Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 67

Request for edit

I request en edit where the sentence part "incompatible with Christianity" in the lead is removed or changed, because, as of indicated in the recent discussion at this talk page, there are no evidence for JW to believe the pagan holidays and customs are not compatible with Christianity, only the kind of Christianity practiced by JW. The recently added source witch referencing to the critic and former member of the JW, Raymond Franz, does not support the claim in the specific sentence. It does not even, as far as I can see, have the word "Christian" in the two pages the reference counts for. I suggest to primarly change the part of the sentence to "incompatible with true Christianity", as it is reflecting the JW view and represents a commonly mentioned view by JW about their practice of Christianity, as indicated in the same sentence, or as a secondary option to remove the whole sentence part ("incompatible with Christianity"). I've already, in the discussion, presented an indicative evidence (I call it indicative, as it is a primary source, and is published some 30 years ago), for the claim in the sentence to be wrong. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that what the above (long) discussion is about? Jehovah's Witness literature frequently criticizes mainstream Christianity for engaging in practices and customs they consider to be in conflict with Bible teachings. "Christianity", "true christianity", "scriptural teachings" or whathaveyou. Not really a whole lot of difference between or clarity between them, other than using more words to describe the same thing. If the source doesn't exactly indicate that, then I would recommend choosing a different source. However, I don't see how a rewording to that line adds anything of value to what it already says. It's clear and concise, already. Doesn't strike me as something worth quibbling over. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Franz's comments deal directly with the issue of JWs shunning certain celebrations because of their perceived pagan origins. He also highlights some practices JW do still follow despite those, too, having pagan origins. Whether the word "Christian" appears in those two pages is immaterial and your objection makes no sense. The sentence in question adequately explains their stand. BlackCab (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There would hardly be much point protecting an article during an edit dispute if the person disputing the text can request the text be changed during that time. It is even more unusual in this case, since the person requesting that the current text be changed restored the exact same text earlier this week.

Apart from that, JWs specifically regard their own beliefs as the only 'real' form of Christianity. As the sentence in question specifically addresses their view of what is compatible with Christianity, than the sentence as it is accurately encompasses their view. In contrast, removing the portion of text indicated by Grrahnbahr would specifically make the statement inaccurate, because JWs do not reject all customs that have pagan origins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep grinding about my revert earlier this week. I reverted to the previous version, not because I was complete agree with every singel aspect of the earlier version, but because I thought of the reverted edit as a step in wrong direction. If someone puts in some irrelevant information, it is common to revert, without taking a permanent stand on the previous edition. Further, I found it reasonable to discuss the case at the talk page, as it already was an edit war going on. The source you came up with, did not issue the problem with the sentence: I have not found any source that confirm that JW not find Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays incompatible with any form of Christianity. It is not clear out of the context that Christianity here does mean the form of Christianity practiced by JW only, and you keep reverting inputs like true or simmiliar, dispite you've confirmed the sentence is ment to reflect the JW view. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand that any descriptor such as 'true' is redundant because the sentence is already describing JWs view of Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr, I think you are playing a little game in order to prolong this absurd debate. However the article states these facts:

• JWs claim to follow Christ and therefore believe they are Christians.
• They believe there can only be one truth from God, and that only their religion represents true Christianity. Furthermore, they believe other religions making the claim to Christianity will soon be destroyed as part of God's will.
• They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity.

The sentence is accurate and needs no further elaboration. BlackCab (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Awake!, 8 January 2000, page 27: "But what about customs that may once have been linked to questionable practices but that today are primarily viewed as social etiquette? For example, many popular wedding customs—including the exchanging of rings and the eating of cake—may have pagan origins. Does this mean that Christians are forbidden to observe such customs? Are Christians required to scrutinize meticulously each custom of the community to see whether somewhere or at some time it had negative connotations? ... By keeping a balanced view of popular customs, Christians “make sure of the more important things, so that [they] may be flawless and not be stumbling others.” (Philippians 1:9, 10) At the same time, they will let their “reasonableness become known to all men.”—Philippians 4:5." It is quite clear that JW literature doesn't make any distinction about what type of 'Christians' they think should avoid certain customs with pagan origins. It is also clear that they do not object to all customs that have pagan origins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is also strange that Grrahnbahr says above, Further, I found it reasonable to discuss the case at the talk page, as it already was an edit war going on. Of course, discussion is good, but there was no edit war prior to that discussion. The discussion at Talk about Gabby Merger's edit was started by Grrahnbahr after Grrahnbahr reverted Gabby Merger, which was also the start of the edit war. Prior to that, the article had been fairly stable for several months.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Jefrro77: The context in the article from Awake shows that the publishers uses Christians as an synonyme for Jehovah's Witnesses. As for practical reasons, they obviously don't keep writing "true Christians" if there are no reasonable doubt or any speak of "false Christian". The same article states: "Hence, in a matter where there is no clear violation of Bible principles, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not create a hard-and-fast rule. Instead, each Christian must weigh the circumstances at hand and make a personal decision." Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the only true Christians, hence they consider all other Christians to be a part of the Christendom, or false Christians. When using a publication from WTBTS as a source, you have to consider also if there are polemic aspects of using "Christians" about their own adherents, as it emphasizes their belief of being the only true Christians (naming other Christians as "so-called Christians", "untrue Christians" and simmilar could make a point for the distributor). According to Andrew Holdem, JW uses "Christian" about members of Jehovah's Witnesses (p. 196). Andrew Holden states in his study of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 25- 26: "The Society forbids its members to participate in annual events such as Chrismas, Easter, birthdays and national festivals." Holden did support that JW thought of the mentioned holidays or aspects of them as of pagan origin, and gave in addition a possible reason related to excessive alcohol consume during Christmas celebration. I could not find a description about JW found these holidays not compatible with any form of Christianity, and even JW themself have, like the quote I earlier presented from the other publication, admitted these are for Christian Holidays to count.

BlackCab: You've earlier stated the sentence is good also without the disputed addition. Have you changed your mind about this? If I drop "true", a compromise for me would be to remove the last part of the sentence.

If any admin reads this: Could the Franz reference be removed? It doesn't support the disputed claim, and was not there before the edit war started. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Franz material does in fact serve as an appropriate source for the statement that JWs do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity, and your appeals to an admin to make your changes while the article is locked are misguided. Your earlier objection to the Franz citation, on the grounds that he does not use the word "Christians" on those two pages, is frivolous and foolish. I have already stated that Jeffro has made a reasonable point that the additional few words offer a little more explanation. I have no objection to the truncated sentence, but accept that the additional wording is of benefit. Coupled with the Franz citation, it also leaves the reader free to explore, if they bother, why JWs do deem as acceptable some customs with pagan origins. We seem to be going round in circles and this whole discussion is becoming an endless series of repeated comments. You seem to be pushing alone on this without support. BlackCab (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr acknowledges that Jehovah's Witnesses—the publishers of the Awake!—use Christians as a synonym for Jehovah's Witnesses, yet for some reason objects to exactly the same rationale in a sentence in the article about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe is compatible with Christianity. (More correctly, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the standard for 'true' Christianity is something determined by Jehovah and Jesus, and that Jehovah's Witnesses best approach what is expected of 'true Christians', but they acknowledge that they are not 'inspired'; they believe that all groups professing to be Christian should be trying to reach the standard set by God.) But Grrahnbahr would rather that the article say that JWs reject all customs that are based on pagan origins, even though he knows (or reasonably should know) that is plainly false. The suggested 'compromise' is no compromise at all, because they're both his earlier edits anyway. Of his two suggestions, one is false and the other introduces a no true Scotsman fallacy. The current wording accurately indicates Jehovah's Witnesses' views about customs with pagan origins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Grrahnbahr is just trying to 'build' his 'case' that editors he doesn't like are 'controlling' the article. To this end, it seems he's happy to ignore the merits (i.e. lack of) of his arguments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice what I said days ago: *******Although I do still say that "true" or "biblical" could theoretically have been left there, per context of the viewpoint in question, and for clarity or preciseness. Coulda gone either way is my point. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)******* Meaning that it was (IMO) "ok" to have it as the way it was originally. It wasn't terrible that way, or anything. BUT that having clarity descriptors "biblical Christianity" or "true Christianity" was also ok, and maybe (IMO) even more "ok" to have; as (again) the word "Christianity" for decades (and even centuries now) has come to be too generic, too nominal, too broad...as it's been known that there are such things as "liberal churches" etc etc, who admit to not following the Bible or even believing it totally. Yet still calling themselves "Christian". Hence the point about (even with the overall context being JWs view their own form of "Christianity" as the only "true" or "biblical" kind) having that minor elaboration, to make even more clear the point, that the pagan holidays are viewed, not just against broad generic or nominal "Christianity", but more strictly BIBLICAL "Christianity" as more closely followed by the Apostles or the first-century Christians. Hence the "truer" type (to Grrahnbahr's word proposal). And the point that such a minor good-faith and ACCURATE and sourced qualifier or elaborator or descriptor did not have to be removed, as being too "redundant" or "unnecessary" or whatever. The point about “no own”, even if you disagree with the minor elaboration or edit. It could have been left alone.

Because also for the average reader, who may not necessarily know for sure (even with the overall article context) that the word "Christianity" in the JW context is the strict "biblical" variety, when reading that spot in the article, and not just a broader generic type, to better understand or get the point that it’s NOT just the broad label of “Christianity” per se, but what’s been called (and not just by Jehovah’s witnesses, but by other theologians and groups too), “true Christianity” or “Biblical Christianity” or “Bible Christianity”. Even if you personally didn’t like or care for the edit or elaboration so much, this is a wiki. And sourced accurate things, and elabs, for maybe more preciseness or minor clarity, should theoretically be left alone and respected, even if not totally agreed with. It's a wiki. And it's NOT like that elaboration would make that sentence so awful, like you're making it out. But arguably (whether you agree or not) better and clearer, in a way. So? Again, “Christianity” for the average reader in that spot in the article may be not clear enough or might be too broad. But “biblical Christianity” or “true Christianity” or even “Scriptural principles” etc...is (IMO) a bit more clear and precise, than the overly broad “Christianity”. There are people who want to join very liberal churches because they don't feel the Bible is infallible or should be "fanatically" followed so closely. And they call themselves "Christian" too. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You have said all this before. Each time you say it, you say it three times. Enough is enough. BlackCab (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger, if "it was (IMO) "ok" to have it as the way it was originally", why the hell are you still going on about it? The fact remains that the sentence in question is already referring to JWs' view of Christianity, so it is redundant (not to mention unnecessarily confrontational) to supply additional qualifiers such as 'true' or 'biblical'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really "going on about it", if you notice how I've been somewhat absent from here the past couple of days. I just came on this Talk after awhile...now. Recently, it's been only you, Grrahnbahr, and BlackCab commenting to each other, on this. I just came in again now. And the only reason I even make the point (again...and it’s funny how BlackCab only sees “repetition” in editors that he disagrees with or is having disputes with, but not in Jeffro77, who also has repeated things constantly, on both the noticeboard, and on this talk page...no surprise of course, in the selective analysis and whining), is to make crystal clear that even though both renderings were “ok”, and were not terrible, it was arguably maybe a bit “more ok” to have a minor elaboration or clarification or description. The only reason, by the way, I'm "repeating" things, is because Jeffro77 and BlackCab have been "repeating" things too...and go on with the same thing. But yes, I'm tired of going around in circles now. And also (again to repeat) the point that this is a wiki, and other editors and edits (provided they meet general WP standards and guidelines) are not to be disrespected, dismissed, or reverted, or deleted, so easily, when they theoretically could have been left alone. Per WP recommendation. And then really because of mainly “I don’t like” excuses. (That of course will be always denied.)

If JWs themselves have used phrases like “true Christianity” or “Bible Christianity” etc...and per clarity issues, and good-faith elabs that could be left alone or accepted or respected, then what was the big deal in having that minor modification there? It’s really mainly the principle that (even with the hard and good work that you and BlackCab have done over the years on JW related articles) strong-arming and ownership behavior, bullying or pushing around (and throw in arguable “meat-puppetting” at least sometimes in a way) is not really to be tolerated on any Wikipedia article. For me, it’s 85% the principle here about WP policy and respect, and about 15% the actual edit itself, that I was concerned with. But I disagree (as I said) that the modification was so “redundant”, when not all of what’s called “Christianity” is necessarily strictly “biblical” (even by some of the churches' own admission) or necessarily considered “true” in that sense. Nor is it “unnecessarily confrontational” when the context of the sentence is how JWs view it, with the pagan holidays etc, and also given that in a way the whole article can be considered “confrontational” to some. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ho hum... you're still going round in circles. It doesn't matter that 'not all' of 'Christianity' is 'biblical' (your assertion) because the sentence explicitly refers to JWs' beliefs of Christianity, not the beliefs of other groups about Christianity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It's also quite telling that Gabby Merger's initial claims about editors 'owning the article' and using 'don't like reasons' were directed toward Grrahnbahr[1], but as soon as it became convenient those accusations were 'redirected'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I still don't totally necessarily agree with Grrahn on everything. Even now. Also, when I first made that statement in my edit comment, I was under the impression that maybe Grrahn was in your group of revert-happy editors on this particular article, of heavy guardianship etc. But even if he turned out not to be, he himself should not try to push or own or revert for "don't like" reasons, whether it's against you or me. Remember, Jeffro77, I did say, amidst all this craziness, that I think your work on this article is overall decent and good. You do try to keep a balance. My point is that even with the hard work, etc, you have not necessarily been always perfect every instance. And control issues can happen. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

So, I've provided a source from Holden, who is, unlike Frantz, an academic, who states the reason why JW doesn't celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter. He did not claim JW doing so because it was against Christianity. Regarding the article in Awake!, even though JW use Christian about JW in their own literature, and where it is no reasonable doubt about who's included in their definition of Christian (they use "Christendom" and other expression about non-JW Christian groups), the wikipedias choice of wording must leave no doubt about its claims. It is not very different from Washington Post refering to the president, without specifying which president. The readers (target group) knows. And the Swedish or Chinese wikipedia could have used the article as a source, but must have used his name or some other way to leave out doubts about who the subject is. The article in Awake! was not describing other Christians than JW, as it may would have used "adherents to the religion within the Christendom" or simmilar. JW targeting to recruit adherents, not to change other religions believes. It therefor make no sence to keep the last part of the sentence. If using "true Christians", it is though no reasonable doubt about who JW think of as "true Christians". I would like to ask if you mind using Holden and his explanation rather than the one from Awake! or Franz? Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not clearly stated your objection to the use of Franz as a source. He is a reliable source and what he states on the matter is basic, uncontroversial fact; he explicitly addresses the issue of the pagan origins of customs and celebrations and how they are viewed by JWs, and why members are then told they should abstain from some of those activities. Holden could be added as a source, though he does not venture into the detail Franz does. You wrote (above): "I have not found any source that confirm that JW not find Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays incompatible with any form of Christianity. It is not clear out of the context that Christianity here does mean the form of Christianity practiced by JW only". If this is your only objection, you are over-thinking the statement. No reasonable reader would be confused or misled by the wording. BlackCab (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr still seems to misunderstand why an additional descriptor is not required when referring to JWs' own views of Christianity. So I will provide an analogy. In a hypothetical scenario where Hawaiians have a particular view about how Americans should behave that is not endorsed by other Americans, it would be appropriate to say that Hawaiians consider 'xyz' inappropriate for Americans. Because it is already stipulating their own view, it would be unnecessary to say Hawaians consider 'xyz' to be inappropriate for true Americans even though they may think only they are 'really' Americans because they object to 'xyz'. Adding 'true' makes an additional judgement about other Americans that goes beyond what is already stated as their own view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My thing about making the wording "biblical Christianity" was to drive home the point that Jehovah's Witnesses view the "pagan holiday" situation as not just incompatible with the broadly defined or vague view of nominal "Christianity", but that there was (in their view) a more specific Biblical argument and problem regarding the pagan holidays. You can't deny that not all of what's called "Christianity" (today and for a while now) is not necessarily all that close to the Bible per se...in doctrine, practice, belief, or outlook...many times by their own admission for whatever reason. There are actual churches that deny Bible infallibility, Bible inspiration, or Bible ethics in various things, yet still call themselves "Christian". And also, even you have to admit, Jeffro, that the words "biblical Christianity" are not as "contentious" or "confrontational" or "True Scotsman"-ish as the phrase "true Christianity"...though I'm in favor or that wording also.

JWs have used the phrases "Biblical Christianity", "Bible Christianity" and "true Christianity", in general, and also in these kinds of contexts (of pagan issues, either doctrines or customs). If the phrase "Biblical Christianity" is so bad, stupid, "meaningless", or "redundant", then why is it used so much many times, in and out of WT literature? Because there's a point behind that specific phrase, especially in certain contexts. And the sentence was to the JW viewpoint, not the Wikipedia. So there would have been no "POV" issue. Especially when in one of my edits I had it as "they view it as incompatible with..." Though I agree that the word "Christianity" alone does make a general point about presumably against "Bible" principles...by implication...though it's not quite as precise and not necessarily as clear to the point. The modifier could have been left there. It's not inaccurate or un-sourced, per the JW view and position on all of that.

Because you and BlackCab also indicated that you have a problem with the phrase "biblical Christianity" in just about any context or sentence, ever. Not just that one. And that's a personal preference imposition, not really a WP valid matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

JW publications use contrastive phrases like 'true Christianity' or 'biblical Christianity' specifically to make a POV judgement about other Christian groups. Wikipedia must not do that. The sentence already provides the view of JWs. Using additional modifiers becomes a judgement made by the article. The analogy above specifically applies to either true or biblical for this reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It only "becomes a judgment made by the article" IF the wording is vague and gives the impression that Wikipedia itself is saying it that way or viewing it that way. But when I modified the wording at the end of that sentence as "they view it as incompatible with Scriptural teachings" or "they view it as incompatible with biblical Christianity", then it's clearly not "POV", but only in the context, in that clearer specific matter, of how the group in question calls it or views it believes it. Clear wording is key, to avoid POV, and to keep to NPOV wording and tone. Wikipedia is not guilty of POV if it's merely saying the group or church puts forth the matter or views it. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it specifically is still POV, because whilst the sentence refers to their view of "it" (the thing they're comparing, e.g. customs with pagan origins), it doesn't specify that the other element is also being modified by their own special definition (e.g. biblical Christianity). It is already their view of Chrisitanity, so additional modifiers in 'support' of their view are not required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabby Merger previously said he/she was going to leave the article and was attracted back only when the edit-warring complaint pinged them. I wonder if all this debate is actually going anywhere. If Gabby (and they may or may not wish to reveal their gender to overcome these awkward phrasings) is content to leave it, the conversation on what happened in the past (reverts, misunderstandings) can pretty well end. BlackCab (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the sentence is still there: It is given an impression that JW involves into other Christians denomination's doctrines. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't suggest that at all. And if it did suggest that, then adding 'true' would be a terribly POV distinction to make if you think it distinguishes JWs from other groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Usage of Franz as source

I would like to suggest a replacement of the added source. BlackCab have added the source, to get a coverage for the claim (I called for a source to cover for the claim that they found Chistmas and ither holidays incompatible with Christianity in general), which I find fair enough. BlackCab gives in this edit [2] an explanation about the source, which I find of interest when it comes to choosing sources for this article. As I find Holden in general more reliable, as Holden is an academic without prejudiced bias against JW. It is reasonable to question the motivation behind BlackCab adding Franz as source, given his explanation in the linked edit, when other and more reliable sources are availabe. If BlackCab see some point into preventing JW into editing and reading this article, by intentionally adding a source he knows members of JW won't touch, it is a puny choice. I though hope this is not his intentions. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of citing a source for a statement is to ensure that the statement is verifiable. Yes, Holden (p.25-26) does state that JWs don't celebrate Christmas, Easter, birthdays etc because of the "pagan" links and similar reasons. I had a quick flick through the book to provide a source after you requested one, but in my haste didn't spot that material (though I now see it's clearly there in the index under "birthdays" and "Christmas"). I did find the Franz material, which was also pertinent because it covered the issue Jeffro had raised by that point -- that JWs object to some customs with pagan origins, but not others. I therefore added the Franz citation.

My later comments about Franz (to which you link above) certainly did not explain why I selected him as a source. You had dismissed Franz as a biased critic and my response to this was that although JWs on Wikipedia recoil from seeing him used as a source for anything, he is a actually highly reliable and accurate source. And please bear in mind that he is currently used at that point in the article only as a source; the article doesn't mention him or his views on this issue, so I see no possible objection to his inclusion as a source -- unless you wish to directly challenge anything he says.

I have no problem at all in adding Holden as a source: as an academic he states accurately and neutrally why JWs are forbidden to celebrate those events. I have no strong or principled objection to removing Franz as a source, but my view is that a second source (and one that adds further detail, and a further perspective) is also helpful. To insist on its removal would seem to be an attempt at censorship.

