only unnecessary (and the capitalisation is not supported by Wikipedia Manual of Style), but is also biased (specifically, Gabby Merger is making a priori assertions that attempt to uniquely equate the interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses with the ill-defined term, biblical Christianity). Similarly, the alternative suggestion of 'true Christianity' is also biased, and probably even worse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeffro, what you're failing to understand is that the point being made was how Jehovah's Witnesses see it, per the context of the sentence. They deem the "pagan holidays" situation as against not just "Christianity" in the broad sense of how the word is nominally used many ways, but more specifically and clearly "true" or "biblical" Christianity. They (and others) are the ones who have many times called it that (either "true Christianity" or "biblical Christianity" etc) to make it more clear that it's not just a vague nominal or generic thing. You were wrong in assuming that I was making an "a priori" anything, as it was stated per JW viewpoint and writings, not necessarily my own. But thanks for assuming good faith with me. (Not all churches in actuality claim to go so strictly by the Bible. There are things known as "liberal churches" who admit to not really following or even believing the Bible so closely etc.) And again, to repeat...this overall is not really ‘redundant’ given that “Christianity” is used very broadly or generally or nominally many times, even by many of the churches themselves in question, and not all of it is considered totally “Biblical” necessarily by their own admission many times... It was just a minor clarification or elab...not necessary to remove. As I said, even the other editor Grranbahr conceded the point in a way (if you read his words above), and even said that the word "true" would or could be put in, or could be better in a way. As I said to BlackCab, if consensus truly builds against this minor good-faith (and sourced) elaboration, of course I'll respect that. But I am reverting you, Jeffro, well after 24 hours, given that your argument does not really stand or hold well against an accurate elaboration, per context, and per JW's own writings on the matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not 'failing to see' anything. I am aware the sentence expresses a JW view, and I am also aware that the extra use of 'biblical' is superfluous to the expression of JW belief already given. A group having a different biblical interpretation—or even the absense of a specific interpretation on a particular matter does not make the teachings of other groups 'unbiblical'. The additional adjective unnecessarily and incorrectly implies that JWs have a monopoly on what defines 'biblical Christianity'. You are actually misrepresentng the JW view, which is actually that all professed Christians shouldn't celebrate those things. Your wording makes an additional claim about an arbitrary subset of Christians' based on an ambiguous definition. You made your 'good-faith edit', and it was not supported by three separate editors; no editors have supported your view, and there is clearly no concensus in support of your edit. You should accept this and move on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You were wrong though in assuming that I was making an "a priori" anything, as it was stated per JW viewpoint and writings, not necessarily my own. It was per the sentence and context of how THEY word and view it. Remember the original sentence? It's from their point of view, that it's "biblical" or "true" Christianity that "pagan celebrations" are against. That's all that was meant. But thanks for assuming good faith with me. Also, you were wrong about "three separate editors". It's really only you and BlackCab. As I pointed out, Grranbahr conceded the point, and did NOT go on like you and BlackCab like this. It's only "two editors". Grranbahr even said that the word "true" could be warranted. So it's NOT three editors. He came (at least to some extent) to my view on this. Or at least not totally with yours. Also the point that there are churches in existence who even admit that they DON'T follow or really totally believe or go by the Bible really. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit may have been made in good faith, but it is still wrong. JWs believe that all religious groups professing to be Christian are 'judged by God'. They do not make a special concession for a subset of 'biblical Christians' or 'unbiblical Christians'. Their view is that anyone professing to be Christian (not 'biblical Christian') should not observe customs they consider to be pagan (though various observances with pagan origins—wedding rings, the Julian/Gregorian calendar, pinatas, etc.—are deemed acceptable by JWs). Grranbahr was the first editor to object to your edit, and has not conceded to your preferred wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You were wrong about "three separate editors". It's really only you and BlackCab. As I pointed out, Grranbahr conceded the point, and did NOT go on like you and BlackCab like this. It's only "two editors". Grranbahr even said that the word "true" could be warranted. So it's NOT three editors. He came (at least to some extent) to my view on this. Or at least not totally with yours.

Look at what he wrote:

^^^^^^^^so if adding a descriptive adjective according to their believes, it may should have been "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as it is all about their consideration. True Christianity could also be a contrary description to nominal Christianity.^^^^^^^^

