Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Rutherford incited persecution

I would like to see the exact quotes from the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses incited persecution in Rutherfords period. Did a search on google and google scholar. None of them contains information similar to what is stated here. Surprisingly many result claim the opposite, that Rutherford supported antisemitism and Nazi-Germany. Mostly from ex-JW websites Roller958 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I trust you read the supplied source. Scr★pIron^IV 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't verify the source, especially I would like to see the catchy words provided. That's why I asked to quote. Do you have a quote? Please provide. Please be aware that an editor can ask for a quotation if he thinks its questionable or not available online. I am also wondering if Rutherford incited persecution, what is the basis? How did he incite persecution? By WTS publications or some other way. I want to make sure that this is not a fringe or conspiracy theory --Roller958 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also note that this is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This claim is not found in any online encyclopedia that goes in detail about JWs or Holocaust. I could give numerous sources all would say that JWs were persecuted for their beliefs not that it was incited by their church leadership. Even worse theory "in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God." For exceptional claims we need exceptional sources, peer reviewed by Historians. Otherwise this is a conspiracy theory. I look forward to put notice on Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Roller958 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not for you to demand that sources are peer-reviewed by historians. The following books, cited as sources for the statement you claim to be a conspiracy or fringe theory, all meet the criteria of reliable sources.

• Shawn Francis Peters, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution (pg 82, 116-119): "As was true with almost every account of the disorders, the Herald Tribune readily acknowledged that the victims were not entirely blameless. Its editorial noted that by so eagerly assailing other faiths and flaunting their opposition to the flag salute, the Witnesses 'have often gone out of their way to look for trouble'." "Yet Eastus, like many US attorneys, had become exasperated by the Witnesses' provocative behavior, and he contended that their own zest for conflict had bred many of their troubles ... Eastus declared in no uncertain terms that the Witnesses could expect little sympathy from federal or state authorities if they continued to engage in intentionally bothersome or even illegal behavior when they proselytized. 'I say, you subject yourself to arrest and prosecution,' he said directly to his Witness listeners in one radio address. 'This has been done in many instances, and you must stop it'." .... Eastus was by no means the only US attorney to be irked by the Witnesses' confrontational behavior. If the views expressed in late 1941 by Clinton Barry were typical, many US attorneys shied away from prosecuting Witness cases under federal civil rights laws because they felt that victims had gone out of their way to court trouble ... the Witnesses, many of whom were 'plainly imbued with a martyr complex', Barry alleged, almost seemed to invite violence and harassment ... they were openly antagonistic to the United States of America as a government ... they have adopted a policy of abuse and insult towards other denominations and their communicants."
• Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Visions of Glory (chapters 6, 7): "If ever a religion promised serenity, this is not it. The more trouble the outside world gave them, the more they made themselves the butt of opposition, the more secure they became in their beliefs. To be buffeted and racked by worldly forces, to choose martyrdom, to elicit the animosity of a crowd satisfied some hunger in them, gave them rest of a kind, rest from self-doubt. What was important was that something should always be happening. As we shall see, during the 1930s and 40s, a great deal did happen: they were the victims of mob violence; they were jailed, molested, tarred and feathered ... there is reason to believe that they were complicit in their own victimization -- manipulating national fears, milking national traumas to invite opposition, in order to enhance their self-esteem. In their persecution, they found a kind of peace." "... (their actions) could lead one to think that on some level they deliberately placed themselves in a position to invite persecution."
• William Whalen, Armageddon Around the Corner: A Report on Jehovah's Witnesses (pg.190): "The Witnesses wore the cloak of underdog with a measure of eagerness. In many cases the most sympathetic observer would have to admit that the Witnesses asked for it ... a fistfight or arrest put the Witnesses in the category of the persecuted while the provocation was forgotten. Drawing its new blood from those elements in society which made up the dispossessed and the proletariat, the Society could bring itself to their attention by such incidents."
• William Schnell, 30 Years a Watchtower Slave (pg 103-106): "It became evident that some sensational method was necessary to establish the new name of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. In order to gain attention it was necessary to create a condition of war through the creation of issues, coupled with an appearance of being persecuted ... it now became the studied policy of the Watchtower Society to make Jehovah's Witnesses hated of all men -- by their way of preaching, by their methods of preaching and by what they preached. They hoped thus to put themselves in the position where they appeared to be martyrs for the sake of religion ... the Society realized that the longer this issue was kept alive, the more was to be gained in the end ... by their very audacity the Jehovah's Witnesses irritated the courts to a point where they gave them the desired martyrdom in the form of fines and jail sentences. In this way the Jehovah's Witnesses made it appear as if they were being arrested, tried and convicted for practicing their religion ... we knew all along that we had a right to distribute or books, booklets and pamphlets without censorship under the freedom of the press section of the Bill of Rights. We refrained from using it, because our present methods were drawing fire and were giving us the desired martyrdom. This had tremendous advertising value and was creating sympathy for us. These court battles accomplished everything desired of them. The constant jar of discrimination against a minority group slowly brought about the formation of a new group of people in the land who, upon hearing and reading about these battles, began to read the many books of Jehovah's Witnesses which they had purchased in former years."
• Alan Rogerson, Millions Now Living Will Never Die (pg 59): "Throughout the United States, for instance, arrests, trials and persecutions continued on a greater scale than that of 1918. Undoubtedly the Witnesses themselves contributed to these attacks by persistent provocation ... they regarded the persecution as further proof that they were the true servants of God in a hostile world."

The views of those authors are presented in the article fairly, accurately, clearly identifying them as opinion and also clearly identifying the authors who were ex-JWs. It is one sentence at the end of a section and is followed by a rebuttal of sorts by the Watch Tower Society, insincere and deceitful though it appears to be. BlackCab (TALK) 00:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of WP:Synth. You synthesized multiple sources some from ex-members and secular writers to come up with a new theory. Further notability is highly questionable because adherents never even heard about this rant and WTS never felt a need to rebut this conspiracy theory. This claim is surprising and not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Also these are claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the JWs community, contradicted by other claims by critics (Penton claims JWs supported Nazi Germany) or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions about JWs and Holocaust. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL

Questions for sources from non-Witnesses

• Shawn Francis Peters: Talks about incidents in United States which claims Witnesses were aggressive in fighting for their rights and in preaching boldly. They were instructed to subject to "arrests and prosecutions" (Not persecutions). He apparently misapply the instruction "subject to arrest and prosecution" to fight arrest. What does it have to do with Germany and WTS or Rutherford inciting persecution in Germany anyway?
• William Whalen: Claims Witnesses asked for arrest by provocation, so that the "Society" could be brought to attention. Which society is he talking about, public society or WTS? Where is the involvement of WTS in asking for provocation to "prove" they have "the truth"? Did he say that this was to attract "dispossessed members"?

Questions for sources from ex-Witnesses

• Barbara Grizzuti Harrison: She is the real source of your theory, yet even that fails to satisfy the entire claims. She makes up accusations against Witnesses in general, alleging that they themselves invited persecutions, not that their beliefs caused persecution. (not even mentions WTS). Where is the connection of WTS and Rutherford? BlackCab, If I did this I would have accused of slander, misquote and bias. Very nice Synthesis.
• Alan Rogerson: Claims that Witnesses were arrested for their provocative behavior in United States. Where is evidence of WTS causing provocation to "prove" witnesses have "the truth". Then at the end he says "they regarded the persecution as further proof that they were the true servants of God in a hostile world". We all know JWs believe persecution is a proof of them being God's servants. But where is the connection with WTS inciting persecution to "prove" they "have the truth" and then Germany and Rutherford?
• William Schnell: He is not even worth mentioning here, given the title of his book "30 years Watchtower slave". Bunch of rant against his former religion.

The statement is highly unreliable to be mentioned in this article, its a Synthesis of conspiracy theory written by ex-member Barbara Grizzuti Harrison. None of this claim is peer-reviewed by Historians to make this exempt from WP:EXCEPTIONAL. At the most the statement we can make is that some accuse "Witnesses provoked arrests and prosecutions" by them fighting for their freedom and rights. That has nothing to do with WTS or Rutherford or Germany. Even worse "to prove" they have "the truth" and to attract "dispossessed members" of society. This should be immediately removed. Roller958 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The one sentence to which you object is amply supported from the above statements. Your chief complaint is that because Jehovah's Witnesses haven;t been told about this, it is is not true. What rubbish. You really are too conflicted to continue this discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 03:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Its late night and I am making lot of grammatical mistakes, you can see in my edit history for "Shunning". I will reply tomorrow. Please review my questions in relation with Wiki guidelines, I will add this to noticeboard tomorrow. That is not my chief complaint its your Synthesis and then notability of this conspiracy theory Roller958 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please not the posting on fringe noticeboard ----Roller958 (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will clarify in the article that the statements of those authors relate to persecution in the United States in that era. Otherwise the sentence is accurate and properly based on those sources. BlackCab (TALK) 04:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Several other authors have written about the degree to which the Jehovah's Witnesses contributed to the level of persecution they received at the hands of the Nazis in Germany. I have nowhere read any suggestions that they were complicit in their persecution as it has been claimed about the JWs in the US. The discussion on their provocation of German authorities is at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany#Causes of persecution and Nazi motives. This, too, is material the Watch Tower Society has never covered in its publications for obvious reasons. BlackCab (TALK) 06:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's edit here completely distorts the statements of the authors it then cites. Those authors manifestly state that the JWs were goading authorities for a purpose. Roller958 again displays his pro-JW bias when he turns this into a claim that those authors "claimed that by (the JWs') aggressive preaching campaign members often provoked unwarranted opposition, arrests and even martyrdom." None of those authors called the response by police and governments "unwarranted" and nor did they even suggest that; their viewpoint was quite the opposite. BlackCab (TALK) 07:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

