Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Primary sources

This article is based mostly on primary sources. Whilst there is some value in providing useful information from such sources, there seems to be an increasing tendency (as seen in this recent edit) to add trivial information that has no real encyclopedic value. This degree of detail is tangential to the article subject; such information is not pertinent if not covered in reliable secondary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Kenneth Cook

That source doesn't point to a specific news item. I didn't spend time to read what was currently there, but ctrl+F+"Kenneth" didn't match anything. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you just missed it. It's the second section on the page and says

"News Alerts

BREAKING NEWS | Kenneth Cook Appointed to the Governing Body

On Wednesday morning, January 24, 2018, it was announced to the United States and Canada Bethel families that Kenneth Cook had been appointed to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Prior to being appointed to the Governing Body, Brother Cook was a helper to the Writing Committee.

Brother Cook started pioneering on September 1, 1982, and began serving at the United States branch on October 12, 1984. The Governing Body is now composed of eight anointed brothers.

It is our united prayer that Jehovah continue to bless the Governing Body as it oversees the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.—1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13"

Vyselink (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm thanks, I still don't see that there. In any case, if possible, it would be much better to find a direct link to the item rather than to the main events page, which is expected to change regularly... —PaleoNeonate – 00:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are missing it, as the link given is the direct link. There is no other article, it's simply stated on the page. Is anyone else not seeing it? Vyselink (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I mean: compare these links: https://www.jw.org/en/news/#newsAlerts (what is currently there, pointing to a current (and possibly geolocation-adapted) index), then https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/bolivia/award-for-indigenous-culture-exhibit/ linking explicitly to an item. —PaleoNeonate – 12:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Governing Body

An editor has sought to remove a description of the Governing Body based on secondary sources in favour of a primary source definition. Wikipedia articles give preference to reliable secondary sources. It can be particularly problematic to only rely on a group's description of itself where there is significant potential for a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That’s an oversimplification of the rationale presented. In any case, a more significant issue re bias is the immediate reversion of the article that had not been vandalised, and directing an editor to consult a very small community for approval before proceeding with edits. This is not in harmony with Wikipedia’s editing policies. I understand some of you have been working on articles on jw for several years however it’s a public document to be read by anyone, therefore to be improved by anyone. Please don’t automatically revert my edits. The edit summary was thorough in explanation and was not engaged with at all. The explanations for reversion were - “I think” for the first and “he thinks” for the second. I won’t be coming here to run edits by jw project before making them. If you disagree with an edit, then edit, please don’t revert and state reasons. JW project has few active participants. Offence unintended, that has far greater potential for bias than the objections re bias based on primary sources. Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:PSTS. In particular, "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Just because you think it is fine to make edits without discussion, other editors are under no obligation whatsoever to adapt your text in the article without requiring discussion at the Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

With the underlying problem of your approach addressed, the actual question at issue is the use of a primary source authorised by the Governing Body instead of a secondary source for describing the Governing Body. There is an obvious conflict of interest using a controversial group's own description of itself to sound less authoritarian. Penton is an established source on the subject, and since it is typical of religious bodies to have ruling councils, Penton's description of the group is not merely "polemical". I do not have a major problem with also including the definition supplied by the Governing Body to describe itself, so long as it is properly attributed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

My impression is the same about the primary source: it should not replace the current secondary one but could potentially be used to complement it. Wikipedia does not represent people, companies and organizations using their own claims and slogans, but they can sometimes be quoted with attribution and in due weight (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:DUE). —PaleoNeonate – 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ivan Cedrovi: This is not in harmony with Wikipedia's editing policies. We are trying to explain that the policies include avoiding primary sources (see WP:RS, and from WP:PSTS which Jeffro linked: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."), as well as WP:CONSENSUS. Please also see WP:NPOVHOW: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased [...]" —PaleoNeonate – 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate and Jeffro77 sum up the arguments perfectly imo. A mixture of the two sources would be best. Maybe something like

"The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is the ruling council of Jehovah's Witnesses (Penton ref) and describe themselves as a small group of mature Christians who provide direction for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide (Witness ref)."

This seems to me to balance out both the secondary sources perceived bias (which tbh I don't believe exists in this case, seems a rather standard way to describe the GB) and the Witnesses definite bias when speaking of themselves. Vyselink (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you’ll appreciate I’m rightly concerned with a consensus of a few re inclusions or exclusions to an article on jw.