So he conceded the point to some extent at least. I'm not saying that he was totally in agreement, but he was not so adamant against some descriptive term, as he offered the word "true" instead, and I conceded that to him, if you remember. (Also there's the point that there are churches in existence who even admit that they DON'T follow or really totally believe or go by the Bible really.) Gabby Merger (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Grranbahr suggested different wording, so there is still no concensus for the edit you keep saying you will restore. Additionally, Grranbahr's claim that 'true Christianity' is 'contrary' to 'nominal Christianity' is an inappropriate POV. As already stated, any particular group may have a particular interpretation or even an absense of a specific interpretation of what the Bible says. Different groups interpret the Bible in different ways, with varying degrees of latitude. Different groups say, "When the Bible says such-and-such, we interpret it this way" or, "When the Bible says such-and-such, we're not sure" (neither of which are 'unbiblical'). No Christian group says, "The Bible says such-and-such, but we completely reject what it says" (which would be 'unbiblical').--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not insist on just that wording. As I pointed out already, I conceded Grranbahr's wording or suggestion. If you notice what I wrote higher above. But the point is that he himself conceded my overall point to some extent at least. I'm not saying that he was totally in agreement, but he was not so adamant against some descriptive term, as he offered the word "true" instead, and I conceded that to him, as you remember and notice. You're saying now though that even his suggestion or word was inappropriate POV. I agree that it's POV IF (and only if) the context was giving the impression that Wikipedia itself agreed with it. But it's only in the context of how JWs themselves are defining it and making it more precise. I do agree with your point that JWs believe that all (even nominal) "Christianity" should not be engaging in "pagan things". So I'll concede and yield on that basis. Although I do still say that "true" or "biblical" could theoretically have been left there, per context of the viewpoint in question, and for clarity or preciseness. Coulda gone either way is my point. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit Jeffro77 got a point when saying to claim true Christianity to be contrary to nominal Christianity, would be POV, as it indirectly claims that all nominal Christianity is false. That was not my intentions. My point about using "true Christianity" was ment to be used only if the sentence could be descriptive to reflect the JW view. JW doesn't neccessary always use true Christians about all the members of JW as individuals, but JW think of JW as a group as the only true Christians, and the term is also used for description of certain behaviour or in the purpose of internal education ("a true Christian wouldn't do [so], and a true Christian will be careful about doing [something else]").

Use of Biblical Christianity looks rather misleading here anyway, as JW does not claim no other Christian religions are using the Bible but they claim themselves to be in possition of the only true interpretation of the Bible. To reflect the JW view of the Christians living according to their interpretation of the Bible, their view of celebration of holidays with pagan background included, "true" is more descriptive than "Biblical", and JW is actually using the fact that other Christians are celebrating these holidays, as an argument for their claim of JW to be in possition of "the truth". My conclusion is, if the sentence is not ment to reflect the JW opinion of what Christians who are living according to a set of interpretations, it would be best to leave out any descriptive adjective, because of POV and redundance. If it could be read as reflecting the JW view of Christians living according to the JW interpretation of the Bible, "Biblical Christian" wouldn't fit in anyway, but a term as "true" may do. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The thing is, the sentence is descriptive of JWs' view. But JWs do not [officially] believe that only JWs 'shouldn't' engage in celebrations they deem as pagan. Rather, they believe that any group professing to be Christian 'shouldn't' engage in such customs. (The fact that they do not attempt to enforce this on members of other groups is not relevant to their belief, nor even is the fact that various customs acceptable to JWs have pagan origins.) There are almost certainly no Christian groups that would be willing to say they are 'unbiblical'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

JW does not seek ecumenical connections with other Christians, and do not really separate other Christians (as they in general consider false Christians) from believers of non-Christian religions, as it all represents "false religion" (I haven't included very topic related views, like their interpretation of the prostitute in the Revelations). In the degree a JW consider that a non-JW person shouldn't engage in any actions, JW does not separate in particular other Christians from non Christians, and apart from pointing out where other Christian groups are practicing what they consider false teachings (true Christianity need false Christianity to exist), JW as a religion doesn't really engage in changing other religions believes, but seek to find individuals willing to give up what they consider false teachings. JW does very often make use of "true Christians" when adressing perosns living according to their teachings. As JW consider most non-JW Christians as "false Christians", it would be more correct to state that "[t]hey do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity", as not even JW themselves could or would claim that Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays not could be perfectly compatible with what they would describe as false Christianity. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your response about 'ecumenical connections' is not at all relevant here. As I already quite clearly stated, "The fact that they do not attempt to enforce this on members of other groups is not relevant to their belief". The fact remains that JWs consider certain pagan customs to be inappropriate for any group professing to be Christian (though other pagan customs are deemed to be okay). There's no need for us to incorporate a no true Scotsman fallacy into the lead by talking about 'true' Christians. (Their belief that only they are 'true Christians' is properly addressed in the relevant section.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses don't make any special distinctions about professed Christian groups among other 'false religions'. This is also incorrect. For example, they [officially] believe that "God’s judgments on Babylon the Great will especially be visited on Christendom, since she is the guiltiest part of that satanic conglomerate" (The Watchtower, 1 June 1991, page 23.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Then we could remove the word "incompatible with Christianity". JW the religion doesn't endorse Christmas celebration, if done by non-christians either (Christmas is celebrated far outside the Christian world). I would challenge you to find a source which supports that JW does not find celebrating holidays suitable for other Christians, but suitable for non-Christians. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