Hopefully you accept my explanation of why I added Franz. It certainly was not motivated by a desire to drive JWs away from reading or editing the article. I find it highly doubtful that the mere appearance of Franz's name in the footnotes would do so, and if it did have that effect, it would be a poor reflection on the mentality of such individuals. BlackCab (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Franz is 1) he is not an academic source , and 2) partly because he is not academic (I stick to "not academic" as not is educated in a relevant field) a not insignificant part of his writings could be concidered as his personal view, rather than an authority within the field about JW. This aspect about Franz is highlighted in former talkpage discussion related to NWT, where his list of contributers to the translation is regarded as his view, not as a fact. It is a 3) whitch may not applies to all his writings, but he is writing about his personal experience with his former religion, thus implifies that parts of his work may be considered as a primary source, rather than a source about JW. A number 4) is; several authors, among them Holden, Chryssides and Ringnes, do point out problems with sources in general written by former JWs. They consider them as sources, but with limitations, as they may be highly biased and the authors have personal gain by discreding the religion they left/where left out of. I can't recall if Franz is mentioned in particular, but Chryssides have pointed out false use of sources and contradictions by Penton, who may in ex-JW-communities are regarded as the most prominent of the critics of JW (a particular example avaiable online: "Gabrielle Yonan describes the Declaration as a ‘brazen declaration of war from a Biblical David against a Goliath’ (Hesse, 2001, p.339), and Penton cites a Watch Tower source that purportedly referred to it as ‘a stirring rallying-call’ (Penton, 1985, p.148). I cannot find any such reference for the latter, either at the source Penton cites (Watch Tower, 1959, p.130) or elsewhere, and he may be exaggerating the WBTS’s perception of the Declaration’s effects. As Penton himself notes, many of the Convention attendees felt that the statement should have been much more condemnatory of the Nazis. (See also Watch Tower, 1974, p.111.) - Chryssides at CESNUR 2006). 5) Another possible problem with Franz, is he writes about JW teachings a range of years after he've left the religion. If his experience from his time as a prominent member of the religion is the sole reason for giving him any credit, you have to take in concideration the period from he leaving the religion, to he writes the books. My suggesting is, if using academic sources like Ringnes, Holden and per-review articles, for statements where Franz isn't a unique source, could raise the credibility for this and related articles, I think it as worth considering. It is not censorship, but to choose among the best available sources. Holden is simply a better choice here, as his academic degree outranks Franz' personal experience as a former prominent member, and Holden do have a quality into not having any bias in his review of JWs practice. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your objections are far too generalised. Franz is already used in the article as a source about 12 times, generally on matters pertaining to JW organisational history, on which he was well qualified to write. The accuracy of none of those statements has been challenged. Care has been taken to indicate clearly in the article when Franz's opinion is given, and that he was a prominent defector from the religion and later a critic of it. Such a position in no way disqualifies him as a source for factual statements about historical, organizational or doctrinal issues -- which is precisely what his two pages discussing JW attitudes to Christmas are. If you have any factual challenges to what Franz writes on Christmas and birthdays etc, please raise them, otherwise your objection to him seems more a case of bigotry and prejudice. It is not a case of Holden or Franz; both provide factual detail, so both can be included. BlackCab (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with using Franz or Holden or both. The Awake! I previously cited could also be used for this element of JW belief about customs they consider compatible with Christianity. However, I also don't mind if it is uncited in the lead, since not all statements in the lead require citations, so long as the point is cited within the body of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In general I am interested into the qualities whitch qualifies a source, and not so interested in what issues disqualifies a source. Of course his background is an issue either way, but Franz as a source simply don't outrank high quality academic sources. Pulling in Penton was an example of, despite his academic background, may not being as reliable as we could hope for, considering he is heavily used for JW-related articles in this wiki. Ringnes did not make single reference to Penton at all in her work about Jehovah's Witnesses. When suggesting I have to be disagreeing to his statements in this partical case, to have a general opinion about the usage of Franz as a source, it is inviting to cherrypicking within a source for inclusion, rather than considering whether a source is reliable or not. Awake! have a lot of factual information about different topics, but I wouldn't add Awake! as a source in an article about a topic like pollution or birds, for the exact same reason. To insist of keeping Awake! as a source, because it simply is correct about a specific claim, would not make sence, and does not make it a qualified source for general use about any topic.

When I asked for a source for the discussed claim, the controverse was about whether JW found the traditions incompatible with Christianity in general, not whether JW did observe other traditions with pagan origin, or as a dispute over whether the use of pagan origins was a consideration or a fact. I think BlackCab got the issue pretty clear in the AFC below. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course Awake! wouldn't be a suitable source about generic topics, but it's an entirely suitable source for a statement about JW's views about themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact is that JWs do believe those customs are incompatible with Christianity in general (which is one of the reasons they consider Christendom to be incompatible with Christianity), and they consider various customs that have pagan customs to be compatible with Christianity. I very clearly pointed out that the abbreviated version of the sentence misrepresents JWs' views of customs with pagan origins, so it's not at all clear why you did not consider that part of the 'controversy'. In any case, hopefully some other editors will respond to the RFC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A proposal

There is clearly still disagreement over the acceptance of those three words, "... incompatible with Christianity." We are now just going in circles. Broadly speaking, there are three options still being proposed:
1. Leave the wording as is, namely: "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity."
2. Stop the sentence so it reads only: "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins."
3. Insert the word "true", to read "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity."
If this is the case, it is a simple step to go through a WP:RFC process to gain an outside opinion and break the deadlock. I want to ensure before proceeding that those three options are the extent of the choices. A brief statement can be added by the proponents of each option. BlackCab (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the proposed options. I guess it is a pretty clear consensus for not to word it like Biblical Christianity or simmilar. I am though open for rewording if it removes any possible misunderstandings and is according to the best available sources. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. There's at least one more proposal that I never completely forfeited, though (if you see farther above days ago) I did "yield" a long time ago in general, though I was in a way dragged back into it. I still think that the point of the BIBLE is still an ok thing to add as a modification there.

4. Insert the word "biblical", to read "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with biblical Christianity."

or

5. Insert the words "Scriptural principles", to read "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Scriptural principles."

Because, again, regardless of "Gregorian Calendar" things, the sentence clearly talks about pagan HOLIDAYS more specifically. Yes it does say "customs", but the drift of the sentence is the holidays, not non-sequitur junk like calendar systems that people are stuck with, with no real choice. Or even "wedding rings", as wedding jewelry is not condemned in Scripture, and are not set-day celebrations or "mixtures" of true with false, quite in that sense. Because you do notice that there is NO worldly "pagan" holiday at all that Jehovah's Witnesses engage in, observe, or celebrate. Not one. Obviously the actual "holidays" is a different animal (way different) than Calendar systems in regions that people are compelled, with no real choice, to use and go by.

Out of all 5 basic proposals, I find the least desirable number 2. Where the sentence is stopped with no elaboration at all. It was better as it originally was, at least, than cutting the sentence short. I already stated my reasonings etc (as BlackCab correctly pointed out) repeatedly now, even with some variations and maybe extra points in my comments. It's not a terrible thing, or unsourced thing, or even really "POV" (in the way the sentence is worded that it's the JW view and not necessarily Wikipedia's), nor really all that "redundant" per se (as it is more specific and clear and precise, and the word "Christianity" is nominal and broad and not necessarily thought of as totally "biblical", by many churches' own admission many times), and is a term used in WT literature, and many places elsewhere.

One of many examples:

Quote:

Biblical Christianity concerns itself specifically with thinking Biblically; it is not content with foggy concepts of thinking "Christianly" (cf. Mark 7:8-13).

Biblical Christianity can thrive in Bible-honoring and Bible-teaching denominations; however, it does not look to denominations for truth (cf. Romans 3:4).

Biblical Christianity...is more concerned with the mind of God as revealed in the Bible (cf. Psalm 119:99).

Biblical Christianity values reliable Bible translations; however, it does not cling to any one of them instead of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, as being of paramount authority and value.

Biblical Christianity values unity of truth and attitude among Christians, based on the unity of God and of His revelation; however, it opposes false unity imposed by totalitarian, manmade denominations, sects, or churches (cf. Romans 14:5; 15:5; Ephesians 4:4-6, 13).

Biblical Christianity seeks to experience God's truth as revealed in Scripture; it does not define truth by experience, nor seek experience as an end in itself (cf. John 8:31, 32).

Biblical Christianity recognizes that no book can be a fully exhaustive revelation of the infinite God; however, it is does affirm that the Bible is the fully-adequate revelation of that same God (cf. John 14:21, 23; 20:30, 31).

Biblical Christianity recognizes that the Bible does not contain everything which may be known; however, it does affirm that the Bible reveals everything a believer needs to know as a Christian, in order to fear, love, serve, and please God (cf. Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Biblical Christianity does not worship the Bible; however, it does recognize that there can be no worship without the revealed truth of God, and it affirms that the Bible is the one fully-adequate revelation of that truth (John 4:23, 24; 17:17)

(From Biblical Christianity web page)

I'm not saying that that site is necessarily a "reliable source" per se, but the point of that reference is to prove that the phrase "Biblical Christianity" is an established concept and is used in contra-distinction to the broad nominal generic whatever type of vaguely defined (or not as precisely-defined) "Christianity". And yes, to Jeffr077's point that the whole article is talking about how JWs view "Christianity". But some readers may see just one or two sentences in an article, and see a word that may be too broad or imprecise.

Gabby Merger (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to start pushing your preferred option at this stage: most of the reasons have already been given (several times). I just want to be clear on the options before we seek outside opinion. At that stage, each option could have just a sentence or two to explain why that option would be best. For the sake of simplicity, fewer options would be preferred, so if Gabby Merger wants to select just one of his/her choices that would be better (particularly, as Grrahnbahr points out, neither has attracted support from any other editor thus far). BlackCab (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Let it go to an RFC (as I suggested repeatedly several days ago). I've already very clearly stated which version I prefer, with quite specific reasons why the other versions are problematic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that an RFC has been started below, it would be very helpful if none of the editors already involved in the above discussion make comments directly responding to the RFC. Once other editors have responded to the RFC, it might be suitable for editors already involved to discuss those responses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

New Comment - Additional Edit Request

I don't understand the technical stuff about editing this site, but I found an error on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses in the section called "Part of a Series on Jehovah's Witnesses." It is in the History section of the box, where it says "Unfulfilled predicitions." It should say "Unfulfilled predictions." Predictions is misspelled. If it had been in the normal text I would have fixed it, but I can't find how to fix anything in the box it's in.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.251.202 (talk • contribs)

Good catch. I corrected it and moved your comment to its own heading so it wouldn't get mixed up in the unrelated discussion above. Don't forget to sign your comments, so we know who said what. Templates, such as that info box, are edited by clicking the little 'e' at the bottom of the box. But for locked pages, you'll need to be a registered user. Hope that helps. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"History" section

Hi. I feel the "History" section here is missing many events, mainly after 1942. To take an example, the French version of it is much more detailed on the Nazi era, the Knorr era, the 1975 crisis, and recent history. Do you mind if I update this section with the details provided in the French version? --ChercheTrouve (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In an article that is already very long, further detail in the History section (which can only be a summary) is probably unwarranted. If it's noteworthy, it could be added to the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article, though this may already cover that information. BlackCab (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

At least we should probably add something about the association with the UN between 1992 and 2001 and about the "generation" teaching that changed in 1995. What do you think? ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My view: The UN issue is not particularly notable, and its inclusion in such a brief summary of the church's history would probably be undue weight. The change in the "generation" teaching was a major one -- but then so is the more recent faithful and discreet slave one. Both are listed in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. For much of the 20th century they placed a very heavy emphasis on the significance of 1914 and the "generation" alive at the time, only to abandon the teaching in 2010; the faithful slave, numbering in the tens of thousands, was similarly at the core of their beliefs in terms of that group being the channel for God's "new light", but that view has also been dramatically altered, shrinking the "channel" to about seven men. If it could be kept very brief, I think the inclusion of both in the history section would be worthwhile. BlackCab (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The "generation" teaching was abandonned in 1995, not in 2010. I've put a sentence about this in the article. Could I ask you to put, if you want, the new light on the faithful slave? I don't have any reliable source for this. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It was changed in 1995, then changed again in 2010, and summarised in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. I'll add something when I get a moment. BlackCab (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I just checked the page. Also, what do you think about the 1981 change of policy about the disfellowshipped ones, and about the 2007 change for the selection of the 144'000? Shouldn't we talk about that in the history section? These are pretty important ones. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are notable enough for inclusion in this article. Not everything can be included. BlackCab (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If the changes are notable enough to have been covered (i.e. discussed, not simply mentioned) in reliable third party sources, they can be mentioned briefly at the main article. But probably not?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording about the 1995 change; the later one is a bit too technical for inclusion here. The 2013 doctrinal change on faithful and discreet slave is already in the article, under Organization. BlackCab (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: What explanation should be provided for the refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses to celebrate Christmas, birthdays etc?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editors have reached a deadlock in attempting to formulate the wording of a sentence in the lead section that deals with the JWs' objection to celebrating Christmas, Easter, birthdays etc. BlackCab (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Further explanation

The wording that has existed at the article since April 2010 reads: "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity." (The fact gains some elaboration further down in the article).

This wording has been defended as important on the basis that while JWs object to some activities that are rooted in paganism, there are other customs similarly rooted in paganism to which they have no objection. The wording therefore implies that it is just those they find incompatible with their Christian interpretation from which they abstain.

Other editors believe this wording is misleading, and fear it suggests to some readers that JWs find those customs incompatible with nominal Christianity in general. Those editors believe the wording should either:
1. Not mention the issue of compatibility at all, or
2. Make very clear that the JWs believe that it is only their strict interpretation of Christianity (which their literature calls "true Christianity," or "The Truth") that leads to objections to those those pagan-based customs.

As a result, editors have arrived at several options, and because there has been no outright agreement, outside opinion is sought on the best wording. Options are:

1. Leave the wording as is, namely: "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity."
2. Abbreviate the sentence so it reads only: "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins."
3. Insert the word "true", to read "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with true Christianity."
4. Insert the word "biblical", to read "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with biblical Christianity."

Editors have stated their views, both for and against, in the ridiculously long thread above. Any comments would be appreciated. Is there in fact a problem with the current wording? Could it be misunderstood? Or should it be improved? BlackCab (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if my one comment above counts as having participated already, but since it's probably easily overlooked in the discussion above, I'll just reiterate here. Leave the wording as is. Before I suggested changing the source to better back up the line, if need be. But, really, it works the way it is. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is clear enough for the lead of an encyclopedia article. It is not suppose to be a watertight legal definition. William Avery (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is clear enough as I see it. One could change "Christianity" at the end to "their beliefs", but that might be seen as misrepresenting the source and/or hinting that they´re not christians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I say keep the current wording. As I read it, the "they consider" applies to both pagan origins and any incompatibility with Christianity. In order words, I think it's clear that the wording is supposed to be describing their beliefs. I do not read any implications about nominal Christianity. I also see no implication in the language that their beliefs cannot or do not have multiple ways of looking at customs of pagan origins. What I see is that the ones they consider to be incompatible with Christianity, they do not observe. The language does not state anything about whether or not there are other categories. And that is the level of detail that is appropriate for the lead. If further information needs to be given, it can be spelled out in detail later in the article. Evensteven (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I have provided sources earlier in the discussion, that clearly states JW consider Easter for being "Christendom’s chief religious holiday". I would like to ask, how that statement is comlying with a unsourced claim in this article (the source given doesn't cover this particular issue) giving the impression of JW to consider holidays like Easter "incompatibility with Christianity"? Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Two regular editors of this article and four who have no connection with it agree so far that the wording is clear. The statement obviously refers to what JWs think of those holidays, not what JWs think other religions think about those holidays. Maybe there is an English comprehension issue here. BlackCab (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[Intervening edit conflict] I do not know what JW actually believe. I just know that when I read the current article text, it does not say to me anything suggestive of the objections that have been brought against it. Evensteven (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with a consensus either way. I just ask, why a source for a claim one way does not apply, while a sourceless claim the other way is accepted. JW think Easter is "Christendom’s chief religious holiday". No source have been added for the specific claim that JW find holidays like Easter and Christmas "incompatibility with Christianity", and even less incompatibility with Christianity, but in compatibility with other religions. There are no logic behind using a specific set of words like "incompatibility with Christianity", unless it is stated in a source, or it is obvious JW find it in compatibility with other religions, but not in Christinity. I've asked again and again for a source for the specific claim, but it does not appear to exist. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So you accept the consensus. That's about where this should all end. BlackCab (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answear for my questions. To leave out a statement that could be sourced, and include a contrary statement without a source, does not add up. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what your question is. You seem to have reached a conclusion about the wording that has occurred to no one else, so there is little need to rewrite it, or hunt down more sources, in order to satisfy your unique interpretation. It has already been pointed out that there is normally no need to load the lead with citations; the point about Christmas, Easter etc gains adequate elaboration in the main body of the article. BlackCab (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since this deadlock surrounds the word "incompatible", then "abbreviating the sentence so it reads as "they do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins"" is appropriate, or expand the sentence as "they do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with (their interpretation of) biblical Christianity" or modify as "they do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with their Christian beliefs." —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As previously explained at length, truncating the statement as "they do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins" would be false because JWs do not reject all customs that have pagan origins.

Your second suggestion with "(their interpretation of) biblical Christianity" is redundant because the statement already provides their view, and the 'disclaimer' of "their interpretation" is not needed at all if the ambiguous use of "biblical" is removed.

Your third suggestion carries the implication that it is saying more about their beliefs being Christian than it does about their view of the pagan customs, and for that reason is probably more controversial than the other suggestions (though that doesn't mean that their interpretations are necessarily more irrational—or less irrational—than the beliefs of other Christians). Without the word "Christian" in that sentence, the statement basically states that they 'don't believe in customs that are incompatible with their beliefs', which is circular reasoning.

Do you have any specific objections to the current wording?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would venture to say there is no longer a "deadlock". We requested comment from editors outside this page and the result was a consensus that the current wording presents no difficulty, nor can it be misunderstood. An editor made strong representations based on his own reading of the sentence, but has gained no support. BlackCab (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- Inserting the word Biblical or True in the way you have suggested would be in wikipedia voice. It is not Wikipedias place to say what is Biblical or True. As far as the abreviation, are there any customs or anything else of pagan origin that they don't find to be incompatible with Christianity?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, JWs find various customs 'suitable' even though they have 'pagan' origins. This was specifically dealt with in previous discussion at length. Just some examples of customs with pagan origins deemed 'acceptable' for JWs include wedding rings, wedding cake, pagan calendars, pinatas, etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So then options 2-4 would be completely unacceptable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion to close

If all of the information provided is truthful Options 2-4 would be unacceptable. The addition of Biblical and True to Christianity would fall into WP:label territory. As they accept some customs they consider to have pagan origins option 4 would be a gross misstatement of the facts. An RFC just can't help with this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expectations of baptism

(Copied from my talk page)
Re your revert to the 'Evangelism' section.

• The source material says: "Your goal is to help the student achieve greater insight into the truth, qualify as an unbaptized publisher, and become a dedicated and baptized Witness of Jehovah."
• The sentence in the wiki article says "Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group."

But source material does not say that the individual, on completing the course, is expected to become baptized as a member.

Either a better source should be provided, i.e. one which supports the comment that an individual is expected to become a member on completion of the bible study course, or the article should be re-worded to reflect more accurately the source material. Of course, 'evangelism' is one thing, and 'becoming a disciple' is another. Maybe the distinction between the two should also be made clearer in the article. Lepton6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If the baptized JW conducting the study is told by the Watch Tower Society their goal is to steer the "study" to baptism, it would be fair to say there is an expectation that it will lead to baptism. I reverted because your edit [3] was too wordy for an encyclopedia article. BlackCab (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The "goal" is fairly clearly that the 'student' 'should' "become a baptized Witness of Jehovah". This is well within the general definition of expected.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This have been discussed before. I see it bothways. If I train some sport, and have the goal being an Olympic gold medal winner, it is still not expected that I will reach the goal, even though I put a large amount of training into achieving the goal. If I am doing some specific study for a profession, my goal is to achieve to become the whatever profession I've studied for. In the last example, it is more correct to say a student within a certain profession is expected to become the whatever profession chosen (some rare examples do for sure exists, I think the last example was mentioned in an earlier discussion). The "expected"-part is not as simple as defined by Jeffro77. It is about the odds, and also about who having the expectation. The person who are "recieving" the course/study, do may not have any expectations at all of becoming a JW. A goal is simply not the same as an expectation. I do share Lepton6's concern about inaccurate use of a primary source. I am sure if it is as simple as explained in the article, it have to be better sources for the claim. The source do mention another goal as well: becoming an unbaptized publisher. Baptism is not mentioned as a natural step immiatly after the course, but a more finite goal. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a secondary source that discusses the society's expectations of the outcome of a Bible study. I'm sure the WTS's own literature contains many articles that deal with this and I'll have a search. BlackCab (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Alan Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die, although written in 1969, also accurately explains the conversion process when it says (pages 139-140) that "a Bible study ... is intended to bring the person of 'good-will' into a frame of mind where he accepts all of the Society's doctrines. When this stage is reached the Witness holding the Bible study will encourage him to attend meetings and suggest that they go out on the service work together ... the long process of initial call-back call-Bible study has been justified and a new convert will have appeared in the Witness movement." BlackCab (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A Question Box in the October 1996 Our Kingdom Ministry also addressed this issue, with the question "How long should a formal Bible study be conducted with an individual in the Knowledge book?" The answer includes the following statement about those who study but do not get baptized: "We want people to receive a basic knowledge of the truth. Yet it is expected that within a relatively short period of time, an effective teacher will be able to assist a sincere average student to acquire sufficient knowledge to make an intelligent decision to serve Jehovah." It then explains that if the person has not decided to get baptized, publishers should seek guidance from the elders; if there is no "clear evidence of his desire to serve Jehovah .... it may be advisable to discontinue the study." This article may be a better source than the one in the article. However there is no doubt that "once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group", as the article states. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

'Expectation' of baptism: The 'Kingdom Ministry' of Oct 1996, cited above, makes it clear that the 'expectation' is that the 'teacher' will be able to assist a sincere student to gain sufficient information in order to be able to make an informed choice/decision regarding 'serving Jehovah'... "within a relatively short period of time." The 'expectation' is that a decision stage will be reached at some point. It is not an expectation of what that decision will be, or even what it 'should' be. Evidently a point will be reached when informed decisions can be made. A duly informed person may, at that point decide (i) NOT to become one of Jehovah's witnesses, or (ii) to become one of Jehovah's witnesses, or even (ii) to remain undecided on the matter. At no point do these source references indicate that "once the course is completed, the individual is "expected to" become a baptized as a member of the group".