BlackCab, None of the authors mentions your hypothetical that the leadership planned and executed persecution, all of those sources accuse Witnesses provoked persecution. Much worse the claim, the leadership planned it to attract more members and to show it as a proof that they have God. In other words this suggests Rutherford orchestrated mass Killing of Witnesses. The source accuse "witnesses" did so, not its leadership. What a horrific lie? I can see why you personally believe so, if you look online you will find a lot of ex-JW sites that dissect every statement, every sentence, every letter send by JWs as a new evil plan for something. Some of them very funny. Also note that there are people who think man never went to moon even in 20th century. And they got a lot of followers some of them with high intellect. But the question is whether this conspiracy theory you mentioned is notable enough to be mentioned here? Hey if majority don't agree with me, I am not going to jump off a cliff. I'll add an Rfc in future as a last resort. Per recent suggestion from admin, I am going to stay away from editing anything controversial, but I'll do ref fixes and update on latest news and raise issues on talk without editing anything. Happy Roller958 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You were already told quite directly at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Church incited martyrdom that the content in question is not a 'fringe view' and is supported by the cited sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Today, Roller958 said: "WTS never felt a need to rebut this conspiracy theory".[1] But just 16 days ago, Fazilfazil (aka Roller958) said in the section Contact Authorities above: "[JWs] are specifically instructed to not do rebuttal for criticisms".[2] So in what manner is the absence of a rebuttal evidence of anything other than JWs doing as they are told??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not representing WTS, the thing I talked about was a "branch manual", specifically instructing the branches. Yes generally speaking the WTS policy is to not do rebuttals, unless otherwise it would cause considerable noise in news media or hindering preaching activity. The more you do rebuttals the more attention the conspiracy theory will get. Its like if Barack Obama shake hand with Prime minister of UK that's not a big news, but if he came down and shake hands to an individual in a ghetto that individual will get free popularity. Other reason being Jesus mostly never did rebuttals. His focus was for people who were willing to listen to him, not pharisees or educated ones. Leadership is completely confident that none of these theories/criticism is going to change what God has in his mind. Same opinion I have. We are almost going off topic. Sorry. Roller958 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you are "representing WTS". I indicated your two conflicting statements, both of which purported to indicate that the Watch Tower Society (not you) both would and would not make rebuttals to criticism. (And though you only mentioned the 'branch manual', Governing Body Member Anthony Morris III also stated in a recent 'JW Broadcasting' video that JWs don't make rebuttals to criticism.) Your continued attempt to liken the sourced content in question with 'conspiracy theories' is unhelpful, and you've already been told that the point in question is clearly not 'fringe'. Additionally, speculation about what Jesus might have done is baseless and irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The supposed rebuttal at the end of the brief "Persecution" section reads: "Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed Witnesses to 'avoid unnecessary opposition or prejudice', stating that their purpose is not to get arrested." That sentence cites as its source a 1939 WTS booklet, Advice for Kingdom Publishers. Despite the use of quotation marks in the sentence, that booklet in fact does not contain that phrase, nor does it contain that "direction". In fact it advises Witnesses to use sound cars despite local ordinances prohibiting them, advises Witnesses to keep on door-to-door peddling even when told to stop, advises on how to circumvent bans on "parades", how to use self-defence when attacked, advises that they instruct police that they will not accompany them to a police station unless they are first arrested ... and urges Witnesses who are arrested to "continue (witnessing) as though no case has been filed". The supposed rebuttal is a blatant misrepresentation of the source material because the booklet in fact encourages Witnesses of that era to conduct themselves in a manner that would invite arrest. The sentence should therefore be removed. BlackCab (TALK) 13:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the cited source, and replaced the false quote with one appearing in the source, along with some brief additional details.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit now looks better. Note that when I added that rebuttal my primary source was not the 1939 booklet. If editors here decide to keep the conspiracy theory I questioned, the wording in the present state regardless attributes all five authors to have a single coherent claim. Per source only ex-Witness sources took it to the extreme and makes a distinction between Witnesses "caused provocation" by their aggressive preaching work despite ban, and then connects it to an "evil scheme" of leadership (ie. to convince members have the truth, attract dispossessed members of society by inciting a planned martyrdom). Further "Rutherford's leadership" is not mentioned in the source, BlackCab added it later. Secular Sources claim "Witnesses caused provocation" by fighting for their legal rights, ex-Witnesses sources say "it was an evil plan of leadership for something else". Those are totally different claims, should not be attributed for all five sources Roller958 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The statements are clearly indicated to be the views of the cited authors. It is undisputed that Rutherford was the leader of the group during the period indicated. You have been told repeatedly by uninvolved editors that it is neither 'fringe' nor a 'conspiracy theory'. As Awake!, 22 June 2000, page 6 puts it: "Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked."--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be advisable to make more clear which elements are attributed to which authors by rewording as two or three separate sentences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Something is not right here

"A central teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the current world era, or "system of things", entered the "last days" in 1914 and faces imminent destruction through intervention by God and Jesus Christ, leading to deliverance for those who worship God acceptably"

While this is all somewhat accurate. It appears to be written with intentional malice. Perhaps this article need a bit of a clean up? At least this section does anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.210.9 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear how the accurate description of their end-times beliefs might be interpreted as "malicious". The belief could probably be interpreted as malicious, but Wikipedia isn't censored, so it's not necessary to tone down an accurate sourced description. How would you propose re-wording it?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty good explanation of the beliefs. I don't see any malice in that at all, it expresses the core doctrine of the religion. It's the only date other then Nisan 14th that I have seen them specifically use at their meetings. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were to rewrite major parts of the article in an unbiased fashion would you consider these for submission to the article? 79.140.210.9 (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC) I don't expect this to be perfect I have tried my best to rewrite a section as best I can. I have retained the entire body of information, removed jargon, made it easier to understand. Please let me know if you have any problems with what I have written and I will attempt to fix it. If it seems okay may I request it be added to the primary page?

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe their practices are similar to those of first-century Christianity.[124] Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body. Members of the body interpret and attempt to apply scripture.[46][125][126] The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single document of faith, but instead beliefs come from a collection of its publications and teachings.[127] Its publications teach that refinements in teaching result from a process of coming to new understandings , as God gradually reveals his will and purpose,[128][129][130][131] and that new knowledge 132] results from the application of reason and study,[133] the guidance of the holy spirit, and spiritual guidance.[134] The Society also teaches that members of the Governing Body are helped by the holy spirit to understand scripture, which are then considered by the Governing Body as a whole before final decision.[135] The religion's leadership, rejects direct divine inspiration and [136] Instead divine guidance comes from understanding God’s word. [137] [138][139]

The entire Protestant canon of scripture is considered the inspired, inerrant word of God.[140] Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible to be scientifically and historically compatible. [141] While accepting that some parts are literal while others parts as symbolic [142] The Bible is consider to be the foundation and structure for all their beliefs,[143] Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible.[144] Regular personal Bible reading and self-education is frequently recommended; Witnesses are discouraged from formulating "private ideas" reached through Bible research contradictory to teachings of the Watch Tower’s publications, and are advised to avoid reading other potentially misleading religious material.[145][146][147] Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding."[148][149][150][151] The religion makes no provision for members to contribute or ratify primary teachings [152] and all Witnesses are asked to work with the organization rather than against.[153]"

79.140.210.9 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's no improvement and I'm always suspicious of an editor who aims to rewrite to remove supposed bias. Some of your proposed edits confirm my suspicions. BlackCab (TALK) 02:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Di you have specific objections? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The suggested wording isn't really an improvement. Some of the supposed 'jargon' that has been removed is informational rather than jargon 'just for the sake of jargon'. For example, referring to a restoration of first century Christian should probably be linked to Restorationism rather than dumbing down to a claim about practices being 'similar'. The 'jargon' that is used in the current version is explained where it is not the terminology used in mainstream Christianity. A person reading the article is most benefited if they end up with a better understanding of jargon terms that JWs might use. Terms such as "doctrine" are mainstream and do not need to be replaced. Some of the changes might be suitable for the simple English Wikipedia. Some of the language is more ambiguous, to the point of being entirely unhelpful (e.g. "divine guidance comes from understanding God's word"??). There is also a degree of introduced bias, such as the watering down of sourced statements about avoiding "independent thinking", implying that other literature may be 'misleading', and watering down the dictate that members are to accept what is taught as 'present truth' to merely a 'suggestion' that members are 'asked' to 'work with the organisation'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am going to be very bold here. Jeffro has many edits on this main page and is an active editor. His edits are primarily about sexual abuse cases and preserving the current state of the page. This is not a personal attack against Jeffro. I would like to point out he is not an unbiased editor himself. A quick look at his user boxes 'This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.' 'This user has been touched by His Noodly Appendage.' 'This user feels that most of "life after death" bears an intriguing resemblance to compost.'. Users with hated toward religion are the primary contributors to this article. A majority of the bias is in use of language with negative connotations such as 'doctrine'. Over simplifying sections of the article such as 'Satan' making them appear as far fetched ramblings. Much of this article 30-40% deals with criticism of the religion. Almost none of the article is presenting the religion in a neutral light. Although some of the history of the article I think is fantastic.

This article is primarily contributed to by users with resentment of the religion. The majority of editors on this page are editing with a personal message. This is the bias I am talking about. Any attempt for me to put forward change will be automatically shot down.

I would like to meet half way with you guys. If you aren't happy with my proposed section please submit your own. Maybe we can make change together. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article underwent rigorous assessment to attain Good Article status. If you have specific objections to certain sections then raise them. The article should be judged on its merits, not on the basis of the beliefs of contributing editors unless they are introducing clear bias. Your initial post claimed a section was written with intentional malice, but it is perfectly fine. I have just reread the two-paragraph "Satan" section which you say reads like farfetched ramblings. Again, I see no problems: can you detail what the issue is there? BlackCab (TALK) 19:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that I am an atheist has no bearing on anything. If my User page said I were a Catholic, the IP editor would say that makes me biased against JWs. In fact, were I to have any perspective other than 'JW', the IP editor would probably claim some 'bias' (presumably with 'JW' being a 'neutral' perspective). Having a viewpoint does not automatically make an editor's contributions biased. (The IP editor is welcome to provide diffs for any edits where it is believed I have 'injected' atheism into articles.)