By that rationale, we could list any of various celebrations, such as Ramadan, Hanuukkah or Kwanzaa. But you know (or reasonably should know) that Christmas is specifically listed because JWs are Christian and the sentence is talking about celebrations that are typically associated with Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I knew you couldn't. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There is still no need for the adjective "true" in ... "they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity". JWs consider they are Christians. They do not celebrate Christmas, Easter etc because they believe those traditions have origins that are incompatible with Christians. The word "true" is simply redundant. BlackCab (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr's snide comment, I knew you couldn't is apparently in reference to his 'challenge' to find a source about an entirely redundant point. I'm under no obligation to 'accept' any such 'challenge', because I've already indicated that the context of the statement in the lead does not require the distinction Grrahnbahr is trying to assert.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Jeffro77 did find the point redundant, I've removed it. JW do not reject that other Christians are Christians, and does not reject that other groups selfidentifying themselves as Christians, do celebrate different holidays. To claim "[t]hey do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity", is pretty much the same as claiming JW thinks of people celebrating these holidays, as not Christian. That is a claim that needs to be sourced. JW (both the religion and the members) may consider people celebrating these holidays, for not to be true Christians, but to claim JW to consider these people not to be Christians, is taking it far. A source I've found, did though state that JW found some specific holidays to be "unbiblical" (from Norwegian ("ubibelsk", meaning literally "unbiblical", but could may be translated "not according to the Bible"). Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your latest comments (and indeed your latest edit here) seem to be rather petulant and argumentive, but the current wording (with the shorter sentence) is adequate. BlackCab (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, to all involved in this particular matter. I observed the situation. Ok this is what I did. I modified that statement this way now. And there really should be no objection to this, from anybody, on any real grounds. It's a fair compromise, at the end of sentence in question, put in "incompatible with the Bible"? The fuller statement reading this way: "or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with the Bible." That's NOT "redundant" at all really in that sense, and it's definitely a sourced statement, per the JW view...and is an elaboration fitting. (But of course, true to form, BlackCab has to find some uptight problem with it, and disrespect a good-faith and accurate and sourced edit...so he/she reverted, so I reverted it back. There's NO justification or need to edit-war on THAT now...) Gabby Merger (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A celebration cannot be compatible or incompatible with the Bible. The statement is ridiculously broad and meaningless. It's a widely interpreted religious book, not a piece of legislation. BlackCab (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The WP policy is to NOT totally remove or revert something you have an issue with or don’t like, that is sourced, good-faith, and accurate, but to either leave alone and respect, or at most to maybe modify the wording. NOT to totally delete. If you don’t like words “incompatible with the Bible”, why not (for example) put it instead as “incompatible with Bible teachings” or something like that? Instead what you do is totally diss someone’s good faith and arguably allowable accurate edit or mod, for whatever uptight reason or rationale. Acting like you own this article. Why? Why edit-war over something like this?? This is a WIKI. Understand what that means. Something that is not vandalism or inaccurate (and this isn’t, because such language and wording is fitting and also used by JWs articles and writings themselves all the time), or not un-sourced (this modification is definitely sourced and referenced), should NOT be reverted so easily, or willy nilly, on Wikipedia. That’s arrogance and disrespect. To YOU "it's ridiculous"...as far as the wording....but maybe not to everyone else. Plus that’s wording used in JW’s own writings. The point is from the JW standpoint, and the wording in the sentence is pretty clear.

THEY feel that pagan celebrations are "incompatible with the Bible"...or Bible teachings. And as far as it not being a "piece of legislation" and only a "religious book". Is that why the Bible has so many "LAWS" in it and regulations and rules? Yeah, it has been viewed as also a Law Book too, by certain churches, on how to act. That's why the very word "Torah" means "Law", etc? That's why the Psalms say "they did not obey My laws"? There's definitely a "law" aspect to the Bible, as anyone honest can see. You're wrong on all counts on this. Again, thought, that's regardless anyway, as it's only from the JW viewpoint anyway, that the sentence is making the statement. And you could find the wording meaningless all you want, but this is a WIKI...and you don't own the article...finally get that...and the WP policy to MAYBE MODIFY WORDING...not to totally remove and disrespect... Gabby Merger (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The following acts are, presumably, "compatible with the Bible": stoning adulterers to death (God required it); shunning menstruation women (God required it); slaughtering entire populations (God did it); prostituting your wife (Abraham did it); committing incest (Lot did it with his eldest daughter); celebrating birthdays (Job did it); and practising polygamy (Abraham again). The phrase is nonsensical. BlackCab (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That’s wording used in JW’s own writings. The point is from the JW standpoint, and the wording in the sentence is pretty clear. And obviously it's mainly from the NEW COVENANT standpoint, (like Corinthians etc), about "touch not the unclean thing" and "be ye separate" etc...but where there's no "stoning of witches" etc. To your Old Mosaic Law Covenant references. The point is that THEY feel that pagan celebrations are "incompatible with the Bible"...or Bible teachings. Again, you can feel the phrase is "non-sensical" all you want. According to WP policy and recommendation, you're to leave the edit alone. YOU DON'T OWN THE ARTICLE. And neither does Jeffro77 for that matter. You prove that you remove things for "I don't like" reasons all the time. It's just your opinion and not a documented fact that the phrase "pagan celebrations incompatible with the Bible" is so meaningless or ridiculous. (None of what you mentioned, by the way, are "pagan things"...also by the way, you're wrong when you assume Job "celebrated birthdays". That's not what it says in Job... It says he celebrated "his day", but it's not clear that it was an actual "birthday celebration"...sidepoint.) You can find personal uptight problems with the phrasing all you want. Matters not one iota. You're NOT to remove it, as you don't own this article, and you have no right to disrespect good-faith accurate sourced things, and cause disturbance and annoyance like this, especially over something so minor, things that are stated in the sources and writings themselves, with that very same phrasing. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And the following things would, presumably, be "incompatible with the Bible": eating bacon, wearing a garment containing both wool and linen, making a statue, women teaching, women running a company, women wearing a short haircut ... Just more examples, Gabby, showing it's a meaningless statement. That really has to go. BlackCab (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Old Mosaic Law Covenant things when that's totally irrelevant both to the actual point, and also to the issue that not one of those things you mentioned (and have problems with) are "pagan celebrations". Again, it's how JWs phrase things in their own writings. This isn't necessary, to go on like this. But no way will this edit go. Not without serious discussion and BIG consensus. You're turning this into an edit war, because you're used to having your way on this article. But the edit stays. You revert, I revert back. Never violating 3RR, though. Regardless of what you or Jeffro do. You love to bully on this article? For years now. Aint gonna happen here. You need to learn manners and respect. And lose the arrogance. And learn Wikipedia policy.