The October 1996 Kingdom Ministry (km), cited above, is addressing the question of the requisite or appropriate duration of a Bible study course. The goal/objective of the study appears to be clearly stated: "We want people to receive a basic knowledge of the truth." This does not seem to be an unreasonable or undesirable 'expected' outcome. However, the 'objective' does not appear to be baptism, but rather an increased knowledge and understanding of the beliefs and practices of the movement. The religious matters of repentance, conversion, dedication and baptism etc. are also included in a JW Bible study course. (See course book "What Does the Bible Really Teach? (2005) published by Jehovah's witnesses) But surely all such 'expressions' of faith are voluntary manifestations of free-will and of the informed choice(s) of the individual, rather than being externally imposed obligations, duties or 'expectations' of others. Of course, a person who makes a vow, a sacred promise or dedicates themselves to God is expected to abide by the accompanying duties, obligations and responsibilities necessarily attached to such a commitment. In the faith of Jehovah's witnesses, as in many Christian denominations, baptism is a key element. (For the witness view of baptism see Baptism: Jehovah's Witnesses) In the Witness faith, for those who have dedicated themselves to Jehovah, baptism is a requirement, not an expectation. (See also JW bible study book: 'What Does the Bible Really Teach?' Chapter 18: Baptism and Your Relationship with God?) Similarly, a witness's 'dedication' "is to Jehovah God himself, not to a work, a cause, other humans, or an organization." For JW's, "dedication and baptism are the beginning of a very close friendship with God—an intimate relationship with him." ('What Does the Bible Really Teach?', chapter 18, parag 24).

On the basis of the source material cited it seems that the wiki article's editors' statement "once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become a baptized as a member of the group.", has, in the commendable interests of brevity, inadvertently become less accurate than expected of an encyclopedic entry. Matters of faith are often challenging to communicate. NPOV can also be difficult. On faith issues, aligning wiki content with source material must be doubly difficult. But the challenges should not stop us trying, trying to present honest, meaningful and verifiable information to the reader, and in bite-sized chunks that enable understanding of key matters. --Lepton6 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing of the OKM article studiously ignores the key sentence: "Yet it is expected that within a relatively short period of time, an effective teacher will be able to assist a sincere average student to acquire sufficient knowledge to make an intelligent decision to serve Jehovah." The expectation, and desired outcome of the study course is quite clear. Hence the further instruction given on what to do when the student fails to make that decision ... which, in short, is to drop them and move on to someone else. BlackCab (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That indeed is a key sentence, but the word "fails" is yours. The concluding sentence in the Oct 1996 is "If such spiritual appreciation is not evident after the study ... has been conducted for an extended period, it may be advisable to discontinue the study."

According the the line of reasoning in the cited km, JW's do not offer indefinitely lasting Bible studies to those who evidently do not wish to become associated with the congregation. The choice is the student's. I cannot see any hard and fast rules being made when, in such cases, it says "...it may be advisable to discontinue the study." Are you suggesting that JW's should continue studying with someone who is clearly 'not interested'? Even so, discontinuing the study does not prevent the 'student' from doing their own study. There are plenty of resources readily available for those who wish to learn more. But discontinuing the teacher/student study arrangement does not stop the two from continuing their friendship should they wish to do so. But the bible study course is finite. At some point the formal teacher/student bible study must/will end, whether the student decides to become one of Jehovah's witnesses or not.

Returning to the "Evangelism" issue, and particular the sentence under discussion, I still maintain that either a better source should be provided, i.e. one which supports the comment that an individual is "expected to become baptized as a member of the group" on completion of the bible study course. Alternatively I suggest that the article be re-worded to reflect more accurately the source material. I also still feel that the material under 'Evangelism' should stick to the subject, and that the other matter of 'becoming a disciple' would be better dealt with if it had its own header, thus making the distinction between JW's 'evangelizing' and JW's 'discipling' clearer.

Perhaps the article should state that "There are a number of requirements that those who want to become one of Jehovah’s witnesses must meet before becoming accepted as a full member of the group." Then a (short?) list of those requirements (including 'dedication' and 'baptism'?) could be provided.

Certainly, by the end of the bible study course, the 'student' should have been sufficiently helped by the 'teacher' to have reached reach a stage of understanding where she (the student) can make informed decisions regarding her future course in life.--Lepton6 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In what is a very long article, the current wording accurately and succinctly explains the point. The OKM article I have cited on this talk page provides adequate support for that statement. There is no need in this article to go into such details as you suggest. BlackCab (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that the sentence "Once the course is completed, the individual is expected to become baptized as a member of the group" accurately and succinctly explains the connection between the JW bible study course and the possible outcome that the student will become one of Jehovah's witnesses. The cited km references in the article and in your comments above provide a better understanding of some of the JW's policies and practices on these matters than does the sentence to which they are appended/related.
However, having expressed my concerns and made some suggestions, I'll leave it at that. Regards --Lepton6 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I support User:Lepton6's suggested changes, so the text in the article is according to what the sources states. There are no need of filtering or twisting of the text from the chosen source. BlackCab have supported (and have may even introduced these?) the use of the sources mentioned by Lepton6, and Lepton6's objection seems fair. Why not reuse the statements and expressions like it is rendered in the source? The use of "course" rather than "Bible study" is also misleading, as most, if not all (accidentally also including JW-published literature), sources uses "Bible Studies" as the term of how JW teach other their believings, as they consider as from the Bible. BlackCab did quote from Rogerson's: "a Bible study ... is intended to bring the person of 'good-will' into a frame of mind where he accepts all of the Society's doctrines." Holden at p. 127: "This makes it very difficult for young Witnesses, especially those younger than sixteen, to refuse to undertake Bible Study or to go along with their parents to the Kingdom Hall." (Holden includes though "Bible Study" in the glossary). Chryssides' dictionary, p. 19: "The term can be used generically to refer to any situation in witch the Bible is read, both in personal devotion and public worship, not necessary by Jehovah's Witnesses." Chryssides then follows up explaining the procedure most commonly used by JW, including cross-referencing from the Bible. Franz: "It in effect presented an authorized list of what activities could be so considered. Primarily these were: preaching (“field service”), meeting attendance, family study and consideration of the daily Watchtower text, pioneer and missionary service, Bethel service (at the headquarters or a branch office), work as a traveling overseer, elder or ministerial servant. Thus, by definition, if a parent conducts a formal Bible study with his wife and children (and this is always done using a publication of the Watch Tower Society), this is sacred service, service to God (and he can also list the time spent on his “field service report slip”)." (In search of christian freedom, p. 658, 659). Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no twisting of the text. The two sources, a 1996 Watch Tower Society instruction to followers (primary) and a book by Gary and Heather Botting (secondary) very clearly support the statement in the article that once a prospective recruit completes their "Bible study" course they are expected to undergo baptism. This, as any JW would know, is the primary aim of starting a "Bible study": to lead a person towards accepting WTS doctrines and becoming a member of the religion.

There should be no objection to the word "course": among the definitions of this common English word are:

• "a systematized or prescribed series (a course of lectures; a course of medical treatments);
• "a program of instruction, as in a college or university (a course in economics)."

To eliminate any possible misunderstanding, however, I have added the word "study" in the article to make it a "study course".BlackCab (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lepton6 just pointed out problems with your interpretation of the sources. Aim/Goal is not the same as expectation. No sources states the claim like it is in this article, only your interpretation of the sources does. The same applies to the use of course. To combine one source with the definition, is violating WP:SYNTH ("Since 'Bible study' is a series of lectures, and a course could be defined as a series of lectures, then it is ok to use "course" rather than "Bible study", even if the sources used in this article, does not use "course", but "Bible study"). "Study course" is a poor expression as well, as "Bible study" is the commonly used expression by a range of authors writing about JW. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

After Lepton6's initial objection, I removed the OKM statement about the "goal" of conducting a Bible study course, and replaced it with another OKM article that directly addresses the expected outcome of such a course. Both sources cited now accurately support the sentence in the article. BlackCab (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim that the goal of JW Bible studies is not with an expectation that the student will become baptised as a JW is fairly disingenuous. The purpose of JW 'preaching' is specifically to recruit members. This is clearly evidenced by their publications' very frequent citation of Matthew 28:19-20 in reference to preaching, teaching and baptizing. It is extremely clear that there is an expectation that those who complete the JW Bible study course should be baptised; 'studies' (i.e. students) who do not 'progress toward baptism' are generally dropped, and social activity by JWs with such persons is curtailed. Apart from that, study course is a bit redundant, as it's very clear from the previous sentence just what "course" is being discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I did only suggest the wording used by pretty much every source used to support the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

JW Article

Hi there, not a Wiki editor nor intend to be.

Just have a slight suggestion regarding the JW article. The term 'scriptural' and 'unscriptural' is used in the article. I believe the term is correct in the context, but I wonder if the average reader/user might wonder what this refers to? It is a term to refer to the Christian Bible so would it bring additional clarification by naming it as such? So as "Biblical/un-Biblical according to ___ religion"

Just a suggestion and thanks for the hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.223.48.105 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory explanation

Removed this (a few times) as it's unsourced and poorly written and has no place in a WP:GA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Founder

Charles Taze Russell cannot rightly be said to be the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses. No group called Jehovah's Witnesses existed during Russell's lifetime. Russell founded the Watch Tower Society and the Bible Student movement, but neither of those is completely synonymous with Jehovah's Witnesses—a name chosen by Joseph Rutherford in 1931 for a faction of the Bible Student movement that remained loyal to the Watch Tower Society after Rutherford made changes to many core doctrines. Even before Rutherford officially changed the name of his faction, it was he who made the group that became known as Jehovah's Witnesses distinct from other Bible Student movement groups. The article already properly explains the background for Russell's Bible Student movement from which Jehovah's Witnesses later developed. No source says that Russell ever used the name Jehovah's Witnesses. Every source that discusses the topic states that the name Jehovah's Witnesses was chosen by Joseph Rutherford and was adopted in 1931, and those that address the history in any depth indicate that it was after Rutherford made sweeping changes. Dogmatically asserting that Russell was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses is a bit like saying that the Pope is the founder of Protestantism. At the very least, the Founder parameter in the infobox should be presented in the same manner as the Origin parameter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Rutherford would be the founder if he had established a new group and called it Jehovah's Witnesses, but he didn't. He became leader of an existing movement then reshaped it over a period of years before renaming it. There were significant doctrinal differences between the organisation of 1931 and 1917 when he took over, but there are also significant doctrinal differences between the organisation of 2014 and 1931.

As I'm sure you'll recall, there was an extensive discussion on this very point in 2011; I've just been having a nostalgic look at those good old days, reading all the arguments here and here. The second link contains a list of 60 references referring to Russell as the founder. I still have no idea how that ill-mannered and arrogant editor found them all. The argument at the time was that since Russell was long dead in 1931 when the JW name was applied, he could not founded it. He did though, indisputably found the movement that changed its name to JWs and in an encyclopedic sense, in an effort to identify the person behind it all, he's the man, despite the enormous impact Rutherford had on it. There may be a way of clarifying this in the infobox, and I'm open to ideas, but Russell's name should remain. BlackCab (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Rutherford became the leader of part of an existing movement, but he became the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible Student movement—founded by Russell—continued (and continues) to exist beyond just Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've shown both individuals in the infobox. And no, I didn't commit the tedious discussion from 2011 to memory. More likely, I probably repressed the memory. Sigh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked it up in Hege K. Ringnes book Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie (in Norwegian). In the first section in the book, written by Ringnes and Helje Kringlebotn Sødal, it is stated (p. 14): "Vurdert utenfra var det amerikaneren Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) som grunnla Jehovas vitner. Internt blir Russell ansett som en stor åndelig fornyer, men ikke som noen religionsstifter. Ifølge trossamfunnet gjenopprettet han Jehovas organisasjon på jorden i nyere tid" (in English: "Concidered from outside, the American Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) founded Jehovah's Witnesses. Internally, Russell is concidered as a great spiritual renewer, but not as a founder of religion. According to the denomination he restored Jehovah's organization on the earth in modern times.") (Sorry my English, but I'm sure the quote could be polished if it is going to be used somewhere).

Regarding user:Jeffro77's arguing about the name, which was not introduced while Russell lived: As a vast majority of the Bible Students was a part of the movement immidiate before and after the change of name, and all juridical units, was controlled by The Bible Students until 1931, and JW after 1931, it is reasonable to concider it as a change of a name, rather than a new movement (even if, according to modern time Bible Students, may is more complex than so). I am pretty sure there are a number of examples of units and organization which have changed name after the founder had passed away, no matter of wheather the founder would find it approved or not. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The quote you've supplied isn't directly relevant, because it addresses the JW claim ('internally') that they believe it was 'really' 'founded' by their God.

It is not only a matter of the name change. The organizational structure and core eschatology of the group was dramatically changed by Rutherford. And it wasn't strictly a new movement, because it was and is part of the movement founded by Russell (which includes all Bible Student groups), but Jehovah's Witnesses—a group, not a movement—was founded by Rutherford, who sought to differentiate his group of Bible Students from other Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The JW religion clearly would not have existed were it not for Russell holding his first meetings and then publishing his Watchtower magazine and other books. The incorporated society Russell founded is the same incorporated society that today administers the JWs. The JWs' core doctrines—the ransom sacrifice, the future earthly paradise, rejection of trinity, mortality of the soul, the use of Bible chronology to mark Christ's return and the beginning of God's sabbath—were formulated by Russell. The infobox identifies the founder of JWs as both Russell and Rutherford, but to any casual visitor to the article, that would make no sense. I fully understand Jeffro's argument about Rutherford's impact on the religion, but the article must reflect the views of reliable published sources. Unless there is a preponderance of sources that state unequivocally that Rutherford was the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Russell's name must stand alone in the infobox. Anything else is original research. BlackCab (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's supported by the same sources that the body of the article uses to indicate the background of the group—the Bible Student movement—and the specific development of Rutherford's group distinct from the rest of the Bible Student movement. The founder parameter is being used in the same manner as the origin parameter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Leo P. Chall (1978). "Sociological Abstracts". Sociology of Religion 26 (1–3): 193. "Rutherford, through the Watch Tower Society, succeeded in changing all aspects of the sect from 1919 to 1932 and created Jehovah's Witnesses—a charismatic offshoot of the Bible student community."--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeffro77, there are a huge number of sources stating Russell is the founder of JW, compered to those sources stating Rutherford is. If one or a few only claims otherway, it is may worth including, but very well likely not worth including, as of WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. (...) [I]n determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." As of the policy, even if you are right, it is very well not worth including, unless it is claimed in a significant number of RS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

From WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Chall is one voice; I provided a link above to 60 sources that all say Russell was the founder. Jeffro, your response above, "It's not original research. It's supported by the same sources that the body of the article uses to indicate the background of the group", is an appeal for other editors to come to the same conclusion you reach from that material. I don't see solid grounds, based on RS, for an encyclopedic claim in the infobox that Rutherford was the founder of the JWs. BlackCab (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit: the lead section of the Joseph Franklin Rutherford article actually contains one more source for this claim, as well as another that focuses on his changes to the "administrative structure". BlackCab (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the specific group, Jehovah's Witnesses (as distinct from Russell's broader Bible Student movement), was actually founded by Rutherford is already borne out by sources already present in the article. It is not a requirement to find a preponderance of sources for this point merely on the basis that some over-zealous editor went hunting for a bunch of sources about Russell; what is required is credible and reliable sources, and those we already have. The manner in which 1) Russell was founder of the Bible Student movement from which JWs later emerged, and 2) Rutherford was founder of JWs is made fairly clear in the article. Additionally, the manner in which Rutherford founded JWs in 1931 is also not really a contested point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. In the infobox you contend that Rutherford "founded" the religion in 1931. Judging by this section —and the last few doctrinal changes in this section — he "founded" a religion whose doctrines were well established (many of them formulated by him years earlier). Happily, the religion he "founded" also had something like 20,000 members on Day 1. It was run by a society that had existed for 50 years, owned properties in several countries and whose chief organ was a magazine that had been published for 52 years, and which had been edited, and mostly written by, Rutherford himself for 12 years. By your definition, this religion didn't exist on July 25, 1931, but did exist the next day, with all these assets. Correct? BlackCab (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You are fully aware that 'Jehovah's Witnesses' is not equal to either Watch Tower Society or Bible Student movement, so your contentions above about the prior existence of either of those is not directly relevant to the founding of Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. Further, the fact that Rutherford gradually made his own group distinct from other Bible Student groups after Russell's death does not invalidate the formal naming of his group in 1931.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you insist that Protestantism was founded by (according to tradition) Saint Peter on the basis that the first protestants were Catholics, and that they already derived their primary doctrines from Catholicism, and that they didn't instantly have a Protestant church, and that the term Protestant wasn't formally used for several years after Luther's supposed 'heresy'? I doubt it. Jehovah's Witnesses branched from the Bible Student movement, just as Protestantism branched from the Catholic Church. The fact that the scale is smaller doesn't alter the logic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeffro has a point in saying that the name was not applied to the group during Russell's life. Unfortunately, his own argument is, to a degree anyway, undermined by his own statement, at the start of the thread, to the effect that Rutherford started a group by that name after Russell had sought to introduce changes into the group he had earlier founded, which to me, as a bit of an outsider, indicates that the group Rutherford founded was in fact one which, more or less, continued the tradition of the group Russell had earlier founded. We do not, so far as I remember, say Jesus founded the Christian church either (I didn't check, and hope we haven't changed that lately). But the evidence does seem, in a rather roundabout way, to support that the JW's were basically the group continuing the original tradition of the group Russell founded, and that Russell himself was, perhaps, at this time in conflict with the group he had earlier founded when trying to introduce the changes.

In general, I think the best way to proceed regarding these matters is to find the better independence reference sources and say what they say on the topic. Maybe, like some might say is true in saying Jesus did not found Christianity, we might be forced to real parse words. But seeing how the most highly regarded independent academic sources deal with this matter, and following their lead, seems to be in general the best way to approach these situations. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to Jeffro’s claim, the Watch Tower Society and Jehovah’s Witnesses are to all intents and purposes, synonymous. The former is the administration arm of the latter and since 1976 the society has been run at the direction of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Governing Body. Until fairly recently, the president of the society was the head of the religion; this had been the case since its foundation in the 19th century.

From its inception as an unnamed assemblage of Christians who studied the Bible through the filter of Russell’s teachings, continuing through the period in which Rutherford replaced Russell as president and ever since, this religion has been an evolving entity. Its doctrines have changed, its administrative system has changed and in 1931 its name changed.

The date of 26 July 1931 brought no change to the religion except for its name. Rutherford certainly made no claim to starting a new religion that day. Tony Wills, in “A People For His Name,” (pg. 172-3) states that the similarity of names of the various Bible Student groups “was distressing to Rutherford, and he sought a pretext on which to change the name of his own movement ... Some of Rutherford’s hearers remained faithful to Russell and refused to accept the name ... the acceptance of the new name, therefore, became a rejection of those that had left the corporation as no longer church members.”

Jeffro states that “the organizational structure and core eschatology of the group was dramatically changed by Rutherford.” This is true – but as the link I provided above shows, many of those changes were introduced years before 1931. The requirement to preach, the abandonment of the 1878 date, the identification of a “sheep class”, the redefinition of Armageddon and the “faithful servant”, the emphasis of the name “Jehovah”, use of the term “Satan’s organization”, the condemnation of Christmas celebrations ... all these were well cemented within this religion before the date that Jeffro claims Rutherford “founded” a religion.

There are just two sources for the claim that Rutherford founded this religion in July 1931: Leo Chall in a 1978 issue of “Sociology of Religion” and an unidentified author in a 1953 book, “The Twentieth Century”. As previously indicated, one Wikipedia editor has already located 60 sources naming Russell as the founder. These include The New York Times Almanac, Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Academic American Encyclopedia, The American Journal of Psychiatry, The World Book dictionary, Webster's II New College Dictionary and Hutchinson's New 20th Century Encyclopedia.