If the best example of alleged 'negative connotations' is use of the word 'doctrine', the article is doing very well indeed. The word doctrine is in standard usage for the description of religious beliefs. The IP editor's belief that doctrine is a 'negative' word could spring from the Watch Tower Society's frequent negative use of the term in their descriptions of the "hellfire doctrine" or the "Trinity doctrine". However, even Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson felt no qualms about the word doctrine in his description of the Governing Body at the Royal Commission: "a spiritual group of men who are the guardians of our doctrine, and as guardians of the doctrine, look at things that need to be decided based on our doctrines, which are based on the constitution of the Bible".

It is not clear what edit to the section about Satan that the IP editor claims to be an oversimplification, making it impossible to compare those 'oversimplifications' with the IP editor's own attempts to 'remove jargon'. Perhaps the IP editor will provide a diff...

As with articles about other religions, this article has a Criticism section proportional to the length of the article, and the section is based on sources rather than the alleged opinions of editors.

The claim that my edits are 'mainly about sexual abuse cases' is entirely false, although I have made recent edits about that subject because it has been specifically addressed recently by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quite telling that the IP editor immediately sought to make a personal attack on my alleged motives rather than responding to my comments about the proposed changes to content. The editor has still made no attempt to explain in what manner the quoted statement at the start of this section is supposedly "written with intentional malice", nor has the editor suggested alternative wording to that statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the IP editor's claim that "much of this article 30-40% deals with criticism of the religion", actually a word count of the article (excluding infoboxes, refs and table of contents and appendices) indicates that the entire sections of Sociological Analysis, Opposition and Criticism combined make up about a quarter of the article, and the Criticism section on its own is less than 15%. (These percentages are even lower if taking the excluded elements into account.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'l try and be more specific about my disagreements. The use of language and netural point of view. Lets start with the "Sources of doctrine" section. ' Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses' incorrect grammar missing and apostrophe. 'which assumes responsibility' Assumes is an expression of doubt and is not appropriate for this page. Assumes appears just a single time in the 12000 word Christianity article. 'inerrant word of god' This is also not a neutral word to use, it also appears once in the 12000 word Christianity article. 'Jehovah's Witnesses consider' consider implies doubt belief would be a better fit here. 'Bible to be scientifically and historically accurate and reliable' This sentence right away raises doubts about the historical accuracy scientific value and reliability of the 'doctrine' of Witnesses. The word consider also undermines what the previous sentence claims. 'They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs,' I disagree with the word authority here as it implies coercion. Also the Bible ins't the final authority the governing body is. It is only purported that the bible is the final authority. 'Adherents are' adherents of what? 'must abide' Abide implies coercion and does not appear a single time in the Christianity article for good reason. 'from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" ' Contradicting beliefs is a more accurate choice of words, the absolute denial is personal ideas is far from accurate.

I have not caught everything. I'm sure I have missed a lot. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

1. There is no grammatical error in the statement Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body. The compound noun doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses is in agreement with the verb are. No apostrophe is required, as the possessive is of the form A of B, not B's A. (Ironically, you have omitted an apostrophe from "let's" in your complaint about "missing and apostrophe".)
2. There is no evidence that the Governing Body has been bestowed with the "responsibility" of interpreting scriptures, so it is, naturally, an assumption. In the scope of religious belief, the claim that God has selected their organisation as his 'spokesperson' is certainly not trivial.
3. It's not clear what point you're making about a 12,000 word article only using the word assumes once. Are you suggesting that a shorter article should only use the word a fraction of once? (This article also uses assume in reference to the view of non-JWs, which presumably is not contested by the IP editor.)
4. JWs do believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and it is one of their fundamental beliefs. Not all Christians claim that the Bible is inerrant, so, again, the point of the comparison with another article is unclear. Watch Tower Society seldom uses the specific word inerrant in reference to the Bible, but when it does, it is usually to contrast their view with that of groups that do not consider the Bible to be inerrant. The Watchtower, 15 October 1998, page 5: "Some Protestant seminaries and colleges no longer teach that the Bible is inerrant." The Watchtower, 15 September 1985, page 13: "While Southern Baptists believe that the Bible is inspired, the more moderate among them, whom fundamentalists call liberals, do not believe that the Scriptures are necessarily inerrant."
5. Nitpicking about consider versus belief in the example given is not indicative of any difference in meaning or intent, and the term implies no more 'doubt' than would the term believe.
6. JW literature does claim that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, and there are significant discrepancies between the Bible and both science and history, particularly in parts of the Bible that JWs accept as literal, such as the 'flood' and the 'exodus'.
7. JWs do officially believe that the Bible is the final authority on their beliefs. The Watchtower, 15 February 2012, page 24: "The Bible, not our personal opinion, is our authority regarding what is right and what is wrong." Our Kingdom Ministry, September 2009, page 2: "What Makes Our Magazines Unique? ... They direct attention to the Bible as the final authority."
8. The context of the word adherents is unambiguous.
9. Abide is a suitable term in the context given, and the further comparison with the generic article about Christianity is meaningless. I have already cited an example above from Watch Tower Society literature that JW interpretations of the Bible are considered more important than "personal opinions". Additionally, The Watchtower, 1 August 2001, page 14: "a mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and “the faithful and discreet slave.”"

None of the issues you have put forward are evidence of anything 'malicious', and you still have provided no basis at all for your original claim in this section. Nor have you apologised for your irrelevant personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You are overthinking it. You also need to buy a good dictionary and start with a word that begins with the letter "A". BlackCab (TALK) 10:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for my personal attack. I'd also like to say I am bias. I am in the wrong. I have raised no relevant points. I have attempted to dissect flaws from an almost immaculate article. Little to no improvement can be made here. I'd also like to point out it is a good thing this page is protected as I may have made a naive edit. The editors of this article are undeniably without reasonable error on the selection of content for this article. The language used in this article need not be changed as it is almost perfectly neutral. I would especially like to commend the finely nitpicked sources which convey a neutral viewpoint. I can't possibly add, remove or edit this article in any meaningful way. And as such I have decided I will leave it alone. I would like to thank you all for spending your time here helping me understand neutrality. Perhaps I can use what you have taught me in my field. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My sarcasm detector just broke. No one has claimed that the article 'cannot be improved'. Disingenuous as your comments above appear to be, it is true that you haven't raised any significant problems with the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Jehovah's Witnesses leaders orchestrated Martyrdom?

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.

---

Is the accusations about Jehovah's Witnesses' leaders orchestrating Martyrdom in 1930s from reliable source? Does the provided sources synthesized? Help us to reach a consensus. -- Roller958 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

For reference WTS is a short form for Watchtower Bible & Tract Soceity which was the leadership of JWs in 1930. Rutherford was its president at that time -- Roller958 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, My disputed edit, subsequent change an editor made -- Roller958 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The "subsequent change" was actually a revert to the previous version that had been in place for at least the last several months.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There already is a consensus. One editor does not seem to agree with it. This RFC is tendentious, and should be closed. This item has been reliably sourced - with four specific citations - and it still isn't enough? Please. Scr★pIron^IV 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your comment to close, sources accuse Witnesses provoked persecution by their conduct. But the conspiracy theory that "it was incited by the leadership" and it was to "attract dispossessed members" and to prove "they have the truth" is a tabloid analysis and synthesis of material from different sources. That's an extraordinary claim. My edit is more in line with the source. Roller958 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And there is the point. YOU don't agree, where the majority of other editors do - both on this page, and here[3] - in a discusion you started. There is consensus, and you just don't get that. It's how things work here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing hurts by asking an Rfc, I am not only claiming a notability issue but the Synthesis therein. Roller958 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Uninvolved editor who was brought here from Religion and Philosophy RfC board, I have read the previous discussion linked to above by User:ScrapIronIV and have looked through the relevant sources cited. They do certainly appear to be reliably sourced. And while I'm confident most people voting on this RfC will concur with this conclusion, even if they don't I'm not sure that their disagreement should override what is very obviously well-sourced and cited content that is certainly relevant to our readers. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 16:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The claim in the article is: "Authors including William Whalen, Shawn Francis Peters and former Witnesses Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Alan Rogerson and William Schnell, have claimed the religion incited opposition" and so on. There are no reasonable doubt the authors are claiming what the article states they are doing. I have no stand on whether it is worth including or not, but it is presented as a claim in the article, suggesting the credibility of the claim at best is not confirmed. Another twist in the article is the claim is only about Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States ("have claimed the religion incited opposition in the United States" (italics by me)). A rebuff for a more global stand could possible be found at George D. Chryssides' paper from the [CESNUR 2006 International Conference, where Chryssides states: "In conclusion, it can be said that there were strong elements of opportunism in Rutherford’s drafting of the Declaration of Facts. He no doubt hoped that the Bibelforscher might have persuaded Hitler to allow them the freedom to practise their faith, and — for reasons I have explored — saw little to be achieved by championing the cause of the Jews at this point." My comment and point for the quoute is, it would make no point for Rutherford to make any attempts to "persuade[...] Hitler to allow them the freedom to practise their faith" if Rutherford/the society simultaneously "pursued a course of martyrdom" during the 1930s. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Should be closed and Comment The RFC should be closed. The sources are reliable, the section is properly worded, and if every "claim" had to be definitively proven WP would be far smaller than it is. The Witnesses are now, and certainly were at the time, an American religion, so mention of their actions in the US, especially during this time period, is appropriate. As for Rutherford, he was undoubtedly an opportunist, and definitively believed in the greatness of martyrdom through jail time (see Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose Brooklyn, New York; Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1959, pg 42) but he was not a cruel man. He would have understood the danger that the Bibelforscher in Germany took regarding their lives and would have made every attempt to save them within what he saw as the bounds of his religion. But at the same time, there can be no doubt that in the US, where the punishment for their actions would have been jail time and not death, he pushed the Witnesses hard to preach, resulting in a drastic increase in arrests.(see William Shepard McAninch “A CATALYST FOR THE EVOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE SUPREME COURT” University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 55 Issue 4, 1987 pg 1013). Thus the apparent dichotomy of his actions was actually yet another aspect of his opportunist streak. Vyselink (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Vyselink, I think you're a bit too generous with Rutherford over his dealings with the German Bibelforscher. As the Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany article shows, in 1934 he had decided there would be no more tiptoeing around Hitler and threatened that he would be destroyed by God at Armageddon. Early that year the German branch president Paul Balzereit decided prudence was the best policy and ordered a halt to public preaching to avoid needless provocation of Hitler, but in September Rutherford spoke at the "Fear Them Not" convention of Switzerland and overturned that decision: he told the the German JWs to resume witnessing and adopt an even higher profile. And just to heighten the danger to their lives, Rutherford organised an international campaign to swamp the German chancellery with telegrams and letters of complaint. It is shocking to think that Rutherford, safe and comfortable in Beth Sarim in sunny San Diego, was sending the JWs back to the frontlines while deliberately stirring up their enemies. He was well aware of Hitler's psychopathic nature, but evidently decided any subsequent suffering by his loyal Bibelforscher would just be collateral damage. It's also worth noting Dietrich Hellmund's description of their "incredible public militancy" and his comment that "No movement can constantly heap insults on all other religions, the business community and national governments in the way that the Bible Student-Jehovah's Witnesses did from 1918 onward without provoking a reaction." All this came from the top. BlackCab (TALK) 07:27, 20 September 2015 (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.