It’s irrelevant whether YOU feel the wording is “ridiculous” or “meaningless” based on your obvious disdain for both JWs and for the Bible itself. What matters is that it’s the wording used by said party in question, and is sourced, a valid good-faith modification, and what also matters is that in those cases, you’re to leave the edit alone. Period. And to understand that you have no ownership of this article, or any other, on Wikipedia. Good-faith and accurate sourced additions are to be respected, regardless of your personal uptight feelings on these matters. And to not cause anger and edit wars. You don’t understand how you violate WP principles when you do things like this.

Wikipedia policy:

“but if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Also:

"Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."

WP:RV and WP:REVEXP

Gabby Merger (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Per user's talk page. The point is I don't necessarily agree that it is "clumsy or silly language" at all. You say that. And maybe some others. But many other people (in and out of WP editing) would find the phrasing fine, and understandable. Hence why I said it IS "I don't like" on your part. Because you're not gonna deny ("plucking" phrase or not) that JWs (and even others) have worded things just that way, in general. Such as "incompatible with Bible teachings" or "out of harmony with Scripture", etc. I'm sorry, but having "pagan origins incompatible with the Bible" is not all that "shitty", as you put it, or would not necessarily make the article so. Especially in the context there, that JWs don't just feel pagan things should be avoided on their own basis, or on the basis of the Koran, but by what they feel is stuff that would not line up right with Scripture. (Such as the Corinthians and Isaiah stuff, etc). Gabby Merger (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

After claiming several times that his/her wording is "sourced" ([9][10], this user has now backtracked to say that the Watch Tower Society "have worded things just that way, in general." [11] And later, "'sourced' in that it IS something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know." [12] All too vague, and the wording is very poor. BlackCab (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's NOT a "probably" situation, and it's not an "assumption". They (and others) have said things just like that, either verbatim, or very similar. Not sure what the big deal or problem is. (Also, you yourself said that it didn't have to be exactly "mirrored", remember?) I already explained how it's correct, or at least how it can be understood, and how it's meant, the phrase "pagan celebrations not IN LINE with the Bible's overall drift or teaching or commands", etc. When I say it is "sourced", I'm not saying that there's a specific ref right after the sentence, saying it in that way, per se. But "sourced" in that it is something that's been said many times by JWs, as anyone who has read their literature would know. No "assumption" necessary. And whether the actual addition at the end is so "necessary" is not the point. It's a valid mod, no matter what you think, or the stuff you went on about "menstruation" or "stoning witches". JWs (and some other similar groups, such as the Armstrongites, etc) believe that the holidays etc are pagan in background and not in harmony with Scripture. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Incompatible with the Bible" is far too vague, the celebrations in question are never mentioned in the Bible at all, and JW publications never say those celebrations are specifically 'incompatible with the Bible'. I have restored the wording that is more directly related to what JWs actually believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

first off, JWs have said it that way, or things like "not in harmony with Scripture" etc. And secondly, if you find it "too vague", then you still should not remove something, because YOU find it "too vague" or not satisfactory...but instead maybe reword where it's not as "vague". Per WP policy on NOT reverting.

Wikipedia policy:

“but if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Also:

"Only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while following the principle of preserving information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page."

WP:RV and WP:REVEXP

Gabby Merger (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your objection here doesn't apply, as your edit doesn't add anything notable to the statement and isn't supported by any sources. JW literature doesn't make a point of saying these celebrations are 'incompatible' with the Bible. Your continued objections about a trivial and inaccurate point without any concensus are becoming disruptive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Modified wording again