I am going to revert the detail in the infobox. It was a bold gambit by Jeffro, but unless he has more sources for a claim he has originated, and so far without support from any other editor, it’s his view against all those reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already clearly indicated how the group developed, branching from the movement. It wasn't a 'bold gambit'. It is an entirely accurate position, but you don't want it changed on a technicality. I have the luxury of knowing I'm right, and that's enough for me, so I'll allow the article to remain technically incorrect on the basis that a large number of sources are also technically incorrect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And it is certainly possible for even reliable sources to indulge in oversimplification. I also notice now, having not looked earlier (sorry about that), that Bible student movement is a stand-alone article, and that the specific group he founded, the International Bible Students Association, also has a distinct standalone article. Based on this further review of the material, and I again apologize for having not looked it through earlier, I think that we can reasonably say that (1) we do have discussion about the specific group Russell founded elsewhere in the encyclopedia (which I didn't check for before) and (2) that the material for that group is not necessarily located in this article. Given the latter in particular, it would be most reasonable for this article on the group specifically called the JWs, to indicate Russell as the founder of the Watchtower, which later became the JWs, but not necessarily of the JWs as such themselves. Unfortunately, this verges into the area of how to present material related to incorporated corporations and unincorporated groups with defined leaders, and I am myself nothing remotely resembling an expert, or even a knowledgable party, in either area. Giving the complex nature of this matter, I think maybe starting an RfC on the matter, and specifically requesting input from individuals more familiar with content regarding organizations and corporations, might be in order. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You are free to start a RfC if you like, but I have to say I am agree with user:BlackCab in this case. There are no doubt what a vaste majority of RS states in this matter. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Opened discussion at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard#Jehovah's Witnesses. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record I consider that Jeffro77 is out on a limb with his argument here and sources are not supporting him. My arguments are to be found on the useroage of DougWeller.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Blackcab's points are well thought out and formulated nicely, I see no reason for a RFC. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

National anthem

• This discussion has been moved from my User Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts on national anthem issue, it is not an isolated issue it went up to the Supreme Court of India and got much media attention and discussions within 1.23 billion Indian population. Moreover, it is true that JW's do not sing national anthem. The issue is also notable in Canada when JW's refused to sing the anthem. Therefore unless get a proper reply, I will revert your edit again and move this issue to the ANI. Thanks.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinesh (talk • contribs)

One case about one school in one country is an isolated incident, regardless of how much coverage the incident receives. (Beyond anecdotes in Watch Tower Society publications, singing of the national anthem in Canada does not seem to have received much attention in the courts.) It doesn't make it notable for the lead of the main article about JWs. It is already mentioned at the appropriate article. You're welcome to raise an ANI, but you're not likely to get much support.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is literature mentioning similar cases in other countries such as Mexico. So no it is not isolated in any of the ways you state.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The editor presented only one case about one school. Obviously that doesn't preclude the existence of other cases. The fact remains that refusing to sing national anthems has not been such a major cause of 'government conflict' to merit inclusion in the lead of the main JW article. A court case about a child getting expelled from a school for any reason does not immediately make that reason a significant source of 'government conflict'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead section cannot hope to deal with every issue in the article. The current wording is sufficient to cover the aspect of their attitide towards nationalism. The anthem issue in fact rates only a passing mention in the JW article, a single reference (Singapore) in Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, a single reference (India) in Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country and no reference in Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. BlackCab (TALK) 08:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I also dont support the inclusion in the lead, but Jeffro has had a general a tendency to blow off any mention of discrimination against JW in non-Western countries as irrelevant and non notable. It is in fact something that does affect the lives of JWs in many countries world wide. In some periods and regions in Mexico for example Jehovahs witness children have been unable to participate in elementary education because of the refusal to salute the flag. This is describe by sociologists of religion in the literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have demonstrated no such 'tendency' whatsoever. The statement the editor wanted to add to the lead of the main JW article is simply not of suitable notability for that place in the article. I have raised no objection whatsoever to any matter in the articles about court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses or persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are advised to retract your false accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Maunus' 'example' about Mexico is entirely irrelevant, because flag salutes have been a broader cause of government dispute, and it is already mentioned in the lead. I have no idea what is supposed to form the basis for Maunus' claim—presumably he will shortly provide some diffs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, in the case you cite, the government (i.e. the court) sided with the JWs against the actions of the deputy school inspector. There is no indication that the case represented any sort of ongoing conflict with the government.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It is JW’s common practise as same as their other beliefs such as military, blood transfusion etc. If that was included in the main articles I cant understand the logic behind not including this issue which was highly sparked within India’s 1.23 billion population and went up to the Supreme Court of India and also published by JW YB-1988. Morevoer, it is true that JW’s do not sing national anthem, right? Avinesh  T  00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Re-stating the population of India is just as irrelevant as when you said it the first time. The one case about three students in one school went to the Supreme Court, in which the government upheld Jehovah's Witnesses' rights to freedom of worship. The case doesn't represent 'conflict' with the government of India in any manner worthy of stating in the lead of the main JW article. The fact that the matter appeared in JW publications—which are quick to point out any 'opposition'—is unremarkable. The case is appropriately covered at Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that JWs do not sing national anthems is covered in the main article under Separateness. The practice is not in question, but one Supreme Court case about one school that was decided in favour of JWs does not constitute notable 'conflict with governments'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not 3 students, actually 12 students were expelled from one particular school, out of that one parent took the initiative of lodging the case which went through (Contact JW branch office, if required I will give the phone no). Even after the Supreme Court verdict, many JW’s student lost their education. When the generations passed, things have changed. But it was an ongoing issue during the mid 1980’s and 1990’s. Anyway, Wikipedia is everyone’s free knowledge bank to know the truth not for hiding any notable information’s like this. Thats all, Thanks. Avinesh  T  01:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is precisely zero requirement to "contact JW branch office" (which would hardly be an unbiased source anyway) because minutia of the one case about one school do not change the fact that it did not represent 'government conflict', as the outcome of the one case defended JW rights. The fact that JWs don't sing anthems is already covered. The court case in India is covered at the appropriate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've double-checked the claim about twelve students. The case was definitely about three students, not twelve. The court documents consistently refer to three students. As for statements by the Watch Tower Society, an article in the 1 February 1988 issue of The Watchtower claimed there were eleven students; however, the 8 December 1986 issue of Awake! and the 1988 book Revelation—Its Grand Climax at Hand state that there were three children expelled.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I do agree it is not needed to mention denial of singing national anthems in particular in the lead, as it is not a major issue about Jehovah's Witnesses. The part "regarding conscientious objection to military service and refusal to salute national flags has brought it" could may have been rephrased to something like "because of their neutral standing in political matters" or similar, but I honestly don't see how it could be improving the article. And, it need to be according to the sources. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree it is actually a large part of the JW ethos, they consider it like Shadrach, Meshach and Abendago refusing to bow down and it's happened in more then just one country. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's part of the JW 'ethos' isn't in question. The context is whether issues have been causes of significant conflict with governments. The relevant JW practices are already appropriately covered in the article and related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it has been though is what I'm saying. I think we could also word this as nationality based exercises? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not completely clear what you mean by "nationality based exercises", but it seems to suggest something too specific and wordy for the lead of the main JW article. (On first reading, I assumed you meant mentioning issues relating to specific nationalities, but perhaps you just mean using a more generic term than 'saluting' or 'singing anthems'?) Apart from that, there hasn't been any indication so far that refusing to sing national anthems has resulted in any significant government conflict in the same manner as, for example, refusing to salute.

A government mandating from the top down that all JW children be expelled from all government-run schools if they don't sing the national anthem would constitute significant government conflict; the occasional case about a specific school expelling a small number of children (for any reason) does not, especially when the court finds in favour of the religion. It is still proper for such cases to be listed at the article about specific court cases, but such cases are not of sufficient weight to merit mention in the lead of the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we can be general with the lead and give more details later, it's not hard to make it include national anthems without it being WP:UNDUE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been demonstrated so far that there has been any notable government conflict about singing national anthems, so I don't see why it should be included.--Jeffro77 (talk)

If you just mean putting in the lead in some context other than government conflict, it could possibly go in, but only if done in a manner that doesn't read as though it's just been shoe-horned into the lead just for the sake of it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Past racist teachings"

The source for this, Jerry Bergman, is described as a "a fairly typical creationist: he's a loon, and he's dishonest" in his article. Also, one of his papers is titled, "Why Jehovah's Witnesses Have Mental Problems". [4] Let's have better sources for a good article please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this source is good enough. I think also that some editors just want to suppress this hot topic on this page.--79.192.46.103 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks and Discrimination, there are not any factual mistakes.--79.192.46.103 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Bergman's views on JW's might be notable for his article but I fail to see why a fringe biologist should be used as a source here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

He is a doctor and his views of evolution do not matter in this article.--79.192.46.103 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also he got a degree in social psychology, so he knows about what he is talking.--79.192.46.103 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, in what journal was the paper you want to use as a reference published? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This 'argument' has been attempted before at this article. However, there are no reliable sources that indicate a degree of racism among JW teachings any greater than society in general at the time the statements were made.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

Regarding this, I fail to see how the wording changes improve the article in any way. "The Governing Body collectively decide what all Jehovah's Witnesses are required to believe, basing such mandates on their personal interpretation of the Bible." is particularly sloppy wording. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The tone of the new wording is not neutral and I doubt it's supported by the existing sources which it now purports to cite. I have removed it. BlackCab (TALK) 22:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be numerous 'hostile edits' from anonymous users, claimng that their '3rd party' rhetoric is somehow impartial. I don't see integrity in such claims. MaynardClark (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

I find it hard to understand that (I quote) most organisations have websites. not notable (end quote) is true, when we speak about a website that is available in over 500 languages, provides literature in over 700, and has appr. 80 sign-languages as well, one would say that this does make it notable. It is documented by third parties. I do understand that the hardcore editors of this category have guarded propaganda from these articles, but come on.. this could hardly be called that! I understand that the website is not notable enough for having it's own article. Randykitty wrote about it, saying: (link)

• Personally, I don't think a separate article is justified. It can be reduced to two lines without loss of information (most translated website -if there's an independent source confirming that- and banned in Russia) and easily integrated into the main article.

Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The claim that it is most translated is not even correct. Providing a limited amount of literature in a large number of languages (the site actually says 688, not over 700) is not the same as the site being translated in that number of languages. The number of languages in which the site is available is actually about 500, and of those, many provide only basic information about the religion in that language rather than a 'translation' of the entire site—even the content on the home page of the site is reduced in many of the languages. It may have a page in the highest number of languages, but it is not the most translated, nor does it have content in the greatest number of languages, which goes to the Global Recordings Network.

There was a single court case in Russia attempting to ban a religious website, and the case was overruled. The minor case is appropriately covered elsewhere (but it is in need of a secondary source), and is not notable within the scope of the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1. I stand corrected about the number of languages. I thought that it showed 701 a few days ago. But that can be a mistake on my part.

2. A mistake on your part though would be, not carefully reading what I correctly wrote; exactly the same as you now did. :-D ... "a website that is available in over 500 languages, provides literature in over 700, and has appr. 80 sign-languages as well". The Watchtower Online Library is available on jw.org in 169 languages. (publications available between 2000 and 2014 (or 2013). Other languages provide indeed less content on jw.org, but doesn't mean that that is not translated. It is.

3. "nor does it have content in the greatest number of languages, which goes to the Global Recordings Network." I never heard about this, and will read up what that is about. On this point... For now ... I stand corrected :-)

I would like to conclude however by saying that jw.org is the best website ever, and I am the best! Nah - just kidding, don't worry.

Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I made no mistake. You attempted to use Randykitty's statement as justification, and I pointed out that the statement is incorrect. Many of the foreign-language sites have a static home page with a basic message (which doesn't appear on the main site) and links to a small number of publications in that language. It is misleading to say those are translations of the main site.

In any case, since you're a member of the religion, and the parent corporation is involved in a campaign to promote the site, which includes 'encouraging' members to promote the site, it would be best if you leave it to independent editors to assess the notability of the web site. This will help to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1. I disagree with your statement. You wrote The number of languages in which the site is available is actually about 500 - stating it as if I had stated it otherwise, which I did not :D

My previous edit in the article states:

Although "House to house"-evangelism is still their primary way, the Witnesses have found other ways by using i.e. portable trolley's or small book stands on public places, and the use of their website jw.org. With over 500 languages it is the worlds most translated website, and provides publications in various formats in over 700 languages, including appr. 80 Sign Languages.

2. You [reverted it back again, stating 190 languages of which the given source actualy states: As of 2013, we publish Bible-based literature in some 700 languages and distribute it in 239 lands.

3. About it would be best if you leave it to independent editors to assess the notability of the web site. - I'm not pushing. I wanted to understand why. That I do now.

4. And again.. the campaign was in August. Not September.

5. As I found the website of Globalrecordings... They only provide the website in 15 languages. I am not sure about the languages they record in, as lots of them are mere dialects of which every one can contribute (Just like Wikipedia?). But an accomplishment it is.

Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 03:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But let's drop it. You win, I have peace of mind. Take a beer and celebrate it :-D Have a good night, I'm off to bed (5:13 am here) so I need my beauty sleep! Peace! Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 03:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is a minor error in a number in the old version, it can be corrected without adding the superfluous details. Trivial details about numbers of languages (e.g. elaboration about sign language) are not notable for the main article about JWs.

And no, the campaign to promote the site has not ended. Only the 'tract' campaign ended in August. Even in the November issue of Our Kingdom Ministry (a JW newsletter), there is a section telling members to promote the JW website. And the September issue has a full section entitled "Use jw.org in Your Ministry".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What "early Christians" did

A paragraph has been added to the "Separateness" section citing two book titles that assert that "the early Christians did not believe in participating in political affairs". I have two problems with this: (1) What are those two books? Who wrote them and are they reliable sources? This is impossible to verify, and the editor simply says "the source is the web, respect the edition"[5]. The material is actually a word-for-word copy of the JW website [6], but is is also unknown if the JW website has accurately represented the material in those two original books. (2) There is no clear connection presented linking what "the early Christians" may have done and the position the JWs today take on singing patriotic songs, working for the military and minimizing social contact with non-JWs. The paragraph implies that JWs base some of those stands on what early Christians did, but this is not clear and will need an explicit statement of that fact if it is to remain. BlackCab (TALK) 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it as it is out of scope. This article is about Jehovah's Witnesses, and does not need to appeal to what 'early Christians' are believed to have done. This is an encyclopaedia entry, not a religious tract. It is not necessary to convince readers that JW's political views are 'justified' by the purported acts of 'early Christians'. The last sentence of the removed paragraph is all that is relevant, and I have added into one of the other existing paragraphs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Expectation of baptism

• Moved from User Talk:Grrahnbahr#Expectation of baptism

Your latest edit at Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the expectation that "Bible studies" will take the step to baptism is going over old ground. You, I and other editors discussed this previously; that discussion (resolved I thought) is in archive 60 on the JW talk page. BlackCab (TALK) 12:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I can not see any concensus reached in the archive. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have re-worded the sentence to be more consistent with the cited source. As it is nearly verbatim per the source, you should be happy with the change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It sure is closer to the wording, so thanks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit in fact obscures the key fact that JWs conduct so-called Bible studies for a specific purpose: to gain recruits. The KM article (whose citation is now rather redundant thanks to Jeffro's last edit) specifically states that within a short time the JW is expected to steer the person to baptism; if the person shows no such inclination (eg is fascinated by the novel JW doctrine in an academic sense but has no wish to commit themselves to the self-assumed authority of the religion's leaders with all their legislative and judicial powers) the study course is to be terminated. The current wording suggests a measure of altruism in the home Bible study procedure. To be accurate it must include the fact that it is being done for a specific purpose -- a purpose never explained at the outset to the potential convert. (I joined the religion via that method and spent much of the next two decades engaged in similarly surreptitious behavior). Anyway ... I'm relaxing on a beach at the moment and with only an iPhone not well equipped for extensive editing tasks, but will return to this when I'm back home. BlackCab (TALK) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a distinct difference between expectations toward a Bible Study leader, as listed in the km article, and expectations toward the 'study object', and a distinct difference between a stated goal/aim for the Bible study teacher, and expectations toward the 'study object'. It is a POV-issue, as I can see it appairs an interest of making a claim for being recieving a Bible Study, or information, is catching the 'study object' into the religion, as "is expected [...] to become baptized as a member of the group" indicate a more than a light pressure for a 'study object' to become a JW. It is may fair to make a claim of a certain pressure against children of members of the religion, but I can't see the latter should be a very different practice from a majority of other conservative Christian groups. The km ref, at least as it was quoted, was not about "completed studies", only about continuing or terminating a study, obvious in a matter of efficience. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand very little of what you said there. Despite what you seem to be suggesting, the KM article was not about the study conductor being better at conducting the study: as the question preceding the article makes clear, it is solely about how long a study should go on before being deemed unfruitful and then abandoned. BlackCab (TALK) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the previous wording was certainly more honest about the intention of the 'study' program. I don't agree that it can only be "accurate" by stating a certain fact, though it may be incomplete. Apparently, Grrahnbahr is either ignorant of, or being misleading about, the actual purpose of the JW 'study' process, as the expectation certainly is that those who complete the 'study' be baptised as JWs. Recruiting new members is the entire purpose of the 'study',and the entire 18th chapter of their current 'study' publication is devoted to that expectation (and similar material was present in all their previous 'study' publications). The Our Kingdom Ministry piece certainly indicates that 'Bible studies' that are unlikely to result in new recruits are 'terminated' (at which time any social contact with the student is also generally terminated by the JW 'teacher'), and this certainly supports that expectation that those who complete the study also join the religion. Perhaps Grrahnbahr is confused because that article also indicates the related expectation on the 'teacher' to achieve that goal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have again re-worded the sentence to better encompass both the actual aim of the 'study' program and the outcome where individuals show no interest in becoming members of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

A statement has recently been added to the lead summarising criticism about Jehovah's Witnesses. Per WP:CRITICISM, it is generally best not to collect criticisms together in this manner. The presence of a criticism section is justified at this article because the criticisms are specific, notable, and properly sourced, and are not unusual in articles about religious topics. WP:CRITICISM recommends that criticism be dispersed throughout the article; however it also notes that "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." But it still may not be best to draw attention to these in the lead in this manner. Can other editors please comment about whether the statement presently at the end of the lead should be retained?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The criticisms section is a fairly significant part of the article; as well, part of the notability of the JWs is the criticism they attract. I'd offer mild support for retention of a sentence or two summarising the criticism, but the wording could be improved. "Publishing failed predictions" sounds like they published predictions that had already failed, and I'm not sure criticism has focused on their "maintaining silence in some sexual abuse cases"; it was their failure to alert authorities and failure to protect young people by allowing accused pedophiles to remain in the congregation. BlackCab (TALK) 05:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support if rewritten- Having a sentence or two in the lead summarizing the criticisms against JW's is appropriate, for as stated criticisms are a large part of the article, but it would need to be rewritten. It reads as far too POV'y for me right now. Vyselink (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead section reads well under "criticism". This could be use in the intro but I did removed the old. Someone else can add it if they deem. Though I notice Mormons do not even have any criticism in the article let alone in the intro! SDA's do have criticism but it is not in the intro. The catholic Church has a sentence in its intro shown here: " In recent decades, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines concerning sexual issues and the ordination of women as well as for its handling of sexual abuse cases." Johanneum (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about Mormonism, please note that the article Mormons is about a broader movement that comprises various related denominations, and is analogous to Adventism as it applies to JWs and other religions derived from the Adventist movement. The article about the primary Mormon denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does indeed have a Criticism and controversy section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding California Court Verdict

First of all I object to giving a broader detail of a case all the way from trial court. Jehovah's Witnesses has a great record on handling child abuse legal cases. None of the courts in United States or any other country have ever found that the policy of Watchtower is wrong. If you look at the report published by Watchtower society in 2007, out of 15 Cases all of them dismissed charges against Watchtower society. Yes WT have previously made settlements with victims, not because they have erred in a policy, but because elders failed to apply a policy. Sometime they pay because of compassion to victims, often they waive legal charges of plaintiff on their own. Watchtower have a higher chance of filing an appeal to courts of appeals on requirement to police field service. A reader who is glimpsing the article could pick 27 million and be misinformed. But I leave that decision with the editing police department of JW articles in here.

Second Jeffro77's edit has wrong information. Yes media and opposers would love to hear 7 million or even 28 million, but that's not true. The court opinion did not say how much would be the compensatory damage. But go read news, and you will find all news report say $2.8 million. That is based on a solid calculation (subtract ~8 million punitive from total ~11 million) . I would've have reverted it, but not interested in playing an edit war like I used to do in past. Fazilfazil (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely suitable to provide context of the case (and I did not restore all of the information).

A report published by the Watchtower Society cannot be considered remotely neutral, and the fact is that most of the cases were settled out of court rather than 'dismissed'.

The cited sources from the court make no mention of $2.8 million. The cited source indicates that "The jury awarded Conti $7,000,000 in compensatory damages, including $130,000 for future counseling and therapy, and $6,870,000 in non-economic damages." The source further indicates that on appeal, "The compensatory damage award is affirmed." If you have another source, provide it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your speculation about what 'media' and 'opposers' might 'love' is irrelevant, and a little odd.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Settling cases out of court is not an uncommon practice in United States, even if the party is not guilty. It has been done for variety of reasons, like I mentioned above. But the fact still stands, none of the appeal courts in United states has ever set a legal precedent by stating that WT policy is wrong. This is an exclusion, with options left to Watchtower. Though this precedent is more vindication than a negative observation. You can keep it if you want, also add a couple of cases too then. lol Fazilfazil (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your belligerent attitude is not helpful. I did not state or imply that settling out of court indicates guilt, which would be just as erroneous as your attempt to imply the opposite. I did state though that settling out of court is not the same as the cases being "dismissed" as you had claimed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• News reports (1, 2 , 3) Fazilfazil (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources make any mention of the supposed $11 million that you claimed had $8 million deducted from it. Actually, the $8.6 million was the separate amount for punitive damages and is entirely separate to the $7 million. The $2.8 million the news sources refer to is actually the proportion of the damages to be paid by Watchtower, and that the rest of the $7 million is owed by Kendrick (which he probably won't pay, but was still the court's judgement). The $2.8 million is part of the $7 million, and nothing to do with the imaginary $11 million that you made up, and nothing to do with the $8.6 million of overturned punitive damages. This article accurately provides the total amount of compensatory damages awarded by the court as indicated in the court documents cited, and does not say that whole amount is payable by the Watchtower Society. As such, the changes I made are accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Man, you are doing Original research. If that makes you happy again no problem keep it. But curious, why would you then keep the amount Kendrick owe in an article dealing with Jehovah' witnesses? Add at-least how much WT owe then, instead of trying to prove "I am correct always, and I should have final say". Fazilfazil (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not added any 'original research' at all. I have simply explained at this Talk page the manner in which you were entirely wrong about the amounts of punitive and compensatory damages. Everything I said above is derived from the available sources, and it is not article content. I have no objection to elaborating on what portion the Watchtower Society was ordered to pay.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses a Christian Denomination?

