Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 65

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 60

←

Archive 63

Archiving of discussions

I noticed that the archive bot is set at 2 weeks, personally I feel that this is very small amount of time for input from editors, as there are times I personally, let alone other editors, visit this page less frequently and this gives little time for input or even awareness of certain discussions to which editors might otherwise contribute. I think this time-frame should be extended to at a minimum of 6 months before archiving. Willietell (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think 6 months is way too long, as most conversations/issues get settled within a few weeks. But if it is 2 weeks that does seem a little short to me. I would think archive bot set at 3 months would be ideal. Vyselink (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaving threads for six months before archiving could leave the talk page cluttered because at times it becomes quite active. I agree two weeks is too short; two or three months should be sufficient. BlackCab (TALK) 23:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have increased the archival period from 14 days to 90 days. This should be sufficient for most discussions; it is quite unusual that someone returns to a discussion that has no input for 3 months, and in such cases it is generally better to start a new section anyway. The archival period can be reviewed as necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Cult

Why does the lede start with:

Jehovah's Witnesses is a cult

when the word cult is generally regarded as negative? Isn't a religious movement or religious denomination more neutral? Then, if a general opinion is that JW is a cult can be elaborated in a section "Opposing views", "Criticism", "Controversies" or some such? (With proper sourcing). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Every so often a random IP user comes on and changes it. It's usually caught pretty quickly, but short of banning all IP users from editing the page, which personally I am COMPLETELY for, it is simply going to keep happening. If you see that it's happened, revert it, there is no need to bring it up on the talk page. Vyselink (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The 'cult' edit survived for less than a minute before it was reverted. You must have been 'lucky' (not sure that's the right word) to have even seen it. (And I'm also all for blocking anonymous edits to the article.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

IP Block

Ok. I think it's about time that we, as responsible Wikipedia editors, seriously consider putting an IP block on the page. The near constant changes by either JW's or anti-JW's is getting ridiculous. We have to revert "JW's are a CULT" or "Founder: Jehovah God" so often that it's absurd. Not to mention other changes that are constantly made to the doctrines and history etc etc etc. Just a thought, but it's getting a little old. Vyselink (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes please. It's 'interesting' that a brand new editor (Anthony x7 (talk · contribs)) made the same edit as the previous IPv4 editor subsequent to you suggesting blocking IPs. At least blocking IP editors would filter out some of the crazies though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty then, how do we go about getting the IP block? I think the most recent edit by an IP user (here) while swiftly changed by ClueBot, shows the type of ridiculousness and potentially dangerous information that is constantly being added to or changed by unregistered users. Vyselink (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made a request at WP:RPP. BlackCab (TALK) 02:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I support the idea of a block. I logged in to undo a bit of vandalism, but thankfully, someone beat me to it. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the doctrines or practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, people come here to learn about the religion, its history and practices, and do not want to be subjected to a flame war. (Skelta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skelta (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The request for protection was declined with the comment: "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection." BlackCab (TALK) 09:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sigh.Vyselink (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Despite being one of the "IP"s (albeit a fixed one), I think that it would be reasonable. If I had changes to suggest I would most likely discuss them here first, even if the page was not locked. I presume that this would also be true of other non-vandals. The topic is sensitive, and the article already mentions the notable issues. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse material

I was wondering, are the public transcripts (https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney.aspx) produced by the commission, or its collection of public exhibits, usable as reliable sources for some commonly discussed issues of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Although the details about sexual abuse mishandling are probably best covered elsewhere, there are other interesting aspects highlighted by the commission. A few examples:

- The characterization of the religion as a "captive organization" by the commission, in relation to both disfellowshipping and disassociating resulting in shunning

- The mention that baptism is often rushed into at an age where the full consequences of this serious life commitment contract are not properly appreciated

- The details concerning shunning requirements (i.e. minors living in the household being the sole exception)

- The observation that the religion's established court system and rules are considered primary and more important than the secular legal system

- That adultery and sexual abuse are considered sins of the same gravity by that internal disciplinary system

- That a main concern of the disciplinary system is reputation rather than the protection of victims

- The unrealistic and inadequate procedures in place in the internal judiciary system to receive potential abuse complaints, i.e. in front of three male elders, no female, and no competent psychologist systematically present

- The confirmation of the existence of various published writings and procedures which are confidential and hidden from the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves

- The delegation of matters necessitating reporting and legal intervention being made to the branch, and the re-delegation of those to the victims or their parents; the delegation of authority from the branches to the Governing Body, but the claimed recursive delegation of that GB to the country-specific branches for such "non-scriptural" matters; a conflicting loop where noone is fully responsible and accountable

- The delays incurred by these procedures when handling matters necessitating urgent interventions, like to protect a victim, the congregation or even the public at large against a known criminal (where even disfellowshipping does not protect society)

- That several of the witnesses called to testify claimed to be in favor of mandatory reporting of sexual abuse to secular authorities, acknowledging themselves that they would not otherwise normally report these crimes, on "Biblical scriptural basis", and that mandatory reporting would greatly simplify things because they must also follow the law by scriptural basis (using the "Ceasar" reference); the implications of the last aspect, where every country might want to make reporting mandatory for this reason (I am not sure if this is now the case for Australia now)

- After observing that the invited Witnesses did not read the victim's statement, and did not listen to it, the suggestion by the commission that the reason might be because the victim is indeed disassociated (and shunned), possibly also considered apostate (although this has been denied)

- The visibly world-isolated or segregated Witnesses, who admit not having read the statements or followed the court proceedings despite being called to testify (and at least one confirming proudly that he does not read the news or watch television)

- The acknowledgement by some who testified that some changes could be made to the disciplinary system in order to less awkwardly receive complaints, but the resistance into accepting to participate with any other government-established body (i.e. providing a qualified experts group with psychologists, or handling compensation matters)

These are the points that come to mind for now. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The level of detail suggested is probably not suitable at this article. However, I suggested some time ago (at [1]) that a relevant section be started at Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Although the investigation is world-notable, immediately after posting the above, I also wondered if it could be considered synthesis or original research. On the other hand, although the above compilation is my own, most, if not all of the above points can be shown by simple citations from either the transcript or exhibits (which result from their own analysis, not mine). I agree that although some points already made in this article could perhaps also be supported by extra references to relevant points raised by the commission, this article would not really be the place to accumulate all of the above. Thanks for your reference. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The information as presented above certainly wouldn't be suitable as encyclopedic content, but some of the ideas could certainly be presented, obviously with appropriate sourcing.

The issue with presenting the information at this article is one of scope, not notability. Providing the detail suggested above at this article would disproportionately dominate the article. As the main article about the broad subject of Jehovah's Witnesses, this article already provides a suitable summary of the issue of JW handling of child sexual abuse cases. If a suitable section is added to the Royal Commission article, a See also tag could be added to the relevant section at this article in addition to the Main article tag for the abuse article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Jesus a son of god, or the son of god?

What is the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding Jesus? Is he a son of god as per: [2] or the son of god as per: [3]? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Like many Christian denominations, JWs believe that Jesus is "the son" of God and that in some fashion all humans are 'children' of God. Since 1970, The Watchtower has referred to Jesus as "the son of god" over 1300 times, but has only used the term "a son of God" (in any context) fewer than 100 times. The edit in question is unnecessary, since the sentence already indicates Jesus as 'God's son', and use of "a son" is much less frequent in their literature. There is a definite preference in JW literature to not refer to Jesus as "a son of God". The Watchtower, 15 December 2008, page 12 states: "Jesus is not just “a son of God.”"--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Jeffro77's answer doesn't really accurately portray the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding Jesus. He is understood to be BOTH one of many sons of God and as THE Son of God depending largely on the context in which he is referenced. As one of many persons, both spirit and human, created by Jehovah, Jesus is understood to be "a" son of God since those numbers are not exactly known, but do at least number into more than billions (here we go with the singles place argument again), Jesus is one of many. However, from a different aspect (Colossians 1:15-17, Proverbs chapter 8) Jesus was used by Jehovah in the creation of all other beings after himself, and thus was the only person directly created by God alone.

( Colossians 1:15-17 states: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist")

So because of this special relationship with Jehovah, Jesus is called "THE" Son of God as well as "a" son of God. I hope this answers any questions you have, but if you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Willietell (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I already accurately and concisely covered the significance of the a and the aspects, and it was dealt with days ago. The superfluous preachiness is not required. But since you raised Colossians, the inclusion of "other" in that verse is an interpolation introduced by the Watch Tower Society that is not supported by the original text. Also, there is no direct relationship between Proverbs 8 and Jesus, which is merely an interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you are joking, because you cannot possibly imagine that you are more capable of accurately translating languages than a group that translates material in over 750 different languages on a regular and ongoing basis??? There is no group in existence in the entire world more qualified than Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally, the inclusion of "other" in the scripture doesn't change the meaning of the verse at all, but simply adds clarity. A literal translation reads "because in him were created the things all, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, the things seen and the things unseen, whether thrones or lordships, or governments or authorities, the things all on account of him and for him have been created." The rendering of "all other things" versus "all things" simply clarify that the creation of all "other" things took place after the creation of Jesus, who did not create himself, but was created by Jehovah. "preachiness" aside, you have no basis for argument here. As usual, you are also incorrect about Proverbs chapter 8 as well. 2 Corinthians 4:4. Willietell (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, when comparing the rendering of Colossians 1:16 in 54 translations of the Bible, the Bible Gateway website finds none that use the word "other". [4] Since it first began purloining other translations to produce its own, and without qualified linguistic experts on staff, the Watch Tower Society has never been embarrassed about inserting or deleting words in bible texts to support its preexisting doctrines. BlackCab (TALK) 06:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. The silly claim that I ' must be joking' because I'm not 'a translator' is entirely irrelevant. Even the 'Kingdom Interlinear Translation' published by the Watch Tower Society plainly shows that "other" does not appear in the original text. Additionally, the number of language editions produced by the Watch Tower Society is also irrelevant since all the other language editions are based on the English translation, and has no bearing at all on any understanding of the original text. The claim that 'no group is more qualified than Jehovah's Witnesses' is also both false and irrelevant. The interpolation in Colossians is directly relevant to JW's nontrinitarianism, and various commentators reviewing the NWT have noted doctrinal bias as the reason for such interpolations. The claim that I am 'wrong about Proverbs chapter 8' is just stupid, and has no textual basis whatsoever.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is pointless as the inclusion of the word "other" does not in any way change the meaning of the scripture. Also, I realize your have no basis for understanding (2 Corinthians 4:4) Proverbs chapter 8, so I am not surprised you fail to comprehend it's meaning and inaccurately assume that there is "no textual basis whatsoever", your lack of understanding is readily apparent. But I don't hold it against you as I still hold out hope that one day your perceptive powers will become heightened. Willietell (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Your statement about 2 Corinthians 4:4 is, of course, superstitious nonsense. But since you imagine it is true, it constitutes ad hominem and amounts to a personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

As you have presented no argument to defend your position on Proverbs 8, my reference to 2 Corinthians represents no more than a personal observation as to why you don't understand it. If you had in fact, actually presented an argument in any form other than to state "The claim that I am 'wrong about Proverbs chapter 8' is just stupid, and has no textual basis whatsoever" then I could have addressed to argument that you failed to present, instead I arrived at an honest conclusion based upon the evidence at hand. I haven't yet nor will I likely ever sink to the level of making a "personal attack" directed towards you or any other editor. You however seem to have little problem calling editors liars and as already quoted above "stupid" and these are actually true personal attacks in the most basic sense of the phrase. Willietell (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Proverbs 8 says nothing about Jesus. I don't need to say any more than that. Your superstitious reference to a Bible verse claiming that 'the devil' influences editors is a bizarre attempt at a personal characterisation, and may lead to you being reported if it continues. Calling a claim stupid is not a personal attack, and I'm not aware of any time I have falsely labeled something as a lie.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, the views on the concept of the trinity by Jehovah's Witnesses are supported by much more than a single scripture in the book of Colossians, as I imagine you already know. But, coming from someone who is an admitted atheist, I am, as usual, surprised it even matters to you. As you believe there is neither a Trinitarian nor non-Trinitarian God or so I have come to understand, unless you have changed your stance on the existence of God.(?) Nonetheless, as usual, you are incorrect about the importance of the inclusion of the word "other" in Colossians and have a extremely poor and limited understanding of Proverbs chapter 8. Willietell (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

An admitted atheist? Ha ha. As if I'm supposed to be 'ashamed' of this 'admission'? Keep up the personal attacks. What matters in the scope of the original comment in this section is a comparison with mainstream views of Christianity, which includes Trinitarianism. Your claims about Proverbs 8 are entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright folks. Think this one has pretty much run its course. Willietell you are dangerously close to personal attacks in your responses. Jeffro77 you appear to have made your point, no need to continue "poking the bear", so to speak.