On the matter at hand and having been prompted to educate myself, re primary and secondary sources, I don’t view Penton as a reliable secondary source or a secondary source at all, on the subject of the governing body.

His ref is simply hearsay reassembly, and for good reason. Penton was a local elder and served on the Hospital Liaison Committee who wrote an 8 page letter that wasn’t responded to for a preaching organisation to stop preaching. His contributions to the section are gossip sessions he allegedly had on a trip to NY bethel in 1979.

His choice of expression “supreme ruling council” is indeed polemical since the very definition, he proceeds to swiftly contradict. He doesn’t seem to be able to decide which contradictory disparaging critism he prefers - the New York equivalent of North Korea - or the do nothing, conservative old men who can’t make a decision about doctrine or administrative changes but he can’t have both according to the law of non-contradiction. It’s indeed a confounding section. (Pages 295-297)

He smuggles in the term “Supreme Council” but implies it comes from Raymond Franz as an apparent synonym of Governing body.

Even if it’s mention were to be used as an “analysis, evaluation or interpretation” of Franz on Penton’s part, which would be a stretch from the context, he is not engaging with a primary source. If Franz is the primary source, Penton does not “analyse, evaluate, interpret” Franz material he simply regurgitates it in an underwhelming way.

He does not come close to making a case that the governing body is actually a “Supreme Ruling Council” of Jehovah’s witnesses.

It seems an editor has cherry-picked the attractive expression for someone wanting to make a case for authoritarianism. They’ve in fact cited a presumed authority that uses bold language and extraordinary claims, without proper vetting of Penton’s analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of the facts & evidence.

Even though the first sentence of the article of “the governing body” is a tempered version of Penton’s made up contradictory polemical term, it should at least not have pride of place as a critical interpolation before the official definition gets a look in. Besides in tempered form it’s a tautological sentence.

The primary reference description I included from jw.org FAQ does not attempt to soften authoritarianism unless governing body authoritarianism is presumed. It says JW worldwide are directed by the governing body, it’s a pretty straightforward statement even in context.

Finally a tertiary source that defines Jehovah’s witnesses as having adequate, participatory authority, not supreme or authoritarian - Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion at the university of Washington. (Journal of Contemporary Religion. Vol 12, No 2, 1997 page 146)

On the matter of secondary sources. Since many alleged secondary sources re JW articles seem to repetetively come from a small number of opposers of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it may seem that the stars have truly aligned with Wikipedia’s preference for secondary sources.

However, alleged personal conversations/anecdotes/experiences are primary sources, and repetition of them does not make them secondary sources. They must be reliable. An author must “analyse, evaluate, interpret or synthesise facts & evidence” from primary sources, that doesn’t include hearsay. Ray Franz, Barbara Anderson or any other TDH said this or that conversation happened is not a reliable secondary source. It is on Wikipedia, what it is in a court of law. Hearsay.

Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Your personal feelings on how WP works are irrelevant, especially as you believe that your consensus of ONE (i.e. YOU) should overrule the consensus of others (so far three), which makes your statement hypocritical. WP:CONS is the guideline we use for articles.

Your beliefs on Penton, Franz etc are again irrelevant. Penton is an internationally recognized historian and authority on the Witnesses. The fact that he has been critical, and is a former Witness, is irrelevant as well. Your “law of noncontradiction” argument also fails, as someone can be both tyrannical in their power and ineffective/poor leaders. History abounds with such people. Penton’s analysis and evaluations have been vetted for nearly 40 years by academics and scholars, and while he is not perfect his is still the go to work for scholars when they study the Witnesses. Franz (if you’ve actually read his work) backs up most his opinions, stories, and recollections with proof. And his work, like Penton, has been evaluated by scholars and academics and has been found to be reliable for decades. Your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

You continue to make the argument that the use of “supreme council” is tautological. It is not. “Governing Body” does not immediately mean the power at the top of the organization. Even within Witness history it didn’t mean so until 1975. For the first several years of the official GB, and before that the “Board of Directors”, who had even less power despite being “Directors”, it was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Knorr and F. Franz. The additional identification as “ruling council” is necessary to show that not only does the Body hold de jure power (as they did under Knorr), but in fact they hold de facto power as well (at least since 1975).