The Jehovah's Witnesses are not a denomination of Christianity. According to Dr. Walter Martin's "The Kingdom of the Cults," the sect is considered a cult, and not a denomination of Christianity. Didn't someone research this before making the statement at the top of the article? I would edit the article, but of course, it's locked. Tpkatsa (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A) It's protected because editors like you show up every now and then ranting about the JW's being a cult and changing it, then we have to change it back, and you argue about how it's this and that. It gets old after a while. B) "Dr". Martin's book was written over 50 years ago from an incredibly biased, evangelical viewpoint. His definition of "cult" is "a group of people gathered about a specific person—or person's-misinterpretation of the Bible", of course, the "correct" interpretation of the Bible is his, not exactly an NPOV. JW's are a Christian religious denomination, Christian being a person/religion who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, which they do, even if they have different interpretations of what those teachings mean. Vyselink (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tpkatsa, perhaps you are unaware that the terms 'cult' and 'Christian' are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a group to be a Christian cult. The word 'cult' is ambiguous, and is generally a pejorative term in informal contexts. Wikipedia has quite specific guidelines about contentious labels. Even a sociological description of a group as a "cult" would only be properly sourced to an academic source, and certainly not from a theologian of a competing denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a Christian is not just following the teachings of Jesus Christ, but accepting Him for what he is - Lord, Son of God, the Saviour. He is not a "priest" or whatever JWs say he is. 91.148.89.105 (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but we use what reliable sources say about religious groups, not the assertions of an anonymous editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

91.148.89.105-Your ignorance on this matter shows. JW's do in fact believe that Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of mankind, and their Lord that God has put over them. They do not believe he is God, or one of the "three heads of God" i.e. the Trinity. Why don't you do some research before commenting. Vyselink (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And that is exactly why they are not Christians. Christians believe Christ is God, these people don't. That is important. 91.148.89.105 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

1) The terms 'cult' and 'Christian' are not mutually exclusive. 2) Nontrinitarian Christians are Christians, regardless of your theological objections.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are showing both your ignorance and your bias. Christians believe in several tenants regarding Christ. That he is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that only through him is salvation possible. The idea of the Trinity has been argued for literally thousands of years, since the beginning of Christianity as an organized religion (remember Christ was a Jew), and even the idea of the Trinity was not really formalized until about the 4th century. There are many denominations of Christians that do not accept the (disputed) doctrine of the Trinity or that Christ is God. Go away. Vyselink (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are many ways of defining Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly self-identify as Christian. While other Christians, such as myself, may not appreciate such claims, encyclopedia articles should be general. Certainly, Christianity is Christ-centered and not Jehovah centered. We will not settle the great Trinitarian debate here. I say let them self identify as Christian. We Christians know the truth about the Truth.75Janice (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)75Janice

Um. Thank you for that entirely self-serving sermon about true Christianity.....I guess. Vyselink (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Janice, you don't seem to be suggesting any change to the article. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for Change: Why don't you summarize the Wikipedia definition of Christianity at the Christian article? It is a neutral definition. One could say that Christianity is diverse but..........and cite the Wikipedia article. Beginner. Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You still don't seem to be suggesting a change to this article. There isn't a "Wikipedia definition" of Christianity, and this isn't the article about Christianity. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, and Wikipedia should not cite itself. Also, Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and doesn't need to yield to theological opinions about who are 'real' Christians. Broadly, a 'Christian' is any person who believes that Jesus was the 'Christ' (the Messiah of the Bible). Definitions beyond that are unhelpful here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Australia

I have one major concern and a couple minor thoughts on this new information added by @Rjensen: "Trouble arose in Australia in 1931 when the Jehovah Witnesses took control of a radio station. In 1933 the government banned its diatribes against the Catholic Church, the British Empire, and the United States. In 1941, at the demand of the Army and Navy, its station was closed down as dangerous to national security; furthermore, the Jehovah Witnesses were declared an illegal organization."

My concerns are NOT about the information itself, or the source. The source is highly reliable, and the information is relevant (and fascinating, as I'd never heard that before). My minor concerns are: 1) placement. Does this belong in its current spot, or would it fit in a different article better? 2) Wording. "Trouble arose" and "furthermore" sound a bit to POV'y to me. It makes it sound less like a statement of fact and more like condemnation, which we are not here to do.

My major concern is that the passage, as written, fails to paint the full picture of the events as described in the source. For example, the source states that in 1940 the government began looking into the station not only because of it's objectionable anti-Catholic stance etc, but also essentially trumped up charges of subversion, and that "[t]he war had provided an ideal opportunity to get rid of licensees long regarded as deviant". There is quite a bit of interesting and relevant information in the source, and it should be fleshed out further IMO. Via WP:BRD, I am going to replace it with what I feel is more neutral and complete wording, and am open to discussion. Vyselink (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms what happened, I suggest that "trouble" is the appropriate terminology and not POV. It was trouble from the point of view of the Jehovah witnesses; it was trouble from the point of view of the government. Wartime suppression of the Jehovah witnesses happened in a number of countries – in Canada for example. What surprised me when I came across the scholarly article was that the government had intervened as early as 1933 regarding the content of the radio broadcasts. As for the placement of the episode, I certainly think it fits this scope of this article, may indeed fit other articles as well. Getting suppressed as an illegal organization in Australia is a real event in history of the Witnesses. As for the context, the issue of subversion was uppermost in the minds of the Australian Army and Navy during the war-- at a time when Australia was losing the war. However subversion was not a feature in 1933 when the government first acted. Rjensen (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The information does not belong at the main article for the same reason that the main article does not provide detail about specific incidents in other countries. Belongs at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. There are also minor inaccuracies, such as referring to the group as Jehovah's Witnesses in 1930, when no such group existed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Jeffro77 is also opposed to the entire section on persecution. This article is written for everyone, not just believers, and the harsh treatment of the Witnesses is a very important part of that broader picture. The term "Jehovah's Witnesses" was introduced by Rutherford in 1931, so it is not anachronistic. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The one paragraph under "Opposition" provides an adequate summary of the material that follows, which includes brief coverage of imprisonment and deportation in some countries. The experience of Australian JWs (a radio station closure and an official ban which the government seemed to only half-heartedly enforce) is not so serious or extreme that it needs to be included at that point. The main Jehovah's Witnesses article is already long and contains many links to spinoff articles. Inclusion under the "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments" article would be appropriate. BlackCab (TALK) 10:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, your opinion of what you imagine I'm opposed to is quite irrelevant, and entirely baseless. I clearly specified why the information I moved does not belong at the main article. And your confirmation of the fact that the name Jehovah's Witnesses was adopted in 1931 only confirms my comment about misusing the term in reference to 1930.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well that the information is better suited under "Jehovah's Witnesses and governments" than it is here. And yes Jeffro, I am aware of the fact that in 1930 "Jehovah's Witnesses" didn't exist per se, but 1931, as Rjensen sad, is not exactly a huge difference, and they were known as Jehovah's Witnesses when the main events of the incident occurred. So unless we are going to put in "in 1931, now known as the Jehovah's Witnesses..." which is verbose and just plain silly, I think it matters little. Vyselink (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nvm. I like the "Watchtower" reference better. I did however reinstate the 5KA, as the source mentions only 5KA as playing the sermons, and in fact is almost exclusively about 5KA. The other stations are merely in to identify to the others stations owned by WT that were shut down. Vyselink (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I correctly stated that the stations were associated with the Watch Tower Society, making wordy phrases about the name change of the religious group redundant. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate reference

I am transplanting a concern from a newer contributor about a reference. The actual edit I did not approve was [[7]]. Please be gentle 8) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is in the article presented as Holden's opinion/findings. It could be his findings ("Materials such as The Watchtower" is restated with the pompous formulation "pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications") is somewhat freely interpretated in the article, but the statement and ref is still presented as Holdens finding. I can't see I share the newer contributor's concerns here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts here Grrahnbahr. I'm new to this and want to understand and follow the rules. I am confused about statements from Holden's findings. I have found at least 3 statements where I know them to be false and can quote the Watchtower page or pages that are the opposite of Holden's statement(s). If someone writes a book or article and subsequently says "my findings" are such and such; if an editor can provide documentation that "his findings" are inaccurate are you saying you still can't remove said "finding statement"? I truly am asking I'm not trying to be contrary. STravelli (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@STravelli: To answer generally, sources are weighed on their reliability and perceived neutrality. Sources close to a subject are perceived to have an inherent bias and so independent academic studies are often given more weight. Frequently, if both sources are strong or important enough, both sides will be presented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

STravelli: The JW official standing, "[t]hey consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs", with a reference from a book published by WBTS, is listed in the article. If you got more sources or details regarding the subject, be bold and add them. Holden is a scholar in a relevant field with a professional distance to the subject, and a published author. His opinions and findings could, and should, be included when of relevance, like here. If a vaste majority of sources claim otherways, it should may not be included. If there are other sources claiming otherways, it could be right to include both sides. I'd like to recommand guidelines like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I've found those very useful. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is the reference, in full, that STravelli is disputing, and his response to it (saves us the need to go to the link)

[142] Holden & 2002 Portrait, p. 67, "Materials such as The Watchtower are almost as significant to the Witnesses as the Bible, since the information is presented as the inspired work of theologians, and they are, therefore, believed to contain as much truth as biblical texts."

(STravelli's response): The Watchtower publishers and/or members of the governing body do not and have never claimed to be inspired. (The Watchtower, 15 September 2012 page 25 par 13)

While it is true that the WTBTS has never outright claimed to be infallible or have a direct line to god in the same way that say the Pope does, it is not true that they have NEVER claimed to be inspired. See for example the following WT quotes:

"Consider, too, the fact that Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force. (Zech. 4:6) Only this organization functions for Jehovah's purpose and to his praise. To it alone God's Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." Watchtower 1973 Jul 1 p.402

"However, the Governing Body are appointed through the holy spirit under the direction of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ." Watchtower 1990 Mar 15 p.18

"These overseers faithfully seek to apply instructions received from Jehovah God and Jesus Christ by means of the faithful and discreet slave and its Governing Body." Watchtower 1990 Mar 15 p.20

"Christ thus leads the congregation by means of the spirit-anointed "faithful and discreet slave" and its Governing Body." Examining the Scriptures Daily 2007 p.34

"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the "slave" as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." Watchtower 1957 Jun 15 p.370

"The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower. God feeds his own people, and surely God uses those who love and serve him according to his own will. Those who oppose The Watchtower are not capable of discerning the truth that God is giving to the children of his organization, and this is the very strongest proof that such opposers are not of God's organization." Watchtower 1931 Nov 1 p.327

There are more, many more, but I think the point is made. Holden's point is that the WT/Governing Body should be seen as essential as it is claimed to be inspired, and these WTBTS quotes show that JW's have in fact made this claim. Vyselink (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll accept that explanation though I don't agree with it. We are of course into semantics, ie definition of inspired. Dictionary definitions make a clear distinction between "inspired by God" and "directed by God". If the words in the Watchtower are truly inspired by God we would be including the Watchtower pages in the Bible itself and teach as such. But I know the futility of trying to explain such differences to a published scholar as you feel Mr. Holden is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is semantics. I think you may be mistaking the word "inspired" with that of "infallible", and also flipped the meanings of "direct" and "inspire". The WT has never claimed to be infallible, but they have claimed (as seen above) to be inspired by God. Direct is to control personally the action, which the WT does not say that God has done. Inspire is to create in someone else the urge or ability to do something, in this case reveal God's word through the WT, which the WT/Governing body has claimed. And I do not "feel" that Holden is a published scholar. He is a published scholar. Also, only because I've noticed you've done this many times, you must sign your posts using four tildes (~) at the end. I don't know what country your computer is from, but if it is American then the (~) should be found to the left of the "1" key near the top of your keyboard, under the "esc" key. Vyselink (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry to keep forgetting to sign my post. Let me ask you this if I may. Can you or Mr. Holden produce Watchtower references where the publishers claim themselves to be inspired or the publications to be inspired? I do get your points but is not Mr. Holden claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Watchtower to be inspired. Perhaps I misunderstood his statement but it sounded to me that he said Jehovah's witnesses believe the Watchtower magazine to be inspired. Again I use the example that if we really believed that the Magazine(s) were inspired they would have to become part of the INSPIRED holy scriptures. STravelli (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note and research for yourself if you wish...2012 Watchtower Sept 15 issue, page 25 par. 13.

After 1914, The Watchtower made this significant statement: "Brethren, those of us who are in the right attitude towards God are not disappointed at any of His arrangements. We did not wish our own will to be done; so when we found out that we were expecting the wrong thing in October, 1914, then we were glad that the Lord did not change His Plan to suit us. We did not wish Him to do so. We merely wish to be able to apprehend His plans and purposes." This attitude of humility and devotion STILL characterizes the Lord"s anointed. They DO NOT claim to be INSPIRED, but they are determined to conduct the Lord"s "business" on earth. And now "a great crowd" of "other sheep," Christians with an earthly hope, are imitating their watchfulness and zeal. - Rev. 7:9; John 10:16. Capital letters added by me for direction to my point. STravelli (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I frequently am told what I believe. But I DO NOT believe the governing body of Jehovah's witnesses are inspired. I DO NOT believe the Watchtower magazine is inspired. I have made this comment in the congregation of Jehovah's witnesses with full agreement of everyone attending and I can assure you that the 8 million some Jehovah's witnesses believe this same way. STravelli (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Watchtower magazine in which the above statement is made had over 15 million issues published and distributed world wide in over 200 different languages. I would think that would carry some weight as a reference for what Jehovah's witnesses believe on this subject. STravelli (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is no surprise that the Watchtower says that neither it nor the GB are inspired. As the examples given above prove, however, it clearly suggests that it and the GB act as God's mouthpiece. When the GB and the WT speak, JWs believe and obey because they believe it reflects God's view. Holden wrote about what he observed. Your own arguments about the finer distinctions of words like "inspire" and "direct" add nothing to the debate. As has already been pointed out above, the WTS view is already clearly stated in the article. Holden's view is presented as an opposing view. BlackCab (TALK) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it's just to make sure people know who wrote the post. As to your question, no, you will almost certainly not find any WT references that explicitly use the word "inspired" in regards to themselves, and in fact you will find ones (such as the one you gave) that say they are not inspired. The problem, as stated above, is that they have misunderstood the actual meanings of "inspired" and "directed", flipping their meanings. The WT quotes I have already given show that WT believes itself to be inspired by god, based on the dictionary definition of the word "inspired", even if the word itself is not used. For example, were I to say that "I am in no way flawed" and you were to ask "So you are saying you are perfect?" I could reply that "I never said I was perfect". While this is technically true, for all intents and purposes I was in fact saying I was perfect, and meant for it to be understood as such. It's the same as "plausible deniability" or the infamous "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" of Henry the II. I'm not saying the words, but the meaning is clear. For example, "The evidence of the holy spirit in the quality and content of the writings published by the Watchtower Society should be the thing that satisfies, that convinces, together with a comparison of these things with the inspired Word of God, the Holy Scriptures." (Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1959, p. 607-608)". That quote correlates the WT publications to the "inspired Word" of god (i.e. the Bible). The direct inference is that the WT publications are also inspired, even though it is very careful not to use the word.

And the Feb 1st, 1916 WT you quote above is familiar to me, as it is one that is often use to deny (wrongly) that any specific date was set for 1914 as being "the end" ("But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." Zion's Watch Tower 1894 Jul 15 p.226..."By a system of deductions based upon the prophecies of old, the pastor declared that the return of the kingdom of the Jews might occur at so near a period as the year 1914. Persecutions would be over and peace and universal happiness would triumph." Watch Tower Oct 15 1910 p. 330... .."affairs all indicate that the great time of trouble and anarchy with which this age will end cannot be far off-cannot lie much, if any, beyond October, 1914." The Watch Tower, Jan 1 1911, p. 5)However, as Wikipeida is not a forum, and I feel I am getting very close (if I haven't already stepped over) that line, I will let my earlier argument regarding Holden's statement to stand. Vyselink (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for those points I will accept what you're saying as you believe it to be though I disagree. Let me ask this..and believe me I'm not being flippant...If there is a quote from a published scholar of Mr. Holden's credentials or greater, he/she is not one of Jehovah's witnesses and his/her experience/findings of Jehovah's witnesses is contrary to Mr. Holden's is that acceptable to be placed in Wikipedia as an opposing view? I'm still trying to get a feel for where accuracy and fairness come into play. I'm not trying to be lazy because I know Wikipedia has published "rules" which I've read but I clearly didn't as yet, have a good handle on them. So I bow and beg your experience to help me understand. From what I've read and understand, what I've asked would be proper. STravelli (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you read WP:UNDUE, you will probably gain a better understanding of how conflicting sources are best presented. BlackCab (TALK) 23:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That really helps BlackCab. Thank you for that reference and your patience. I think I can see why so much of the article seems biased, to me, against Jehovah's Witness. It's simply that the majority of people are biased against Jehovah's Witnesses. And the majority view should prevail in an encyclopedia or dictionary. I don't say that from some paranoia, persecution complex, it's just a fact. If you can see my side, it's quite frustrating to be told you believe something that just isn't true, but an encyclopedia is not the place to express that frustration. Thank you once more. You and others have spent more time with me than you would of had to. STravelli (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also peruse WP:RS. The source does not have to be from a non-JW, as you can see in the article the WT and other Witness publications are used as sources, but it does need to meet the other policies that BlackCab and myself have just linked. And if you are unsure, then ask us here by starting a new section. Vyselink (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I missed this when I read it earlier Vyselink but your statement "And the Feb 1st, 1916 WT you quote above is familiar to me" leads me to believe you thought I was using the1916 magazine as a reference. I was actually using 2012 Watchtower Sept 15 issue, page 25 par. 13, though it referenced the older issue, the statement "This attitude of humility and devotion STILL characterizes the Lord"s anointed. They DO NOT claim to be INSPIRED, but they are determined to conduct the Lord"s "business" on earth. And now "a great crowd" of "other sheep," Christians with an earthly hope, are imitating their watchfulness and zeal." Is from the 2012 magazine. Just FYI. STravelli (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone provide me with a Bio. on Mr. Holden? I've looked all over the internet but cannot find a Bio. on him. I'm sure there's a short one in his book(s) but those generally are not very reliable. STravelli (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but I was aware of that. The 1916 article is just more interesting. As for Andrew Holden I'm afraid I don't know much about him. I know he teaches/taught sociology at the University of Lancaster. Vyselink (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A curious and slightly sinister request. He is a sociology lecturer at Blackburn University. Perhaps you can email him, express your concern that he is biased and writes falsehoods, and then ask him to list his credentials. BlackCab (TALK) 02:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not trying to say that he's biased or speaks untruth. If he is biased his Bio would display that. I simply wanted to read the Bio about the man. Didn't seem to be a sinister request. I've read many places that someone too close to a topic shouldn't be used as a reference. I am not saying that's the case with Mr. Holden, but surely you would admit that if he is a former member of Jehovah's witnesses who has some sort of ax to grind that would have to fall under the dissuaded use as a reference. Again I'm not saying that's the case with Mr. Holden but reject the thought that it's curious or sinister. STravelli (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At this edit you said Holden was "clearly biased" and claimed he was wrong. Now you go searching for evidence to back that claim. BlackCab (TALK) 02:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely believe he's biased and that his claim is wrong. That is not the point I was trying to make by asking for his Bio. I would think you would want me to read his bio to set me straight that he is not biased. I'm amazed that it's a huge concern that I would want to read the bio of an author. STravelli (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact in his book Holden explains his early contact with religion (he was raised a Catholic) and what prompted his research into JWs. Perhaps you can read the book then slot that into your conspiracy theory. BlackCab (TALK) 03:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no conspiracy theory but I did just finish reading his book. And I don't believe he is biased. I changed my belief regarding that topic. I still believe he is wrong and does not have the facts presented accurately. Here's an interesting review from someone else who read his book.

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful Too many errors By Persson Rud on September 22, 2008 Format: Paperback Sociologsts may try to be neutral and therefore many people would rely on books about religion written by sociologists. But not infrequently such writers have not done their research properly. This certainly is the case with the book on Jehovah's Witnesses written by Andrew Holden. It has too many errors of fact to be recommended. One glaring example is that the author states that Charles Taze Russell was influenced by seventh day adventists. He never was, but he was initially influenced by other adventists. Also, Holden claims that acadmeic studies of the Witnesses are barren. He fails to give credit to the best academic book on the market about Jehovah's Witnesses, namely APOCALYPSE DELAYED by history professr M. James Penton. Unlike Holden, Penton knows the historical facts about the movement. Another very useful book is A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME by Tony Wills. Both works are still in print.

In spite of its shortcomings, Holden's book shows insight here and there, particularly with regard to life among Jehovah's Witnesses today. But anyone looking for in-depth knowledge about the Witnesses should get the above mentioned books before they buy Holden's book. - Persson Rud

APOCALYPSE DELAYED by history professr M. James Penton and A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME by Tony Wills do more accurately portray Jehovah's witnesses as a people and their beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A) STravelli, please don't forget to sign your posts. Also, if you are so inclined, I HIGHLY recommend Penton's Apocalypse Delayed, but try and get the newest edition (3rd edition, published this year). Penton is a respected historian, but just to be honest he is also a former JW who was disfellowshipped in the early 1980's. His book does show some bias in regards to the judgement calls he makes on some things, typically doctrinal changes, but if you were to read the history section of it, you would probably learn much. B) BlackCab, I think you are being a little harsh on the Holden topic. I found nothing "sinister" in the request, as it is one I make often at University in order to learn more about the background of someone. While STravelli may have differing beliefs, he has at least attempted to talk with us about them rather than the usual ranting and raving on the pages. He has been rather civil, and at least appears to listen to the discussion, even if he chooses not to believe us. C) This discussion, while absolutely fascinating, probably belongs on a user talk page, not here. Vyselink (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink, you'll have to excuse my impatience with a JW editor who denigrates an academic as "biased" on the sole grounds that he has come to a different conclusion to that of the JW editor ... and then starts scratching around for evidence to support his claim. I have been editing JW-related articles at Wikipedia for almost 10 years and have seen this conduct many times before: JWs, when confronted with facts they dislike or find uncomfortable, commonly accuse the source as biased or with an axe to grind. This dude fits the pattern exactly, just another product of the Watchtower Sausage-Making Company.BlackCab (TALK) 03:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cab I can completely understand. But this quote, "I have no conspiracy theory but I did just finish reading his book. And I don't believe he is biased. I changed my belief regarding that topic", gives me hope. And you must admit he has been much better than other JW editors that you (and I for that matter) have had to deal with in the past. Vyselink (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I did sign at the very end of what I posted. Perhaps I'm supposed to sign after each paragraph. I have read apocalypse delayed and a people for his name. That's why I mentioned them in reference above. Perhaps you didn't know that was me saying that. It does look like I need to sign after each paragraph. If you spend time with me and really read what I'm saying BlackCab you will find that I don't fit in an apparent mold you have for Jehovah's Witnesses or pattern as you say. You just admitted to being prejudiced. I've already admitted my error in believing Mr. Holden was biased. Which I learned "while scratching around for evidence to support my claim." You will find that I change my ideas on occasion and I do admit when I'm wrong. But I will stand up for things I believe. I also get impatient with people telling me what I believe. I also believe this discussion should be moved to an individual talk page. I could move it to mine. I'm still learning where the best venue is for any discussion. And I agree this should go elsewhere. STravelli (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to sign after every paragraph, but if you look at your previous post you can see that it says "Preceding unsigned comment added by STravelli (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)" which means you forgot to sign it and Sinebot (a wp program that signs when ppl forget to) did it for you. And I did not realize that you had read them. If you are going to quote from something, make sure you put " " around the quote. I assumed that last bit was part of the review you had posted. Also, don't put a space before you write a new paragraph, as it ends up looking like this if you do

this is what it looks like with a space
Vyselink (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I need to double check one last thing I began my comment above with "I have no conspiracy theory" and it ends with "I agree this should go elsewhere" and that's where I put the four ~. Putting four ~ is what you're supposed to do correct? I did that at that last part of the statement but it must not of taken for some reason so that's why I wanted to doublecheck that I've got it correct that you put four ~.STravelli (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Four is correct. Vyselink (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Vyselink. More at my talk page.STravelli (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Translations other than NWT

User:Davidl7b contested the fact that Watch Tower Society literature only occasionally cites Bible translations other than its own, and replaced it with frequently. This is not the case. Watch Tower Society literature does frequently cite scriptures, but only a very small portion of those make reference to other translations. When they do, it is often just a single word or phrase that is indicated from the other translation for comparison. Occasionally, an article will focus on a topic such as a belief of another religion, and may reference a non-JW translation a few times in that article. However, it is very common for an entire issue to not have any citations to non-JW translations. For example, the 1 January 2014 (Public Edition) issue of The Watchtower contained 82 scripture citations, none of which were to non-JW translations; the 15 January 2014 (Study Edition) issue contained 200 scripture citations, also with no non-JW citations. To put it another way, one issue of The Watchtower contains more NWT citations than the number of King James citations for the last 10 years. Therefore, the use of non-NWT translations is indeed only occasional, and certainly could not be described as frequently.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Another Thought on Definition of Inspired

Dictionaries - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Inspiration Inspiration [N] [S] that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (RSV, "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2 Timothy 3:16 . This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/inspiration/

As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers. (See BIBLE; WORD OF GOD .)