To return to the original point, in JW belief Jesus is technically "a" son of God, as all creatures are, but he is also "the" son of God as both God's only direct creation and the tool through which He caused everything else to be created. JW literature vastly prefers to use "the" son of God to highlight this special place that Jesus holds. Vyselink (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerning "there is no group in existence in the entire world more qualified than Jehovah's Witnesses", this would be extremely implausible, because they ignore (and often deny) much of the discoveries made in the last few hundred years. For instance, about theological developments, the scriptures in their context, their origins, the early traditions compilation (i.e. as shown by the documentary hypothesis), their early influences and origins, similarity and sometimes influence from ancient legal codes, the history of the Semites and of the alphabet and the history of Israel (as shown by archaeology and history), the Biblical canon selection process and ecumenical councils, the Q source hypothesis, non-canonical books referenced in the Bible, the discoveries of anthropology and sociology (and of the oldest religions, religiosity, origin myths and creation myths), archaeology, paleontology, geology (and radiometric dating methods and accuracy), biology (and evidence of evolution), neurology, astronomy, and more recently the social sciences and advancement of ethics not based on superstition, and of human rights, including gender equality... All of which greatly help to properly reason about those scriptures and the world. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Professor James A. Beverley of Atlantic Baptist College, in his 1986 book Crisis of Allegiance, spent some time discussing what he called the "myth of scholarly integrity" about the Watch Tower movement, noting within its publications the "excessive comments about the greatness of the Watch Tower leadership and the strength of Society scholarship". He wrote: "There is still no great case for tremendous scholarship in the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses. How many academics or experts in different disciplines use Society material as a source of insight, careful exegesis and profound theological reflection?" He notes the complaints from five religious scholars that the WTS has "distorted" their research and says, "At a more general level, there is something curious about constant use of academics who have yet to see the basic light on the Society being the sole channel of truth and 'the only organization on earth that understands the deep things of God'." Any religion that stoops to deliberate misrepresentation of others' work should be treated with great caution. The problem here is that WTS says it has unrivalled credentials and members accept that claim without any further examination of its truth. BlackCab (TALK) 02:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

'members of'

Someone has modified the openinig sentence to assert that JWs are "members of" a nameless denomination. Though JW members and JW publications refer to JWs in this vague manner, commentators about the religion, as well as the group's leaders in legal contexts, refer to the denomination itself as Jehovah's Witnesses (and despite the IP editor's claim in an edit summary, they even refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a "church"). The anonymous editor has restored the unhelpful wording after it was reverted, so it now needs to be addressed here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I've always thought the opening wording was awkward, as "Jehovah's Witnesses is", just doesn't read well. I think that simply stating "Jehovah's Witnesses are" would encounter less opposition from the casual reader. Still, neither wording is completely improper, awkwardness aside, I don't care which ~~why~~ way it is written. Also, I don't think the editor had in mind implying that JW's were "members of" some nameless denomination, and I don't think that you truly believe that either, but are simply posturing to make a point and distorting how the "new wording" by the IP editor allegedly changed the meaning of the sentence . It would be nice sometimes to see more effort on your part to "play nice", especially with newer inexperienced editors as this person obviously is and allow them some time for growth and the gaining of experience rather that chasing away potential editors who are clearly simply attempting to make a contribution to the project. Just a little friendly, helpful advice. Take it or leave it as you choose. Willietell (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The article has achieved GA status through much hard work and collaboration. It would make no sense to allow fundamental and illogical errors to be retained out of concern about offending the newbie IP editors who introduced them. BlackCab (TALK) 00:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not remotely clear what "posturing" was supposedly involved, and the wording altered by the IP editor did indeed make the statement more ambiguous. The separate matter of the correct grammar of Jehovah's Witnesses is has been gone over several times in the past, and is is indeed the correct grammar when referring to a proper compound noun that functions in the singular as the name of an organisation. This is particularly the case in US English, and that is the preferred style for articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, as the organisation is headquartered in the United States.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Organization

There is a citation for Penton 1997 that cites 41 pages of reference material as a source, this seems to be an extremely broad citation for a single sentence and I feel this needs to be narrowed down to really no more than a page or two covering the topic it is purported to support. Any takers, or does the reference need to be removed? Willietell (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The pages cited cover Penton's entire chapter on "Organizational structure", but the opening sentence of the first page of that chapter is sufficient as a citation for the opening sentence of this section of the article. I have amended the citation. BlackCab (TALK) 01:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Critical websites

An editor has added to the Criticism and controversy section this line: "The exjw community has produced several websites with research into the various teachings and doctrinal changes, such as JWFacts, JWSurvey and JWStruggle" and added a link to a list of critical websites. I'm a bit uneasy about this inclusion (particularly the informal reference to "exjw community"), but would welcome comment. Wikipedia's guideline on notability states plainly that it is not used to "determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article". Therefore the lack of references in reliable sources to websites such as JWFacts and JWSurvey does not rule out mentioning them in the article. Some of those critical websites are of a very high quality, with excellent scholarship and an emphasis on fact-checking. On that basis it could be argued they are as valuable a resource to Wikipedia readers as published books or the official JW website. What's your view: should that sentence stay or go? BlackCab (TALK) 06:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The more relevant guideline here would be the one on promotional material. Sites that fail Wikipedia's criteria for external links or reliable sources (e.g. personal websites, forums, blogs) should not be used as citations for such sites. It may be suitable to indicate that the genre of websites exists (though this too should have some kind of source), but such sites should only be specified if they are specifically mentioned in a suitable secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that they generally cannot be used; an exception perhaps would be if a particular site was so notable for its mention to be unavoidable in relation to a particular topic (and more as a notable resource than as a reliable source). For instance, there is already mention of SilentLambs in its relevant context. Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses may also be a better place to mention such (and we already point to that article from here).

I also find "exjw community" problematic as not all critical of the Watch Tower Society were necessarily previous members (any scholar, cult specialist or social scientist may be, as well as friends of family of members, public media, and even current members). Moreover, in one definition, anyone who had an affilliation with the religion can be considered a Witness, while in another definition only baptized members are Witnesses. Adding more confusion is the fact that official membership statistics are accounted on the basis of "publisher" status (which does not imply baptism). Not to mention distinctions like "faded", "excommunicated", labeled as "apostate"; "ex-jw" seems vague and inaccurate. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

JESUS

JEHOVAH WITNESS BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD (JEHOVAH), THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS. THAT THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH TO JEHOVAH IS THROUGH THE SON JESUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.8.67 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This talk page should be used to discuss about improvements we can make to the Jehovah's Witnesses article. This is not a forum; please make specific change suggestions or a precise criticism. This article, as well as the one on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs already mention the above. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of other translations

An editor has wrongly stated that WTS publications "frequently" quote and cite Bible translations other than their own.[5] For a discussion on this issue see this archived discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 00:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose at debate here is the interpretation of the word "frequently". I used it as it is commonly used in ENGLISH, however some seem to insist on using it as a mathematical equation to determine the "number of times" which has little to do with frequency. Frequency is determined by how often, in terms of "frequency" not how many times, in terms of volume, something is done. Watchtower literature does frequently quote from other bible translations. it simply does not use them as the primary bible quoted from, therefore the overall volume of those quotations is not overwhelming in comparison to quotations from the NWT . I hope this clears up your confusion. Willietell (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no confusion. The use of other translations in Watchtower publications is actually infrequent as the discussion to which I referred quite clearly shows. BlackCab (TALK) 04:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Willitell was also involved in an esrlier discussion here in which he had claimed that "public issue of the Watchtower is heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT. Also, the Awake often uses scriptural references from bible translations other than the NWT." The statement is no more true today than it was in 2012 when he made this baseless comment. BlackCab (TALK) 07:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I claimed the Watchtower was heavily dependent on other bible translations in addition to the NWT. Citations from other translations regularly (aka FREQUENTLY) appear in the public addition of the Watchtower AND Awake and on a regular (aka FREQUENT) basis. Also, please stop vandalizing the page by reverting all my edits using your feigned dispute on a single point as an excuse to do so. You are damaging the page and that constitutes vandalism. If you continue to vandalize the page, you will be reported. Willietell (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I quoted your earlier false "heavily dependent" claim verbatim. Why would you lie about that when it's so easily verifiable? Just click on the link. BlackCab (TALK)

The lead of this article is not concerned with how often different issues of a particular JW periodical refer to at least one Bible translation other than NWT, so trying to use the word frequently in that fashion is essentially pointless. This article is not about JW public relations, so the attempted distinction about whether The Watchtower—Public Edition or Awake! use other translations 'frequently' is immaterial, not only because even those journals primarily use the NWT, but also because those journals constitute a minority of JW literature, now collectively only 16 pages per month. At best, the requested change to the article would give a false impression about how much JWs and JW literature actually rely on the use of other Bible translations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured I'd throw my two cents in here.

First off, I agree with the "through Christ by God's power" change. It more precisely and more clearly represents what JW's believe than the previous wording.

Secondly, Willietell, "regularly" does NOT equal "frequently". Something can happen regularly that does not happen frequently. For example, Halley's Comet happens to regularly pass by the earth, but it does not happen frequently (on a human time scale). I have changed back the original wording to "occasionally" and have added a RS to back that up. If you change it again without further discussion and consensus you will probably be very close to being in violation of 3RR.

Thirdly, I have changed your edit back to "their own translation", as "modern language translation" is JW speak. "Modern language translation" implies that the NWT is more widely accepted and used outside of JW circles than it is. While JW's may describe it as a "modern language translation", any academic will describe it as "their own/preferred" as is also seen in the RS I provided for the above. Vyselink (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The term "modern language translation" is hardly something Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively use as there are numerous bibles billed as being modern language editions, and the use of "there own translation" is indicative of bias against the NWT and violates WP:NPOV and needs to be re-expressed in a neutral fashion. your preference of "regularly" over "frequently" or "occasionally" is fine with me and I will make the change. The edit inserting "through Christ by God's power" was from an IP editor and reverted senselessly by a POV editor. I think making the change you've suggested more accurately represents Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on the matter. Which is why I re-instated the IP editors edit originally. Willietell (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

On second thought I will hold off in making the change from "occasionally" to "regularly" until we here from the other editor, but my argument here is that "occasionally" implies a very limited use over time, which would indicate a citation from other translations only periodically over the span of many months or even years, which is simply inaccurate as most literature that is intended for public use tends to have at least some reference citations from other translations. Obviously, the NWT is the preferred translation and is thus much more widely referenced. But the use of the term "occasionally" here is misleading. Willietell (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

JW literature makes references to scriptures very frequently, and by far the majority of those are the NWT. The proportion of non-NWT translations cited is quite definitely best described as occasional. The notion that it implies usage that is "many months or even years" apart is unsubstantiated (the time period you are claiming it implies would more accurately be described as rarely).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

For a Bible translation printed in the 20th century and updated in the 21st century, it is the default expectation that it would employ modern language. Unless specifically comparing with a translation such as the King James Version, it's an unnecessary qualifier. The description of the NWT as "their own translation" in the lead is not only a simple fact, but is also an accurate summary of the concerns of third-party commentators about doctrinal bias, which is addressed in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Willietell's claim that referring to the NWT as "their own Bible" is biased and expresses a POV is laughable and barely worth a response. The phrase is perfectly accurate and used by Linda Edwards in the reference book cited at that point. I think there's a bit of attention seeking going on here. BlackCab (TALK) 09:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is a plain statement of fact that the NWT is "their own translation", and isn't really an indication of 'bias' as claimed; but even if a reader were to infer the phrase suggests bias, that would still be supported by sourced content in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition: Now that I look at your comment in full, accusing BlackCab of vandalizing a page (as you also did in your edit summary), when what he did was return it to the original wording (which is currently disputed only by you), and threatening to "report" him, is WP:ACCUSE and WP:THREATEN, as even if you did bring up a possible report, it would be shut down immediately as being unsubstantiated, so I recommend that you do not use such wording. Vyselink (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular topic is out of context here for further discussion, if you really wish to understand why I feel the particular editor is engaging on activities which violate WP:vandal ask on either my or your talk page. Willietell (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You 'feel' that editors who disagree with your religious positions are necessarily pushing some 'agenda'. The fact remains that neither POV editing nor edit warring (nor even all distruptive editing) constitutes vandalism, regardless of your 'feelings' on the matter. This would remain the case even if your feelings were justified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

After checking the article history, I also fail to see how the reverts were "mass reverts" or vandalism. I click on the diff for a purported "mass revert" and there actually only are minor changes. Those log comments appear to me as dishonest misrepresentation. Proper explanations and sources have been discussed at length on this page to justify the current wording. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you do, I would have expected no other conclusion from you after examining your edit history (sigh). Such is usually the case with a mysterious, antonymous IP editor who "just happens" to appear at convenient times in support of the anti-JW's editors with their anti-JW's agenda. However, if you wish to be taken seriously, start ~~another~~ an account, after all, its free. Willietell (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Willietell: are you returning to your accusations of sockpuppetry by either Jeffro77, Vyselink or myself? You have made this accusation in the past when you found no other editor agreeing with you. If you want to accuse any editors of sockpuppetry, do so in the appropriate forum, where it will be investigated. These sort of grubby implications are a very cowardly form of conduct. BlackCab (TALK) 23:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Canada, so unless Willietell imagines some elaborate conspiracy, that's pretty much the end of any accusation of sockpuppetry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit history goes back far enough that it should be clear that I have no relation to these other editors, which I do not personally know; our discussions have been limited to Wikipedia public article talk pages, and we don't always necessarily agree. One thing which we however most probably share would be an interest in knowledge development and sharing (the purported agenda?), and this naturally conflicts with censorship or obscurantism. I have simply resisted creating a Wikipedia account so far, and have never used one. This should also be clear from the history. My interests should also be visible: computer science, information technology, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, archeology, anthropology and religion; I'm not here to edit on a single topic. Instead of dismissing anyone who contradicts you, I can only recommend to re-read and to try to understand the arguments with a honest attitude. There seems to be a tendency to aggrandize or exagerrate. When I said "dishonest misrepresentation" it was not to debate, I have actually perceived that. Do you understand the meaning of "vandalism" or "mass revert" in the context of Wikipedia? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for adding my opinion but this seems to be very petty and an attempt to bias people against a minority religious group than it is to simply express facts. Anything that could be taken positively must be cautioned because we don't want anything to be taken that way. When JWs use other translations frequently, does that only include published works? Does it include talks or public discourses, conversations, etc? Also some publications use other translations more than others. I can't believe we are having a conversation over this. Consider this: if another religious organization has a primary Biblical text as it preferred Bible version, does the WT use other translations less than these? Could words like "occasionally" be seen as a slight? Indeed, i believe that is the intention! It is not enough to say that WT literature also make use of other Bible translations as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobpressures (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

JWs do indeed reference the NWT by far the majority of the time, and that includes printed materials, talks and even conversations. The fact is relevant as various scholars who have reviewed the NWT have noted doctrinal bias in the translation, and this is properly stated in the article. Are you suggesting any specific change to the article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-reported statistics

The article notes in the second paragraph of the lead section that the Watch Tower Society produces its own figures on the number of active members. Two editors have changed the word "claims" (used in the article since mid-2015) to say that the religion "reports" 8.3 million active members and almost 20 million Memorial attendees. [6] The word "reports" implies more reliability and authority than those statistics warrant. Companies "report" earnings and profit to stock exchanges, but those figures have undergone third-party auditing and penalties apply to organisations falsifying them. When the Australian Council of Social Service "reported" the rate of child poverty in Australia it very clearly defined the source of its statistics, almost all of them from either Australian Bureau of Statistics data or confidential departmental records that drill down into specific family profiles.