Rodney Stark requested quote

A quote has been requested for a statement in the "Criticism" section about enforcement tending to be informal. Stark's comment was in the context of a discussion about the legitimacy of elders' authority within the "theocracy". He wrote: "A second factor influencing a sense of empowerment is that, although Witnesses are expected to conform to rather strict standards, enforcement tends to be very informal, sustained by the close bonds of friendship within the group. That is, while Witness elders can impose rather severe sanctions (such as expulsion and shunning) on deviant members, they seldom need to do so and when they do, the reasons for their actions will be widely-known and understood within the group." Frankly, I think Stark was basing his comments on some pretty unreliable evidence, probably provided by the JWs themselves about their "loving arrangement". The statement from Stark was added by a JW editor as a rebuttal to the accusations of totalitarianism. BlackCab (TALK) 08:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In (stark) contrast to that researcher's rose-tinted view of JW discipline is William Shepard McAninch's observation in his paper "A catalyst for the evolution of constitutional law" cited above by another Wikipedia editor. McAninch wrote that: "The decision to disfellowship a Witness is made by a committee of elders of the congregation appointed by higher authority and must be accepted by the congregation even though the latter may be unaware of the nature of the charges against the former member." (italics mine). McAninch's comments are also pertinent to the section of this article containing Stark's rebuttal. He wrote: "Becoming a Witness involves acceptance of the authority of the church over one's individual life and a concomitant relinquishment of independence of both action and thought. Just as, according to the Witnesses, Eve's downfall resulted from her desire to make independent moral judgments, a similar fate awaits the like-minded Witness ... The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society provides the Witnesses with the views of God, who supposedly is affronted by independent reasoning and autonomous thought." BlackCab (TALK) 09:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Eschatology - Sequence Needs Correction.

The first paragraph states:

"At the end of the thousand years, a final test will take place when Satan is released to mislead perfect mankind. Those who fail will be destroyed, along with Satan and his demons. The end result will be a fully tested, glorified human race. Christ will then hand all authority back to God."

The actual teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that Christ will hand over all authority before the final test. Therefore, the text should be re-arranged, such as:

At the end of the thousand years, Christ will hand all authority back to God. Then a final test will take place when Satan is released to mislead perfect mankind. Those who fail will be destroyed, along with Satan and his demons. The end result will be a fully tested, glorified human race.

References:

The Watchtower, November 1, 1952, Page 670, Questions From Readers.

The Watchtower, September 15, 2014, Page 26, Paragraphs 15-17.

71.165.150.47 (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

71.165.150.47 (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding older material

As beliefs change through reaching 'new understandings' and 'enlightenment' citation listed should be from more recent Watch Tower publications; rather than ones dating back 10, 20, 50 years. There is an abundance of modern relevant material which can be used. Many (not all) of these articles are dated and may not have precedence today. 79.140.210.9 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some references are relatively old doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. The JWs have no document that lists their articles of faith, so cataloging their doctrines does sometimes require delving into their past. If however you can identify any old references you believe are now outdated and wrongly represent their beliefs or practices please do so. If you can provide more recent references that would help. BlackCab (TALK) 20:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Child abuse rebuttal

Sorry for forcing me to comeback here. User:ChercheTrouve desperately trying to find ways to remove sourced rebuttals as if he knows the policy better. Its a professed policy worldwide, elders won't report unless required by law. Parents have the absolute right to report. Period. I ask him to stop POV pushing. A blog would be a better place to write one sided information. Roller958 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a written policy also in the elders' handbook? BlackCab (TALK) 13:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are saying both GB member and Service department elder lied. And there is no written statement. Okay. But it doesn't matter if they lied or not, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers, its useful to include that in rebuttal from two top executives of JWs. Remember an observation from one editor above for the claim above Rutherford inciting persecution? As per your logic I recommend to remove the commissions claim completely, since its an oral claim not a written finding yet. If you think JWs do not allow parents to go to police, can you show me that in elders manual? Show me in elders manual where its says elders shouldn't report when there is a legal obligation.

Further User:BlackCab, You accused me of an SPA recently, but have a blind eye on User:ChercheTrouve? Checkout his edit history. And you went ahead with a lengthy discussion on Australian Royal Commission inquiry, but remarkably one-sided! Understandable that my edits in past have watered down your painful edits and research, don't get offended. See WP:NPOV. That's how Wikipedia works Roller958 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am simply asking if there is something written that would support this? It was a genuine question with no ulterior motive. BlackCab (TALK) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but any elder's statement, true or false, should not be put as a conclusion here, as well as any accusation from ex-members should not conclude either. Only a neutral source can be used for a conclusion. Because of this, I'll move the "pro-JW" statement in the opening of the paragraph. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no conclusion whatsoever. Its a rebuttal to the claim therein, stop moving things just because you don't want to see it. As one IP mentioned above this article contains 30-40% criticism, injected without any more further space for it. Still not happy? Yes its also an official policy that pedophiles or even ex-murderers can be appointed as elders, if they have passed a considerable amount time and he have now a good standing in community. Church is a place where forgiveness applies equally to everyone. And media a neutral source? It doesn't take rocket science to understand that media business runs on sensationalizing. Having said that provide the source from which the report makes that claim. I couldn't find in the commissions transcript that known Pedophiles were repeatedly assigned to positions of trust. If only one witness exist for an allegation, according to church policy he/she may be appointed, because he is not a known pedophile. Secular authorities may consider them as pedophile, but its up to the parents to report to police if they don't want an unverified pedophile to be in position of authority. Roller958 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Because this section is presented as a summary of the main article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, it would be better to thrash these issues out on that page rather than introduce new material here and then seek to add rebuttals. The section will just grow to an unnecessary length without adding any clarity. Here's an example: material newly added as the final sentence in this section reads: "An individual who denies accusation of child abuse, never reported to secular authorities and lacking a second witness, is allowed to be in positions of authority". This is rather confusing. I don't see from the source material that a decision to allow an accused paedophile to remain as an elder depends on whether the police were informed. In any case, that policy information should be rolled into the opening wording that establishes what the JW policy is. The criticism (because this is a criticism section) should then follow.

Roller958 questions the accuracy of the Sydney Daily Telegraph story headed "Paedophiles repeatedly promoted to positions of authority ..." This is evidently based on evidence given on day 147; that information is contained on page 15146 (lines 18 to 29) of the day 147 transcript and it is fair and accurate coverage of that quite significant point. Roller may view this as sensationalism, but in the context of a religion being investigated by a judicial body over its handling of past sex abuse cases in its ranks it is highly relevant. BlackCab (TALK) 04:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is if the matter reached authorities, he is now a known molester which would automatically disqualify. Could be worded better. Roller958 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your other comment, yes media often don't state the full story. They use catchy statements, without mentioning the context or details or why it was so Roller958 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source material doesn't say that however. What is your source for the statement that a man would be disqualified if an accusation reached authorities? BlackCab (TALK) 05:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Its an issue of "freeness of speech". However I made it clear with my latest edit. A convicted man is a "known molester" Roller958 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The information here should be presented in a neutral way. Putting JW's conclusion at the end is not neutral. It would give the false idea that there is finally no problem with their policy. The policy doesn't give the parents or victims total liberty to do what they want. When faced with pedophilia within the congregation, no one is lead to secular authorities, as the Australian report clearly shows. They are supposed to meet the elders instead. This is the main problem. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's claim that "A convicted man is a "known molester"" is not entirely consistent with JW procedures. According to the JW policy, the branch office determines whether an individual is considered a "known molester" for the purposes of the religion's 'judicial' (ecclesiastical) procedures. Whilst a legal ruling may influence their decision, criminal cases do not have direct bearing on the group's internal 'judicial procedure'. The statement reported in The Daily Telegraph regarding the fact that over 1000 cases of abuse were not reported to authorities is an accurate representation of what was stated in the Royal Commission and was acknowledged by JW elders who testified therein.

Roller958's use of semantics regarding the claim that 'known' pedophiles are not appointed to positions of authority is fairly pointless, since—as repeatedly brought out in the Royal Commission—where elders believed a victim was telling the truth but there was only 'one witness', they still knew the person was a pedophile even if the person was not officially 'recognised' by elders (either locally or by the branch office) as a "known molester". (In such cases, elders also had been convinced that a crime had been committed, which has reporting obligations beyond mandatory reporting of suspected abuse.)