Easton, Matthew George. "Entry for Inspiration". "Easton's Bible Dictionary". .

Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary - Inspiration. Inspiration. [N] [E] Dr. Knapp given as the definition of inspiration, "an extra-ordinary divine agency upon teachers while giving instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught what and how they should write or speak." Without deciding on any of the various theories of inspiration, the general doctrine of Christians is that the Bible is so inspired by God that it is the infallible guide of men, and is perfectly trustworthy in all its parts, as given by God. http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/inspiration/

I know we've had some significant discussion as to whether the Watchtower claims to be inspired or not. We sort of settled on agreeing to disagree, at least with Vyselink. However I did find the above definition of inspired as to how the word is to be understood religiously or Biblically. It's a third party non-JW reference with definite scholarly credentials. Though some have claimed we're not dealing with semantics, based on the definition of semantics itself, we clearly are. In any event wanted to provide a third-party reference that identifies Inspired in the way Jehovah's Witnesses view the term. I wish also to use the example I've mentioned previously that we, JWs, would have to include the writings of the governing body in our Bible translation if the writings are inspired. Especially in the sense the word is used Biblically. I don't recall having a response to the example. But perhaps I missed it.STravelli (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are still objecting to Holden's statement that "Materials such as The Watchtower are almost as significant to the Witnesses as the Bible, since the information is presented as the inspired work of theologians, and they are, therefore, believed to contain as much truth as biblical texts." The self-assuming WTS statements listed above speak for themselves. The WTS may be clever enough to avoid applying to itself the word "inspired", but its statements are still presented as exactly that. BlackCab (TALK) 21:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually BlackCab Mr. Holden is not too far off there. I will agree that the watchtower is held out as significant training in a spiritual sense for Jehovah's Witnesses but I have never felt personally or known anyone of JWs, who believe the magazine or any other publications, come anywhere near the term inspired in a Biblical sense. I still think we're probably just dealing with the difference in how we feel the word inspired is defined. I did think of something that might help us with somewhat of a common ground. Would you agree that no member of the governing body thinks that they are inspired in the way that the authors or pen men of the Bible are inspired? Surely you or Mr. Holden don't feel they make that claim. If you or Vyselink give me at least that we've actually found some agreement, slight though it may be. :-). I do appreciate your thoughts and viewpoints. STravelli (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this has no direct connection with this article I will respond at your talk page. BlackCab (TALK) 01:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you. STravelli (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

JWs claim that inspired and directed have different meanings (the purpose of the distinction is as a disclaimer for failed predictions), but neither is very well-defined and the definitions they do supply are basically interchangeable. They do not specify any mechanism by which either supposedly occurs. It also isn't especially helpful to supply non-JW definitions of 'inspired', which also employ vague unverifiable claims about 'supernatural guidance' and don't offer any definition at all for a purportedly 'separate' process of 'direction'. According to the JW Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook (page 15) "inspiration" means that "God caused his own spirit to become operative on faithful men whom he used to record things at his direction" (formatting added). Similarly, Insight (volume 1, page 1202) says "inspiration" is "The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source" (formatting added). (These are not arbitrarily selected quotes; they are the specific entries indicated in the Watch Tower Publication Index for the "meaning of [the] term" "inspiration".) These definitions are indistinguishable from "spirit directed", which plainly means under the direction of a spirit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow how impressive! You also know "the purpose" of why a word they never used to describe themselves is really indeed used! Were you a writer at HQ or are you just inspired? It is always nice to see one rely on their own ideas(based on knowing the motive of others) instead of their clear USAGE of the words in a given context. Johanneum (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Jeffro77. We've moved this discussion over to my talk page. STravelli (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Who determines what they mean by the words they use? Others or the writers? If you let the writers have their say then it is clear that JW's distinguish between "inspired" (never used to describe themselves) and Scripture (continuously used). That alone makes it clear from the JW's point they view themselves differently than the penmen of the Bible. To argue against this is to make a straw man argument. They believe they are "guided" by God's spirit but clearly differentiate how God's spirit "inspired" the penmen. If there is not one quote that shows JW's believe they are inspired what does the evidence say? To go beyond that is to force one's interpretation into their writings to fit their preconceived idea. Holden like many others makes errors in his judgment. Johanneum (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

JWs' own definition of inspiration ("moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit") is indistinguishable from something that is spirit-directed, and no alleged mechanism is stated for either supposed method of direction. If Holden is 'mistaken', it's not without good reason. It is not Holden's fault that the Watch Tower Society is vague about the meaningless distinction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro your mistake is that you are arguing from semantics when this is really a pragmatic issue. I am done chasing my tail...Johanneum (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of 'pragmatism'. It's just a matter of saving face when predictions fail, by having an 'exit clause' of "oh no, we're not 'inspired', we're just 'spirit-directed' [which means something entirely different even though we said 'inspired' really means 'spirit-directed' anyway and we have no way of explaining if or how either one actually happens]." But even aside from all of that, what really matters here is that Holden is a reliable source, and he is completely justified in his conclusion that there is no practical difference in the way the pronouncements of the 'organisation' are intended to be unquestionably accepted by JW members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I found some factual errors in the Jehovah's Witnesses article.

It mentions that 144,000 Christians will go to heaven based on whether they meet certain requirements, but this is not correct. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there 144,000 faithful people who have already been chosen to co-rule in heaven with Jesus. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20131101/who-goes-to-heaven/#?insight[search_id]=cda49002-b3c1-4a9b-88d8-2fd0ed83aa9d&insight[search_result_index]=0

Everyone else will live on a paradise earth and enjoy living forever. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20091101/myth-all-good-people-go-to-heaven/#?insight[search_id]=a5f3a8e8-41c5-4dc3-864d-86ba6b4e8001&insight[search_result_index]=0

Also, the article indicates that the Governing Body discourages free thinking. This is inaccurate, because Jehovah's Witnesses state that the bible says God does not accept forced worship. http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/change-religion/#?insight[search_id]=0005b122-b2aa-482b-a99e-f5a94c189438&insight[search_result_index]=2

Another thing I noticed is that the article said that if a person doesn't show interest in becoming a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, they no longer study bible literature with them. A person does not have to be interested in being a baptized member of Jehovah's Witness to have access to their bibles, literature, brochures, website or to attend their meetings and conventions, and the annual memorial. http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/own-religion/#?insight[search_id]=0005b122-b2aa-482b-a99e-f5a94c189438&insight[search_result_index]=0 http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/christian-baptism-dedication-to-god/#?insight[search_id]=845463c8-2fcd-46b0-8053-f67ca39e09d5&insight[search_result_index]=0

The links are from their official website, http://www.jw.org/en/ Riyuzin (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Riyuzin. (1) It's not clear what "certain requirements" you say the article states that the 144,000 must meet. Which specific wording do you say is wrong? (2) The statements that the Governing Body discourages free speech and thought are all correctly supported by citations from reliable sources. Any statements to the contrary by the Governing Body through its literature wouldn't be accepted in an encyclopedia because they are clearly primary sources, a bit like a dictator stating through his own news service that his people are free or a rapacious employer stating on his website that he is generous and fair. (3) A "Bible study" would be taken to mean a formal study program rather than casual, occasional use of certain publications. The article makes clear that a "study" is usually terminated if the individual shows no inclination to get baptised. It doesn't suggest the person is blocked from further access to publications or meetings. BlackCab (TALK) 03:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating a category for all religions who believe in creationism

I've been trying to get the ball rolling on creating a category for all religions that believe in creationism. This would, of course, include Jehovah Witneses. Please contribute to this discussion here Would_there_be_a_way_of_categorising_religions_which_believe_in_creationism and if you are able, help bring this about. Thank you. In Citer (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Commendable, but I think you'll find Jehovah's Witnesses reject the idea they are "creationists". They insist on being different and abhor the idea they might be regarded as part of any other group of denominations. BlackCab (TALK) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:BlackCab, I take your point. Many religions want to distinguish themselves from other religions, I can understand that. But, I for one would like to be able to have a quick reference to which religions have 'creationist' beliefs. The Jehovah Witness article is already categorised by Christian groups with annihilationist beliefs, Restorationism (Christianity), Nontrinitarian denominations and Premillennialism. Would it really make any difference belonging to the category 'Creationists'? I was doing some research and they aren't really any sites which clearly show a list of religions with creationists views and I think it's important. It shows what religions take the Bible literally and which don't. For some, a religion has to believe in the theory of evolution to be the truth, for others, the theory of evolution is incompatible with what the Bible teaches. It makes sense then to make the distinction. In Citer (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what sources, including the Watch Tower Society itself, say. BlackCab (TALK) 12:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

JWs are quite definitely creationists (specifically, they are day-age creationists). They do claim they are not creationists, employing a false syllogism wherein 'creationism' refers only to young Earth creationism. However, their 'special' definition of 'creationism' does not override the common use of the term for Wikipedia's purposes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses "is" or "are"

I don't see much sense in saying "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist ..." in paragraph 1 and "Jehovah's Witnesses are best known for ..." in paragraph 3. There is nothing offensive or ungrammatical about using "are" in the opening sentence. Other articles state that The Rolling Stones are and the Los Angeles Lakers are. Both are singular groups, just as Jehovah's Witnesses are. Applying a singular verb in this case is awkward and overly finicky.BlackCab (TALK) 00:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In both your examples, the other noun is a collective ('band' and 'team'), whereas here, the associated noun 'denomination' is singular. The other sentences in this article that say "Jehovah's Witnesses are..." do not have issues with verb agreement with other parts of the sentence. In some cases, the other sentences use "Jehovah's Witnesses" as the plural in reference to the group of members rather than the singular name of the organisation. In other cases, the "are" is associated with a separate plural noun such as "doctrines" rather than the proper noun "Jehovah's Witnesses".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs. The Rolling Stones are an entity, and the LA Lakers are an entity, yet the plural in both their names naturally lead to a switch in the verb in common usage. "The Rolling Stones is" is as awkward and unnatural as "Jehovah's Witnesses is". For the same reason, media organisations that refer to the Collingwood Football Club in the singular ("Collingwood is") switch to plural when using the nickname to refer to the very same entity or collective ("the Magpies are"). On Wikipedia it becomes murkier still: editors continue to argue over whether Led Zeppelin should be treated as singular or plural, and in the end it seems to come down to the difference between American English and British English, hence One Direction and 10cc are, while Bon Jovi and Steve Miller Band is. (See this discussion. or this one.)

There is clearly a blurring of singular/plural status when referring to the JWs, particularly because the enforced uniformity often means that what the organisation teaches, the individuals accept and teach without question. However if one was to substitute "Jehovah's Witnesses" with "the Roman Catholic Church" at every instance in this article, it would become clear whether one was speaking of the denomination (singular noun) or individuals within that organisation (plural noun). Using your argumentation, then, the article would also state that:

• Jehovah's Witnesses is organized hierarchically.
• Jehovah's Witnesses has an active presence in most countries.
• Jehovah's Witnesses has attracted criticism over issues surrounding its Bible translation, doctrines ...
• Jehovah's Witnesses maintains it has no policy of silence.

In every case the use of the singular verb would be grammatically correct by your measure, but read awkwardly and unnaturally, and appear to the average reader to be inconsistent. As it happens, there is only one use of the singular verb throughout the entire article, and that is in the opening sentence. It is therefore a prime example of the need to apply the advice of the essay "What "Ignore all rules" means", specifically the section Use common sense, which suggests: "There are times when it is better to ignore a rule." We can all be as legalistic, dogmatic and hair-splitting as we like, but the aim should be to make readable articles that don't prompt readers to ask at the outset: "Huh?" BlackCab (TALK) 08:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not interested in the 'other stuff exists' rationale. (However, since the JW articles generally use a US-style because it is a religious organisation headquartered in the United States, your own argument would suggest using is anyway.)

The bulleted examples you've given would indeed also be correct (and the ambiguity introduced by the Watch Tower Society between the proper noun describing the organisation in the singular and the clause describing members in the plural is indeed unfortunate), and there would be no problem with changing them accordingly (grammatically, although the last would be technically incorrect because Jehovah's Witnesses as an entity doesn't make statements about policies—such statements are made by the Watch Tower Society, however the current statement using the plural form is correct in regard to statements made by the organisation's members). However, in those examples, there isn't the same issue of verb agreement as there is with 'denomination'.

Whether someone thinks correct grammar reads awkwardly is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

brainwashing

Some mention of EMS should be given in this article about mind control techniques https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vOgHqE_P4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No relevance to this article at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of criticism by adherents

The last paragraph of the lead section states that criticisms "are rejected by adherents, and some have been disputed by courts and religious scholars". In the opening paragraph to the "Criticisms' section it says "Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses". The article does contain rebuttals by Watch Tower Society publications (ie, the JW religion), but in fact contains no defence or rebuttal by any adherents. The Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses article does contain a defence of one doctrine (the dating of the fall of Jerusalem) by Rolf Furuli, a JW. The voices of no other "adherents" are included in that article rejecting criticisms. The last sentence of the lead section should therefore say that the claims are rejected by the religion's leaders, not adherents. BlackCab (TALK) 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Adherents certainly do dispute the criticisms, but I'm not aware they have generally done so in anything that could be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Opening phrase

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

This seems rather self-contradictory to me. If they are distinct (as they are. Very distinct) from mainstream Christianity, why are they listed as a Christian denomination? Would not "Pseudo-Christian" be more appropriate? Nontrinitarian and Christian really don't fit together - no one can justify saying that the Gnostics, for example, were Christians; Christian leaders of that era disagreed. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The religion claims to follow Christ, has many beliefs in common with mainstream Christianity and is referred to by reliable sources as a Christian denomination. But it also has obvious differences with mainstream Christianity. The debate on whether a non-trinitarian denomination is actually Christian has been raised previously and the consensus has been that the two terms are not incompatible; see also Nontrinitarianism. "Pseudo-Christian" would be a subjective description and would also be a pejorative term. BlackCab (TALK) 11:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Refining

Shouldn't it be mentioned that during Christ's presence (after beginning ruling as messianic king), he is refining God's representatives? 2001:44B8:2175:CD01:1827:7905:69E1:AEFE (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR, it also sounds like a presentation for field service if I'm being honest. What sourcing would you use to add it? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea of "new light" (or alternatively "meat in due season") is rather central to the Witnesses beliefs, and I'm assuming that that's what the IP was talking about. I took a quick look and didn't see it mentioned, though I may have missed it. Sources aren't difficult to find. Penton and Rogerson I'm sure would have them. Wills as well. Vyselink (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the theology, used to be one that is why I made the statement it sounded like a presentation for field service. If there is sources and it's neutral add it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a fairly minor point in the scope of the main article, and would probably only merit a single sentence. Where in the article is it proposed that this point be added? The only suitable place at the moment appears to be the God's kingdom subsection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be minor here, as this isn't about their doctrinal changes/theology etc, but it is salient I think because overall it is arguably the second most important part of how their religion has survived and grown since Russell (behind only the change from personal study to preaching to all). God's Kingdom section sounds good to me. Vyselink (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be mixing up the IP's suggestion that JW representatives are being 'refined' (such as by 'disfellowshipping' those who are 'unclean'—for example, see The Watchtower, 15 February 1976, pages 122-123) with the JW view that their doctrines are 'refined' by 'new light'. These are separate matters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It would probably come under Eschatology - Presence of Jesus Christ. Newest source is probably "God's Kingdom Rules" page 100. http://download.jw.org/files/media_books/07/kr_E.pdf 2001:44B8:2175:CD01:F9AD:50AB:54D:28EC (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What wording would you propose? Obviously, it would have to be clearly stated as a belief rather than asserted as factual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is mainly regarding keeping the congregation "spiritually clean" which means removing any beliefs that might be considered part of false religion. They believe according to prophecy in Mal. 3:1-3 Jesus and his father came and inspected and put the group through fiery tests in 1914-1919 (also connected to prophecies in Revelation). This was the time it is believed the governing body was put into place as a 'channel' to continue Jehovah's sifting and refining work (through the newly installed messianic kingdom) throughout the 'lords day' (last days). Perhaps the belief/concept is too deep/goes beyond an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:2175:CD01:78C9:4958:B1DE:B5F7 (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not that the issue is too deep, but going in to too much detail about a doctrine that is not covered in secondary sources would probably be out of scope. Would you like to propose a concise statement for inclusion along with a suitable source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro, responding to your response on my last post, yes you are correct. I somehow misread that as being "new light" doctrine, not the representatives themselves. My bad. Vyselink (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's okay. But perhaps the 'new light' aspect also should be briefly mentioned, under Source of doctrine?--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested wording? Vyselink (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The concept of 'new light' was already covered. I have added the special term with a JW source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Vyselink (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Without consultation from other members?

In criticism section it states, "Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, without consultation with other members". This statement is totally false. Doctrines are established with consultation from helpers and those assigned to do research on contentious doctrine in HQ. Helpers are "members" of the organization. The GB receives feedback and suggestions from the helpers and from branch committees. Branch committees receive feedback from Travelling overseers, and even from members who write letters directly. This has been mentioned in WT articles many times, and was heard in recent "royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse" in Australia as testified by a GB member. He said after reviewing the suggestion, usually they make unanimous decision. If a member objects, more research is asked to be done by the consultants (helpers or others assigned) ---Fazilfazil (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that given Jackson's explanation of the way doctrines are formed and adjusted, the previous wording was incorrect. In the context of discussing the condemnation of challenging and dissenting with those doctrines, however, the exact process of "helpers" and "consultation" is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the GB formulates doctrines and members must accept those doctrines without dissent. That's all that needs to be mentioned in this section, which deals with criticism of that enforced obedience. BlackCab (TALK) 03:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Australian royal commission

I'm not sure Fazilfazil's addition to the fact about the Australian royal commission is helpful. He added: "Rodney Spinks, an elder at the service department of Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia testified that this is in accordance with the church policy on confidentiality, that when not required by law to report, the victim or victims family should be given the right to decide on reporting, adding that nearly 400 victims chose to report. Nearly 199 cases were of individual who were not Jehovah's Witnesses at the time and half of them were of familial nature." The tone of the addition is overly sympathetic and defensive. Spinks doesn't need to be identified; his specific role is meaningless to most readers and the meaning and relevance of the last sentence is unclear. Does "familial in nature" mean incest, and is that therefore OK? What is "nearly 199"? What "individual" were not JWs at the time -- and time of what? At best, a sentence can be added saying an Australian branch executive defended the finding by saying the JW policy was to leave with victims the responsibility of reporting sex abuse to police. BlackCab (TALK) 10:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe "An Australian branch executive testified that Witness policy was to leave with the victims the responsibility of reporting sexual abuse to the authorities in areas where the organization is not required by law to report the allegations." ? Vyselink (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not correct, Vyselink. In some states they have been legally required for years to report allegations to police, but failed. They claim they were unaware of their obligation but now do so where required. BlackCab (TALK) 10:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know that they rarely actually follow the law in this regard. But as to what the executive testified, as supported by the source, the wording is correct. If you can find a RS that states what you said w/out seeming too NPOV, by all means I would include the addition. Vyselink (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While all form of child abuse is certainly abhorrent to JWs, the fact that majority of cases are incest is a direct contrast to child abuse allegations in other churches where mostly priests abuse kids isolated from family. Also the numbers are important, especially the 400, because that's a direct rebuttal to the impression given in the statement that all 1006 allegations never went to police. My vie is that this number was deliberately omitted in the initial report given by the prosecution (though it was easy for them to include given the huge statistic table they made), but was testified by Mr. Spinks --Fazilfazil (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's claims are wrong. (See here for transcripts.) The transcript of day 152 of the inquiry (page 24), shows Spinks stating that "almost 400" of the 1006 cases "have been dealt with by the authorities". This claim was based on a key word search in the case files for such terms as police, authorities, child services, court etc. On day 153, Vincent Toole, the head solicitor for the JWs in Australia, conceded that that figure was meaningless, because the key word search may also have picked up terms such as "do not report to authorities". He said "the authorities have been involved in a number of those cases," but had no idea of how many. (see day 153, pages 29-30). Fazilfazil's edit says "nearly 400 victims chose to report," which is patently false and a complete misrepresentation even of Spinks' testimony.