By contrast the figures on "active" members of JWs are derived from monthly reports turned in by individual members, with the content of those reports then effectively dictating the measure of respect and responsibility they are then given. UK sociologist Andrew Holden noted in a comment on monthly report forms: "Those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism soon lose the respect of their co-religionists ... there is no place for anyone wishing to tag along as a free-rider." (p.72) As a consequence, deliberate falsification of report forms is probably widespread. When I was a member of the JWs I regularly turned in a report form claiming I did two hours' "field service" that month even though I had done none at all. Two hours at that stage was the minimum monthly figure to qualify as "active"; anything less than that would have marked me as "inactive" or "irregular," which would then have led to intervention by elders. "Pioneers" or fulltime preachers must also meet a monthly or yearly quota of hours and the incentive to exaggerate their participation is obvious. Discussions on ex-JW forums indicate that what I routinely did in submitting bogus monthly reports is widespread among JWs.

With JW statistics continuing to show a decline in members in some countries, there is even greater reason to regard the official figures with caution at best, or deep suspicion at worst. In the end, the figures produced by the WTS are "claims" in the most accurate use of the word. There is no way to test or confirm them. The word "report" is misleading to readers who are unaware of the source of the figures and the hidden motives of those producing them. BlackCab (TALK) 02:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Initially I was inclined to agree with you, and then I remembered this point from Zoe Knox in the Journal of Religious History (Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011), pg 166

Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly deﬁned, and transparently calculated. These are published in its yearbooks and have appeared in The Watchtower edition of 1 January annually since 1927. The most recent ﬁgures are available on its web site. The Society offers a number of membership ﬁgures for the countries in which it is active, with the exception of those in which it is forced to operate underground (it does not wish to aid governments who seek to eliminate its presence). Although the deﬁnitive membership ﬁgure given by the Society is the number of practising members, deﬁned as those involved in public Bible educational work (i.e. house-to-house ministry), a far greater number attend the Memorial of Christ’s Death. In August 2009, the number of practising members was 7,313,173 and the number attending the Memorial was 18,168,323.The latter ﬁgure is much larger, but the Society gives the former, more conservative one for membership. Another reason scholars trust these ﬁgures is because historically, the Society has acknowledged losses as well as increases in membership. Sociologists have pointed to the correlation between the membership statistics and national censuses in the United States and Canada, concluding that the Society’s own statistics “offer a very conservative estimate” of membership. Finally, one anthropologist reported that ﬂuctuations in membership across the United States were broadly in line with his own observations of a single congregation in New Jersey.

Not 100% definitive, but in my research for my PhD on JW's here in the UK, and in reading everything from Penton and George Chryssides to Zoe Knox and Andrew Holden, none of them take falsification of the JW reported numbers as a serious concern, indeed other than the above I have been unable to find any mention of the subject at all, though I may have missed it. Your quote above from Holden doesn't actually mention any such claims, and your reasoning is WP:OR. Unless you can find some WP:RS that throw the reported JW numbers into question, I personally have no problems with the word "report". Vyselink (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether a 'report' is accurate or reliable has no bearing on the fact that it is still what is reported. The presentation in the article makes it completely clear that the statistics are self-reported. Additionally, the stated decline in JW activity is itself derived from the self-reported statistics. It is contradictory to assert that the figures are unreliable and at the same time cite them as evidence of decline. There is no benefit in using the word claim here, which unnecessarily carries an implication of doubt in this instance. We are not here to assess the 'motives' of what has been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In response to Vyselink, it is indeed the case that JW membership statistics are somewhat conservative when comparing their method of counting membership as only 'active' members with the typical method of including all adherents (and their children) as most denominations usually do. One result (and possibly the intended one) of this method of counting 'membership' is that whilst it reduces the reported number of members, it inflates the rate of growth, most of which comes from the eventual baptism of children of JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We also have Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses which may be of interest. Without necessarily casting doubt on the reported statistics, we may be able to find a complementary source about perceived growth being an important part of the religion. Many JWs believe that their group is the fastest growing one, and that this is prophetic fulfillment. It may also already be mentionned somewhere but I have failed to quickly find it. Another aspect is that since proselytism is central, growth numbers can be a self-encouraging factor. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Do JWs actually claim they are the fastest growing religion? If so, they are simply wrong. For a start Islam is growing faster than Christianity overall. More close to home among groups derived from Adventism, Seventh-day Adventists have both a faster growth rate and more members than Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Without doing some research, I'm not sure if official literature claim that they are the fastest growing religion, or if it's a part of the culture (which can add non-official but widely held beliefs, some regional), but it indeed would be erroneous. Although growth is considered important, what seems more important is to urgently be known everywhere (frequently citing Matthew 24:14), which I think Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses already covers. A quick search online for "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "fastest growing religion" does show some non-official links, as well as some misrepresenting a USAToday article (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20080218/d_hnb18.art.htm about the U.S. and Canada) claiming they mean the "world". I don't think those particular links I found are source-worthy so far.

I digress, but the oral culture aspect is notable, with some online forums dedicating room about it, but unless a notable work mentions those I don't think we should either. Various anecdotes, beliefs, urban legends and superstitions of the culture may even seem alien to other JWs, depending on the time and region they come from (an example keyword would be "smurfs"). Sometimes the source of related fears will still be in official literature, such as about possessed inanimate objects. A similar example is not presenting an official list of trendy media to fear, but to make it appear obvious enough and leave it at that for individual interpolation. Therefore, in anecdotes, people will recall being told not to listen to particular titles (either by bad memory or because they heard mention of specific titles from peers), but there usually was no official blacklist.

With the above explanation, to arrive at this conclusion: it may well be that I was often told by JWs I know that it's the fastest growing religion according to them, but that it's not official teaching, while at the same time, Year Books enthusiastically present growth statistics for encouragement. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it, but it is also common for circuit overseer visit speeches, or official weekly ones to vehiculate some of culture, that is not all necessarily written down, although it is common for personal notes to be made when listening to them; some attendants may also record them, but are generally discouraged from distributing their recordings although it is considered legitimate to share them with those who could not attend. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why there so many apostates and JW "haters" (prejudice language). It seems acceptable here. Maybe next I'll be an apologist. lol First of all the argument here is outlandish! All religions self-report! This petty conversation shouldn't even be discussed. The overwhelming majority of religions on earth reports their own membership based on their own terms and definitions. It seems we have some petty and perhaps incompetent people here editing these pages and using questionable source to justify it. 1) The Southern Baptist Convention at LifeWay.com have come out publicly stating their statistics are inflated. One group of Baptists, using LifeWay, states that over 64% of the Church's membership is inactive. 2) The United Methodist Church makes the same admissions. 3) Anyone who knows Mormon statistic or anything about Mormonism know their numbers are inflated either because the people are inactive or they have not reached the 110 year mark at which point they are removed. The Mormons would need to have well over 500 members in each of their wards even in small and developing countries. This is not the case. They may have 200 or so in attendance. 4) The Seventh-Day Adventist Church boasts over 20 million membership, but publicly state that their membership totals are deeply inflated and there is a need to purge their membership rolls. Now all of these groups PUBLICLY state that their memberships are inflated, except perhaps Mormons, yet on their Wikipedia pages, their memberships are stated without prejudice. TEll me what is going on here? Its UNFOUNDED prejudice against Jehovah's Witnesses and their haters. (If apologist is appropriate then hater is too.) You people should be ashamed of yourselves for YOUR BIAS and LACK OF SCHOLARSHIP! It is a shame this type of sophistry gets passed off as scholarship with its questionable and negative citations. Just because a person is a historian doesn't even make it true. JW literature discredit the above person because some people report as few as 15 minute a month and get counted. Furthermore, JW stats are modest at best. If they are false or misleading it is because they would probably number much more as many as 12 to 16 million members if they published their baptized numbers. However, they only count active members. Most churches don't even publish church attendance accurately. If other churches can publish their membership number as they please, stating that their numbers are inflated, and yet no one questions their numbers then surely JWs who only count active membership that preach from door-to-door should not have to undergo scrutiny that no other group on Wikipedia undergoes just to state their stats. This is a blatant example of abuse! My objection to this discussion can be objectively verified and it wont' take more than a few minutes googling. Furthermore, anyone who has participated in this blatant abuse should be viewed as compromised and unreliable. Regarding JWs being the fastest growing religion in the US, new agencies have stated this, along with Pew Forum. They will vary every year. Mormons have commented on this saying that they do not claim to be the fastest growing nor do they consider it significant. I'm sure JWs feel the same way. Who cares! (Personally I'm fine with non-biased use of the word reports rather than claims.)Jacobpressures (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's be objective here. The Seventh-Day Adventists say that some 25 million people attend their religious services in 81,552 churches. This number is called into question by their own leadership. That means that 307 people or more attending church services. If one goes to an SDA church will they find that at a typical church? No. Maybe some of the larger ones. LDS state that 524 people attend their churches on average --including in developing countries. They have the lowest number of congregations (30,304 to be exact) for their 15 million membership. Southern Baptists are reporting 327 people on average in their congregations. That is only 46,793 congregations. Now the SBC has been reducing its numbers publicly because they have stated that is membership stats are not true. The United Methodist Church reports 12 million people in 34,000 congregations. That is 344 people in each congregation. They say their membership is overstated. Now LET LOOK AS THE DEVIOUS EVIL JEHOVAHS WITNESSES! 8.3 million people in 119,485 congregations. That's 69 people in each congregation. Have you been to a Kingdom Hall? The average in attendance is about 90 to 100 people but here there is discussion about JWs deceiving people about their numbers!!! Are they making up WHOLE CONGREGATIONS TOO??? JWs have more congregations and fewer people reported than those in attendance. These number ARE SUPER MODEST in comparison to other religious organizations--and those organizations ADMIT their numbers are not accurate. But here you have people disputing JW numbers? HOW CAN ANYONE SAY THIS ARTICLE IS BEING CARED FOR BY OBJECTIVE PEOPLE! There is no scholarship in these arguments. Its just hate!Jacobpressures (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a rant. Anyway, much of the point of the JWs self-reported statistics is actually that their self-reported membership is usually less than membership reported by many censuses and surveys because JWs only count those members who report 'preaching'. Though this results in lower membership figures reported by JWs, it does inflate their growth rates; as with many similarly sized religious groups, the majority of this growth is made up of children of current members. It's not remotely clear how 'hate' is being reflected in the article, and your use of ALL CAPITALS does not a compelling argument make.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of the word "Group"

"The group reports a worldwide membership of more than 8.3 million adherents involved in evangelism and an annual Memorial attendance of more than 20 million." Why the use of the word group? I feel it is an attempt to slight by detractors. Words such as denomination or organization could be used. (Better yet, Christian organization could be used but that would be too offensive to the gate keepers who would feel offended and it is likely more important to keep them happy.) Or the sentence could be restructured. I don't see any other worldwide major religious organization such as the United Methodist, Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh-day Adventists, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints spoken of on Wikipedia as a mere group. I feel the word is intended as a slight, to belittle the organization, and assign it less dignity as other major religious organizations. There are "groups" much smaller in size and scope that are not called a "group." Jacobpressures (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The word group is entirely innocuous and doesn't imply anything devious or otherwise negative. It is being used as a synonym for denomination, which is used in the previous sentence and would detract from the article to use in two sentences in a row. Your belief that it is "an attempt to slight by detractors" and your subsequent comments above suggest you may have overly strong feelings about the subject that you may wish to keep in check if you are to make useful contributions to this and other Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Can the Box to the Right be more generous to JWs?

I understand that in Russia, JWs will not be given a fair trial. But is Wikipedia Russian? Here are some suggestions that I think could be graciously conceded but i'm sure such a request will anger some. Why can't the Classification be Christian? Other Restorationists' "groups" (although not called groups) on Wikipedia are Classified as "Christian." (See Churches of Christ as an example or even the Latter-Day Saints.) Of course the JW detractors would never do anything that paints them in a favorable light. Thus we see the CONTINUAL BIAS in this article. (I would be surprised if I woke up tomorrow and saw "Claims to be Christian" as the classification and then the statement removed altogether.) Theology: Nontrinitarian, restorationist. Region: 240 lands (A footnote could be provided explaining lands--hopefully without bias but I know I'm asking for a lot here.) Jacobpressures (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly no other religious organization has where their statistics come from. It does not bother me. But given the discussion here, I would not be surprised if it is intended as a slight. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that both promotional language and attacks against the JWs are regularily reverted from the article (it is also under pending-changes protection because of the frequency of such attempts). I also have no idea why you believe that group can be offensive, or why we would question that the Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians (POV pushing from other Christians who promote that the JWs are not real Christians because they do not believe in the divinity of Christ is also commonly reverted). Other terms can also be used where relevant, including specific types of Christianity (restorationist, millenarian, nontrinitarian, etc), group, organization, etc. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you are objecting to the box being changed to conform to the way other restorationist organizations are treated on Wikipedia? Jacobpressures (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please indent your posts when replying to a message, by starting the sentence with one or more semicolons (:) as needed. Not being a main editor of this article, I will also leave other editors answer your questions. Discussing about the content and forming consensus can take some time. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Christian denomination infobox inherently relates to denominations that are Christian and the classification parameter of that template is used to further classify a given group. It would be unhelpful to classify JWs as Christian Christians, which would be redundant. I have fixed the CoC & LDS article you mentioned. If there are other restorationist groups that are incorrectly being classified as 'Christian Christians' in an infobox in a similar way to what you have suggested, feel free to point them out, as they should also be fixed. Your comments about Russia are out of scope here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Refusing military service

Is it too must to ask that "refusing military service" be changed to "conscientious objection to military service"? Pacifism may also be used. I understand in some circles this word has been rejected and may not fully express JWs beliefs. But for all practical reasons JWs appear to be pacifists. I think "conscientious objection to military service" would be preferred. The words I suggest are more neutral and are the terms used in legal proceedings. It is the mainstream rendering. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Statements about 'refusing military service' are common in JW literature. They explicitly do not identify as 'pacifists'. The article already uses both terms, conscientious objectors and refusal, regarding JWs' view of military service.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Their OWN Translation?