As for your source (which, to be clear, is by Rodney Stark & Laurence R. Iannaccone, you need to properly attribute your sources, so in that respect all of my quotes taken from the article below: R. Stark and L. R. Iannaccone, “Why the Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: A Theoretical Application,” Journal of Contemporary Religion 12, no. 2 (1997): p. 146-147) you have grossly misrepresented the article, which is another reason why we get consensus. The section you are making reference to starts with their 4th rule of how an NRM succeeds, which is:

“The fourth proposition is: Religious movements will succeed to the extent they have legitimate leaders with adequate authority to be effective. This, in turn, will depend upon two factors: 4a. Adequate authority requires clear doctrinal justifications for an effective and legitimate leadership. 4b. Authority is regarded as more legitimate and gains in effectiveness to the degree that members perceive themselves as participants in the system of authority.” (emphasis mine).

The section does not say that rank-and-file Witnesses have “adequate power”. It actually states that “As a result, Witnesses tend to see themselves as part of the power structure, rather than subjected to it.” This does not say that they actually ARE part of the structure, but rather that they perceive that they are. Indeed, later on in that same section Stark and Iannaccone point out that

“… strictness will also result in a high average level of the perceived legitimacy of leaders by causing those members who are most inclined to question authority to withdraw. In this way a relatively high rate of defection can be good for a group! Clearly, the Witnesses do have many defectors … However, as noted, it would be quite wrong to interpret this as a sign of weakness. On the contrary, by excluding those with less commitment, the Witnesses so maximise their proportion of devoted publishers that even substantial rates of defection are offset by far more substantial rates of conversion.”

The entire thrust of this section of their paper is that the power authority is actually quite strict, and therefore not shared, and only those who are willing to go along with it remain, thus securing the power structure of the Body while at the same time allowing those who stay to feel as if they share in it, even though they actually don’t. Vyselink (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple thought experiment - you’re the one, jw’s the three. Any legitimate concerns re objectivity or strong potential for bias in articles? Don’t think “tough luck, Wikipedia policy” would cut it.

I didn’t express my “beliefs” on Penton or Franz because you’re right they’re not relevant. I also agree that his being a critic and ex jw are irrelevant to his being a reliable secondary source. They must be someone else’s arguments? Penton relies on Franz’s alleged first hand accounts because he had no personal experience with the governing body as a local elder. My remarks about Penton were satirical, but content was relevant to my position that he is not a reliable secondary source in this matter.

Appeal to authority is not support for a position. Penton may well be a reliable secondary source on some other matters about jw considered in his book, but my argument is that he’s not in his claim about the governing body being a supreme ruling council.

If history abounds with despotic impotents who couldn’t make decisions to implement changes, please identify them?

Franz doesn’t corroborate his personal conversations/anecdotes/experiences in his chapter on “Internal upheaval and restructure”. Compare all footnotes of COC chapter 4.

Supreme ruling council is not a tautology I agree, ruling council, the tempered expression in the Wikipedia article I was dealing with is.

You should revisit your “whole thrust of the section” paragraph. There are factual & interpretive errors leading to an erroneous simplistic conclusion for a sophisticated analysis of the authority structure of jw & you strawmanned my position again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Cedrovi (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thought experiment answer: I have been the "one" in debates on articles on WP in the past, and in those situations I have argued my point to the best of my ability, and then followed WP policy and let the consensus stand.

As for your Penton/Franz reliability/secondary source comments, I point to my above statements as I will not argue the same thing over and over again, except to point you to Wikipedia guidelines that deal with what reliable sources are:

WP:RS is the entire thing obviously, give it a look. But, more specifically, also look at:

WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially point two, which says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Penton meets all of these.

WP:USEBYOTHERS, which says, in part, "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." As stated above, Penton/Franz have been vetted for decades and have been found reliable by other, high-quality reliable sources (for example, Dr. Zoe Knox, Dr. George D. Chryssides, and Dr. Emily Baran to quickly name three, all of whom have written high-quality, reliable books and articles on the JW's using Penton/Franz.)

WP:RSPRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere...Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." This applies to Penton (secondary source), who is using Franz as a primary source.

If I truly have to point out the history of impotent despots/tyrants, then you have not studied history at all, but just for fun here's one: Nero.