Roller958's claim that an editor moved a statement in the article supposedly because the editor 'didn't want to see it' is quite odd. The unsubstantiated claim by an IP editor about a made-up percentage of 'criticism' in the article is also irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The church can't report every allegation to authorities, Is that illegal? No. Only if there is a mandatory reporting law exists. And if parents don't want to go to police, then why blame the church? Yes the policy also states they will allow single witness abusers to continue. Rebuttals should follow criticism, not the other way around Roller958 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Whilst it is not mandatory to report allegations unless there are mandatory reporting laws, when elders know of abuse, there is still a legal obligation to report knowledge of crimes, covered by statutory laws similar to misprision of felony. This was specifically addressed by the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And parents have less responsibility than childrenelders? All parents should be put to prison, before elders. When the issue was raised I remember the judge said he have to check on that. Regardless, the branch said they believed that, that requirement was exempt for clergy --Roller958 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The obligation on any person to report knowledge of a crime applies to elders as much as to anyone else. Hypothetical claims that 'parents should go to prison before elders [for not reporting abuse]' is entirely pointless, because it ignores the situation where the parent(s) do not know of the abuse, or the parent is the abuser.

Discussion of the concept of misprision of felony was made on day 153, and there was no mention of clergy exemption. Your claim about 'clergy exemption' may relate to comments on day 149, which was about legislation about mandatory reporting of harm that is only relevant to one Australian state and not the same as knowledge of crimes.

(It's funny how JWs suddenly have 'clergy' when there's a legal provision.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint that's what that exception for ministers should come under "clergy". In any case if the individual is a child, parents will be made known especially if its an abuse. And its so funny that commission can do nothing other than some recommendation. Some news report said few cases will be forwarded to authorities, lets see how many will prevail with the hype it made. --Roller958 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite stomach-turning that Roller sees humor in this. The royal commission is not "hype". It is about innocent and powerless children being used for the sexual gratification of depraved men and all he can see is a "them vs us" battle in which the religious organization is the victim. Unbelievable. BlackCab (TALK) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No doubt that child abuse is a heinous crime. However that doesn't mean that the responsibility to should go to a non-profit corporation which is not the cause for abuse. Parents/Guardians have the full responsibility to protect children, everything else comes next. I was just pointing to that fact, a court of law would deliver justice, not a public investigation. If commission can recommend only some cases to court of the much hyped "1006 cases", it certainly shows only in some cases they feel the church could be made accountable. I was curious how many would survive legal scrutiny. Having said that I don't have any problems with a redress scheme who were abused because of a policy/human error, any organization ran by humans would make mistake. --Roller958 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And I don't want to go into a debate, we had enough in here. I am trying to not go off topic. Back to the contention I am okay with Jeffro77's latest edits. The claim in the news report is likely talking about later promotion of individuals who denied allegation but without a second witness and never investigated by authorities. That's the worst case example of current policy if the allegation was indeed true. However, like I mentioned before elders would conscientiously encourage parents/or report themselves to authorities, since there is a Biblical impediment on reporting every allegation to authorities when there is no mandatory reporting. Roller958 (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your hypothetical suggestion of what elders 'would conscientiously do' is irrelevant. In the cases presented in the Royal Commission, the elders did not "encourage" the victims or anyone else to report to authorities. There is no "biblical impediment" to reporting crimes to authorities, only an abstruse interpretation; conflating 'every allegation' with 'knowledge of a crime' is misdirection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an impediment in principle, however precedence takes when mandatory law exist. Why would someone go to a catholic priest if he knows the next day it will be reported to authorities? I don't think JWs will change that policy, no matter what. Secular authorities/critics have no respect for their beliefs anyway, for example neutrality, blood etc. So some friction and legal cases will always be there --Roller958 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't just use scriptures like magical incantations. The verse in Proverbs (which was written when the priesthood had oversight over the Sanhedrin) could just as readily be interpreted as applying to elders who reveal the actions of alleged sinners to other individuals, including the branch office when forming their own judicial tribunals (which is also a breach of clergy-penitent privilege.) Indeed, who would go to Catholic confession if the priest then tells all the bishops at the diocese?

The use of the scripture at Romans is just as weak, as it can be 'justified away' by elders (or any JW) if they feel the matter is trumped by their interpretation of Acts 5:29. This was also brought out at the Royal Commission.

Secular authorities in many countries have provisions for conscientious objection. Many countries also have provisions for people who reject certain medical treatments (although whether a superstitious belief that results in a person's death warrants respect is another matter). Your blanket statements are pointless and suggest a persecution complex.-Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no sanction against an elder who conscientiously reported to authorities. Period. Roller958 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, it's evident that, in general, they're still not doing it. Because the only direction they're given over and over again is to "call the branch office". The testimony of the elders in the Royal Commission showed they were scared (or at the very least, overly cautious) about doing anything that might go against directions from the branch office. Because of the organisation's authoritarian structure, it is therefore necessary for the branch office to provide explicit direction to report.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contentions are mostly a theological disagreement. Probably you won't agree with all catholic theology either. There is always a risk associated with any place where children go including school. The question at the end of the day is whether an organization takes everything it can to protect children without violating its beliefs? The only thing I see is the situation mentioned above and I agree there should be explicit direction from branch that states, elders should feel free to report single witness allegation if they want to. Roller958 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The concerns expressed by the Royal Commission indicate that the organisation does not do everything it can do protect children. In fact, the judge said that no other organisation he's heard of has the flaws that are present in the JW system for handling cases of abuse.

Dismissing my 'contentions' as a "theological disagreement" is a bit odd. The fact is that JW interpretation of one scripture can can be used to justify ignoring the JW interpretation of another scripture, making them useless in practical situations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A religion is a people with common belief. I personally as many others in the religion, won't agree with your interpretation. Same is may be true about shunning or other practices. Like I said above secular authorities may not appreciate all JW beliefs, in that way the whole internal judicial system in itself would be odd to anyone outside including the Royal Commission. Roller958 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I quite clearly stated that members of the religion can 'justify' ignoring their own (officially sanctioned) interpretation of one scripture by applying their own (officially sanctioned) interpretation of another scripture. Your implication of 'outsiders' not 'appreciating' those beliefs is not relevant to my comments, and sounds more like a persecution complex.

In any case, there is no 'scriptural' reason preventing JWs from their legal obligation of reporting knowledge of crimes in cases where they are convinced that abuse has occurred. Those are a subset of the broader concept of allegations of abuse for which various jurisdictions have mandatory reporting laws; those laws require the reporting of allegations whether or not they are substantiated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay so their is a serious flaw in JWs policies according to your opinion. And how many cases around the world made adverse verdicts? A handful, that itself is about negligence claims. And that's why I am curious how it will be in Australia, no wonder in recent JW broadcasting a GB member said "We are proud of our record when it comes to child abuse". Having said that I repeat I don't feel bad for paying people who were abused, even if the organization is not responsible for it. Roller958 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Many cases are settled out of court (owing largely to the corporation's ability to drag cases out until the victims run out money), so the number of "adverse verdicts" is not particularly meaningful. The statement in the JW public relations piece isn't particularly compelling either. Another episode of JW Broadcasting claimed that reports about JW mishandling of child abuse are nothing but "apostate driven lies", but Geoffrey Jackson stated under oath that that specific claim is false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Many? hahaha. I personally seen apostates lie a lot, often baking half-truths to a full slander. They know shunning protects 99% flock from their propaganda, and that's why they oppose shunning. You are entitled to have your own opinion. --Roller958 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is your claim about 'apostates' intended as a) a slanderous personal attack or b) entirely irrelevant drivel? Jackson explicitly stated under oath that the issues being dealt with are not "apostate driven lies", so any opinion you might have to the contrary is itself propaganda. Regarding your blanket statements about the supposed attitudes and actions of 'apostates', Awake!, 22 June 2000, page 6: "Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked."--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know you are "an apostate" or profess to be one, so your personal attack claim is irrelevant. I was talking about self professed ones online. Roller958 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Why bleat about "apostates" at all? I've seen JWs lie and slander too, but it doesn't mean that all of them do. (Your claim about why 'apostates' 'oppose' shunning is also false propaganda. The primary reason cited by non-JWs, former JWs and even some current JWs for opposing shunning is because of the damage shunning does to personal relationships. However, the reason for shunning those who disagree is indeed to prevent members from hearing things the leadership may not want them to know.) Jackson acknowledged that it's not "apostate driven lies" (despite the claim in the JW Broadcasting PR piece). In any case, the proportion of cases settled out of court is many compared to the very few high profile cases, and your kneejerk reaction of automatically blaming 'apostates' is tediously predictable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever, about your proportion claim, and how much they got is a pure speculation. I believe they got their legal fees, and in an exceptional case under a 800,000 dollar. You are the one knee-jerking, to desperately finish off with a last comment. Do it. I am not going to continue Roller958 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There are various cases that can be identified online. A few years ago, there were over a dozen in a single year (2006 or thereabouts if memory serves correctly). Your 'belief' that 'they only got their legal fees' is baseless, since out-of-court settlement amounts are generally not disclosed (and even more ridiculous saying it immediately after you say the amounts are "pure speculation"). Bedtime now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

More issues from the "Handling of sexual abuse cases"-section

There are several issues from the section. 1) According to the article, "The elders don't report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law". I have not seen it is stated in a direct manner that Jehovah's Witnesses do not report unless requiered by law. The sources is a) from a hearing, were the article is concluding from individuals statements during the hearing, and b) from Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, witch according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_119#.22Pay_Attention_to_Yourselves_and_to_All_the_Flock.22_used_as_source the RS noticeboard is concidered not available through a reliable publisher, and thus shoud not be used for referencing a claim. 2) "The ongoing Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received case files relating to '1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the Jehovah's Witness Church since 1950,' of which 'not one was reported by the church to secular authorities.'" According to one of the interviewed during the hearing, "almost 400 of those have been dealt with by the authorities, of which less than half have resulted in convictions (...) Those 1,000 cases, as the Commission is aware, 199 of those relate to individuals (...) that were either not Jehovah's Witnesses or likely may not have been Jehovah's Witnesses at the time. (...) [W]ell over half of the allegations - are familial, and in the context with no comparison, where we're looking at ministers, clergy, those allegations include everyone who has ever walked into a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses; every individual who has ever studied the Bible with us in prison; every person out of the community that associates with us where we've become aware that there is a child abuse allegation, we have followed it up, recorded it and that's the reason there are those numbers." I don't know if I wan't to interpretate the number, or the information given through the hearing. It is more like raw material for experts, rather than finished outcome ready to be used as a reference for sensational claims. 3) From the wikipedia article: "According to The Daily Telegraph, some of these paedophiles promoted to position of authority in the church." According to the newspaper article used as refernce for the statement, "[i]n the same time, 28 alleged abusers were appointed to positions of authority and of 127 alleged abusers deleted as church leaders, 16 were reappointed." I just have to comment this one as well. First, an abuser is not necessarily the same as a paedophile. Secondly, it is clearly stated in the newspaper article it is about alleged abusers. Most places in modern society individuials are concidered innocent until evidence for the opposite is found. It is not given than any alleged abusers are abusers. Given the numbers of elders in Australia, I don't even see why a claim about alleged abuser is listed in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that the elders' manual cannot be cited is false. There was not a definitive decision at the noticeboard, and the claim made there is now irrelevant, as the book (as well as relevant letters) has been made available in full by the Royal Commission. See also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#Sources.