The edit also reads: "Nearly 199 cases were of individuals who were not Jehovah's Witnesses at the time and half of them were of familial nature." Spinks' testimony, again on day 152, page 24, was that "99 of those relate to individuals that were either not Jehovah's Witnesses or likely may not have been Jehovah's Witnesses at the time (emphasis mine). Here he refers to this document, a summary of the statistics produced by the Watch Tower lawyers. He is questioned about this again on page 79-80 of the transcript and agrees that "a good percentage of those" went on to become JWs. It's not at all clear who those 199 are or just what their standing was. On that basis, Fazilfazil's edit makes an assertion that can't be substantiated, particularly when the witness (Spinks) himself was uncertain of its import.

Fazilfazil's edit noting, apologetically, that "half of them were of familial nature" is based on Spinks' claim (day 152, page 24). Spinks is here trying to compare the perpetrators within JWs to perpetrators in the ranks of clergy of other churches, apparently in an effort to show the JWs in a good light. The issue, however, is not who in the religion is abusing children, but the handling of those cases. It is shocking, quite disgusting, that Fazifazil seems to suggest that incest is less serious than sex abuse by a non-family member and that this somehow minimises the seriousness of the problem.

Fazilfazil, who is a JW, is revealing himself to have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article, by misrepresenting material to defend his religion. BlackCab (TALK) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fazil, at this point your personal biases as a JW, especially in regards to this topic both here and at Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, are beginning to become disruptive on those pages. The information you are attempting to add is often factually wrong (as has been pointed out at both places) and always biased. While I can't judge your overall contributions to WP, I for one urge you to take a step back, read what you have written on both pages, and recognize that your serious case of WP:COI is not allowing you to be able to edit these sections with any type of neutrality. I'm beginning to wonder if a topic ban might be in order. Vyselink (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban? Joke of the day. If telling that I am a JW is a WP:COI, anyone who have edited JW articles in the past know the truth that Mr. BlackCab a self proclaimed former member who have disgusting feelings against an organization he hates (and have now got some new fans around here) and Mr. Jeffro77 who is stating that he is an atheist (perhaps to disguise his grievances against WT society, atheism has became a trend for people who have nothing else to say nowadays), they both need to get a topic ban first. How would you interpret my edit that "about 400 victims went to police" is a lie? So, are you guys saying that some angel from heaven went to police when church says they never did? And I said incest is okay, really? Some people would keep twisting things and they won't event realize that they are lying anymore. If this would get me a topic ban, its nothing special to me, I don't make money from here or live in here. JW articles in Wikipedia has become a place for bunch of losers who hope they can change the world with writing some malicious slander here. If that would take their anxiety away, what else to say. Fazilfazil (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict Post: Fazil, as for your "400 victims went to police" line, please read the first paragraph of BlackCab's most recent edit above. You can see from the transcript that BlackCab has linked that you are ABSOLUTELY wrong about that. Period. There is no discussion. Here, I'm just going to paste the relevant part FROM THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

Q. Let's just deal with the 383. That figure was arrived at by doing a search of words --

A (Vincent Toole). Yes.

Q. -- in the files for things like "police", "authority" and so on?

A. So the authorities were involved in it.

Q. Well, they may not have been, because what was actually written on the document may have said, "Do not report to the authorities"; the search would have picked up the word "authorities" and you've counted that in the 383?

A. Even so, the point that I'm making, if you divided the figure substantially, it's still impossible for me to agree that elders have never gone, because I don't know, but I do know the authorities have been involved in a number of those cases.

As for the rest of your statement, I'm going to simply point out that you are essentially a WP:SPA. You've made 270 edits to actual pages (not talks/user pages etc) and of those edits, 244 have been on pages that are SPECIFICALLY about JW's. That's 90% of your edits. And most of the rest have sections with a JW component. As a comparison, BlackCab has made 5365 edits to actual pages, with 2911 being on the JW's, that's slightly more than half (about 54%). I've made 692, with only 100 on JW's pages (14%). Vyselink (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement that "about 400 victims went to police" is your assumption, an invention. It is stated nowhere in the transcript or in any documents tendered as evidence. It was explained above what the WTS claimed about the 400 number, the challenge made to that claim and the concession by Toole. BlackCab (TALK) 03:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't read it quite right. But it still shows victims did went to police, and there was no impediment. There are statements in this article that is "an invention, an assumption" especially by critics and former members. They are simply included here as partial truths. I can give a couple, one is the statement that Rutherford encouraged JWs to incite persecution and die to prove JWs have the truth. An excellent example. Where is the proof? Lies from former members are not "proofs". Anyway that's what most ex-witnesses do online, mention partial truth based on speculation and then exaggerate it without evidence. Fazilfazil (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vyselink. I can see the spirit behind Wikipedia guidelines, it is to prevent bad editors who use an account to do disruptive editing without proofs. I don't understand why someone who edit articles that he is familiar with or interested in should be banned. I have account in programming forum, and I only answer questions related to my expertise or interest. Does that mean I need to banned? No. My past edit history should be judged based on view from independent editors, not based on some editors who have intense feelings against me and the belief I hold.Fazilfazil (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was brought out in the Royal Commission (Day 153, 5 August 2015) that the '400' (383) cases that were purportedly 'brought to police' was actually just based on a word search for words such as "police" or "authorities" with no regard to whether it actually involved reporting to police or secular authorities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has trouble refuting Witness assertions concerning the Australian Commission,please send me the comment and a short summary of the testimony. They are rehearsed, but Witnesses under oath are making serious mistakes. I do not know Australian law in detail, but I do know British common law so the same principles apply. Perhaps I can quickly spot some problems. Maybe not, They are prepared, but so are the commission members and staff. They are very well prepared. Nice to see public officials, figures, and staff thoroughly prepared with good cross-examination technique. They are respectful which is what I would expect from vast experience with British common lawyers. From what I saw this is the absolute strength of the common law vs. civil law countries. We may not excel at truth because our judges and lawyers do not spend decades in truth analysis, but direct and cross-examination, when done properly, can rattle bones. Pacing is important. Well, I do not want to give the WT any ideas. Pacing and often plodding examination is necessary. Nice to see masters at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to see the royal commission investigation, JWs are humble enough to follow any more adjustments that would benefit not only Australia, but worldwide. When not required by law they should "encourage" instead of mentioning to the relatives the "right to report". If they didn't report, and the child is perceived to be still in danger with the abuser, then elders should be instructed to report based on their own conscience. Further two women or a letter should be used when communicating with the victim if its a female under 18, so that their testimony can be used in the judicial committee for internal discipline. Most of these are followed informally, but they should come up with a written policy. These are viable adjustments without any scriptural impediment, and I expect that to happen soon. Fazilfazil (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disfellowshipping, shunning and excommunication

User:Gabby Merger has added the word "excommunication" in the lead section so the sentence now reads: "Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion, excommunication, and shunning." I removed the word "excommunication," arguing that it is redundant; she has responded in her edit comment: "Even though they don't generally use the term "excommunication", the sentence says "their term FOR" the matter, and people understand "excommunication". But "shunning" article indicates it's NOT really "redundant", as there's a difference).

Here's how I see it: JWs practise "disfellowshipping". This is a term that embraces two actions: expulsion (a removal from the religion) and shunning (a refusal to speak to or make any other contact with the individual). To explain that the process of "disfellowshipping" includes excommunication adds no clarity at all. The Wikipedia article for Excommunication defines that act as "an institutional act of religious censure used to deprive, suspend, or limit membership in a religious community or to restrict certain rights within it, in particular reception of the sacraments." This is already covered by the use of the word "expulsion". That same Wikipiedia article adds: "Some Protestants use the term disfellowship instead." What Gabby Merger's edit does is explain that "disfellowshipping" comprises three components: expulsion, shunning and ... disfellowshipping.

To cap it off, her addition of a comma after "excommunication" creates further confusion, making it difficult to comprehend the explanation. BlackCab (TALK) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding "excommunicated", a term that JW's don't use themselves, is not only redundant, as "expulsion" covers what it does, but, because it is not a term recognized by the JW's, is also inaccurate. JW's do NOT practice excommunication. They practice disfellowshipping. Vyselink (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What are we taking "excommunication" to mean though? In the commonly held use today this is seen as referring to communion, hence the association with withdrawal of the sacraments. It also has a strong association with an episcopal hierarchy, and the sense that excommunication is an action imposed by a central authority onto an individual.

However that's not the accurate or original sense of the word. It really originates from ex-communio (not communion in the sense of sharing the sacraments), where "communio" is a long-established term for a Christian community in the sense of the congregation. Excommunication is thus the exclusion of someone from that congregation, by that congregation. It is not an imposed sanction from above, it's a shunning by peers. Notwithstanding any criticism of how Witnesses might be operating today, this is just what they claim their practice to be. As such, the term "excommunication" is linguistically accurate, even if it's still potentially confusing as a largely misunderstood term. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To User:Vyselink, it's not really "redundant" as the term "expulsion" is not generally used in religious contexts, as the familiar term "excommunication". And is not redundant with "shunning" either. According to Wikipedia's own article on "Shunning". Quote "It differs from, but may be associated with, excommunication." They're not exactly the same. No need to remove an accurate elaboration.... As I stated in the edit comments, and this is just a minor good-faith accurate and passable and even arguably warranted for clarification for familiar terms to average readers type elaboration. Useful elaboration (and a correct one) in light of things, that even though JWs don't generally use the term "excommunication", the sentence says "their term FOR" the matter, and people understand "excommunication".

According to the sentence in the article, "disfellowshipping" is Jehovah's witnesses own way "of" referring to the matter...the matter of what? What are most people most familiar with, as far as as religious or church discipline contexts? The term "excommunication". My point in the edit was simply to convey the fact that "JWs use the term 'disfellowship' to refer to excommunication". Everyone who reads that will know what's up clearly now. But I also left alone (obviously) the words "expulsion" and "shunning" because those two other words correctly fully (with no room for any haziness) of just how far it's done. Disfellowship is simply the Witnesses' word for religious "excommunication", and what's wrong with making that super clear for the average reader in that sense? Clarification and accurate elaboration. It seems that User:Andy Dingley gets this and understands the point, that putting the word "excommunication" in the context of the sentence "their term FOR" is arguably warranted and just makes the matter more clear. And is NOT really needlessly repetitive.

People have heard of "excommunication", but new readers may still not get the overall gist of "disfellowship" just from "expulsion" or "shun" in the religious tradition of denying "communication" in every single way, as far as familiar terms. Adding the word "excommunication" is not make-or-break, and is not super-crucial necessarily, but arguably makes the thing completely clear on every known or familiar level. And I already made my case and proved that "Shunning" is not synonymous with "excommunication", according to Wikipedia's own definition. And therefore not really "redundant" per se. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

When mainstream Christians (chiefly Catholics) excommunicate, they do not shun. Unlike the JWs, Catholic congregants are not forbidden by the church from speaking to or even greeting excommunicated individuals. The Christian concept of excommunication does not extend to cutting off all familial and social contact with individuals, as the JWs practise at the direction of their Governing Body. Therefore describing disfellowshipping as the JWs' term for excommunication is very misleading and—conveniently for JW advocates—minimises the true nature of the process by attempting to create an equivalence with a practice in mainstream religion. The article should explain concisely and clearly what "disfellowshipping" is: it is (a) a formal expulsion from the religion and (b) an organised hierarchical-decreed shunning by all members. BlackCab (TALK) 01:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be a "minimizing term" if that's ALL that was said, but it wasn't. The terms "shunning" and "expulsion" are there too, but (and I won't repeat myself, since I went into thorough explanation already and won't go around in circles with it) the term "excommunication" is the familiar term, in the religious context, and is what average people can relate to. (But also, wasn't your original objection to having that word there that it was "redundant"? And if it's "redundant" (or that the words mean the same) then how is it a "minimizing" now? Which is it then?) And there's NO "minimizing" of the process at all if the words "shunning" and "expulsion" are clearly there also. The article DOES "explain concisely and clearly", because now all the words show what's up. And you saying: "is very misleading and—conveniently for JW advocates—minimises the true nature of the process by attempting to create an equivalence" is assuming bad faith, and borders and WP:uncivil. Because, frankly, if that's the case, it could be said that the apostate anti-JW bias is showing when you say stuff like that and also stuff like "Christian concept of excommunication", when you obviously know that JWs consider themselves not just "Christian" but the only true ones, as the JW concept is considered the "Christian concept" like when the Christian Apostle John says "do not even say a greeting to such a person", regarding apostates and heretics who were once in "the Truth", cutting off all "social contact", and IS "excommunication" too...but made more clear by the other words "expulsion" and "shunning" to show JUST HOW Jehovah's witnesses "excommunicate". "Fellowship" and "communication" mean essentially the same thing, as far as actual words go.

If I had put only the word "excommunication" and then deleted the words "shunning" and/or "expulsion" from the sentence, you would have a valid argument. But you don't (not even close) because the other words were left there too. But it is a fact that "disfellowship" is the JW term for religious "excommunication" too, in that sense. And (people can debate it all they want) is all-inclusive with 2 John 10 saying to not even say hello to apostates who were once "brothers", etc. And Paul saying in 1 Corinthians about a man who slept with his father's wife, who didn't repent, to be "removed" (which means "expelled") from the church, and to "not even eat with him". Last time I checked, saying "hello" and "eating with someone" were "social" things, and Paul and John say to "cut off" from that stuff. "Christian concept"...from the Christian "New Testament". Gotta go. But again, to repeat, since it wasn't apparently made clear the first time. There's no "misleading" or "minimizing" of anything given the fact that the two words "shunning" and "expulsion" were still left alone and are explicitly there in the sentence, to make even more clear what "excommunication" IS to Jehovah's witnesses Biblically. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How wonderfully typical of a JW to accuse someone who disagrees with them an apostate and biased. Gabby Merger has done a commendable job of trying to justify and advocate for a JW practice. I am interested only in the way this encyclopedia presents the JW practice. It should be accurate and clear; the addition by an argumentive, verbose and plainly partial editor works against this object. BlackCab (TALK) 03:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I promise you that it was NOT my intention at all to "mislead" or "minimize" with that edit, as you accused me of, in violation of WP:Goodfaith. And also, you brought up (and were assuming bad faith) "advocate of JW" and put bad motives on me to try to "minimize" and "mislead". Violating WP:Goodfaith and WP:Civil, and you just continue with it now in your last comment. Not necessary. For the record, I'm not currently a JW or anything though I may become one and I do agree with lots. And I only mentioned your situation since you brought up the matter of "advocated of JW" assuming bad faith. But lovely side-track, and more uncivility. When you say "argumentative" and "verbose" and partial", that could easily be said of you, and I know has been. But again, I only mentioned "anti-JW" because YOU were first with "advocate of JW" in total bad-faith assumption, in saying I'm "misleading" intentionally or "minimizing" intentionally. I was NOT doing that. But you say "verbose" "partial" and "argumentative"?? You serious? YOU are mentioning THAT???!! (Pot meet Mr Kettle.) You have a jumbo-size ax to grind that a fleet of ships can fit through, BC. I don't want to even bother. It's not worth all that. So please let's be cool here. Thanks. Wasn't your original objection to having that word there that it was "redundant"? And if it's "redundant" (or that the words mean the same) then how is it a "minimizing" now? Which is it then?) And there's NO "minimizing" of the process at all if the words "shunning" and "expulsion" are clearly there also. The article DOES "explain concisely and clearly", because now all the words show what's up. And you saying: "is very misleading and—conveniently for JW advocates—minimises the true nature of the process by attempting to create an equivalence" is assuming bad faith, and borders and WP:uncivil.

And as I said, if I had put only the word "excommunication" and then deleted the words "shunning" and/or "expulsion" from the sentence, you would have a valid argument. But you don't (not even close) because the other words were left there too. There's no "misleading" or "minimizing" of anything given the fact that the two words "shunning" and "expulsion" were still left alone and are explicitly there in the sentence, to make even more clear what "excommunication" IS to Jehovah's witnesses Biblically. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please try to keep your comments brief and to the point. To clarify my earlier reference to the Christian concept of excommunication: my apologies. This was a reference to the practice of mainstream, orthodox Christianity as opposed to that of the JWs, Exclusive Brethren, Moonies and Scientology, who follow a similar course on this matter. BlackCab (TALK) 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I get that, but again, just to make clear, the ONLY reason I even mentioned "anti-JW" was because you said "advocate of JW" first, and were frankly assuming bad faith with the accusation of intentionally trying ot "mislead" or "minimize". I can honestly say that I REALLY was not intending to do that at all, but simply to make the point that JWs call "excommunication" with the term "disfellowship" so people could better understand the religious point of "breaking off communication with important aspects of the church", and with the other two words "shunning" and "expulsion" still clearly there, the point is apparent what it all entails. As I said, IF I had removed the words "shunning" and "expulsion" and substituted it with just the word "excommunication" I would actually be agreeing with your argument 99 if not 100%. That it would be a tad "misleading" and maybe not really clear, given your point that to many professed Christian churches and communions, "excommunication" does not necessarily mean "total cut off from all contact whatsoever". I got your point on that, but there is some relation at least, and (again) the words "shunning" and "expulsion" and the explanation in the article overall about "no social contact" makes it plain and unambiguous. But as I said, the word is not crucial, and IMO, can go either way. I meant well though. To make it clear that this is the religious term used by JWs, for the more-familiar term "excommunication". Gabby Merger (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You add nothing to a debate by endlessly, tediously repeating yourself. And ships don't sail through axes. BlackCab (TALK) 04:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so. But it can be said that you add nothing to the debate with your bad-faith assumptions, accusations, incivility, rudeness, arrogance, bias, and dodges to the points being made that cause some of the "repetition". (If all three words are there together, there's NO "misleading" or "minimizing" of anything, and was never intended to be that way.) But maybe you shouldn't be addressing me anymore. This seems to be a waste of time at this point. This issue is not all that important to me as I said, and could go either way, I guess, and I was simply making it super-abundantly clear to you (and to others who might see all this) that your accusation was unfair and untrue. I meant nothing ill-intended, or "misleading' or "minimizing". (By the way, I was referring to the SIZE of the "ax" that "ships can fit through" not necessarily the ax itself.) No one is totally "unbiased" in life. But your rudely accusing of deliberately trying to "mislead" was hasty, uncalled for, and unfair. Because that's not what I was trying to do. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No matter how big the axe is, a ship can't sail through it. Since you say the issue is not important, is "not super-crucial" and could go either way, I'll remove your problematic edit. Applying the BRD process, it can be reinstated if a consensus for your proposed wording develops among other editors . BlackCab (TALK) 05:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

At best, the presence of excommunication along with the terms expulsion and shunning is redundant (and the manner in which the terms differ does not apply to JWs). Excommunication in most churches is something quite different to JW shunning practices. Catholics who are excommunicated may not receive communion, but are not shunned and normal social interaction continues (excommunication vitandi—shunning—was officially abolished in 1983, and was rare even before that). It is therefore an unhelpful and potentially misleading comparison to imply that JW 'disfellowshipping' is the same concept as 'excommunication'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackcab's original objection was that it was “redundant”, not that it was “minimizing”. If “redundant” then meaning the same, so can’t really be a “minimizing”... and as I said (and repeated), all three terms are there, so there’s no minimizing, (or "misleading"), but simply elaboration. There is at least a partial application to the "excommunication" aspect, and "disfellowshipping" is their term "for" it, and is done in toto, not just denying things like "communion" or whatever. But if consensus feels that that term in that particular sentence is not helpful or needed, I will accept. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The only aspect of excommunication that isn't redundant (and hence, "minimizing") relates to the taking of communion, which doesn't apply to JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Doctrinal debate