As for what Penton says in the pages listed you, surprise, misrepresented him, as you did with Stark/Iannaccone. Penton does not say they are "incapable of making decisions" (to quote what you said to justify your "noncontradiction" point), Penton says they are incapable of making significant decisions that will help the Witnesses. Here's the quote,

"So, because of their own quite conservative mindsets and the bureaucratic routinization of Witness governance since the days of J.F. Rutherford, they are incapable of making significant doctrinal or administrative changes which might solve many of the problems facing the Witness community today. In fact, all they seem able to do is deal rather badly with problems created by their date-setting eschatology, attempt to blunt the criticism of their lapsed brethren whom they damn as apostates, and enhance their own authority" (pg. 297, third edition).

Regarding Stark/Iannaccone, I haven't interpreted anything. I quoted directly from the paper (something you have not), even highlighting the portions that specifically relate to my response. If you believe that there are "factual errors" in what I have done, then point out where I have misquoted them. If another section of the paper makes an opposing claim or negates their stated (and quoted) 4th rule, then please give me that information. Just FYI, academics and scholars worth their salt tend not to say "These 10 things are important" (which is the entire point of the article, using Stark/Iannaccone's 10 identified points to explain the Witnesses and why they continue to grow) and then negate one or more of those points. Also, to be clear, I have had the article for 10 years, have read it multiple times, and it doesn't make such an opposing claim, but you are free to let me know where I may have missed something. However, quote from the article when you do, otherwise it means nothing.

After all this, I still say that the combined Penton/JW.org sentence be used. Vyselink (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ivan Cedrovi's outburst attempting to denigrate and belittle Penton shows fairly clearly his pro-JW agenda. In the eyes of JWs, anyone -- particularly an ex-member -- who criticises their religion is both an enemy and a fraud. Penton's scholarship is pretty clear and as stated above, he is widely accepted as an authority. The claim that his observations on the Governing Body are "hearsay assembly" is actually quite stupid. The original wording describing the GB is sufficient, and the suggested compromise adding "and describe themselves as a small group of mature Christians who provide direction for Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide" adds nothing. If a governing body doesn't govern/direct, then what is it? BlackCab (TALK) 01:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

While I won't comment directly on Ivan's motivations, I can attest that the JW literature does demonize non-JW writings about the organization and routinely claims that they are lies, telling their readers to avoid such material (primary source quotes from the Watch Tower are easy to find to confirm this). This includes reports of notable government commissions that are the result of proper investigations. Their readers are expected to believe that, but Wikipedia should indeed rely on better sources. The consensus here appears to be that Penton and Franz are considered reliable. Ivan: When in doubt another resource can be consulted, the Reliable sources noticeboard and its archives. Of note is this previous thread about previous members and Penton. —PaleoNeonate – 16:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The proposition that everything Penton writes in his complete works on jw is reliable is ludicrous which continues to be my objection.

"M. James Penton has written what may be the most penetrating study of this movement to date. A fourth generation Jehovah's Witness who was disfellowshipped in 1981 for heresy. Penton has written a carefully researched and nuanced analysis that both benefits and suffers from his personal experience with the Jehovah's Witnesses" (emphasis mine) The American Historical Review, Volume 91, Issue 5, 1 December 1986, Page 1279

"M. James Penton, a historian, former Witness and a fierce critic of the Society argues..."

"Finally, there is a slowly expanding body of literature written by professional historians. There are only two scholarly books focusing on the organisation’s history, which is remarkable given its renown. Herbert H. Stroup’s The Jehovah’s Witnesses (1945) was published more than seventy years ago,and is thoroughly outdated. It does not address the dramatic international expansion after World War II, for example. M. James Penton’s Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses (first published in 1985 and most recently revised in 2015) is deservedly regarded a landmark study in the field of Witness history. His estrangement from the Witness community colours his analysis, however.” (emphasis mine) Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World - From the 1870's to the Present. Zoe Knox

"For the past few decades, the landmark books on Jehovah’s Witnesses have largely been written by ex-members. Zoe Knox’s impartial, scholarly, and rigorous account of the Watch Tower organisation comes as a welcome contrast, providing useful and illuminating analysis of the Society’s position on several key themes.” (emphasis mine) (George D. Chryssides, Honorary Research Fellow at York St John University, UK, and author of Historical Dictionary of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change)