The claim that '400 cases were dealt with by the authorities' was explicitly indicated in the Royal Commission to simply have been based on a word search of words such as 'report' being near words such as authorities, with no indication that those cases were actually reported to authorities.

In the context of your comments, presumption of innocence is only a consideration where the alleged abuser is named. Where abuse is known to have occurred and the statement is not in reference to specific cases, it is not necessary to refer to 'alleged' abuse. I have changed pedophile to abuser.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Could you provide a quote supporting the claim "The elders don't report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law"? Regarding the Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, the book is partly made availiable during the hearing, and the committy should be credited as a source for the claim, as of the linked WP:RS-thread.

2) I've not read the complete report, but this wikipedia article uses exactly the same pages as reference for another sensational claim.

3) An alleged abuser does not become simply an abuser because he/she is not named. Everyone can become an alleged abuser if only someone is filing a claim. The article lists no proof the abuse have occurred for each of the individuals instated or reinstated in "positions of authority", whatever "positions of authority" is. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The newer Shepherd the Flock book was made available in full, as were the letters. There are extracts of Pay Attention. Also, the noticeboard never made the definite conclusion that you keep claiming it did.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Elders do not report

The statement elders do not report is not entirely accurate, "generally" do not is more accurate. Though practically none was reported in Australia, its a conscientious decision as heard in Royal Commission proceedings. That should be corrected in the official policy mentioned here. Roller958 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The policy is actually a bit more subtle, and I have tried to reflect that in my proposed rewording, as linked above. The article currently says that elders "do not report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law"; in fact the policy places such a requirement only when there is a legal obligation; in other words there is actually no policy at all on reporting to authorities other than (a) do it if required by law and (b) do not discourage an individual from doing it. The statement that elders "do not report" or "generally do not report" is a reasonable deduction from that policy, and the findings of the Australian royal commission are valuable in showing what happened in one region, which is probably representative of the global experience. But is a deduction good enough here? BlackCab (TALK) 08:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording was introduced recently by ChercheTrouve[4]. It is not good wording. The issue is complicated by the fact that whilst the policy directs elders to report 'when required by law', the policy apparently (as indicated by the Society's lawyer's testimony to the Royal Commission) only refers to laws regarding mandatory reporting of allegations of abuse, and is not employed where there are laws requiring that any person report knowledge of crimes, which would apply in cases where elders are convinced that sexual abuse has occurred (irrespective of organisational rules about 'two witnesses').--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In this edit I requested quotes for the claim "[t]he elders do not report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law, leaving the decision to report to authorities with the victim and his or her family". In the article it is mentioned a policy ("According to Jehovah's Witnesses' policy"), then refering to the' policy ("The policy directs elders to report abuse allegations to authorities when required by law, in other cases leaving the decision to report to authorities with the victim and his or her family") like it was the one and same thing. The referenced Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, like it is presented in thepapers from the hearing, p. 138, it is about members and applying members with unsettled law issues in general. I can not see any reference to child sex abuse or simmilar at the referenced page. Being an illegal alien is not concidered serious at all in a number of countries, often even not a crime. It would be easier if quotes are given at the talk page, then find out if it adds relevant information, and then find out what to add ("According to Rodney Peter Spinks at the Watchtower help desk, JW practice in Australia have been..." and so on. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The current elders' manual is Shepherd the Flock of God, downloadable at the royal commission website, and the relevant policy is on pages 131-132. BlackCab (TALK) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I amended the most problematic element of ChercheTrouve's wording last night.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower Society

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Editors disagree on whether to use "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Watchtower Society publications say" when describing doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. See above discussion. Roller958 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• My comment above is spammed by long comments, but I stick to referring to "Jehovah's Witness believes" or "Jehovah's Witness publications states", since the article is about Jehovah's Witnesses. A reason for doing so, is JW publications is not the the sole source of distribution of JW teachings, neither the new or etablished ones. A middleway is to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings, as axplained in [the particular publication]. When describing legal issues, I think using the actual corporation would be correct. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that this has come to an RFC, given the guideline referred to above, which clearly states that the phrases Watchtower/Watch Tower Society should be restricted to references to administrative functions only. It seems to me that this guideline is also very sensible. My strong recommendation: stick with it. HGilbert (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't actually say that the organisation name "should be restricted to references to administrative functions only". It doesn't say that at all.

What the guideline does say is that the article should not say that the Watch Tower Society is synonymous with the leadership or that the Society establishes doctrine. Neither issue is present in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race. I was brought in by the appeal for RfC. But this is what I see in the guideline: When referring to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses or those that set policy or doctrine, refer specifically to the Governing Body. Do not use the terms "the Society" or "the Watchtower Society...Watch Tower Society should be used when referring to evangelical functions, specifically including Donations to the Society, Branch Offices, Construction work, Teaching programs, Writing of literature,Organizing conventions, Operation of Society facilities...Watchtower Society should be used when referring to administrative functions. I included the "evangelical functions" listed here under a broader administrative rubric, as many of them seem to be such to me, but this is splitting hairs. The point is that leadership, policy and doctrine should be attributed to the Governing Body. Organizational and administrative functions are the responsibility of the Watchtower Society.

Incidentally, we do not attribute published material to the publisher or journal, but to the author. Who writes the material that appears in the Watchtower? HGilbert (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate guidelines. Most of your quote (everything after the first ellipsis) is from a different guideline that indicates the distinction between the Watchtower Society (a New York corporation that performs administrative functions within the United States) and the Watch Tower Society (a Pennsylvania corporation that oversees JW operations worldwide).

As I have already stated in the discussion above, the Watch Tower Society's literature is authored anonymously (apart from the occasional non-doctrinal 'life story' by that named author). It is therefore not possible to name specific authors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case, the current formulation of the article adheres to these guidelines as far as I can see, and is appropriate in its terminology. HGilbert (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

They made some changes after I initiated Rfc. Thank you for finding the fact that its a sensible guideline. Hope they follow this in future. Jefro77 said its written by anonymous. That doesn't mean we should use Watch Tower Society publications. Its sensible to use "Jehovah's Witness publications", since its written by Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world. Similarly, its not correct to say "Watchtower Society Policy". Unless its a specific administrative policy of Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania its "Jehovah's Witness policy". They would argue over this for no reason, and I have no hope they would stop doing that. --Roller958 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I indicated before you raised the RFC[5][6] that several instances could be changed (largely as a concession since only one instance actually approached violating the guideline). You didn't bother to make any changes, so I did all the work, with no thanks, as expected (that is, no thanks from Roller958; there were courteous remarks from BlackCab and Grrahnbahr).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The only reference in the article to Watch Tower Society policy is in reference to policies relating to handling of child sexual abuse cases. Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson stated under oath that the Governing Body does not produce those policies, but that they are developed by the administrative corporations, of which the Watch Tower Society is the parent corporation. It would be needlessly ambiguous to refer to "Jehovah's Witness policy", and it is specifically the Watch Tower Society (and its subsidiaries) that have been sued in matters relating to those policies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to take things personally. I am rarely thanked by each and every editor involved in an article for any given edit. But thank you for making these edits; I think the article is in good shape now. I am closing the discussion as it seems there are no more active issues. HGilbert (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2015 (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.

Appropriate content of 'Sex abuse cases' section

I'll return to an issue I raised earlier of what should actually be in the "Handling of sexual abuse cases" section of the Criticism section. That section in the "parent" (Jehovah's Witnesses) article should read as a summary of the "child" or spinoff article, (Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse), which is an extensive and well-sourced article. WP:SYNC emphasizes the importance of synchronising the child article and the summary section, instructing "editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section." The summary in this case does a poor job of summarizing the child article. It is dominated by material that is not so much criticism as a statement (and justification) of certain JW policies that some might find objectionable but for which there is no explicit criticism.

The spinout article in fact contains just two areas of criticism: (a) the "two witness rule" and (b) allegations of cover-ups by the Watch Tower Society by means of discouragement of reporting to authorities, and the associated observation that the WTS kept detailed notes on cases of abuse but did not alert police or child protection authorities. Salient to this is the New York Times observation that the issue in the JWs is not children being abused by clergy, but children being assaulted by congregation members (and often family members, which would lessen the likelihood of a male perpetrator/family breadwinner/patriarch being reported to police).

At the moment then the "Criticism" section of the JW article should limit its coverage to those two points. It currently lacks any mention of the "two witness" rule and instead opens with the entirely irrelevant issue of whether known abusers can hold positions of responsibility. I'd suggest deleting that sentence and removing the related reference to the Daily Telegraph story. The summary can then focus on a succinct criticism of the "two witness" rule and the JW response (already linked in the article). It can then provide brief coverage of the cover-up allegations encompassing alleged discouragement of reporting to authorities and evidence of the JW policy of not reporting to authorities (the JW statement on its policy and evidence from the Australian royal commission).