I just changed it a bit...with better wording, it's clearer...less "vague"...to "origins that they find incompatible with the Scriptural teachings." Though I'm sure you'll both find problems with that too. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're just making it more wordy without actually saying anything extra. Your change is not an improvement and is less accurate than the previous wording about their beliefs about practices that are acceptable for Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hence why I said what I said at the end, and why your revert will now get reverted by me again. You and BlackCab don't own this article, and you're not to impose your personal tastes and hang-ups on a wiki, against WP policy. Your constant bullying on this article is not to be tolerated. Stop edit-warring. If REAL consensus is ever reached on this, of course I yield. But you and BlackCab do NOT constitute consensus. So you need to stop this already. Seriously. You don't own this article. Also, I have no real problem with the "for Christians" or "Christianity". My original point was that the word "Christianity" though was itself a bit too "vague", and broad, and general, as there is such a thing as just "nominal Christianity". My only modification was to make the point more about the Bible itself, and how JWs view pagan celebrations as specifically against THAT. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No one agrees with your edit, Gabby. Accept and move on. BlackCab (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You and Jeffro do NOT constitute "everybody". You both like to think you run this article, and make up "consensus". But that nonsense has nothing to do with actual Wikipedia policy. You're full of yourselves, on this matter, is the problem. If 5 or 6 editors had a big hang-up with that modification, that's one thing. But just you and Jeffro? No, not quite. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that additional users addressing the topic might develop a better consensus you might consider an article WP:RFC or other valid dispute resolution avenues. You obviously aren't achieving anything by your current course of action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, by the way, to Jeffro77... I made a slight mistake in the wording. I did not mean to have it as "incompatible with THE Scriptural teachings". I meant to have it as "with Scriptural teachings" without the word "the". Regardless though, your removal is unwarranted and against WP policy and recommendation. To "re-word" not "revert". You and BlackCab don't seem to ever want to go that route, though, which is why both of you are so often in dispute pages regarding this article. I'm not the only editor who has had to deal with this type of thing. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of an essay (not even a guideline) is not policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a problem: reasoned objections to your edits are dismissed as "a big hang-up" and editors who disagree with you are described as "full of themselves". I'm not sure these discussions can lead anywhere fruitful. BlackCab (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that Wikipedia's policy, as a general guideline, is not to modify wording over just willy nilly completely removing? No...that IS the "recommendation" I said. And "essay" is all that Wikipedia guidelines (to a greater or lesser extent) are anyway. As this whole thing is really a "wiki" in the first place, set up by the "community". But the point is that "I don't like" is a real policy, and is violated arguably by both of you. There's nothing TECHNICALLY wrong with "pagan origins they find incompatible with Scriptural teachings"...yet you and BlackCab (if one of you does or says one thing, it seems the other automatically will agree) find uptight fault with it. And diss good-faith accurate edits, simply because of personal arguments of "too wordy". You can find it "too wordy", personally, no problem. You're allowed to feel that way, of course. But you're NOT to impose that on someone else's work...so willy nilly, and disrespect their additions and edits...against WP recommendation.

WP recommends to Only revert vandalism or truly inaccurate things, etc. Not wordings that you and your partner don't happen to like. As I said, I respect these two things, whether I agree with what is going on or not: 3RR and real "consensus". If real genuine consensus (not just you and BlackCab, because given the history, that's really not nearly enough), has this much of an issue or (to be frank) a hang-up over these things, then I back off. I respect, though don't agree. I know what's what. But "no own" means something, and you're fooling yourselves if you both think that you have not violated that majorly on this specific article over the months and years. And that's just not cool or fair to other editors who mean well, and do well. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly evident that you're just arguing for the sake of it. I have already directed you to appropriate dispute resolution avenues. It's also evident that you don't understand that essays are not policies, guidelines or formal recommendations. Further, you're arguing for wording that simply is not an improvement, and is not found in JW publications, despite your repeated claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And it is fairly obvious that you'll rudely dismiss sincere points and not consider anything, and that you and BlackCab will never change. I didn't start this "argument", either. You and BlackCab are incapable of leaving edits alone that you personally don't like. But what I said before still stands. I respect 3RR and genuine consensus on Talk pages. It's up to YOU if you want to take it to a "dispute page". You want to bypass getting real consensus on the article talk because you and BlackCab like to think you already reached it (as if you and BlackCab are the only contributors to ever answer to?) Get real consensus on here etc, then I back off. Also, the wording is in JW publications, but even if you don't find it quite like that, even BlackCab said that it does not have to exactly "mirror" word-for-word there. But you'll deny that JWs have said that pagan celebrations are against the Bible? Really? This is unnecessarily edit-warring and bickering, when you feel that this article is being edited in ways you both personally don't like, and you both try to control and own it. Not cool, and not kosher. The wording "pagan origins which they feel is against Scriptural teachings" will be restored sooner or later. I'm busy now though, as I don't spend all day on Wikipedia. Gabby Merger (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you imagine that three (or even two) editors disagreeing with your edits doesn't represent any kind of consensus, then in what bizarre parallel universe does your single opinion become more relevant? I have already directed you to the appropriate course of dispute resolution if you believe your view may receive a broader consensus. There is no point continuing to argue and complain here. JWs say that such celebrations are not supported by the Bible, but that isn't the same as directly saying they're against the Bible. The Bible does not even mention those celebrations (the Bible does mention birthdays, but does not say that birthday celebrations are inherently wrong). But you're welcome to provide a citation from JW literature that explicitly supports your claim. In any case, your addition is redundant, because the existing wording concisely states that JWs do not engage in certain customs that they consider to have pagan origins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the statement regarding JW attitudes to pagan customs, restoring earlier wording. JWs do engage in various customs that have pagan origins. They only object to pagan customs that they consider to be incompatible with Christianity. I have already provided examples at Talk of customs with pagan origins to which JWs do not object.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of surprised at you, because overall I think you did good work on this article, and showed good knowledge of the JWs and their beliefs and doctrines. Of course they have stated that "pagan celebrations" are "against" the Bible, in that they are "against" the Bible's teachings about "touch not the unclean thing" and "be ye separate" and "do not mix the true with the false" and "what does Christ have to do with idols" etc. The position being that pagan customs and holidays (yes, "not supported" by the Bible) are also "against" it (both "Testaments" actually), about remaining pure from the world, and "cup of demons" etc. Again, as I said before, something this minor is just a bit weird to me that it should be the subject of this much debate and argument or problem. Also, it seems that in a way, it's also "grahn" who also saw a point, though obviously not in total agreement with either me or you and BlackCab. If there was at least three or four editors clearly saying what you and BlackCab have been doing and saying (or similar) regarding this new wording, I right away back off. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You are making conclusions that are not directly stated in the Bible, and JW interpretation of the scriptures you loosely allude to are beyond the scope of the lead. I have already directed you to other avenues of dispute resolution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that BlackCab and I "want to bypass getting real consensus on the article talk because you and BlackCab like to think you already reached it" is entirely false. The lead in particular of this article was the subject of extreme scrutiny by several editors with various viewpoints to arrive at consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, another point is that the wording that I had it did not even have the word "against". But was simply "...pagan origins that they feel are not compatible with...". Which is of course undeniably true...in that that's how JWs feel about it, and view it. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Unlike those other celebrations that the Bible doesn't address, working on the Sabbath is a custom that is incompatible with the Bible. JWs avoid customs they believe are incompatible with Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