"They prefer to use their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" Why the need for the words, "their own"? Again I think this is intended to make JWs look bad. JWs view their translation as on par with any other translation. They prefer their translation out of use. It is the standard one used at their meetings. If you ask a JW if the NWT is better than other translations they will probably mention minor issues. Many JWs would find this statement misleading and objectionable. It is a view that some JWs have that the NWT is the best translation. Some scholars have agreed with this. But that doesn't warrant making it appear that all JWs feel this way--even if one is to claim the majority does. If a person tried to put down another translation as NOT the Word of God, that person, JW or not would be DENOUNCED! I think the statement is intended to demean JWs and misled. It does not express the complexity of the issue but only the nuances the gatekeepers here want to highlight. Furthermore other organizations have their own translations but no statement is made regarding preference--even though certain organizations such as the SBC have made statements regarding their preferences.Jacobpressures (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Other relevant information may be found in the article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. It is notable and has been discussed by expert scholars. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for the intentionally bias language. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is referred to as their own translation because it was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is not used in any significant way by any other group. (I do hope I'm not offending any other religious groups by calling them groups.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

James Beckford

Typical of the blatant attempts by JW apologist Willietell to distort clearly sourced facts in this article, he has added the thoroughly misleading information that James Beckford is "a critic of the religion" as if he has some known agenda. Beckford, as his Wikipedia article notes, is a noted and respected sociologist of religion and a prolific author of books on new religious movements. Willietell has also removed the widely reported statement by his religion's leaders that defectors are mentally diseased, claiming in his edit summary that he was removing "POV spin" and "redundant material". Willietell's own agenda is fairly clear and this new string of edits reinforces his past known conduct as a dishonest and sneaky contributor who is here only to subvert and undermine the article. BlackCab (TALK) 07:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. In his/her talk page, User:Willietell has a template which says "This user is a member of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses." So his/her objectivity is compromised. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Willietell's objectivity on this subject is certainly compromised, as demonstrated by his edits. However, membership of a WikiProject is not itself an indication of affiliation with the project's subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It took me a while before deciding to answer, as it's often best to not discuss editors; but this particular editor indeed has a long history of problematic editing. From memory, the early history included sockpuppetting to claim consensus of other fictitious editors, as well as dishonest attempts to delete articles for claimed copyright violations (using references to misdated copies of Wikipedia articles on other sites), editing/deleting talk page content, and some blocks (for suckpuppetting or edit revert wars). Some answers on talk pages were also mimicking those of more experienced editors who were pointing to specific guidelines, as if it was an appeal to authority game. I have also noticed misrepresentation in edit descriptions over the years (and remember once complaining about this here). It is also an account which appears to strictly be used to edit JW-related articles.

We all start somewhere, and I can myself sometimes blush at some of my own previous edits. While I do believe that some of the early misconduct of this account has ceased, regular attempts to whitewash articles have persisted. It also appears that the Wikipedia definition of NPOV and RS will never be understood (or acknowledged). Therefore I do not think that any particular justification or extended explanations are necessary when reverting inappropriate changes from that account.

However, we have occasionally noticed what appears to be decent discussion attempts on talk pages in recent years (albeit with mishaps here and there, which can happen, considering the sensitive nature of the topic). Rarely, these discussions resulted in constructive article changes. If some of those recent edits which get systematically reverted are deemed important or worthy enough, we can probably expect their author to still be able to open a discussion about it...

I understand how frustrating persistent disruptive behavior can be (not only from this account), and I admire the patience of those who must constantly deal with this. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You are back to the personal attacks again? Please refrain from your habitual personal attacks and stick to content discussion on the talk pages. Your opinion of my motivations for editing Wikipedia are irrelevant and Beckford most certainly fits the definition of "critic" when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and his position and opinions.Willietell (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if this was adressed to me. But if so, personal attack was not the intention, and I don't recall making some. The intentions: 1) agreement about the changes revert, 2) answer to Dimadick and denouncement of previous misbehavior, 3) expression of hope that future contributions may be better, 4) invitation to you to discuss issues here to obtain consensus rather than constantly ending up with unconstructive reverted changes. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear why you're rehashing something from a month ago. In any case, Beckford is an established sociologist of religion, and not some 'anti-JW critic' as you would have others believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:ASPERSIONS which I read yesterday, I should not have rehashed old misbehavior, and should have used Willietell's user talk page to discuss this issue. I will not delete my comment, but I apologise to all, and will try to be more civil in the future. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It was Willietell who 'rehashed something from a month ago', not you, as should have been clear from the date stamps. Sorry for any confusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It then appears that we both did, no worries :). BTW, I thought that it might be appropriate to notify everyone here to link my identities: I have finally created a user account (previously IP address user 76.10.128.192). PaleoNeonate (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why must Willietell be an apologist? Why so much prejudicial language? Jacobpressures (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's funny how you object to Willietell being called an 'apologist' when you've made a whole bunch of comments below about 'apostates' and gone on to object to entirely innocuous words such as 'group'. I suppose you're entirely objective on the subject of JWs then? You may not be familiar with Willietell's editing history, but if you were, you would realise why he was referred to as an apologist. Your screeds at this talk page may also be perceived in a similar way, but if you leave out the religious rhetoric, stop accusing other editors of bad motives, and discuss article content, it is possible that you might be able to contribute in a meaningful way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you are back to your personal attacks when I am not looking, I have repeatedly asked you to discontinue this uncivil behavior. I will not continue to ask, another single incident and you will be reported, this is the last time I will show you the courtesy of a warning. Please cease and desist from your uncivil behavior. There is nothing wrong with my "editing history", as the editor plainly pointed out, the issue on these series of pages is the overload of POV spin and I think it may be time to bring into question this particular articles "good article" status, as it certainly does not accurately represent the organization it purports to describe in a neutral manner. Willietell (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, to accuse another editor of not being "entirely objective on the subject of JWs then?" is in itself more than a bit hypocritical coming from someone who runs an anti-Jehovah's Witness blog, as has been pointed out by "another" editor with an almost identical geo-location as your own.Willietell (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please watch the edit summaries, they too can be perceived uncivil if not being careful. Also, I suggest taking the discussion to Jeffro's talk page to address this. I don't think this occurred yet, because no address was given, but Wikipedia also takes very seriously WP:OUTTING, which must be avoided. As for conflict of interest (WP:COI), for Wikipedia, these involve members or employees, who are known not to be able to write objectively about the subject of interest. Wikipedia also bases its material mostly on secondary sources, so it is normal for the article to represent "the world's view", not the Jehovah's Witnesses view of the subject. You should also note how the editor was uncontrollably screaming and ranting, which did not make communication easy. Moreover, his comments were misplaced in chronology and layout. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 01:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

At no point did I make a 'personal attack'. Willietell's editing history does fit squarely in the definition of 'apologist' as regards his affiliation with Jehovah's Witnesses. There was nothing 'uncivil' about my objective statements about that fact.

I do not run an "anti-Jehovah's Witness blog". I do maintain a website which I have specifically never promoted on Wikipedia, and that information is limited to one JW doctrine that is at odds with all secular sources, based on research of the subject over the years; I have specifically never promoted that site on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on outing makes it inappropriate to try to judge my Wikipedia edits based on an off-site identity; it states, "Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment". Your claim about geolocation is obviously unfounded since you have no way of geolocating my Wikipedia account, and I have no affiliation with any Wikipedia editor outside of Wikipedia anyway. Your use of 'scare quotes' around "another" implies an accusation of sockpuppetry. You should immediately elaborate on that supposed accusation with your alleged evidence or you will be reported for harassment; please note that once your evidence is shown to be false, you may still be reported to admins for the false accusation. If your accusation is based solely on the fact that another editor is in the same country, you should immediately retract your accusation before you embarrass yourself further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection request

Considering Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62#IP_Block and the persistent daily disruptive editing (by IP address editors as well as brand-new single-purpose accounts), I have also made a protection request; results pending. PaleoNeonate (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection was granted for one year. PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Err, pending-changes protection. PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done! As it seems, these kinds of edits, some likely by underage youths, are really persistent. Thank you. WorkingWik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to NeilN who has accepted the request. It seems to work, although I think that I would have still prefered semiprotection, which would produce less events/requests. This would make the barrier harder for new editors or IP addresses however, needing to always make edit requests on the talk page, perhaps that's sometimes considered harsh on Wikipedia today since the (re)introduction of pending changes protection... — Paleo Neonate — 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

81.92.216.10‎'s edit

I have left the change pending for another to review, since I had already reverted it, but I may have been mistaken (discussion took place on 81.92.216.10‎'s talk page). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 11:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved: edit was reviewed by another editor, thanks — Paleo Neonate — 11:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Publications

I had to refuse your pending change to the Jehovah's Witnesses article for now, but please feel free to discuss on its talk page. Thank you, — Paleo Neonate — 10:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello PaleoNeonate, You stated that not all publications are available there: '(Undid revision 780004083 by 81.92.216.10 (talk) Not "all publications" are available there, also seems promotional, please discuss on talk page'
I said that all publications are free and MOST of them are available: 'All publications are available for free and most of them are available on the website or in the JW Library app.' I think that that statement is true. Most publications after 2000 are available online. Some are not available. For example because of copyright issues. Or because it was not intended for the public, hence the word publication.
This sections talks about printed publications. For a complete article I am missing the digital publications. I reverted your revert and hope you agree with my reasoning :-) --81.92.216.10 (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, the change is pending, I won't refuse it and will let another editor process it this time, then. — Paleo Neonate — 10:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh also, when I said the talk page I mostly meant that of the article (Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses) which is there to discuss improvements to that article. Other interested editors can then participate. Thanks again, — Paleo Neonate — 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. --81.92.216.10 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit was reverted with the comment Unnecessary: '(Reverted to revision 779928031 by BlackCab (User_talk:BlackCab): Unnecessary. (TW))'

Thus I copied the discussion with PaleoNeonate here (I started the discussion in the wrong space).

I undid the revision (again) and also added the world wide ranking. Jw.org is listed as number 1 in the category Religion and Spirituality.

I think that the digital era is a significant (necessary) part of this Wikipedia article and that mentioning the relevance of the website according to Alexa Internet underlines my statement. --81.92.216.10 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Publishing" section exists to note the JW organisation's extensive involvement in publishing. Stating that publications are available for free crosses the line between encyclopedic information and promotion. An encyclopedia does not exist to tell people how and where they can get religious tracts. The reference to Alexa (whatever that is) would need to be much clearer and proven to be reliable to be of use. BlackCab (TALK) 11:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you quick response and patience. I now deleted the word free and deleted the reference to the app. I hope this does not cross the line of the encyclopedia rules. As to your reply on Alexa Internet. That is an Amazon.com owned company and was founded in 1996. If you search on 'web site ranking', the first 3 hits on Google are to Alexa. Is my current edit ok? --81.92.216.10 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Alexa is a fairly well known site regarding web traffic analytics. Alexa reports that the JW website is in the top 21 websites in Angola, and that the highest proportion of visitors to the JW website worldwide are from Angola, even though both the population and the number of JWs in Angola is significantly less than in the United States and many other countries; the disproportionate figures could suggest that traffic may be paid for in that country to boost the overall website 'popularity'. At best, the reasons why the JW site appears to be popular on Alexa is speculative, so a reliable source that discusses the purported popularity would be required rather than original research of the raw Alexa data.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The main JW article isn't really the place for promoting the JW website or specific publishing efforts, especially in view of the fact that there may be a perception of a conflict of interest (particularly since members of the denomination are specifically instructed to promote the website). Hence, it would be best if anything resembling promotion of the website at this article should be supported by a reliable secondary source. Also, "most publications" is not the same thing as "most publications after 2000" for a publishing company that has been around for over 100 years; the great majority of JW publications are not available on the official website. Online availability of JW publications is referenced at various more specific articles, such as The Watchtower, Awake! and Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that most publications apply to publications after 2000. Thus I deleted most. The fact remains that the current text only refers to printed publications and not (yet) to digital publications. Regarding the correctness of the information presented on Alexa Internet. The free information accecibly on Alexa only shows 42,7% of the total. You have to pay to see the total worldwide breakdown. Other Wikipedia articles also use Alexa to claim relevance like: Google_Search#cite_ref-5, Facebook and Baidu. But a similar ranking website SimilarWeb confirms Alexa's ranking of jw.org (jw.org on SimilaWeb). The information presented is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please share verifiable information that counters Alexa. But for now I think that the Wikipedia rules where followed. Alexa stats indeed do not automatically say anything about publications being read. The stats are relevant in the scence that publications are not only physically printed, but also digitally published. Is my current edit ok? --81.92.216.10 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

My changes where reverted with this comment: 'User:Leggomygreggo8 (Reverted 1 pending edit by 81.92.216.10 to revision 780025213 by Jeffro77: Seems like you didn't change much)'. I indeed only deleted the wordt 'most', making the sentence indisputable true. I refuted the other claim that one may not refer to Alexa ratings. See above. Please reply here what else shoud be changed in order to publish according to Wikipedia requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.92.216.10 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Your reference to the Google Search, Facebook and Baidu articles is not a direct comparison, as those are all articles about websites. Jehovah's Witnesses is a religious denomination, not a website. (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' website is third in the same Alexa category, and I see no reason why that should be mentioned in the article about that religious group either.) Hopefully, you can understand that a ranking on an article about a website is directly relevant information, whereas providing a ranking for the website of an organisation whose main business is not a website would be promotional. If the JW website becomes so notable that there are sufficient secondary sources to create an article about the website, I have no objection to its Alexa ranking being stated there. You have cited WP:Verifiability; it states: "While content must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, verifiability alone is not a reason for inclusion, and does not guarantee that any content must be included in an article" (formatting added).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved: edit was reviewed by another editor User:Gtstricky, thanks — — --81.92.216.11 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you are editing from a dynamic IP address (the last octet has changed from 10 to 11), suggesting that you may not be alerted to comments at User Talk:81.92.216.10. You might consider creating an account.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article should be Questioned!