The aspect of promotion of abusers as contained in the Daily Telegraph article should be reintroduced only when it is properly covered in the spinout article. BlackCab (TALK) 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'two witness rule' is briefly mentioned in the summary. I have moved the existing Daily Telegraph source to the statement about the 'two witness rule' as that point is also addressed by the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. There is mention of it but no criticism per se. BlackCab (TALK) 01:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that the statement cites a source that is critical of the 'two witness' policy, I'm not sure whether it's necessary to expand the sentence in the summary, since the criticism of the policy is basically the same as the official policy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the statement and attributed the criticism. It's not worth re-stating the policy separately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct to state that "the Royal Commission has criticised the organisation's policy" regarding the two-witness rule. Angus Stewart was at that point outlining the WTS policy. Until the royal commission releases a report on the WTS case study the Wikipedia article should not claim that it has expressed any opinion. BlackCab (TALK) 01:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-word as you see fit. I had to go out, but since no change has been made since, I have reworded slightly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Those changes still don't address the main issue of harmonising the summary article with the spinff one. I have rewritten that section in line with my comments above, but haven't uploaded it yet and prefer to wait until editors in other timezones have the opportunity to comment. It might be better if I posted it on a sandbox page to begin with and got some comments there rather than ruffle too many feathers with a wholesale change. BlackCab (TALK) 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded my proposed rewording of that part of the "Criticisms" section here and I invite comment before I proceed further. BlackCab (TALK) 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentences of the first and second paragraphs of your proposed wording are weaselish, and the latter is further complicated by your own statement that the Royal Commission's statements cannot be regarded as "criticism". The assessment of the 'two witness rule' as "a key policy" is also unqualified. (There are also some minor grammatical issues.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree in part with Jeffro. The first two sentences are a bit too weasely for my taste. I don't have his hangup about the "two witness rule", but I can see where he's coming from. Vyselink (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence paraphrases Barbara Anderson, who is cited. I have used Applewhite's criticism, which was presented at the royal commission. Unlike the previous wording in the existing article, it is not presented as the criticism of the commission, which is yet to make its report. BlackCab (TALK) 20:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first paragraph is not clearly attributed to Anderson. The first sentence of the second paragraph (not Applewhite's statement in the first paragraph) refers to criticism but the only secondary source cited in the paragraph is the Royal Commission. Also, the statement by Applewhite (a paid representative of the Watch Tower Society) was a concession, not a criticism.

Whilst the 'two witness rule' is one of several controversial elements of the JW policies for handling cases of abuse, the provided sources do not establish it is a key policy, and it is not clear whether the intention is to say it is a key JW policy or a key element of controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked the opening sentence and removed the reference to the "two witness" rule being a key policy, although logic says it must be: if an accused sex abuser denies an accusation, any further action depends on the existence of two witnesses. But given that it's been taken as a subjective judgment, I won't press the point; the description is not critical. On the other point, I agree there is not a strong connection in my proposed wording between the statement of the JW reporting policy (sourced to a JW website and the opening statement of evidence at the royal commission) and the criticism of its flaws. I'll spend a bit more time on improving that. BlackCab (TALK) 08:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your use of words such as "ranks" giving a connotation to a military structure is weaselish. Further you fail to mention that the "Two witness rule" is only for internal discipline. I am not sure that the statement "victim can be traumatized" is a noteworthy point, can't that be the case if a court fail to convict due to lack of evidence? Further victim is free to go to police and report if he/she feels traumatized. The major issue claimed by critics is the danger caused by abuse accused individuals (who deny) to other congregation members (who are not aware of it). However in United States its legal to not disclose that information to other members, backed by confidentiality privilege for ministers. In UK it may be not as per recent case which is on appeal. Roller958 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The word ranks is not restricted to military contexts, and it typically appears in JW literature in reference to their members (and JWs and other christian soldiers use the military connotation as a metaphor anyway). Also, 'weasel words' refers to vague or unattributed claims. You are actually claiming it is a contentious label (but it's not).

It's implicit that their 'two-witness' policy relates to their internal procedures. The statement in the suggested text that victims can be traumatised is sourced (but not properly sourced to a critic). Your suggestion that a traumatised victim 'can' report to authorities has no direct bearing on the elder's obligations to report knowledge of crimes. Also, (as raised by the Royal Commission) the religion's doctrines engender a general mistrust of 'worldly' authorities, reducing the likelihood of victims reporting to secular authorities. This is exacerbated by the JW policy of not encouraging victims to report abuse to authorities (rather than passively 'not discouraging').

There are several points of contention with the JW policies, and your assessment of which you think is the 'major' one isn't relevant to the suggested text. Unless you have a particular source in mind that indicates the 'major' criticism?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked my proposed rewrite of the "Handling of sexual abuse cases" subsection. It is on my sandbox page. I have removed Monica Applewhite and removed any judgment on the relative importance of the two witness rule. Criticism of the JW policies on sex abuse has been most vocal by Barbara Anderson and Bill Bowen, so I have named and quoted both, and also referred to (and in the footnotes quoted) related criticism from a US cult researcher. The final two sentences pertaining to court cases relates directly to the opening sentence on WTS knowledge of, but inaction over, offending inside the organization. The rewrite clearly identifies the criticisms expressed in the media and removes the irrelevant material that is in the current article wording. BlackCab (TALK) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the overall substance of your rewrite. I would recommend the following, but this is just my personal opinion.

"The religion has been criticized for its "two witness rule", which requires an allegation of sexual abuse to be substantiated by at least two witnesses if the accused person denies any wrongdoing. Based on their application of scriptures at Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, Jehovah’s Witness policy is that without a confession by the accused, no action can be taken unless there is testimony from two witnesses."

This seems very repetitive, and like one sentence split in two with some filler added. I'd maybe rewrite it to say something like "The religion has been criticized for it's "two witness rule", based on their application of Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, which requires sexual abuse to be substantiated by two witnesses if the accused person denies any wrongdoing." Reduces it from 67 to 37 words and sounds (to me) clearer.

"In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children when elders have known of past sex offences by congregation members, while the Society has agreed to pay to settle other lawsuits involving abuse by men the organization allegedly knew had previously abused children. In those cases the Society reached confidential settlements—paying as much as $780,000 to the plaintiffs—without admitting wrongdoing."

Again, feels like it would be better and clearer if condensed. Maybe "In court cases in the United States and the United Kingdom, the Watch Tower Society has been found negligent in its failure to protect children from known sexual offenders within the congregation. The Society has settled other child abuse cases through confidential settlements-paying as much as $780,000 to the plaintiffs-while not admitting wrongdoing". Reduces it from 81 to 53 words and loses (I think) none of what you were going for.

Just some thoughts. Otherwise I like it. Vyselink (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The length was bothering me. I was probably overstating it a bit in anticipation of objections of what was not being said. BlackCab (TALK) 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove "conspire to". It implies an intent that can't easily be verified. Its removal does not impact the basic meaning of the statement, and it will almost certainly be challenged by other editors.

Change found that policy was closely followed: to heard that. Whilst the policy is to report when required by law to do so, in practice (in Australia at least), it has not been followed correctly. The Society's lawyer Vincent O'Toole did not understand that mandatory reporting of allegations is not the same thing as the broader obligation to report knowledge of crimes. Of the 1006 cases, it is not clear how many represented situations where elders were convinced that a crime had been committed, but it is highly unlikely that none did.

Change loath to reluctant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

one victim reportedly got paid 7,80,000 USD. "ranks" is contradictory to the fact that most the victims are layman, abused by their family or friends not by ranks. Use members instead, which would cover all. Further second witness can be a second allegation by another victim, or a circumstantial evidence. I found that in royal commission website appendix, couldn't pull the source immediately. Further the second para is entirely one sided, according an official spokesperson victims are free to call police before calling elders. That should be added to keep it neutral. Roller958 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted "ranks" and added "reportedly". I see no problem with the second paragraph: it accurately describes the policy then explains the criticism. It clearly shows that victims have the option of calling authorities. It needs no further elaboration. BlackCab (TALK) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most of the abusers are said to be ordained ministers of the religion, and are not considered laymen by the organisation. The statement that victims "can call police" could be stated, but would need to be balanced by the cultural element of JWs to be mistrustful of 'worldly' authorities, which was raised during the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored your removal of my addition "church discipline" without providing any reason. Wikipedia guidelines is that state all facts clearly before criticism. "Two Witness" rule does not prevent/sanction members from approaching secular authorities without a second witness, it is purely for church discipline. Period. Roller958 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your addition about church discipline is redundant. Since the 'two-witness rule' is the organisation's policy, it obviously only relates to church discipline, and has nothing to do with individual members reporting to authorities. The next sentence makes it clear that in the absence of a second witness, elders take no further action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on checking the source, it does say that unsubstantiated cases are still reported to the branch office (even though it's a breach of clergy-penitent privilege)—and theoretically, but apparently not in practice, to secular authorities where required by law—even without two witnesses. But your reasoning that ""Two Witness" rule does not prevent/sanction members from approaching secular authorities without a second witness" has nothing to do with that, and wasn't particularly helpful. Reporting to authorities independently from church discipline is dealt with in the second paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding two words is not redundant, if anything is redundant in the section it is the repetition of same thoughts by Barbara Anderson and Bowen. Organizations policy is a broad statement, some of the organizations policy prevents individuals from taking a brother to court. So that distinction need to made clear. I restored that again. Please read WP:PUSH Roller958 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The two words are not a major issue, and it would have been good if your reasoning for including them were actually relevant, rather than an irrelevant statement about members reporting to authorities.

It's not clear how the criticism made by Anderson and Bowen are redundant. They're addressing entirely separate matters—Anderson's criticism addresses internal inaction due to the 'two-witness rule', whereas Bowen's addresses reporting to authorities.