"There exists a variety of genres of literature about the Watch Tower Society. First, and most obviously, there is their own literature, which most people in western society have probably seen. Second, there is countercult material, written by evangelical Christians, mainly –although not exclusively –in the Protestant tradition. Third, and overlapping with the second category, is the writing of exmembers of the organisation, the best known of whom are M. James Penton, Edmund C. Gruss, and Raymond V. Franz, the last of whom was a member of the Governing Body before being disfellowshipped. Fourth, there is a small, but growing, quantity of academic writing on the Watch Tower Society." "In addition to in-house publications, there is considerable material written by those outside the organisation, both in book form, and online. Ex-member accounts tend to polarise opinion. There are those who argue that ex-members have experienced both the inside and the outside of the organisation that they have left, and are therefore in an excellent position to disclose information that may not be readily available. On the other hand, academics tend to be cautious of ex-member testimony, on the grounds that the ex-member frequently harbours resentments, gaining publicity by satisfying media expectations, and persuading others that joining the movement was a result of deception or ‘brainwashing’. The sociologist of religion Bryan Wilson writes: Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in an objective statement of the truth" George D. Chryssides, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Continuity and Change

If Pentons analysis both "benefits and suffers from his personal experience with Jehovah's Witnesses" and "His estrangement from the Witness community colours his analysis", not to mention far more direct objections to his bias by other current leading academics on jw, how can his entire work be treated by jw project as an indivisible reliable monolith?

With regard to whether or not Penton has been vetted by the scholarly community, it appears his chronological historical work is, beliefs & practices of jw arguably has by some, however his analysis - popularly cited in wiki articles on jw - has not. George D. Chryssides even partly places his work in with countercult material and distinctly sets it apart from academic scholarship on jw.

I'm led to wonder how quickly Zoe Knox's "M. James Penton, a historian, former Witness and a fierce critic of the Society argues..." would be reverted if she personally chose to edit a jw article on wikipedia?

Vyselink conflates vetting and use by high quality reliable sources, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:USEBYOTHERS. He also ignores the important how qualification. If academics view Pentons analysis as suspect for bias or likely biased and use the scholarly parts of his research, does that permit wikipedia editors to prolifically include Penton's "colored analysis" on jw and expect to maintain WP:NPOV?

Vyselink, a final note. You said, "The entire thrust of this section of their paper is that the power authority is actually quite strict, and therefore not shared, and only those who are willing to go along with it remain, thus securing the power structure of the Body while at the same time allowing those who stay to feel as if they share in it, even though they actually don’t.”

I’m not inclined to copy and paste large passages of the article, you indicated you have it to consult, so it doesn’t need to be reproduced.

"Strictness" is not the power authority. It's clearly defined by the authors as strict moral standards.

"Leadership", frequently used in the paper refers to lay leaders, congregation elders. Therefore, leadership is indeed shared amongst the many who take on leadership roles as the authors articulate.

Just because the moral standards are strict, enforcement by leadership is rarely so, a fact antithetical to your presupposition of authoritarianism. Rather, the standards are "sustained informally by close bonds of friendship". The path to leadership is defined as "democratic" by the authors, that is why jw "tend to see themselves as part of the power structure". "That is the real basis of authority among witnesses".

The positive spin you put on those who are inclined to question authority and subtle condescension for those who chose to remain reveals not only your misunderstanding of the authors "entire thrust" but also favouritism for those who question authority, a preference not demonstrated by the authors for obvious reasons. One can be inclined to question authority and be stupid & wrong just as readily as they can be insightful and justified.

Its best to identify and abandon confirmation bias when reading information about jehovah’s witnesses, and truly engage with the text.

Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

These long screeds aren't particularly helpful. (That is to say, you're arguing quite strenuously (but unconvincingly) against what is actually an entirely unextraordinary statement—that a religious denomination has a ruling council.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro about the long screeds (my own included). I am therefore done arguing, as I believe I have made my case. As far as I can see, the debate comes down to 4-1 for not removing "ruling council" (Jeffro77, BlackCab, PaleoNeonate, and myself vs. Ivan Cedrovi). BlackCab doesn't believe the addition of the JW's own wording should be added, leaving that at 3-2 (although Jeffro77 did express some reservations, he said it would be fine as long at it's properly attributed). Unless someone wants to do a WP:RFC or WP:THIRD, I suggest we keep ruling council and add in the JW's self-description. Vyselink (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Re-reading what is currently in the lead, it already states the JW position that (officially) the Governing Body members are 'followers of Christ rather than leaders'. On consideration, the additional JW view that they are 'mature Christians who provide direction' is really just a more vague way of saying they're the ruling council, and at best the extra wording would probably just be confusing to say their official view is that they provide direction and also don't consider themselves leaders.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that it could be confusing, this is similar to the "God's channel" vs "not prophets/divinely inspired"; here it's a suggestion of "only direction" yet the GB is the authority on all doctrinal matters (including about what is explicitly left to "one's conscience", where taking responsibility is allowed)... Therefore after reflection I agree that adding the quote would not be an improvement. —PaleoNeonate – 03:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I suggested the addition as a compromise, but tbh the more I thought about it the more I disliked it. Vyselink (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Reframing an argument about methodologically generated systemic bias to seemingly simple semantics with a little ad-hominem thrown in for good measure.