True, and that's why at first I had it as "incompatible with biblical Christianity", as opposed to just what is considered nominal or professed or general "Christianity". Also, obviously "pagan celebrations" are "not compatible with the Bible" in general, in JW view, ...so that technically such a statement is accurate. My original point though is that I felt a wee bit modification was good to have to bring out the fact that JWs don't celebrate these things because they feel it's not in line with something, specifically the Bible, or the New Covenant Scriptures, or their interpretation of it. And there was no big problem having that minor elaboration. Yes, ok, "Christianity" implies a Biblical situation, that is true, but for many years now, the generic term "Christianity" alone may not always be clear or precise enough. As, again, there are a number of "liberal churches" etc, that even admit that they don't necessarily go totally by the Bible in everything, either in doctrine or practice. Also, the term, despite BlackCab's protestations or opinions on it, "Biblical Christianity" IS a sourced and used term (in and out of JW literature). As is "true Christianity" (per Grahmm's suggestion). And it was just a bit more clear and descriptive. Either "biblical" or "true Christianity" could have theoretically been there. Per JW view context. "True Christianity" is a term definitely used by JWs (and others) many times. And it's not POV if WP is giving that contextually as the view of the group in question, in the sentence. (By the way, to your "wedding ring" and "Gregorian calendar" old line... First off, Gregorian calendar and pagan names of week days are not even in the same universe as pagan Christmas, as we have NO CHOICE and we're kind of stuck using these calendar days. Forced in a way. Nobody is forced to put up pagan Christmas trees though, and sing to it, and fool around with reindeer, mistletoe, and yule logs. Comparison fail, big time. As for "wedding rings". There's a better argument, but even that's not necessarily a formal celebration on a set date of pagan origin, a pagan date, mixing the true with the false. The holidays are clearly that, as even admitted by those who observe them. The Bible does not condemn jewelry in general, or decorations or weddings, or wedding parties, etc, but it does clearly condemn mixing the true with the false, and making idols out of things, which is what Christmas and Easter do big time. Sun-God dates and trappings, dumped on Christ's supposed birth date. Not the correct date to begin with. They're NOT the same, and you should know that. Especially the extremely weak and desperate line that I've heard before, and had to laugh at, of "Gregorian calendar"...as if anyone really has a choice but to use that. Even religious Jews use that too, in life's dealings, because it's really unavoidable. Putting up trees around Solstice time, and decking it with Nimrod testicle ornaments, and astrological stars, etc, etc, is not unavoidable, and does NOT have to be done. That's clearly a choice. Week day names, and Gregorian calendar, are NOT really something to choose or not choose, in daily life. It's just something, especially in certain countries, where everyone is stuck with. They're not formal "observances" or "celebrations", in that sense. There's a big distinction...sidepoints....) Gabby Merger (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it is clear the statement is ment to cover up for the view of JW, it is pretty clear the current statement is way to inaccurate. I have a neutral source stating JW find those different holidays "unbiblical", but non that states JW find these holidays not to "compatible with Christianity" without a further explanation about the Christianity-part. I've already asked Jeffro77 for a source if still insisting of keeping the current wording. If in doubt about the JW view, the book The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life (published by WTBTS, 1981) states: "EASTER AND CHRISTMAS: Easter is Christendom’s chief religious holiday, said to be held in memory of Christ’s being raised from the dead. But did Christ give a command to celebrate his resurrection? No, he did not. History books tell us that Easter was not celebrated by early Christians and that it is based on ancient pagan practices. (...) Christendom’s chief holiday, Easter, therefore finds no support at all in the Bible. It is of pagan origin, and therefore displeasing to God. What about Christmas? By checking reference works in a public library, you will find that it was unknown among the earliest Christians. How much more important it is for true Christians today to shun a celebration that was never authorized by God, that stems from pagan Babylon, and that falsely bears the name of Christ! True Christians have something finer than pagan celebrations. They have..." and so on (please check the source yourself if any doubt about the context given). The quote is from a book from the early 1980's, but there are no bigger changes in the JW doctine in these matters: They still doesn't celecrate different holidays, but doesn't reject them for being Christian holidays. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity" is not inaccurate. The book you cited above includes the statement that Christmas was "unknown among the earliest Christians. How much more important it is for true Christians today to shun a celebration that was never authorized by God, that stems from pagan Babylon, and that falsely bears the name of Christ!" It is an adequate and accurate summary of that material to say the celebration (and others) are "incompatible with Christianity". The phrase "true Christians" contained in the source provided is obviously JW jargon and is not necessary to represent this religion's outlook in an encyclopedia. That said, the sentence can equally well end with the phrase "... to have pagan origins" without elaboration. I am comfortable with either, but the elaboration does add a brief explanation that removes any doubt for readers unfamiliar with the religion. BlackCab (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply ending the sentence with "...to have pagan origins" is misleading. As already explained, JWs do engage in various customs that have pagan origins. Though they object to essentially all popular celebrations, they only object to a subset of customs with pagan origins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