Just a brief reading of the first paragraphs of this article shows deliberate attempts to undermine Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious organization or to shame it. There are tons of prejudice language that need not even be mentioned. Detractors have taken over the article and weaved in as many negative statements as they can. Statements about the "truth" and "in the truth." First these words are used in the Bible. Second other groups such as Adventist groups have also referred to their beliefs as the truth. While these numerous statements may be true, I question the relevance, the necessity, and the verbiage in which many statements in this article are expressed. I believe attempts are made to put a spotlight on what the public might perceive as less than flattering or favorable. Jacobpressures (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an article that has achieved GA (good article) status according to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and manual of style. You may be interested to know that Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, must report about what reliable sources say. I noticed that you are a new editor and have just posted a welcome message on your talk page with more information. Thank you, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 06:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As the editor brings up the subject, the "good article" status of this article certainly seriously needs to be re-examined, as it suffers from the very issues that the editor, and I previously, mentioned. but just be warned Jacobpressures that if the neutrality is questioned, be prepared for a walk down Sesame street. Willietell (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The assessment as a "good article" was made by independent editors, so unless you're alleging some elaborate conspiracy, your claim would seem to be unfounded. You and the new editor have both been asked to address your concerns, ideally by starting with what you each deem to be the most serious issue with the article rather than the unhelpful methods of a) starting a load of threads all at once or b) making vague claims about 'the whole article'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jacobpressures, I have followed this Wikipedia entry for several years. Consider a simple question: Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christian? For members the answer is yes, even the only true Christians. Yet many other Christian groups would say the term only applies to those who affirm certain doctrines such as the trinity. Getting the correct encyclopedia voice that represents a neutral point of view was not a simple thing to achieve. Terms like church/congregation/denomination comes into play in all this. Because Wikipedia must correctly represent what reliable sources say, including of course, what Jehovah's Witnesses themselves say. Here is the first two sentences from Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Roman Catholic Church.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. The group reports a worldwide membership of more than 8.3 million adherents involved in evangelism and an annual Memorial attendance of more than 20 million.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church) is a Christian restorationist church that is considered by its members to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. The church is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has established congregations and built temples worldwide.
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian Church, with more than 1.28 billion members worldwide. As one of the oldest religious institutions in the world, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilisation.

If the second sentence started with "The church..." it would be problematic, because JWs do not generally self-identify in this way. In contrast, for Mormons, "The church..." works. Yet, due to their very long official name, the first sentence folds in non-official but otherwise acceptable common designations. Identifying the Roman Catholic Church as a "Christian Church" aligns well with what is known of the group, and how they self-identify, and what reliable sources say. I would encourage you to not give up on Wikipedia's treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses. Additional editorial perspectives helps in the process. Yet, as Jeffro77 advises, it is best to narrow the discussion to specific items that may need improvement. -Cheers, Randy. Randyg271 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not at all a church.

Call them to verify. I know this for a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter3932 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We can only report what reliable sources say, and a citation actually used the word; even the WTBTS told a commission that the organization is very much structured like the Catholic Church. PaleoNeonate (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a misconception of many JWs. Perhaps because Witness publications typically view the word in the negative, although the general population may not feel this way. JW publications tend to favor the word congregation as a "church" primarily means a congregation or group of people. However most people tend to think of church as a building. In an effort not to promote this confusion and to differentiate itself from other churches of Christendom, JWs use the more generic word congregation as do Jewish congregations. Wikipedia could decide to not use the term out of respect. But perhaps that's the very reason many reliable redactors on here will insist on using it. Nothing good for JWs! See the following publication. JWs admit the words are synonymous. The August edition of Awake! 2012 states on page 15: "The original Greek word for 'congregation' is rendered 'church' in some English Bibles." Thus the Watchtower organization acknowledges that the words are the same. Jacobpressures (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jacobpressures, The Awake! quote is a footnote acknowledgement. The choice made by JW translators shows in the Philemon quote where the word used is 'congregation.' It is best not to speculate on motives, either those of JW authors and translators or Wikipedia editors. Rather the test must be alignment with what reliable sources say. As PaleoNeonate notes, the JW leadership is aware the religion qualifies as a 'church' in common way the word is used. If there is a misconception, and it was a concern, articles in The Watchtower and Awake! could adjust the emphasis and word choice. -Cheers, Randy. Randyg271 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary for Wikipedia articles to "decide to not use the term out of respect", because Wikipedia is not censored. Church is a standard term in broad usage. In court cases, JW members, including Governing Body members, have no problem referring to their denomination as a "church"; however, even if that were not the case, it still would not be inappropriate for the Wikipedia article to use the term. The description of JWs as a "church" is extraordinarily mild in comparison to other issues on Wikipedia where WP:CENSOR is applied. The benchmark for inclusion is whether the term is encyclopedic, not whether it might cause offense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"religion"

I have updated this and related articles to properly reflect the fact that in encyclopedic usage, Jehovah's Witnesses is not a religion. Using religion to refer to the group may give a false impression that Jehovah's Witnesses is some separate more obscure religion (analogous to Baha'i or Scientology), rather than what it actually is—a denomination of Christianity.

In most cases, I have used the terms denomination or group. In many cases, the choice of one term or the other is immaterial and often simply to avoid using denomination to often; in some cases group has been preferred where the context is more related to the attitude of collective members rather than a monolithic organization.

Other terms that might be suitable in certain contexts include organization, church or faith. When discussing the Bible Students, including Rutherford's group prior to the formal name change, movement is also suitable in certain contexts. Religion should only be used to describe Jehovah's Witnesses (and other denominations) in quoted text or where it is clear that the term is being used in a more informal/colloquial sense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs Could be a Lot more Positive

The opening paragraphs could be a lot more positive rather than the constant tweaking by detractors. Even when there is something positive to say, some one quote mines and cherry picks a statement by some scholar even if it is not the mainstream view to TRASH JWS. (What is really, really scary is that thousands of positive statements by these same scholars and other more renown scholars are overlooked to advance an agenda.) The opening paragraphs says NOTHING about our PLACES OF WORSHIP. It says nothing about our conventions. It says nothing about how we pride ourselves on racial equality. It says nothing about the GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS to Civil, Minority, and Religious RIGHTS. NO OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUP ON EARTH has contributed so much to Civil, Minority, or Religious rights as JWs but you don't get this in the opening paragraphs. NO ATTEMPTS have been made to make the opening paragraphs POSITIVE and NEUTRAL. anything good is pushed below and crowded with negative spins at every turn! We are also known for our depictions of earthly paradise, political neutrality, commitment to non-violence (painted as "refusing military service" instead), etc. Can someone maybe a detractor who is also a gatekeeper come up with just one other outstanding thing about JW without being sly and undermining? (Reading these article I would be hard pressed to find even one. JWs are liars, crooks and thieves!) I'm sure if you found any type of unpopular movement you can find a scholar or detractor who will commit negatively. Why can't we give the JWs the best opening presentation we can give them? Or it is about an agenda? The article packs as much negativity it can find. NO REAL ATTEMPT was made to be POSITIVE and OBJECTIVE. They only tried to be "truthful" and careful in their sly undertones. Jacobpressures (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The JWs have both participated to improve (freedom of religion) and impede human rights (failure to advance women's rights, the practice of shunning, pressure to refuse proper medical treatment, failure to properly handle child abuse cases). The article also mentions "Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have influenced legislation related to civil rights in several countries". Note that the neutrality of this article has been questioned and challenged multiple times. Talk page archives include intervention requests for uninvolved editors to come and comment when serious content disputes occurred. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to provide information with citations from reliable secondary sources. You may like to demonstrate from such sources why it would be necessary to discuss 'your' "PLACES OF WORSHIP" in the lead, and also why 'your' conventions are notable enough to appear in the introduction. The lead already includes reference to JW contributions to civil rights, as already indicated by PaleoNeonate above. It is not the purpose of the article to try to "give the JWs the best [nor worst] opening presentation we can give them", which would be neither objective nor neutral.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jacobpressures: can you please stop shouting? Thanks. Edaham (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Extra footnotes in the lead

Linking to a different article doesn't mean you shouldn't define the meaning within the article, and the [a][b][c] annotations I had were much less cluttered than the [note] ones. The intro uses three words that are jargon and not in common use. The words go to the very definition of the article's topic, it makes no sense to just throw -isms out there and ask people to investigate the meaning themselves-- they went to the Jehovah's Witness article to learn about the denomination, not to be directed to three other pages just to understand what the denomination entails. WP is supposed to help people understand topics, which is currently impossible to do without research outside of the article. @PaleoNeonate: ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the comment from Vyselink's page here, because this talk page is where the discussion should take place. This is not the simple English Wikipedia however, and those terms are standard in theology. I don't personally think that those notes are necessary. As for the lower-alpha group, I agree that it's better than using a custom Note group, but some consensus should be reached if we want to update all notes to use Efn, otherwise it's best to keep a consistent style throughout the article. —Paleo Neonate - 21:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Any formatting discussions (Efn etc) I'll leave to others, because that's not my strength. As for the notes, I agree with PaleoNeonate. This is not the simple English Wikipedia, and uncommon words do not need a note for what they mean if they are linked. As for "throwing ism's out there" and using "jargon", that is not what this article is doing. It is using the correct terminology to describe the subject, in this case the Witnesses. If somebody doesn't understand those terms, and feels like they need to, then they can click on the link. If their purpose is merely to get some background information on the Witnesses, the rest of the article does that just fine. Vyselink (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the other responses that definitions of the terms are not required in the lead. The restorationist and nontrinitarianism elements are explicitly dealt with in the body. I think the millenarian nature of their eschatology could be made clearer by slightly modifying the first sentence of the Eschatology subsection to include that term though? So long as it's not just awkwardly plonked into the sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'simple english' and providing definitions to words in an article. Theologians do not use wiki articles to get their info on theology, but millions of people do. Go ahead and leave them out but don't pretend as though the footnotes would not aid in understanding the subject. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The terms are already linked, and the terms as they relate to JWs are elaborated in the body of the article (with the exception of one not explicitly clarified, as already stated). It is splitting hairs to assert that the casual reader is sufficiently interested to click a link for a footnote containing an unsourced definition, but not interested enough to click the links for the related articles or to read the relevant parts of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Divine Name

"They consider use of the name Jehovah vital for proper worship." I think it is more accurate to state that "They consider use of the Divine Name as vital for proper worship." JWs do not have any prefer for Jehovah over Yahweh, Yehovah, or any of its alternatives. In English only is the name preferred because of it history and naturalness. Other forms of the Divine Name are used in other languages using both I and Y as the first letter. The statement seems juvenile and could be thought to be misleading. Jehovah is English. JWs use over 700 languages. There is no dictation that the English word be used. Of course use of the words "Divine Name," while acceptable, would likely be too positive. We need to tone down the positive reference and highlight as much negativity as we can in each paragraph. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that they do not prefer the form Jehovah over the form Yahweh is pointedly false. Yahweh is the preferred term by most biblical scholars in English.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Divine Name Jehovah.

A variety of Bible translations, historical and modern, use the Divine Name Jehovah. Yahweh is considered an abbreviation of the Divine Name, containing just two syllables rather than three, and Bible characters usually did not abbreviate the Divine Name, except on occasion. Many Bible character names contain part of the Divine Name, such as Jeho-shaphat and Jeho-iakim, and this has aided the understanding of how to pronounce the Divine Name. In Hebrew, the "J" is pronounced as a "Y" for these names. In the tetragrammaton (יהוה)‎, the Hebrew letter used for the v in Jehovah is ו‎ ("vav"), and makes the "v" sound as in "vine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.96.104 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting a change to the article. Your claim that Yahweh is an 'abbreviation' of the 'divine name' is just wrong. Yahweh is a transliteration of the tetragrammaton, and it is the form preferred by biblical scholars in English. The form Jehovah is also used in English, and this article accurately presents that it is the form preferred by Jehovah's Witnesses. Your implication that 'v' should dogmatically be used in English where vav appears in Hebrew would make for some atypical English pronunciations of names like Esau, Reuben and even your chosen example, Jehoshaphat (יְהוֹשָׁפָט).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the editor who open this thread, except his statement about positive. (I prefer neutral). I would like to point out for example the names "Jeremiah", "James", "Peter" or even "Jesus" have different pronunciations in original language if I recall right like "Yeremiah","Yakob", "Patros" or "Yeshu". Biblical names are usually transliterated in to other languages in its most palatable/natural form or one that is already quite understood. In English similar names to Yahweh starts with J. For example "Yeremiah" is Jeremiah. For Jehovah's Witnesses the pronunciation is not important but using the name is. The reason they currently stick with one popular pronunciation is so as to avoid confusion in publications and teachings, and that is quite reasonable. If one day English speakers (not scholars) find Yahweh more sweet to pronounce then I am sure JWs won't have a problem renaming their name to "Yahweh's Witnesses' :-). I second "They consider use of the Divine Name as vital for proper worship, and in English they prefer Jehovah". This avoids suggesting to readers that the name pronounced Jehovah is like an amulet for JWs in all languages. --Roller958 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and it should simply state usage in English. The forms Jehovah and Yahweh are both used in English with the latter being the form preferred by scholars. It isn't necessary to make a special case for foreign translations of Jehovah at this article, just as we don't normally do so in articles when referring to other names such as Jesus or Jeremiah. Non-English Wikipedia articles about Jehovah's Witnesses should provide the localised name as it appears in the respective article language (though as the denomination began and is headquartered in an English-speaking country, it would be appropriate for foreign-language articles to also note the English form). There is no hint of a suggestion in the article that Jehovah's Witnesses use the name 'Jehovah' as an 'amulet'. That said, the sentence in question could be changed to say they "consider the use of God's name vital for proper worship", but the POV term 'Divine Name' should not be used in 'Wikipedia's voice'; if the use of Jehovah over other English forms is to be elaborated upon, that would belong in the relevant subsection, not the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your opinion. I certainly like using God's name over Divine name, however given there is multiple pronunciations in English I suggested to add that in English they use Jehovah. To say a simplified version would be "They consider use of God's name Jehovah vital for proper worship", but the problem is some editors who have reservations on the pronunciation might question it. So I suggest something like "They consider use of God's name vital for proper worship and in English they use Jehovah". Roller958 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Since "For Jehovah's Witnesses the pronunciation is not important but using the name is", it doesn't really seem necessary to add "and in English they use Jehovah" (but if something like this is to be included, it would be better to simply say, "and they prefer the form Jehovah"; usage in specific languages is not necessary in the lead). The fact that the group is called Jehovah's Witnesses makes it somewhat self-evident that they prefer the form Jehovah. But if elaboration on the point is considered necessary, such belongs in the subsection, not in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Postive Remarks about Jehovah's Witnesses Repeatedly Removed Without Discussion

The article has improved since I was here last. It was finely tuned as "neutral" statements obviously written by opposers. While that is still the case, it has impoved. However, any positive remarks are deliberately removed and not discussed. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Though you raised several 'objections' in May, you did very little to substantiate your complaints (see Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62) once responses were provided. The article hasn't actually changed a great deal since your spate of complaints on 3 May 2017.[7] Your claims about 'finely tuned' statements 'obviously written by opposers' and about the 'repeated removal of positive remarks' remain unsubstantiated, and whilst there have been occasional POV edits (both for and against the denomination), these have routinely been quickly reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the Purpose of this Biased paragraph? Free Speech and Freedom of Religion at Issue here. Do we value it? Or is this Russia?