Disingenuous or naive, had the desired effect on this Ed. committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Cedrovi (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No. You want the article to rely on primary sources for a group to be defined only by what it says about itself. That would quite obviously result in a biased article.

It might be of benefit for you to work on other Wikipedia articles for a while that are not related to a topic you feel so strongly about so that you can gain a better understanding of Wikipedia editing and discussion processes and guidelines.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I also suggest keeping comments constructive rather than complaining and resorting to personal motive claims... Can you cite a reliable third party source contradicting that the GB decides doctrine, that there would be councils influencing scripture interpretation and doctrine development, or that independent thinking is encouraged for members, etc? —PaleoNeonate – 05:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If its all the same to you, I might just chart the path for my own education as an editor. Having said that, I do hope one day to achieve the contemplative, calm, neutral, objective approach you have about the topic. Naivety is not a motive claim. Is not "No. You want.." often how complaining begins? Look, this is not a creche. I made allowance for the possibility of naivety, there's just simply more weight on contrivance. Ad-hominem assisted by contrasting brevity and reseting the rational field is good evidence. The discussion thereafter quickly concluded with some deference. I'm done arguing, lets count votes, rereading, on consideration, after reflection, the more i thought about it... We've changed our minds. It's very clever, someone should claim it.

Anyway, I think this matter has now been decided by the ed committee. The answers to the questions are no, no, likely but not with the narrow focus.

"What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs but the way in which he holds them... but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem." (The Value of Free Thought - Bertrand Russell)

Question: Why was Supreme removed in the main text from the Franz/Penton Penton quote "Supreme Ruling Council"?

Ivan Cedrovi (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The additional word supreme is not necessary to make the point in an encyclopaedic tone. Would you prefer it be included? Or are you just trying to make some kind of point?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Is resignation an appropriate term?

We don't know why Anthony Morris ceased to be a member of the Governing Body, he could have voluntarily resigned (though there is no precedent for this), he could've resigned after pressure from other members of the body, or he could've been forcibly removed. The statement simply say that he is "no longer a member". If I remember correctly, 'Deletion' is used to refer to when someone leaves a group like the Governing Body, a Branch Committee, or a local body of elders, should that term be used instead of resigned or is it too jargony? Khronicle I (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think for now he should just be listed with the former members. We don't really have any more information right now on why he is no longer a member of the Governing Body and we shouldn't speculate. I also don't think "deleted" should be used here because that would be confusing to a non-JW reader. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Would it be a good idea to split the list into a list of those who died in office and a list of those who left before they died? Khronicle I (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be nessecary to have seperate lists. We could add explanatory notes to the few exceptions if we have that context (like for Raymond Franz). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that might work, or maybe a sentence in the paragraph above the list that says "with the exception of Chitty, Raymond Franz, Greenlees and Morris, all Governing Body have died in office" or something like that. Khronicle I (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The English word is “separate”. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

adding a table?