GabbyMerger claims above, that's why at first I had it as "incompatible with biblical Christianity", as opposed to just what is considered nominal or professed or general "Christianity". That statement only demonstrates that biblical in that statement is redundant. The JW view of what would constitute biblical Christianity (an expression that never appears in JW literature in association with their views about 'pagan' celebrations, despite Gabby Merger's claims; the phrase was occasionally used in their literature in association with their restorationism, but has not been used at all in their literature since 1984) is no different to what JWs consider to be Christianity, which they distinguish from 'Christendom'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger also claims, First off, Gregorian calendar and pagan names of week days are not even in the same universe as pagan Christmas ... Comparison fail, big time. Gabby Merger needs to properly read the sentence in question in the article. It refers to celebrations and customs, not only celebrations, and certainly not only Christmas. Plus, it isn't 'mandatory' even for people who do celebrate Christmas to "put up pagan Christmas trees though, and sing to it, and fool around with reindeer, mistletoe, and yule logs" anyway. And I really really hope that Gabby Merger is aware that not everyone in the world uses the Gregorian calendar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical aside: In 1935 Clayton Woodworth, eccentric editor of the Golden Age, proposed over the course of three articles a new calendar to be followed by the JWs. It removed all names with pagan origin and substituted them with names such as Logos, Vindication, Temple ... and Lightday, Starday, Earthday etc. Ultimately the leadership decided they could live with those particular pagan-originated names. BlackCab (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's in a sense "custom", the point about the Gregorian calendar is that it is in actuality unavoidable, and not a formal observance in some ritualistic religious sense, that is by choice. And of course I knew (if you got my "especially in some countries" point) that not all go by the Gregorian Calendar. And? So? When you're in a country or region where commerce, trade, business, life, work, appointments, etc, are going by that, it's not easy to avoid that. Hence the comparison fail with something like "Christmas"...and it's a laughable argument that I've heard from anti-Witnesses before. The fact that one has to resort to things like "days of the week from Vikings" or "Gregorian calendar" shows a bit of desperation, and lack of real understanding, and lack of honesty.) And to your search of WT library and literature indexes etc...try the phrase "Bible Christianity". That will probably pop up. "Biblical Christianity" apparently not always. But I do recollect seeing somewhere the phrase "Bible Christianity". (And definitely the phrase "true Christianity") Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The grammatically poor term "Bible Christianity" is never used in JW literature in association with the celebrations in question, though it is used a couple of times in reference to the Trinity doctrine. There is no need for 'desperation' in order for the sentence to be accurate. It was accurate before you began insisting on changing it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, to BlackCab. Minor point. True enough that the term "true Christianity" is, as you put it, "JW jargon", but I do hope you know that it's not only "JW jargon". Baptists, and Presbyterians, and Assemblies of God, etc, ministers, writers, have used that term many times too. And, Jeffro77, it does not matter that JWs used the term "Bible Christianity" in the context of the "Trinity" doctrine, because it's a general point, and also they consider a "co-equal trinity" doctrine and concept to be un-Scriptural and of "pagan origins" too. So, then, "Bible Christianity" can't honestly be said to be so radically different than the phrase "Biblical Christianity". To say that would be dishonest hair-splitting. Obviously they have said things to that basic wording and effect. They have of course used the phrase "true Christianity" many more times. But as I mentioned to BlackCab, the phrase "true Christianity" is not exclusively "JW jargon". Though it is their "jargon" as well. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that it is entirely unnecessary to further qualify the word 'Christianity' in the sentence in question for the reasons already stated. The sentence already says that it's talking about JW's views of Christianity. Any additional adjectives are redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger claims above, the point about the Gregorian calendar is that it is in actuality unavoidable, and not a formal observance in some ritualistic religious sense. People also do not celebrate birthdays in a 'ritualistic religious sense', and a great many people don't even celebrate Christmas in a religious sense. Many of the customs associated with weddings are pagan and they are certainly not unavoidable either yet they are acceptable to JWs, so the distinction Gabby Merger attempted to make is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Spare me. The difference is GI-NORMOUS, and only people with huge axes to grind against the JW religion can't see or understand that. You're not gonna say that dealing with certain general every day calendar dates and "days of the week" are "avoidable", in many regions and