"Authors including William Whalen, Shawn Francis Peters and former Witnesses Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Alan Rogerson and William Schnell have claimed the arrests and mob violence in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s were the consequence of what appeared to be a deliberate course of provocation of authorities and other religions by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whalen, Harrison and Schnell have suggested Rutherford invited and cultivated opposition for publicity purposes in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God.[312] Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest, but also advised members not to co-operate with police officers or courts that ordered them to stop preaching, and to prefer jail rather than pay fines."[313]

This paragraph is clearly biased and every musing of a so-called scholar need not be cited. 1)"the arrests and mob violence ... were the consequence of what appeared to be a deliberate course of provocation of authorities and other religions by Jehovah’s Witnesses" How did they do this? By using their constitutional RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH? This justified violence, arrests, and such? Did they have weapons? Did they have protests and sing slogans? Did they make threats? If this statement had been MADE ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT THERE WOULD BE OUTRAGE and the Wikipedia would have the article removed immediately!

Should JWs have resisted arrest? not co-operate with police? Continue to preach? Should they pay money when their rights were being violated? So now, please tell me, in what questionable, HEINOUS, EVIL, DESERVING way did JWs deserve their treatment based on their actions????? PLEASE TELL ME GIVEN THAT THE USA IS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY! PROTESTS ARE LAWFUL and these actions are not even civil disobedience which did happen in the Civil Rights Movement. The paragraph is inconsistent and it is purposedly designed to trash Jehovah's Witnesses. This is one way the Wikipedia article could show empathy to a group that expanded our understanding of civil rights, minority rights, and religious rights. But instead of getting anything positive or any SYMPATHY, you get HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly this is hate!Jacobpressures (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The article cites what various sources have said, and the views stated are clearly attributed to those authors rather than asserted as plain statements of fact. None of the statements attempt to 'justify' violence or the violation of anyone's rights. They simply state what, in their view, happened. The brief paragraph is in a section about Opposition that does not dominate the article and is proportional to the article's length.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jacobpressures: Please note that this talk page is to discuss content improvements, it is not a general forum. Long rants and walls of text do not help the process, and the use of bold, or excessive uppercase and punctuation is discouraged. I suggest to instead discuss specific changes. You may for instance quote what seems inappropriate and offer an alternate wording, as well as provide alternate sources, etc. Try to keep each request separate and short. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 09:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys, maybe you can assist me. Is there anothe level up the chain that i can go to get these issues addressed? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! Jacobpressures (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jacobpressures: I have previously sent you a message with links to how Wikipedia works at your talk page (here). Wikipedia is community-driven, although there are policies and guidelines. You are at the right place to suggest specific changes. Also of relevance are WP:WPNOTRS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. For non-article-content matters, it is possible to ask questions at the Teahouse or at the help desk. If necessary, we can occasionally request the help of third party opinions through for instance WP:3O or WP:RfC. I suggest to also consult the archives of this talk page to be up to date with previous and existing consensus on various issues that has already formed over time. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The original post was a bit of a rant and made it easy to overlook the fact that there's a valid point here. The quoted authors are outspoken critics of the religion and their assessments belong in the criticism section. They are not contrary to the other criticism mentioned, e.g persecution in Nazi occupied Europe for example and do not seem to contest areas in which the JWs were obviously persecuted. Rather, their arguments are part of a larger critical commentary and should be treated as such. Edaham (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, had the criticism come from a court transcript or a newspaper at the time, I think it should be placed as a contrary view in the persecution section to give a broad perspective as to the nature of the persecution. From someone whose primary aim is to skeptically examine the religion however it should be made clear that they are critics of the religion by placing their commentary in the appropriate section. Edaham (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense about 'is this Russia' (a false dichotomy) did not help the original commenter's aims. Including criticism within the rest of the prose rather than in separate criticism sections is actually the preference on Wikipedia. However, where there are significant and notable criticism, it is suitable for them to be separate. Since there is already a criticism section, moving those comments is probably suitable (though I haven't reviewed closely).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(But the current presentation of that information outside of a subsection is not good.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Understand and have read wp guidelines on criticism. In this case I think the exception stands due to the stated reasons, and the fact that a criticism section exists already, both here and as an entire article. Agree with your comments regarding the sub section issue. I will look at that again more closely and see if there's a better way of doing this. Incidentally do we want a separate article for criticism? I always see the homeopathy article as a good bench mark for reconciling all criticism into relevant areas of the article. Edaham (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

just a thought, the simple, but quite radical adjustment to the heading criticism, "critics of Jehovah's Witnesses" might be a worthwhile subject heading, as there are many people and organizations who have acted and written extensively on this subject. Edaham (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to merge Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses into this article as it would dominate the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The suggested change to critics of Jehovah's Witnesses does not seem like a good idea to me, but see what other editors think. The paragraph that was moved to that section is specifically about criticism involving the causes of mob violence, and not about critics of JWs generally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that the reason for a separate criticism article to exist is that there would be too much criticism material to cover for the main JW article. The main article is not short and there probably also would be weight issue if much of the article was dedicated to criticized topics. The homeopathy case is slightly different because it crosses in the medical field (and is pseudoscience), where Wikipedia must adhere to special sourcing standards. —Paleo Neonate - 02:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Agree with your points on both counts. I spent some time reading the criticism section and yes it does warrant its own article. I also agree that the criticism section heading looks better unchanged and I have left it as such. In response to the suggestion that the criticism moved from the persecution section not be left outside a subheading, I have added a subheading to that section. Please take the time to check. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Bad, bad move. The paragraph about the possible incitement by JWs of further persecution is now in completely the wrong place and its new location makes no sense. Firstly it now leads the "Criticism and controversy" section, when in fact it is a minor criticism in the context of all public and academic criticisms about the JWs. The paragraph provides additional and valuable information and context specifically to discussion about persecution and violence historically suffered by the JWs. That is the section where it belongs. The claim that "the quoted authors are outspoken critics of the religion" is bullshit. Peters is an academic whose book praises the JWs for their contribution to the protection of individual rights under US and Canadian law. Is his fair and balanced observation, echoed by authors who happen to have a harsh word or two about the JWs, now also relegated to what is regarded by some as the snipers and haters section? BlackCab (TALK) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right. It probably shouldn't lead the criticism section. I still think it belongs in that section though (as long as that section exists) as it is not really about persecution, but about other people's claims that they were creating the false impression of opposition. By making the argument that it is in the wrong place you are actually making a good case for the redispersal of the entire criticism section into the relevant areas of the article (which I also support if it is done properly). As for the "BS" claims, firstly please adhere to wikipedia civility guidelines and secondly I did not have time to read all the sources mentioned as there is some over-cite regarding that particular piece of content. You seem to have an in depth understanding of the cited material. Which of them do you think most clearly support the article's content? Edaham (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I probably wrote the section. Though I have all the books I'm not in a position at the moment to rank the sources; I probably listed a range of them to counter claims (which were being made at the time) that criticisms were simply the view of "disgruntled" ex-JWs with axes to grind. Over-citing is an unfortunate by-product of that. I would strongly oppose any move to disperse those criticisms: they should remain there as a summary of the main Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses spinout article. BlackCab (TALK) 07:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood, there's obviously quite a bit of history to this article as well as several COI groups who might be interested in editing it. Will have a more in-depth read of the associated branch articles Edaham (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing the content in question (actually only three sentences), it does seem better in its original location. It doesn't discuss an ongoing criticism or controversy, but deals specifically with opposition to JWs in the 1930s and 1940s. However, given that it refers to mob violence in the United States, the section probably warrants at least a sentence in the preceding information about what actually happened in the United States before dealing with the purported causes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"The organization makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[157] and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements.[158]" Question: How is this different from any other religion? Other than for the obvious reason, to purposefully make JWs look bad, I don't see how this statement contributes to the discussion. What other Church has a provision for members to criticize, especially contribute, to official teachings? Does the Catholic Church allow laity to contribute to its teaching? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Seventh-Day Adventists? Mormon Church? I think in any of these organizations the thought would be then the teachings are that of man and not God. Thus I think the sentence is intended to smear but contributes nothing to the conversation. Jacobpressures (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it different? 1) Many groups do not punish members for openly disagreeing with the group's interpretations, and some groups have provisions for input about doctrines and interpretations. 2) Most groups do not explicitly direct members to shun those who formally disagree. It's interesting that most of your chosen examples of other groups are those that shun those who disagree with them, which is a misrepresentation of how doctrinal disagreement is usually handled.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeated use of "the group" to belittle Jehovah's WItnesses! They are more than 100,000 people

Proponents of the use of the word "group" to describe Jehovah's Witnesses insist it is neutral when they know it can also be belittling. why not just use the more positive term denomination? It is a shame that minority opinions on Wikipedia constantly face denigration with the sly use of terms. And yes, i know they are no set numbers for various words or categories. No need to patronize.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobpressures (talk • contribs) 03:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t find the word “group” belittling. There is debate over the status of JWs as a Christian denomination given their rejection of Jesus Christ as God. The question is acnowledged right here https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/ Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Editor is rehashing a nonargument that he attempted several months ago. See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62#Use_of_the_word_"Group". The terms 'denomination' and 'group' are both used throughout the article. The interpretation that 'group' is somehow 'belittling' exists only in the editor's mind, and is not reasonably inferred from the way it is used throughout the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is it stated that a Christian denomination must be Trinitarian? Are saying that all Christian denominations, which are non-Trinitarian, are not denominations? I think your objection is religious! You don't think they are Christian and are applied it to denomination. Jacobpressures (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of denomination would classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a denomination based on the nature of Jesus: "A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organisation, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one group and another are defined by authority and doctrine; issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy may separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations—often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties—are sometimes known as 'branches of Christianity' or 'denominational families'"

Furthermore, there is a list of denominations that are non-Trinitarian. Even the Roman Catholic Church which does not view itself as a denomination but The Christian Church is listed as a denomination.

You have stated it very clearly. Your objection is religious and you don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses a legitimate denomination because they are not Trinitarian. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite your personal beliefs or attitudes towards JWs, Jehovah's Witnesses deserve equal treatment and to be ascribed the same dignity as other religious denominations. There is no question the word denomination is more dignifying than group. It is similar to a person who refuses to recognize the state recognized marriage of two gays as truly married. Its is to deny them that esteem. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The article already clearly states that JWs are a nontrinitarian Christian denomination. The presence of the word group in some places in the article is merely for variety to not use the word denomination over and over again. The word group is not used to the exclusion of the term denomination. Hence your complaint about Christian denominations being Trinitarian is superfluous. --Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If I'm reading this argument correctly, the use of the word "group" is somehow belittling to the Witnesses, according to the editor? I guess a quick counterargument would be that the Witnesses themselves have referred to their religion as a group, see here: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/name-jehovahs-witnesses/ as ONE example of many that I could produce. Just for those who don't wish to click the link, (which is the JW official site) the relevant part says "Thus, our name Jehovah’s Witnesses designates us as a group of Christians who proclaim the truth about Jehovah, the Creator of all things." (emphasis mine). Thus I think this POINTLESS argument, which has now wasted yet more time and space since the original gripe about it, is concluded. Vyselink (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at about a dozen articles from different news sources. The words "faith", "movement", "group", "religion" and "denomination" are used interchangeably. Any editor editing this article ought to have some editorial leeway when deciding which to use where, so as to maintain writing style. Debating the use of any of these terms based on our WP:NPOV policies (quoting "Jehovah's Witnesses deserve equal treatment" from the above as an example), seems to be unduly limiting. To enforce this dispensation on the article would be to ask editors contributing to this specific entry not to use commonly used terminology from sources and citations. Such a proposal is highly unlikely to gain traction among your fellow Wikipedians, who will generally expect to be able use what ever terminology they encounter in reliable sources, provided they fall within WP:MOS/WP:WTW guidelines. In the lede the more formal word, denomination is probably the most accurate, irrespective of whether or not there's a debate as to their recognition as such, as there are reliable sources to support this usage, i.e. this article which opens by describing it as a Christian-based religious movement in the global sense, referring to it more formally as a denomination in the sense of it having been founded as a religion, and as a group after having referred to it more specifically using other terms. This isn't a bad example to follow and several other sources echo this terminology. Edaham (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62#"religion" regarding use of "religion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your cited reasons are debatable and depend on the support (if it exists in sufficient weight) of reliable sources. Lots of perfectly reliable sources refer to the group as a religion irrespective of whether or not this a sufficient scholalarly description. I think it's usage depends on the context in which they are being described. That said if you feel the use of any terminology in this article (religion notwithstanding) requires attribution, it's probably not a bad idea to add it, either by way of citation or in-text attribution. (Addition) Also I think it is fair to make the distinction between establishing its formal context in the lede, and quoting source material in the body where "the religion" might be read more casually and written accordingly. Edaham (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, context matters, and I explicitly stated that using religion would be okay "in quoted text or where it is clear that the term is being used in a more informal/colloquial sense". But because there is a prevailing POV, particularly from various Christian groups, that JWs are not 'real' 'Christians', it would be unhelpful for the article to potentially imply that JWs are some 'other' 'religion'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point, worth keeping in mind when reviewing present and future contributions. Edaham (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind using the term denomination for JWs, but I find forcing it as the only term that can be used inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I would like to add, in relation to trinitarianism, it's unclear what the complaint is, but it is important to mention that the JWs are nontrinitarian simply because it is one of the defining doctrines of the denomination. This in no way attempts to legitimize or belittle it, the article does not claim that the JWs are not Christians (although some POV pushers sometimes inserted such opinions, it was always reverted). —Paleo Neonate – 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abuse section

An editor has repeatedly modified the lead to focus more on child sexual abuse. This article is the main JW article, and it not necessary to provide additional information about that issue in the lead. Additionally, the editor added further detail about a purported 'particular concern' of the UK charity commission, though that source actually listed various 'particular concerns'. The editor's selection of one of those 'particular concerns' and presenting it in isolation is the editor's own POV; additionally, the 'two-witness rule' is already mentioned in the section, and does not need to be mentioned again in this summary section at this article. The spin-off article is the place for elaboration on the issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC

That's me. I've trimmed the introduction's mention of abuse to about the same number of words as before, but I have separated criticism of JW doctrines and ideas from criticism of actions regarding wrong-doing; they are totally unconnected.