Prattling on about your interpretation of scripture in a manner that seeks to defend JW belief rather than simply present it isn't helpful here. The Bible says a lot of things, many of them not very well. 2 John 10 does not specify 'apostates', does not delineate between former members and non-members, and is part of a letter written to a specific woman and her children rather than any clear indication of a broad rule (it might be tempting to say the 'lady' is 'the congregation', however the last verse refers to her sister, which breaks the metaphor; there would no be logical reason to refer to only one other congregation in a particular locality as "the chosen one", nor any reason for setting the addressed 'lady' apart from "the chosen one" if interpreted as 'the entire Christian congregation everywhere'). The historical context of the use of 'greeting' in that verse is also mangled in the JW interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Well, I wasn't planning to get so deep into that, and it was really just a passing remark in response to something else. I don't know if this is the place for it. But "don't even say a greeting to such a person" is pretty straightforward, and in the matter of "anyone" who does not bring the same doctrine. Doctrinal heresy in other words. Because as far as the question of the edit mod itself, of the word "excommunication", my position is (as you know) with the other two words "expulsion" and "shunning", it's only an elaboration, not a minimizing, misleading, or redundancy. If you and others don't agree or don't see it that way, and it's consensus, then I accept it, and we move on. Or maybe some kind of possible compromise, where the word "excommunication" can be put in some other sentence in some similar point, perhaps. But, again, since you're bringing up "interpretation" matters here, regarding 2 John, etc, I'll say, I guess, that the point of 2 John 10 was pretty clearly in context of heretics and apostates, as it was discussing "doctrinal" deviation, and it says in verse 10 "if anyone", not just a supposed "anti-christ" individual (as some have asserted), does not bring the same doctrine (in that context the matter of Christ's identity etc, but in overall principle) as the church's doctrine overall, (in other words an "apostate" from what John called doctrinal "truth") is to be shunned. And I think the words "do not even say a greeting to such a person" are fairly plain and straight-forward. Despite efforts by some to try to dance around that or to mean something special or so limited. You mention "lady and her children", but obviously the general epistles are understood (and in the overarching point of Apostolic commands) for the Church in general. Because, again, the overall obvious point there is removing someone from church fellowship, and any kind of association. There were no qualifiers with the words "don't even say a greeting to such a person". It didn't mean just a "kiss" or something. And of course Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5, in the context of unrepentant fornication, by a baptized "brother" in the church, is to be "removed" from their midst, and in verse 11 to "not even EAT with such a person". Saying a "greeting" (2 John 10) and "eating with someone" are both "social" things. Not just denial of church services. People can deny these things all they want, but the verses are pretty clear, if simply taken for what they say. It says "quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother, who are drunks, extortioners, fornicators" etc. So, "don't even say hello" and "don't even eat with them" and "don't mix in company with them" and "remove them from the church". That's disfellowshipping, or expelling from fellowship, in every aspect. And yes, again, I know that "excommunication" (as in the Roman Catholic practice) doesn't necessarily mean total shunning in every aspect, but more so in just in church things or whatever. Which is why I agree that the word "excommunication" alone should not be there in that sentence, but only there as a modifier and elaboration to the overall point. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC) This talk page is not the place to promote your religious views or proclaim your support for a religion's biblical interpretations. Go start a blog. BlackCab (TALK) 23:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I agree that this is not really the place for that, and I said it myself in my comment, if you notice...but I was only answering Jeffro77's comment, since he decided to bring this up in this way. And it was cordial. Though not really necessary. But for some reason, you don't say "enough" to him, for even bringing this up. Blackcab, I told you already to not address me anymore. You seem to many times get arrogant, disingenuous, uncivil, rude, dishonest, unfair, and selective in your analysis. Even if you may be right in some edit issues. Jeffro77 wrote what he wrote, brought this matter up again, about "lady and children" etc etc, yet you don't say anything to him, but rather snarl at me, with rude incivility. That can cause problems. I was never intending on going on about that matter, nor did I want to, until Jeffro77 brought it up again. Jeffro77 is direct but cordial. You, on the other hand, get rude, disrespectful, and uncivil, even if you do have a valid point in edit matters, but many times assume bad faith and don't have consistent standards if it's with people you don't like. Please don't disrespect me again. Because I agree and I said it myself in my comment that this here is not the place for going into that, but SINCE HE BROUGHT IT UP...I addressed it. Please don't talk to me again about this type of stuff. Seriously. My comment was only addressing HIS words to me, his interpretation remarks and commentaries, that he addressed to me. Not to you or anyone else. Again, I was only cordially answering Jeffro's thing above. Tell it to him then too, if that's the case. But we both know you won't. It's not that big a deal though. Seriously. But you probably shouldn't address me again on these things. I won't continue. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I concisely summed up the relevant material verse and demonstrated from the wording how it clearly was not addressed to 'the church' but to an individual. You provided a lengthy response comprised of a bunch of cherry-picked isolated statements out of context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Yes, your comment was more concise, and my response lengthier, but (and I won't totally re-hash everything I wrote before) I wanted to thoroughly answer your presentation and argument, without ignoring them, and also your assertion now that verses of 1 Corinthians 5 etc are "out of context" is just that, an assertion. "Don't EAT with such a person" is pretty straightforward. People can claim "your interpretation" all they want (usually to rationalize fairly clear directives or Apostolic commands away for convenience) but the "social" disfellowshipping (one would have to admit) at least has some Scripture support or pronouncement. In other words, it's not really just a Watchtower invention out of completely nowhere. As for 2 John "addressed to an individual woman", the point is even if that was initially true (which is debateable) so was Paul's letter to Timothy, but that doesn't mean there isn't general address to the Church ALSO at large. And the point with 2 John is that it was dealing with apostasy and doctrinal heresy. (And warning against that, and to not even say a greeting to "anyone" who "does not bring the same doctrine" as the Church has, etc. Will you say that only the "lady" should take that direction, but no one else in the Church ever should?) Whereas 1 Corinthians 5 was dealing with other types of "gross sins". But regardless of any of that, and whether you or others totally agree with the interpretation, it's understood and agreed that JW "disfellowshipping" is broader than RC "excommunication", with denial of church services, but my point is that it obviously also includes that kind of thing too. And so far it seems that overall consensus is 3-2 against including the word "excommunication" along with the words "shunning" and "expulsion" in that sentence. And I said I would accept it no big problem. But I did suggest the possibility of maybe including the word "excommunication" somewhere else, in some other way, giving the point though that JW disfellowshipping (though in some ways similar to the familiar "excommunication") is wider and more total. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) 1 Corinthians 5:11 is about not associating with an immoral person who is called a brother (hence, not expelled), and is entirely unrelated to 'not greeting' someone who doesn't 'bring the same teaching' (non-member or former member). If you want to insist on the interpretation of "straightforward" statements from the Bible, how about 1 Timothy 2:11? That is all. The fact remains that the only elements of excommunication in its broadest sense that are common to JW disfellowshipping are expulsion and shunning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) It says clearly in 1 Corinthians, in that very context, the words "REMOVE the wicked man from your midst". (Verse 13) "Remove" means "expel". Right in the very same matter. And not sure how it's not understood that the words "called a brother" are simply referring to someone who's a baptized Christian, a brother in the faith, BUT who has committed gross sins, outlined right there in those verses, and now is to be "not mixed in company with" nor to have any "meals" with, and to be "removed". As I said, only people who want to dance around clear Verses of Scripture don't see the plain directions there. This "called a brother" does not mean "not expelled" if Paul right there says explicitly "remove him from the church". As for 1 Timothy 2.11, not sure how that's relevant. As that's talking about a woman learning in silence, and not having teaching authority over a man in the church (as is seen in 1 Corinthians 14), etc. You seem to think I'm a woman for some reason, maybe that's your point. But that has nothing to do with 1 Corinthians CLEARLY saying "remove" the wicked and unrepentant from the church, someone "called a brother", to "not even eat" (social thing) with the person. And I already said that 2 John was dealing with a different type of sin and matter. The sin of heresy and doctrinal apostasy. "Anyone who does not bring this doctrine" etc. But a similar point by John to not associate or even say hello to such a person. In Verse 9 there it says anyone "not remaining" in the doctrine. Indicating someone who was in the Church's doctrines, etc, but didn't "remain" in it. Why social disfellowshipping is not seen (when it's clearly there) in 1 Corinthians and 2 John, for various sins that the Apostles outlined, is really a wonder. Social disfellowshipping is Scriptural. "Don't eat with him" and "don't say hello to him". What do those things mean then? Those are social things. With no qualifiers. Regards............... Gabby Merger (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) As anticipated, you have missed the point. There is simply no basis for conflating one verse addressed to a congregation about not eating with someone because of some 'sin' who is then expelled with an entirely separate verse addressed to an individual about not greeting a person because they are not a fellow believer (setting aside the fact that the word translated 'greeting' literally means to rejoice rather than 'just saying hello'). What you (echoing the Watch Tower Society) are saying is nothing more than cherry picking, and it is clear from the fact that other denominations have different interpretations that the original intended meaning is not as "straightforward" as you claim. Whether you are a woman is irrelevant. The point of my reference to 1 Timothy 2:11 is that JWs don't always adhere to the "straightforward" interpretation of Bible verses, so the contention that the JW interpretation of 2 John 10 is "straightforward" is not only irrelevant but also incorrect because of the misuse of the word translated 'greeting'. The fact remains that the change you suggested was and is redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC) The whole discussion in 1 Corinthians 5 is referring to "fornicators, drunks, thieves, extortioners" to make it more clear that it was not just "fornication" alone (as in that matter with that man sleeping with his father's wife, and was unrepentant). My point is that this "called a brother" does not mean "not expelled" if the overall point was "do not mix in company with them" and "remove the wicked man from your midst", in very reference to that fornicator being discussed, who happened to be a "brother". Paul was saying that it's impossible to have zero association with all fornicators completely, etc, because as he said "you'd have to completely get out of the world" then. But he then said "anyone called a brother" meaning a baptized Christian in the Church was now doing those things. "Don't have company with them" and "remove them from the church". As for 2 John, as I modified above, in Verse 9 there it says anyone "not remaining" in the doctrine. Indicating someone who was in the Church's doctrines, etc, but didn't "remain" in it. So that would indicate or refer to a "brother" but who deviated from sound doctrine according to the Congregation's view. So this "already not a member" is not accurate. It says in Verse 9 "not remaining". You can't "remain" in something that you were never "in" to begin with. And as for the old "greeting" meant "rejoice", uh, that's what "greeting" means in actuality. It's a friendly happy gesture of address. The point is not to have any positive social interaction with. That's cutting off FRIENDSHIP from an apostate (and verse 9, to repeat, indicates that they were in the Faith, if they were "not remaining" in the doctrine.) Do you know, even today, how they say "hello" in Greek? With the same Greek word "xherete". "Hello" means that. Or "Godspeed" etc. That's the very point. So your argument is a straw-man in a sense, because I don't disagree, and the point is so? But it shows that you don't really understand what "hello" even means. It IS "rejoicing" towards the person. That's the very point and meaning. How else do you 'rejoice', when first addressing the person? You think it means partying with the person in some big production? Fail. Not necessarily. The word "xherete" means "hello" in Greek. When two people are saying "hello" they're (in that certain sense) "rejoicing" towards each other as the address to each other. It's a positive approach to the person, in other words. That's the only way to say the word "greeting" in Greek. Context. (And even if you we go by your wrong notion of some bigger matter, the point is still really the same of having no recreational or social interaction with the doctrinal heretic. "No greeting" or "no rejoicing" is a social thing, not just referring to only church services. And even if addressed to an "individual" but the Bible is directed to the Church at large. Repeating myself now.) And, again, it does NOT JUST mean, as you wrote "already not a member". Careful reading of verse 9 indicates otherwise. "Remain" would make no sense if the person was not in the doctrine in the first place. So, no "conflation" really, as the overall point is the same. Disassociation from unrepentant apostates and fornicators and drunks etc. Also, to the 1 Timothy 2.11, not sure why you think that JWs don't follow that, as the point (again read above) was about women not having teaching authority in the Congregation. There are no "elderettes", as far as I know, in Jehovah's witness churches or kingdom halls. Only male elders. Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Well, that's quite a rant. Not really sure it's worth reading all the way through.... To my knowledge, no one suggested that 1 Co. is 'only' talking about 'fornicators', so that's quite irrelevant. It does only refer to specific 'sins' and does not include disbelief nor does it refer to people who are already not members. Someone who is no longer a member is not a member, irrespective of whether or not they had been, and despite the earlier verse in 2 John that suggests former members, the latter verse does refer to anyone not 'bringing that teaching'. Regardless of how much you want to redefine what is meant by 'greeting', it doesn't change the fact that the actual meaning of the original word means to rejoice, and it simply did not refer to a simple 'greeting'. The biblical Greek word used refers to a joyful familiar greeting, and I never suggested any 'partying' or 'big production' (strawman). The modern Greek word for hello as a simple greeting is geia, not xherete as you claim. Your claim that "xherete" is the only way to say 'greeting' in Greek is also quite wrong. If a simple greeting was meant, the biblical Greek word is aspazomai (verb) or aspasmos (noun), as used throughout the New Testament. And the term Godspeed is not simply a 'greeting' like hello, it is an expression of endorsement (literally, may God grant you success). It is clear from the context that endorsing a person's bad behaviour would be like being a 'sharer in their works', and it is actually quite ridiculous to suggest that just saying hello to someone somehow makes them just as bad. Certainly a lot of repeating yourself there, and it's not only just now. There aren't officially any 'elderettes', though the term is not foreign to many JWs in colloquial parlance, and it is not unheard of for elder's wives to unofficially hold some sway in congregations. But that too is beside the point, which was that JWs do not apply the "straightforward" application of the verse; instead they have an interpretation of the overall context, just as other denominations have more reasonable interpretations about verses that JWs use to 'support' shunning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Well believe it or not, I do appreciate you taking the time to go over this stuff, though we mostly disagree. But I have to say that I did not "change the meaning" of the word, as that is the meaning and the very point. A happy salutation and positive interaction. Forbidden. It did not necessarily (as you say you admit) refer to having a big party or production with the person, but "endorsing" by a FRIENDLY GESTURE OF ADDRESS OR APPROVAL. (Not just endorsing the behavior, but John said don't even endorse the person by "not even saying a greeting to the person". So not endorsing or having any positive or happy exchange with the person who is now a heretic, and "did not remain in the doctrine" etc.) It's a "cheerful salutation". (Lexicons say this, not just I, or the "WT") So? Again, in a way, as I said, it's a straw-man, about "rejoice", because (even you say) it did not mean such an elaborate thing necessarily, or something so big or formal. John was saying to not have any positive interaction with the person, not to give felicitations to an apostate or heretic, to not have a "rejoicing" or a "happy greeting" in that sense. But "xherete" is the way to say or give a happy hello in that sense, if you look at lexicons. That's the point of "rejoice" in that context, of personal approach. Because look at the definitions given by NAS Exhaustive Concordance, for "xheiro". "Am glad (1), glad (7), gladly (1), greeted* (1), greeting (2), greetings (4), hail (4), joyfully (1), make (1), rejoice (33), rejoiced (8), rejoices (2), rejoicing (10).Aam glad (1), glad (7), gladly (1), greeted* (1), greeting (2), greetings (4), hail (4), joyfully (1), make (1), rejoice (33), rejoiced (8), rejoices (2), rejoicing (10)." As for the "modern Greek word", well "xherete" is definitely one Greek word today for a hearty hello. I have modern Greek dictionaries and language learning books, and "xherete" is definitely stated there for "hello". Quote: "COMMON GREEK EXPRESSIONS. The following Greek expressions and names. are commonly used ... “Cherete” (Hello/goodbye – formal)" And this one: "Say Hello: Herete (HE-reh-teh) This is both formal and informal." And in the same site: "Say Hello: geia (giA)" And again, as to "xherete" in the Bible...Strong's Concordance now: "A primary verb; to be "cheer"ful, i.e. Calmly happy or well-off; impersonally, especially as salutation (on meeting or parting), be well -- farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hall, joy(- fully), rejoice." It was simply a friendly positive and cheerful salutation of address. That's the point. And again, as I said, it's a "social" thing and matter. Not just a shunning only with "church sacraments" or something. As to "aspazomai", yes of course, that means greet too, but there's an argument to be made that in a way you might have it a bit backwards somewhat (perhaps) as "aspazomai" at its root is even more pronounced, as it indicates "embracing". Thayer's: "hence, properly, to draw to oneself"? Strong's: "to enfold in the arms,". You don't have those phrases for "xherete". So it can be said that "xherete" is a "happy greeting" in general, whereas "aspazomai" is a "hugging greeting". At least at its root meaning. In Hebrews 11:13, for example, it has "embraced" for "aspazomai". You never have that with "xherete" in the Bible really. With "xherete", in Acts 23.26, as an example, "xherete" is used and translated as "greetings" to governor Felix. And this was in a written letter that it was said. The point, again, though, is so? If even you admit that "xherete" in context is not necessarily some huge complicated thing, the point is "social interaction", a positive and happy one. And that's forbidden by the Apostle John, regarding those deviating from doctrinal orthodoxy of the Church, and teaching something different, etc. And if "not remaining" (verse 9) in the "truth" (as John used the word) and "not remaining in the same doctrine" then they were logically once "in" that doctrine, hence former Christians, and now just simply heretics. And are to not be greeted or have any positive interaction or exchange with. And not to belabor the "women not to teach in the church" matter, but again, JWs follow that, unlike some weird Protestant churches where there are formal female pastors and reverends and priests. No woman ever "teaches" the Congregation in that sense, despite what some "elders' wives" in some places may do. Which if they do stuff like that, that's NOT official WT teaching or with any WT approval. And that's what's being referred to. Sure, individual female Witnesses I guess may violate that stuff sometimes, in some ways. But that's not something approved of by the GB or whatever it is. Officially and practically Jehovah's witnesses do follow that "straightforward wording" in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians on that matter. No female witness, as far as I have ever heard or noticed, ever gives sermons or teaching parts, direct to the congregation. And some women of the world have actually complained about that too about the Witnesses. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Various Bible dictionaries indicate that cheiro means to rejoice, a warm greeting, or a formal written greeting, and also that aspazomai litereally means embrace but is broadly used to refer to a greeting generically. I also realise that the Watch Tower Society has claimed that the opposite is the case, replete with speculative qualifiers like "may have", "if so", "could mean". It is nonsensical to claim that simply saying hello to someone makes them 'a sharer in their works'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC) It appears to me that the vast majority of this conversation is no longer about the topic. Current consensus is to remove "excommunicated". Unless someone else chimes in to bring us into another round of discussions on it, then I would think this thread is done for now. Suggest taking the rest of the talk between Gabby and Jeffro to one of their respective talk pages. Vyselink (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not interested in continuing to discuss with Gabby Merger. Her penchant for missing the point is exasperating, and her religious bias always trumps contextual logic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Contact authorities

The last sentence state, "have found the Jehovah's Witnesses organization negligent in its failure to contact authorities when elders have known of sexual abuse"

But the fact in the case of Cantice Conti is that the court found WT society negligent in enforcing their claimed policy of "not allowing known molesters to go field service with kids". The court said that the elders failed to make sure that Conti never ended up together in service with the abuser, even if they were never assigned together for service. WTS was also charged because they failed to write down a written policy about "not allowing molester to go with children" in field service. There was no mention of negligence in reporting to authorities. In fact there is no case anywhere I found that states a failure to report (when its mandatory). The case is settled during appeal. However in the case in united kingdom its about failure to announce the existence of a molester to the congregation. (which is contrary to the view made by the court in US, and WTS said they will appeal). I made some changes --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There are few cases because most American states do not presently have manddatory reporting laws. Some states do. California now has. It did not have one at the time Conti encountered sexual abuse. The WT settles cases in an aggressive manner so these cases are not likely to go to trial. Further, liability is hard to establish against the WT. Conti's case involved an unusual fact pattern that is not likely to be repeated after a successful multimillion dollar lawsuit. If her lawyer were better, she may have been awarded punitive damages for alarger sum. There are a lot of compelling reasons why these cases are not found in legal research. One would need to trace every single law suit filed anyplace. Many Witnesses fear the WT in their lives. They are constantly told that to go to anyone outside the organization, will bring revile on Jehovah. Many are isolated and very ignorant of law enforcement. It is very sad. Please wikpedia editors. I do not have time to sustain this. My time is limited. I must practice law, defend democracy and freedom, and take care of pressing medical issues. There are very strong reasons why the WT is not mentioned more in Lexis or Westlaw searches. This is important to note. Witnesses have special teams ready to rebut every assertion. Few important people have such teams. People die or are abused because important and educated people do not have time to rebut these silly assertions. They are masters at spinning a story their way. Any well trained lawyer could defeat them. We do not have time. Poor people need help with housing and food. Priests love to specialize in food and housing. Witnesses do not food or shelter people Churches do. Atheists do. Please Wikipedia editors, fight more. Be bolder, but respectful. Their analogies can be defeated. Assertions can be disproven but who has time. Time is the enemy of truth. Most educated people do not have endless time to spend in WT refutation. I know many state and federal judges. My conversations wtih U.S. Supreme Court justices in small settings are important to me. Dockets are full. The cases are backed up for so many years that most lawyers encourage mediation and arbitration. Federal and state rules now make going to trially burdensome. The only cases lawyers will bring must be large because of pressing economic matters. Judges do not have decades to write perfectly crafted opinions.Let me just say that neither side in the ACLU or Federalist Society debates would stoop this low as to disparage a decent, hard working trial judge. It shows no respect for the application of law. We must study law and history. English is often ignored. I can only imagine what other cases this judge had to hear and make factual determinations while applying correct law.The appeals court held that notice was required even without a statute. The pressure to settle on lawyers is great. Few personal injury lawyers have the training or inclination to resist. The only lawyers I know who can sustain such long cases that last decades are powerful corporate lawyers, fighting a principle likely to cause harm to many clients, or the American Civil Liberties Union.Clients tend to want to end litigation. People love their money for good reasons. I would never criticize anyone who settled even an important case. Lawyers first duty is to their clients, not any cause. We have amazing Supreme Court justices and they do not agree. Justice Roberts is a master of unanimity on many cases before the Court. Yet even he must deal with 5-4, 4-5 decisions. The gay marriage case. Affordable Health Care Act. People love to criticize. WT lawyers are not that great so I suspect they hired a special law firm on retainer to analyze these cases. I would. It never makes them right or correct because they can find some minor loophole in judicial reasoning. Hitler had good points. I read that he was a great host for important Nazis. If he needed you, he knew no bounds in seducing people. One Luterhan priest did not realize how seductive Hitler could be. He joined the Nazi party and gave sermons in favor of Nazis. Many Lutherans did. It was their country. When he realized the truth, he could not cope with the guilt. He killed himself. Read the current biographies of The Duke of Windsor and the abdication story. Hitler adored the Duchess of Windsor. Dr. Phil is sometimes right. A few random truths do not add up to Truth. Judges get tired of lies. They are masters at detecting lies. Trial judges hear lies all the time. Appellate judges do not see thousands of cases through decades where people lie and lie.

It is much easier to find liability against the Roman Catholic Church. Their priests are Diocesan employees and report directly to the bishop. The WT is purposefully set up to avoid corporate liability of all sorts. They are masters at corporate liability. Their structure is no accident. Cases against Russell and Joe Rutherford, never a judge, prove this fact.

s ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your statement that there are numerous cases where JWs lost and we couldn't find them is baseless. Especially with the media attention and the aggressive ex-JWs campaign online. I can reverse your claim to ex-JWs, they are masters of spinning stories. If you read the branch manual of JWs you will find quite the opposite. They are specifically instructed to not do rebuttal for criticisms, unless it would cause danger to preaching activity. A GB member recently testified in Australia that they would read any criticism and see if there is any substance if not through it out. Any organization would have an interest in taking legal measures to avoid unnecessary liabilities and to protect its members. If you think that's a conspiracy, I can't help. ---Fazilfazil (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)