parts of the world, where it's the standard, without choice. Versus going out of your way to set a day to commemorate and celebrate someone's birthday, and where the person blows out candles. The two are not comparable EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST...yet desperately you're comparing them, to make some weird silly point of JWs "picking and choosing" what pagan customs to adhere to and not. Just because of Gregorian calendar having "pagan origins". Remember, we're living in a pagan world, if one is honest about it. And the system is set up with things like calendars in many regions and countries, that people are basically (again, if one is honest) STUCK with...with no real choice. But certain things, like celebrations and holidays, of worldly or pagan character, according to Armstrongites, and Russellites, etc, are in a different category, where Scripture way more clearly speaks against or speaks about. There is obviously a choice whether to put up and deck a Christmas tree, compared to having to carry out daily life and functions, with certain calendar systems, that everyone else around you is using. Nothing is "irrelevant" in my pointing out the big differences, and seriously flawed comparison, but you're being really arrogant and stubborn on this matter now for some reason, as is BlackCab, to admit or see anything about that. YOU brought this nonsense up about "Gregorian Calendar", not I. I was just addressing and correcting your lame and irrelevant comparison. You WANT there to be a "choice" in Gregorian Calendar matters, to try to bolster up your view (anti-JW view obviously) that somehow it's a matter of easy choice. No, putting up Christmas trees (which is what most people do, when they consider themselves "celebrating" or "observing Christmas"), and all the trappings involved with that is clear undeniable choice. Saying "I'll have to set up the appointment for the doctor's visit for January 28th" when you're dealing with receptionists, in a region where that type of calendar system is used, is either totally impossible to avoid, or next to impossible. So not sure why you feel the need to bring up (more than once in your other posts) this thing about "Gregorian calendar", just because JWs don't celebrate, per their understanding of Scriptural tenets about not mixing pagan false things with true things, etc, what they generally consider worldly or pagan holidays etc. Because if it was so easy to avoid the "Gregorian calendar" usage, I ask you then, why don't JWs do that? And why don't they use something else? What exactly is the reason, then, do you think, if it's so easy to avoid, and it's just a matter of choice? Why do they use the Gregorian calendar, in daily life? (Sighs...) Because it's the STANDARD, and it has nothing really to do with religious conscious chosen celebrations, in that sense. As for your birthday celebrations is not religious argument, again, read their "Reasoning" brown book (as I know you have) where it talks about the customs involved with that. "Making a wish in front of lighted candles" being really a "prayer" to some birthday god or demon. And the whole idea of "self-glorification" in a FORMAL celebration of one's own birth. Nobody has to celebrate their own birthday or those of others. People uh kinda have to deal with calendar dates in daily life. Why, Jeffro, do you bring this up, and harp on it? Pot-kettle-black, when you say "irrelevant". Your "Gregorian calendar" cop-out is so irrelevant, it's like not funny, to the actual real discussion and point of what JWs consider "Bible Christianity" being incompatible with "pagan holidays" etc. And remember...the sentence in question, in the article, was really dealing with pagan holidays. The Gregorian calendar system is not actually a "pagan holiday". Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the last change, as Jeffro77 have not added any sources to the claim. A source is needed, as Jeffro77 have suggested an inconsistency for what holidays and customs JW may not observe. I've also proposed indicative sources for an opposite claim in this talk page (the book sited above), which strengthens a need for a source for Jeffro77's claim. Jeffro77 are free to ask for a 3O, if disagreeing. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted, with a citation dealing specifically with this issue. BlackCab (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's quite odd that prior to Gabby Merger's assertions, the sentence in question been the stable version for many months, and it is that to that version I restored the sentence, and it is the same sentence that Grrahnbahr restored it when he initially reverted Gabby Merger's initial edit[13]. Yet Grrahnbahr has felt the need to start claiming that 'I' have suddenly made some 'unsourced claim'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Page 27 of the Awake! magazine of 8 January 2000, addresses JWs' view of "When a Christian must decide whether or not to follow a certain custom". The article states, "For example, many popular wedding customs—including the exchanging of rings and the eating of cake—may have pagan origins. Does this mean that Christians are forbidden to observe such customs? Are Christians required to scrutinize meticulously each custom of the community to see whether somewhere or at some time it had negative connotations?" The article concludes that—on the basis of their compatiblity with Christianity—not all customs with pagan origins are rejected by Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)