I was looking at the other lists of religious leader like, Church of the Nazerene General Superintendants, LDS Church Quorum, Community of Christ Council. So I would propose replacing the current list with something along the lines of this table, which feels neater to me. Thoughts? Khronicle I (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Name (Born-Died)	Tenure began	Tenure ended	Length of tenure	Source(s)
Thomas J. Sullivan (1888-1974)	1 October 1971	30 July 1974	2 years, 302 days
Grant Suiter (1908-1983)		22 November 1983	12 years, 52 days
Nathan H. Knorr (1905–1977)		8 June 1977	5 years, 250 days
Frederick W. Franz (1893-1992)		22 December 1992	21 years, 82 days
Lyman A. Swingle (1910-2001)		14 March 2001	29 years, 164 days
Milton G. Henschel (1920–2003)		22 March 2003	31 years, 172 days
John O. Groh (1906-1975)		23 January 1975	3 years, 114 days
Raymond V. Franz (1922–2010)	15 October 1971	22 May 1980	8 years, 234 days
George D. Gangas (1896–1994)		28 July 1994	22 years, 300 days
Leo K. Greenlees (1911-1988)		1984	12–13 years
William K. Jackson (1901-1981)		13 December 1981	10 years, 73 days
W. Lloyd Barry (1916-1999)	28 November 1974	2 July 1999	24 years, 216 days
John C. Booth (1902-1996)		8 January 1996	21 years, 41 days
Ewart C. Chitty (1898-1993)		1979	4–5 years
Charles J. Fekel (1897-1977)		24 April 1977	2 years, 147 days
Theodore Jaracz (1925-2010)		9 June 2010	35 years, 223 days
Karl F. Klein (1906-2001)		3 January 2001	26 years, 36 days
Albert D. Schroeder (1911-2006)		8 March 2006	31 years, 100 days
Daniel Sydlik (1919-2006)		18 April 2006	31 years, 141 days
Carey W. Barber (1906-2007)	7 September 1977	8 April 2007	29 years, 213 days
John E. Barr (1913-2010)		4 December 2010	33 years, 88 days
Martin Pötzinger (1904-1988)		16 June 1988	10 years, 283 days
Gerrit Lösch (born 1941)	1 July 1994	Incumbent	30 years, 125 days
Samuel Frederick Herd (born 1935)	2 October 1999	Incumbent	25 years, 32 days
Mark Stephen Lett		Incumbent	25 years, 32 days
Guy Hollis Pierce (1934-2014)		18 March 2014	14 years, 167 days
David H. Splane		Incumbent	25 years, 32 days
Geoffrey William Jackson (born 1955)	1 September 2005	Incumbent	19 years, 63 days
Anthony Morris III (born 1950)		22 February 2023	17 years, 174 days
D. Mark Sanderson	5 September 2012	Incumbent	12 years, 59 days
Kenneth E. Cook Jr.	24 January 2018	Incumbent	5 years, 284 days
Gage Fleegle	18 January 2023	Incumbent	1 year, 290 days
Jeffrey Winder		Incumbent	1 year, 290 days
Extended content

Seems like a good idea to me. Go ahead! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Substantial removals after being schooled how to use proper sources

On April 2, 1965, Douglas Mark Sanderson was born in San Diego, CA. That's very clear from Californian birth records. However, as such websites are banned from Wikipedia, I also deleted the "D." in his name. In primary sources, that is, publications of the WTB&TS, Mark Sanderson never appears with a "D", either: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=mark+sanderson&p=par&r=occ&st=a

I also deleted all other middle names (except for famous ones, like Nathan Homer Knorr), as well as birthdates. Again, because the WTB&TS doesn't provide much information here. They just publish the date of death, which we know for sure (except for Greenlees and Chitty, as they were removed and we can't use obituaries, FamilySearch, Ancestry etc.). Junkönig (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources such as Ancestry and FamilySearch should not be used because they contain user-submitted information, which can contain entirely incorrect information, or can associate otherwise valid records with the incorrect person. It may in some circumstances be suitable to site a source that is cited in Ancestry for an individual (e.g. a birth certificate from an official birth registry) if it is unambiguously the correct person; however, secondary sources are preferred. Obituaries published in reliable sources might be okay for details such as the date someone died, but are not a suitable source for subjective details about a person such as character or accomplishments.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A recent edit suggests my statement was misunderstood. I did not suggest that it is okay to cite the Ancestry website. I meant that if Ancestry cites a separate reliable source (for example a government registry of births, deaths and marriages), the separate citation (of the separate source) might be usable (but that source should still be confirmed), but only if the record is unambiguously correct and for the correct individual and not merely someone with the same name.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, the photo does seem to refer to the correct person, but the citation refers only to a collection rather than a separate source (e.g., publisher of the collection). Input from additional editors should be sought. It is not suitable to just say ‘Jeffro said I could’.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand it correctly. I thought that your statement that "It may in some circumstances be suitable to site a source that is cited in Ancestry for an individual (e.g. a birth certificate from an official birth registry) if it is unambiguously the correct person" was applicable to this WW2 draft card. But you are right, more confirmation is needed. We just have to leave it as it is. Junkönig (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)