I note that amongst other edits, User:Jeffro77 deleted an important reference^[1] I had added, supporting detailed text.

Re "The editor's selection of one of those 'particular concerns' and presenting it in isolation is the editor's own POV;" That's simply untrue. The BBC article cited says (near the end) One particular concern is the Church's policy of dismissing an allegation if it fails its two-witness policy, which states two people need to have seen the abuse for the Church to proceed with a full investigation., and mentions no others. The prominence given to this particular JW policy (a general policy, relevant to the JWs in general) in the Charity Commission report is notable and relevant.

^ "Decision: Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". Charity Commission for England and Wales. 26 July 2017. Retrieved 20 November 2017.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You have placed the BBC source prior to the claim that you say it supports. The statement does not appear in the UK government source that you have cited for the statement of 'particular concern'. At best, the presentation is confusing and misleading.I have given the citation a more obvious name becuase 'rose' was not particularly clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The details are already covered in spin-off article on the same subject. Significant findings and highlights are concisely covered here already. Excessive content on this is undue to this article. Please take a break from edit and take it cool instead of edit warring. --Roller958 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that sourced information has been repeatedly removed removed by two editors, both of whom edit almost exclusively this article and articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The tendency of the editing is to remove reliably sourced material that can be considered to show the JW in a bad light. The most recent edit took advantage of the edit to remove an existing paragraph, also sourced, also unwanted by the JW. A brief sentence in the introduction summarising a section in the article—the introduction is supposed to summarise the article content—was deleted with unenlightening comment Remove excessive content on lead. Please take a break from Wikipedia and get on with running your temple. Pol098 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Along comes another editor who decides I'm 'running a JW temple' because I have removed content in a manner that the editor has decided is 'pro-JW'. Entirely false characterisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There are massive pending investigations in UK, Canada and in US where WTS is asked to submit all documents on church discipline and related documents. Once they publish the outcome it could be more noteworthy than Australian commission inquiry report included in this article. But it is not fair to simply list every investigation here when we don't know the outcome. --Roller958 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"its not fair to list every investigation here when we don't know the outcome." So let's include the Charity Commission investigation, all mention of which, and citation of its outcome in the form of a very detailed report relevant to JW practices in general, was deleted en masse. Pol098 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you edited my reply. Due weight is already given with a section on this subject under criticism. You can't just add content on every news report or pending cases just because its properly sourced. I deleted en masse material which is undue. Roller958 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the brief paragraph in the relevant section about the Charity Commission. I think it may be premature, given the scope of this article, to include detail about the early stages of a class action case in Canada.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

By "my reply" I presume you are referring to the article; I haven't edited any replies to comments in this Talk section. Your comment must relate to the last edits I had made to the article at the time of this comment. I added in the introduction "There have been several allegations of unacceptable handling of sexual abuse cases and of coercion of JW members, some of which have been upheld by courts and formal inquiries." This summarises article text, per WP:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This issue is not a new addition, it has been in the introduction for a long time, until User:Roller958 decided to take advantage of my rewording to drop it altogether. Before I reworded it, the introduction conflated doctrinal differences with wrongdoing as "criticism"; I separated the issues. I'll come back to this article later, I'm busy at the moment. I think it's appropriate for all involved in this discussion to make a statement of position, which I'll outdent. Pol098 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I state that I have no involvement with or membership of any organisation or body that has any opinion or interest in either supporting or opposing the subject of this or any other article. I am not paid or encouraged to edit any article in Wikipedia; in fact I have never discussed with anybody what articles I edit, or the nature of my edits. I edit a wide range of articles on a wide range of unrelated subjects. I am happy for Wikipedia or an independent arbitrator to verify this. pol098

I would hope that others will make similar statements. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You are free to use an arbitrator. I was referring to edit of yours in my talk reply. Your claim Jeffro and I are on same boat is totally wrong which editors know both of us can affirm, probably this is one of the few times I am agreeing with him entirely. This is not a competition to use phrase such as I took 'advantage'. Anyone reasonable will do what I did on removing undue material added to already large section on handling of child abuse. I don't have much time to dedicate on Wiki either, and I'll let other editors continue. --Roller958 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The lead paragraph in question is a summary of the criticism section, which includes their handling of cases of child sexual abuse. It is not necessary to split it into separate paragraphs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

we don't regard ourselves as members like joining a club but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

It's important to verify respectfully, that we are regarded by each other as Christian Witnesses of Jehovah. First an interested one would have to agree to a personal Bible study for as long as one needs to the point where if they decide to become baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and they would have to answer the required questions to be sure they answer correctly and agree to commit wholeheartedly to Christ's way of life to the honor of Jehovah God our Creator to the best of their abilities and capabilities. (LUKE 10:27) Therefore, the term membership does not correctly apply to us in an appropriate way. we are part of a worldwide loving brother and sisterhood the way a family would be in a spiritual sense. Thanks for listening — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHATTHEfigg62 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi welcome to Wikipedia. The talk pages of articles aren't for listening to people talk or add their own commentary to articles, but for suggesting article improvements based on reliable sources. It's likewise important for us to verify respectfully, that we, as interested editors, after a reasonable period of study, consider ourselves to be Wikipedians and agree to commit whole heartedly to our core policies which aim to improve the quality and breadth of the information contained within our project. Thanks also for listening and welcome once again. We don't call each other brother and sister here, but many people are friendly and you can set your preferred gender in your settings. Edaham (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WHATTHEfigg62. Generically, individual JWs are members of their chosen denomination just like the members of any other denomination.It is not necessary for Wikipedia articles to employ jargon specific to individual groups, (and though it would not matter either way, JW literature also frequently refers to JWs as 'members of the congregation'). Other than that, did you have anything else to suggest regarding article content? Please note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to proselytise or to otherwise try to garner interest from what might be seen as 'prospective members'. It would be helpful if you sign your posts by typing --~~~~ after your comments at Talk pages. Unless a particular Bible verse is a specific topic of discussion directly related to specific article content, it is not at all helpful to intersperse scripture references in your Talk page comments; also, if a scripture is the subject of discussion, we discuss what reliable secondary sources say about the scripture rather than just asserting the Bible verse as 'support'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of "the" before "sociologist'

Jeffro77, regarding this edit: I am aware that it is not strictly necessary to include the definite article before a term such as "sociologist". Nonetheless, to quote Midnightblueowl at the Good article review for Stephen McNallen, "at a number of previous GAs and FAs I've found that there are editors who always insist on the addition of "the" when referring to someone's professional position". So it seems the preferred style is to include "the" in such cases. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't read better to me. If the were included, a comma should also follow the profession before the persons's name. Is the recommendation about good/featured articles in any guideline or policy, or is it just an anecdotal observation?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted my change for now, pending further discussion here. What is your rationale for changing all instances of sociologist, but not other professions such as Bible scholar or historian?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your suggestion about the comma. What are you basing that on? The point about adding it only before "sociologist" isn't important; it's just that that was where I started. Certainly it should also apply before "historian" and similar terms. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It just doesn't read well to me, and a comma would be more standard presentation for introducing a person's profession with a definite article followed by the person's name. The fairly selective treatment of sociologist in the article to the exclusion of other professions raised a red flag. Perhaps you should make the rest of the relevant edits to the article and then it can be assessed further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll wait for other editors to comment on the issue. Just to repeat it, the singling out of "sociologist" isn't important; I could have been more careful and added the definite article before all terms similar to "sociologist", but my failure to do so wasn't by itself a reason for reverting me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a pointless addition to me. Midnightblueowl's observation is just that, an observation, and doesn't mean that "the preferred style" is to include the "the". Indeed, in the example given, it reads "The sociologist of religion", which is a specific subset of being a sociologist, and makes more sense (but not by much) to include the "the" in order to highlight the distinction. Adding "the" makes readability more difficult, as pointed out by Jeffro, and this seems like a clear cut case (which FreeKnowledgeCreator even hints at by saying "I am aware it is not strictly necessary") of WP:IFITAINTBROKE, which, while not an official guideline, to me makes sense here. Err on the side of easier reading, imo. Vyselink (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply do not agree that it makes the article less readable. What Jeffro77 said was that to him it does not read well, which is a different observation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the definite article, which adds unnecessary formality. Referring to him as "sociologist Andrew Holden" is concise and perfectly clear. BlackCab (TALK) 04:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My observation that it doesn't read well has exactly the same meaning as Vyselink's observation that it makes readability more difficult. You may be incorrectly inferring readability as an antonym of unintelligible, whereas both of us were referring to the sense of being easy to read; engaging.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, BlackCab, formality is just what one should expect from an encyclopedia article. Exactly how should an encyclopedia article be written, other than with formality? As for the claim that including the definite article makes an article harder to read, I (still) don't see why. Perhaps it is possible that an encyclopedia article is easier to take seriously, and as such easier to read, if it is formally written? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

At this point, perhaps it would be best to at least have a consistent approach rather than the (still current) inconsistent treatment of sociologists. Rather than arguing the merits of one style or the other, let's at least get it one way or the other. The claim that singling out sociologists for the change doesn't matter is incorrect; even if unintentional, it suggests to readers that that profession is being singled out from other professions for some unstated reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the consistent presentation. Only one editor has expressed a preference for the other presentation, and has made no effort to apply that presentation to any profession other than sociologist. This suggests that either the presentation style actually isn't that important to the editor, or that the editor regards sociologists different in some way to other professions. In either case, consistent presentation is preferred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Move New World Translation in First Paragraph

IMHO, the first paragraph should just concisely give a simple definition on the Witnesses instead of going in to specific details. It looks awkward in intro. I moved it to 3rd paragraph where the statement would fit along with the list of beliefs and practices. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly would prefer to read NWT if its available in their language. But I believe its not very significant to be in the intro given most core teachings of Witnesses were established even before NWT was published and even today many JWs use different Bible translations in their programs when NWT is not available --Roller958 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That move looks fine to me. I agree that their use of a particular Bible, although certainly one of their defining features, is not so important that it need go in the opening paragraph. BlackCab (TALK) 04:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Discontinuing studies

Regarding the recent editor's reverted changes about discontinuing studies if the person is not attending meetings, that change is incorrect and despite the editor's claim, it does not better reflect the source. The quoted source indicates that a "sincere student" is expected to "make an intelligent decision to serve Jehovah", which is a euphemism for becoming a member of the denomination. The source further states that attending meetings is only something that "could lead the student to giving evidence of his desire to serve Jehovah".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Due weight

I have consolidated the verbiage of investigations happening in United Kingdom. No need to write a paragraph on investigations in two congregations out of 105000 congregations worldwide in main article. See WP:UNDUE. Discuss here if you feel so. --Roller958 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Kedar

I am not sure for the basis to remove the source verifying Kedar's statement with WT by Jeffro77. I verified it from a hardcover copy located in New York Public Library. His book is referenced in other works on Witnesses by George Chryssides. For example here and here. The book is highly trustworthy specifically on Kedar's statement given it is from an organization dedicated to criticize Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs. Of course the author got burned by the professor but he was honest enough to put it in the book, arguing that Kedar's statement was limited only to 'Old Testament' alongside another dumb argument that he didn't agree with the pronunciation 'Jehovah'. (which Witnesses never claimed as original pronunciation in first place and they don't stress on any particular pronunciation). --Roller958 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein is a respected hebrew scholar and there is no evidence that questions his statements on WT Bible. Two of his papers here (which gives a highly positive evaluation of NWT) and here specifically studies NWT which confirms his statement to WT that he uses it for his linguistic studies. In public domain I see only further letters from Kedar affirming his statements. For example another letter here. Roller958 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Harris' statements are tangential to the quote purportedly from Kedar and are not a suitable citation for those statements. In case it is not clear, the quotes in question that lack suitable non-primary JW sources are these (and the same concern applies to the extended quote lifted from The Watchtower at New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures):

reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible

[never discovered] any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain

The supposedly 'dumb' argument that Kedar—along with the rest of the scholarly community—doesn't agree with the pronunciation 'Jehovah' also has no relevance to Kedar's statements that the sources are supposed to support. The fact that Harris suggests that Kedar 'probably might say something good about the NWT' is not adequate. You're yet to provide a non-Watchtower source for Kedar's statement about NWT being unbiased. It is not readily apparent that Kedar's unsearchable PDF documents that you've linked to contain the quotes. If they do, please provide a page number. If they do not, either provide the original citation of Kedar making the statements that Watch Tower has attributed to him, or modify the quote to reflect what Kedar actually says in the sources that cite him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am looking for a 3rd party input here with proper Wiki guidelines shown. If not I wish to contact Wiki reliable source notice board. A primary source statement which was never disputed by any other sources and verified independently by a 3rd party publisher highly critical of the organisation is unreliable? The 3rd party should ask him to repeat the same quotation one more time or perhaps record word by word using a recorder? Show me where it says so in Wiki guidelines. I am sure its not rigid or dogmatic as the way you suggested. Harris statement was not "tangential", it simply confirms the primary source. The book from Harris clearly says that he contacted professor after the original quote appeared in two JW publications in 1989 (he re-quotes WT quote from Kedar exactly full in his book), and the professor replied back on 1st March 1992 from Haifa that "all my pronouncements about Watchtower Bible are limited to Old Testament" and reaffirmed that he "have checked hundreds of verses and have never found what one may consider a tendentious misinterpretation of Hebrew text of the Old Testament". First of all even works critical of Witnesses do not state that WTBTS (JW publisher) is disingenuous to the point of making up arbitrary quotations from random scholars or modifying quotations of scholars. I've seen critics claiming that WTBTS "misquote" scholars by only posting positive portion of their comments. That's open to debate, I would think any organization would do the same if the opinion of scholar otherwise is positive. So the primary source itself was never known for manipulating quotes and it is trustworthy. But what's more we have an independent source confirming primary source. --Roller958 (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding two other source I've added it doesn't contain the original quote. Since one is from 1973 and another 1981. The latter one is in German and I've put the page number and quote translated from German in source where he makes a positive conclusion after studying several passages on its handling of quotel, "In sharp contrast .. LXX and NWT are largely based on the formal structure of the source language". I've added those to add credibility to the statement in WT quote that he uses NWT in his linguistic studies. --Roller958 (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society claims that Kedar said a specific statement. As a primary JW source, the Watch Tower Society is not an appropriate source to assert a statement made by Kedar. If Kedar actually made the statement, cite Kedar's statement. Harris does not quote Kedar's statement, so that source does not support the quoted text. If Kedar has elsewhere said something positive about the NWT, quote that. The quote from The Watchtower is not suitable. You claim that "even works critical of Witnesses do not state that WTBTS (JW publisher) is disingenuous to the point of making up arbitrary quotations from random scholars or modifying quotations of scholars", however that is not actually case. Various scholars have stated that the Watch Tower Society has misquoted them and taken them out of context. Indeed, Kedar's own response to Harris indicates that the extent to which he might endorse the NWT was misconstrued in The Watchtower. You seem to think it is sufficient that 'Harris implies that Kedar probably said something similar'. It isn't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines for reliable sources on quotation says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original)." Harris cites Kedar's statement exactly and fully as it appears in JW publications in his book. Then he contacted the professor regarding this very specific cited quote and got back the confirmation. Both letters are dated and quoted in full. There is not an iota of evidence that suggest in Harris book that the professor suggested to him as being "misquoted". Kedar is rather answering a specific unrelated question by Harris in his second letter on the use of name 'Jehovah'. Which like I said is a dumb argument and professor replied the same, "I am sure somebody has informed the Witnesses of their blunder but they obviously find it hard —as all of us do— to abandon a tradition just because of scholarly objections." Just because in 18th century scholars suggested "Yahweh" as the likely pronunciation there is no reason to switch to it given Jehovah is used traditionally since 12th century (from 'Yehovah' with full vowels in masoretic Cairo Cairensis of 8th century) like Latinized 'Jesus' and other names. That's a completely unrelated topic that we have discussed before. --Roller958 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than for statements about its own doctrinal positions, the Watch Tower Society is not a 'trustworthy source', and definitely not for statements attributed to other people that are presented as an endorsement of the Watch Tower Society. At best, the quotes used by the Watch Tower are cherry picked, and do not provide the proper context for Kedar's actual statements. It is indeed 'ideal' to provide a citation to the original source, especially when there is a vested interest in taking the quote out of context, as is absolutely the case here. Harris quotes The Watchtower, not Kedar directly. Harris' letters only contain the original quote in question from The Watchtower, not as a statement directly from Kedar, and the fact that Kedar was silent on the specific wording attributed to him is not confirmation of the original wording or context; (Kedar simply states that he has "no wish to get involved in sectarian jealousies and quibbles", which is by no means a confirmation that he was quoted accurately). Either provide the original source, or quote something that Kedar actually said directly. Since you have stated that Kedar has directly stated positive things about the NWT, it is not clear why you so dogmatically want to use the content from The Watchtower.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you quoted the Wiki guideline but ignored the very next statement of the guideline: "No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article." Though you obviously read the guideline, you felt the need to delete[8] the fact that the actual quote was taken from The Watchtower rather than Kedar. Why are you trying to obfuscate where you got it?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

According to “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial” (Watch Tower Society, 1990), the original statement is from a Watch Tower representative interviewing Kedar, (and it also states that the interview was translated from the original German). Thus, the source of the statement absolutely must be unambiguously stated as the Watch Tower Society, which is unequivocally where it's from.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I provided a reliable secondary source that independently verifies and quotes the primary source, along with other sources that adds weight to the primary source. Harris discusses other scholars in detail whom he thinks Watchtower partially quoted (as opposed to full quote with negative statements), but not so on Kedar. Your objections to exclude the quote have evolved and if your current objection is about attributing quote "unequivocally" to Watchtower I will let other independent editors to handle it. Frustrating as usual. Thanks --Roller958 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this extended material be at the NWT article instead? —Paleo Neonate – 04:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Extended quote is already in NWT article.Roller958 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You provided a secondary source that quotes the Watch Tower source, not Kedar. It turns out that the quote used by the Watch Tower Society is a translation (from German) of a transcript of an interview a Watch Tower Society representative had with Kedar. The circumstances of the interview are unknown, as is any content that the Watch Tower Society chose to leave out. An ellipsis (". . .") appears in the Watch Tower Society's extended quotation of Kedar, indicating that some of Kedar's comments about the NWT were left out. (The WTS' quote of Kedar, originally appearing in All Scripture, is recycled in various other JW publications, and never contains the intervening material.) Harris' silence about that fact is evidence of nothing at all; Harris was obviously aware that Kedar was partially quoted, because Harris reproduces the ellipsis in his quote of the WTS' quotation of Kedar.

Since the only original source is the WTS, it would be inappropriate to not clearly indicate that Kedar's comments have been filtered via the WTS. However, I have no objection to the inclusion of relevant elaboration by Harris—including Kedar's responses—where it supports the quoted text; however, elaboration about use of Jehovah in the NT is tangential, and Kedar explicitly states that the NT is not his area of expertise. It's still not clear why you didn't (or can't) simply use some other statement directly from Kedar, since you've repeatedly said Kedar elsewhere says positive (not a requirement) things about the NWT, which wouldn't require any corroboration from Harris, and would not present any concerns about Kedar's statements being filtered via the WTS.

Obviously, once I became aware that the original source of the quote is a WTS interview, my 'objections' 'evolved'. And yes, it would have been considerably simpler if you provided clearer information about the quote that you added when I first requested it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Rolf Furuli, a Jehovah's Witness, is not an impartial source regarding the NWT. JW testimony about the NWT is not particularly helpful, especially if his own vested interest is not stated. If Furuli's quotation of Kedar, as claimed, is part of a 'general letter sent by Kedar', provide a source that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your initial objection was that the source was from an "Evangelist" organization, albeit it being highly critical of Witnesses from an evangelical perspective. Then you said oh the original quote from WT is not in Harris book, so Harris must have not asked about it. Then you said we need to explicitly attribute it to "Watchtower society". Now you are saying Kedar is misquoted by "vested interests", i.e by Semitic language scholar Rolf Furuli whose honesty on citations in academic works were never questioned, other than his views on his religion by works critical of Witnesses. Yet till now you haven't even provided a single reliable source that backs your claim that WT misquoted Kedar other than your personal assumptions, not even from the plentiful works of JW critics. Your personal POV pushing is wearing me down from Wiki. I am going to report you for this behavior, long due. --Roller958 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputed Text

I am re-quoting below all sources under dispute for the sentence below in this article to help unrelated editors who are trying to decode the conversation above.

Disputed Text: According to the Watch Tower Society, Hebrew scholar Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein opined that the Old Testament work "reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible" adding that he had never discovered "any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

Primary source: All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial (1990). Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 326.: "In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said: 'In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain. '"

Secondary source (1):Harris, Doug (1993). Awake to the Watch Tower. Reachout Trust. pp. 347–349. ISBN 0-951-36322-0.: "Another source they quote both in WT and All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial is Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel. "In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said: 'In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.'" I have two personal letters from Prof. Dr. Kedar who is a research fellow of the Hebrew University Bible Project. ... An extract reads as follows ... It is evident that I do not share the tenets of so-called Jehova's [sic] Witnesses. i.e the Watchtower people, but I have absolutely no wish to get involved in sectarian jealousies and quibbles. A quite different question is that of their Bible translation, ... I have checked hundreds of verses and have never found what one may consider a tendentious misinterpretation of Hebrew text of the Old Testament (Haifa, 1st March 1992). ... As you have correctly stated all my pronouncements on the watchtower version refer exclusively to the Hebrew portion of the Bible, i.e the Old Testament, of which I have checked hundreds of verses. I am not qualified to pass judgement on the corresponding English version of the Greek New Testament. ...(Haifa, 9th May 1992)"

Secondary source (2):Furuli, Rolf (1999). The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. Elihu Books. pp. 296–297. ISBN 0-9659814-4-4.: "I agree with the words of the Israeli professor Benjamin Kedar: 'Several years ago I quoted the so-called New World Translation among several Bible versions in articles that dealt with purely philological questions (such as the rendition of the causative hiphil, of the participle qotel). In the course of my comparative studies I found the NWT rather illuminating: it gives evidence of an acute awareness of the structural characteristics of Hebrew as well as of an honest effort to faithfully render these in the target language. A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias. Repeatedly I have asked the antagonists of the Watchtower-Bible who turned to me for a clarification of my views, to name specific verses for a renewed scrutiny. This either was not done or else the verse submitted (e.g. Genesis 4:13, 6:3, 10:9, 15:5, 18:20 etc.) did not prove the point, namely a tendentious translation.'* ... *This quote is from a general letter that Kedar sends out to those who inquire about his views of the NWT. Regarding his view of religious bodies, Kedar says in this statement: "I beg to make clear that I do not feel sympathy for any sect and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, my mistrust is not directed against the individual member of such sect but rather against the organisation that manipulates him and puts forward its dogmas and rules as the ultimate truth. It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organisations that fiercely oppose the witnesses do not behave any better. On the whole, synagogue, church and mosque also tend to exhibit dogmatic arrogance coupled with intolerance of and enmity with other confessions."

Other sources supporting statements in primary (1): Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin (January 1981). "Die Stammbildung qôṭel als Übersetzungsproblem" [The rooting qôṭel as a translation problem]. Journal of Old Testament scholarship (Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft) (in German, English, and Biblical Hebrew). 93 (2): 254–279. Retrieved December 9, 2017. p.262: "In sharp contrast to this free translation, LXX [Septuagint] and NWT are largely based on the formal structure of the source language [ancient Hebrew]."

Other sources supporting statements in primary (2):Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin (1973). "The Interpretative Element in Transliteration" (PDF). Textus: Studies of the Hebrew University Bible Project (in English, Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek). 8: 55–77. This article quotes NWT many times supporting primary source statement that the professor uses it in his linguistic studies. Retrieved January 2, 2018. -- Roller958 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The 'dispute' as it stands currently is that you do not wish the quote published by the Watch Tower Society about an interview with Kedar by the Watch Tower Society to be attributed to the Watch Tower Society. As you have previously contended that Kedar has elsewhere said positive things about the NWT, you could still simply replace the quote with something he said directly, independent of the Watch Tower Society. However, I don't have a major objection to keeping the statement as it stands, clearly attributed to the Watch Tower Society, and supported by Harris' determination that Kedar agrees in principle.

Furuli, as a member of the religion, is not an objective source, and if the quote Furuli reproduces is part of a general letter Kedar sends, then you certainly should be able to find a more appropriate source for it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem attributing to WTS. My latest problem is your removal of Furuli. What you mean by objective source? Its not his opinion, its Kedar's opinion that he quotes. Furuli quotes full letter in his book in footnotes. The quote have similar words to original quote in WT such as "honest effort". I didn't add it in quotation because it was not relevant to NWT, rather kedar's feelings toward Jehovah's Witnesses. I will add it here above when I get home. --Roller958 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just being a member doesn't mean he is being dishonest in quoting another scholar. By that logic sources from Penton and other former witnesses should be removed from this article. We have to look at the context. A guideline here explains more. "Rather than excluding such non-independent sources from a page, it is often best to include them, with mention of how the source is connected to someone with an interest in the topic." In this case I am not arguing over Furuli's own opinion on NWT, but I am using his book to quote another independent scholar. Again not as a primary independent source for this article, but as a supportive source to critical Harris book and WT. --Roller958 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You want to quote a JW source that purports to quote Kedar in order to support another JW source that purports to quote Kedar. It should be obvious why that is not objective. And since Furuli's (additional) statement says nothing about the NWT, it's not relevant here anyway. How Kedar 'feels' about JWs has nothing to do with his professional views of the NWT.Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Since Furuli provides an additional quote from Kedar without any source, it could even be that Furuli himself was the 'Watch Tower Society representative' who interviewed Kedar. The point is, it's impossible to tell. We don't know any circumstances of the 'interview'. We don't know which party sought the other to do the interview, we don't know what statements Kedar made that were omitted, we don't know if Kedar was paid. We don't even know what the questions were that he was answering. The quote from the WTS publication quoting Kedar is therefore not ideal, but seems acceptable so long as it is clearly attributed. However, Furuli as a source is not at all objective, and might not even be a separate source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nuetrality

I raised an issue on Neutrality notice board on User:Jeffro77 behavior. --Roller958 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is clear from the discussion above that you have misrepresented my position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the NWT section is not neutral because you don't add those scholars who are against the NWT bible.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

[1] "Decision: Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". Charity Commission for England and Wales. 26 July 2017. Retrieved 20 November 2017.

[1]