Yes, WP:PUSH does apply to many of your edits, though you're not always civil.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yours and BlackCabs edits are ripe for a topic ban, good in being civil. But strong pushing of POV, wearing out other editors with repeated reversal of minor edits. Roller958 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of your 'minor edits' are heavily biased in favour of JWs. In this case your minor edit was reverted chiefly because the reason you provided for retaining it had nothing to do with it. Additionally, the Royal Commission has brought out that cases to which there were not two witnesses also were not reported to authorities, so it isn't only about "church discipline".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never been adamant in reverting yours or BlackCab's edits. It doesn't need much pain to dig out the history of both you editors to show a pattern edits, mostly wording sentences to support mind control theory (ie. WTS is forcing JWs to practice their beliefs). This is mostly a content dispute, most articles related to JWs is written with a negative tone, and most contains 30-40% criticism of JW leadership. This should go to arbitration committee. I never removed any of the criticism, but I add obvious omission of facts in criticism mostly having a POV push. For that I have to fight tooth and nail to add one or two words which are sourced and accurate to keep NPOV. Everybody have their own bias, but yours and BlackCab's problem as one IP brought out recently,anyone having a contrary material is shot down and so those editors give up eventually. I am the only few surviving Roller958 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The addition of "church discipline" isn't a problem. It doesn't serve the purpose Roller seems to think it's for—Jeffro is correct that that wording has nothing to do with reporting to authorities—but it does explain that the two witness rule is part of JW judicial procedures. A casual reader might not grasp that point. BlackCab (TALK) 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "corroboration" is sufficient at this summary section to explain why judicial action might not proceed. The phrase "no secondary circumstantial or scientific evidence exist" raises more questions than it answers (what is "secondary circumstantial evidence? What degree of scientific evidence is sought? Are DNA tests taken?) A more detailed explanation is provided at the child article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#'Two witness rule', which is the appropriate place. BlackCab (TALK) 05:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller claims that "Most articles related to JWs is written with a negative tone, and most contains 30-40% criticism of JW leadership." Most of the main Jehovah's Witness article in fact details the history, beliefs and practices of the religion, and does so with fairness, accuracy and balance. In cataloging those primary doctrines and practices, this article achieves what the Watch Tower Society itself has never done in its long publishing career, so it provides a commendable public service. The religion is a controversial one, so the article includes coverage of those controversies; when it does so it relies on reliable sources and maintains balance. It would be fascinating to see how it would end up if left in the hands of JW editors with an outlook like his. BlackCab (TALK) 08:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim about '30-40% criticism' is entirely made up. Roller958 is simply recycling the earlier unsubstantiated claim of an IP editor.[7] The Criticism section actually makes up about 15% of the article, and is based on criticisms found in reliable sources. No doubt, Roller958 is blissfully unaware of the more outlandish criticisms I have removed from the article over the years. No doubt, Roller958 will be along shortly to substantiate his claims of widespread negative tone that purportedly afflicts the various JW-related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

BlackCab's removal of my sourced content claiming that its already covered in child article is a classic example of POV pushing. Wiki guidelines state we need to have both positive and negative information if available, and make the facts right before criticism. The present statement that "2 witnesses" are required is a blatant omission of the fact that its not a literal guideline, but just a principle. "Two Witnesses" are not necessarily two human beings, it is about two evidences (one being the allegation from a child). Second can be circumstantial or scientific evidences used in a secular court. BlackCab knows that if that crucial fact is present it would water-down Barbara Anderson's false claim that it would essentially required a "second witness" (second human being) for abuse to be substantiated. You guys try to reduce the factual accuracy of my statement by claiming "redundant", "unimportant", "already mentioned somewhere else" etc. This behavior need to be changed. And editors give up to continue substantiating your POV pushing, because you two are so persistent and outlast competitors by investing more time in Wiki and your point of view. Same with Jeffro77. See recent example. I used the example from past for the pain I have to go through to add one simple fact, that secular sources agree on 537/538 BC. Regarding my statement about % of criticism, I am talking about giving due weight. The section is sociological analysis added by BlackCab and Jeffro77 contains a lot of criticism, while you may interpret it as a "fact", many statements there are not just plain facts. Everyone have their own POV, but the difference between my edits and yours is that you guys push it hard. Some of these characteristics fall under editors described in WP:PUSH Roller958 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Secondary evidence" is fine by me. BlackCab (TALK) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm keen to ensure the spinoff article on JW handling of sex abuse—where we can go into a bit more detail—is accurate. In this edit Roller added the edit comment, "second witness can be circumstantial or scientific evidence." He cites transcripts from the royal commission, day 152 (pgs 67, 72) and day 155 (pg 54). Neither is very clear just what scientific evidence would be acceptable: Jackson is quite noncommittal and unsure of himself and Spinks, although replying to a direct question on "external forensic scientific or direct evidence", responds "Certainly" but doesn't specifically address that point. The Shepherd the Flock book (p.71-72) does allow guilt to be established if there are two or three "witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each is witness to a separate incident," but says "It is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing." I see nothing in that book, or the Watchtower letter dated October 1, 2012, that refers to scientific or other evidence. Is there a written policy on this or are we relying on an offhand, unsubstantiated comment from Spinks? BlackCab (TALK) 22:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller makes a similar, but more explicit claim immediately above, when he says that secondary corroboration of a sole witness can come from "circumstantial or scientific evidences used in a secular court". I need to know where this is stated. And out of interest, which point of view is he suggesting I am pushing by using the phrase "corroboration"[8]? This sounds rather paranoid. BlackCab (TALK) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's emphatic claim that the 'two witness rule' is "not a literal guideline" is a little overstated. It's only more recently that it has been less literal, and the policy previously required two actual witnesses to the same incident before any action would be taken. However, the current policy does indeed have more latitude in its interpretation of what may constitute a 'witness'.

Roller958's further attempt to malign me with his cited 'example' continues to ignore the fact that I removed material because the reason Roller958 provided for retaining it ('reporting to authorities') was not directly related to the content in question. In a more desperate attempt to malign me (but actually further illustrating his own efforts to assert JW beliefs as if they are established facts), he then cites a discussion from nearly four years ago. The claim that I added (or even 'co-added') the Sociological analysis section (originally entitled Religious typification and added in November 2010) is a lie. On the contrary, I actually substantially trimmed the section.[9]. The claim about "30-40% criticism" is also a lie. As already stated earlier, the combined Sociological analysis, Opposition and Criticism sections make up only a quarter of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Opposition" section is not criticism in any case. The JWs treasure their status as "the most persecuted group of Christians of the twentieth century" and that section includes coverage of the benefits for the wider community of their past court cases. Those very courts that favoured them, of course, are part of "Satan's world" their literature continues to vilify, and which they believe are part of a satanic conspiracy against them. All a bit head-scratching, really. BlackCab (TALK) 08:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I granted quite a bit of latitude in counting the Opposition section as 'criticism', simply to demonstrate that even with that section, the three combined sections amount to only a quarter of the article, showing the claim about "30-40% criticism" to be a lie.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found a letter from WTS dating back to 1997 on royal commission website which talks about circumstantial evidence.

If the allegations can now be established by two or three witnesses, by confession, or by sufficient circumstantial evidence, one of the elders, preferably the Presiding Overseer will contact the Society’s Legal Department (or Service in some cases) to see if there are any reporting laws applicable. -- Source

Regarding scientific evidence I can't find any specific letters in royal commission website, however Spinks and GB member's testimony is credible. Spinks directly answered that question. Otherwise I would expect someone to question them for lying under oath, and face sentence in near future. Regarding Jeffro77s claim that he never inserted anything to sociological section and his hands are clean is false. For example looking at edit history I found BlackCab added that section and he added Bryan R Wilson's comment as a reference, and then Jeffro77 moved that negative comment in to the article which later became the second para.

Having said that I am not here to prove which editor is better. This article is written with a lot of negativity against JWs. This is clearly evident by the fact that there is hardly any complementary statements. Further the word Watchtower society appears at least 25 times in total inside organization, beliefs and practices section. This is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS. The guideline is to use WTS only when describing evangelical functions, publications or administrative statements. One example in source of doctrine section, It says The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", instead it should be the church or the governing body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith".

The typical style for most section in the article as of now is

• Neutral statement (sometime setting up a stage for criticism)
• Criticism or occasionally a rebuttal

What is rare is anything positive. What about circulation of WT/Awake magazine, 200 million Bibles printed etc. That should have been mentioned in funding section to state where the money goes. 1 billion dollars revenue and only 70 million spent. Roller958 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is becoming split into several discussions. I'll break out the bias complaint below. BlackCab (TALK) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller958 is continuing to attempt to lie about me. He claims I "moved" Bryan Wilson's comment "into the article". Actually, the diff I already provided[10] clearly shows that I simply re-ordered the existing material sourced to Bryan Wilson, but more clearly attributed the statement to that author (introducing the existing quote with the words "Bryan R. Wilson, in his consideration of five religions including Jehovah's Witnesses" and changing "particulars" to "factors"). Claiming that I "moved" something "into the article" that was already in the article is an entirely dishonest misrepresentation of what was actually just a routine copyedit of existing material. Rather than acknowledge that I substantially trimmed the section and removed a fair amount of material that was negative about JWs, Roller958 instead clutches at straws about me moving a sourced statement to a different paragraph. Roller958 should really stop lying about me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving something provided in the citation, in to a notable paragraph is not just a copy edit. --Roller958 (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes some paragraphs more "notable" than others. If you really think that the edit in question[11] is a demonstration of 'anti-JW bias', please feel free to raise an ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Two witness rule

In the discussion above I have sought verification for Roller's claim that bodies of elders may rely on scientific evidence when determining proof of wrongdoing in cases where a individual has alleged sexual abuse, but the alleged offender has not confessed. He is relying on two sources: (a) a 1997 document "Comment on flow chart" that refers to an allegation being established by "sufficient circumstantial evidence" and (b) a reply by Spinks to two questions by Angus Stewart at the royal commission (day 152 transcript, page 72, lines 20, 26) regarding the use of "scientific evidence".

As the royal commission has highlighted, the WTS issues highly detailed instructions on its processes for dealing with such matters and the actual flow chart is an example of this. It's a rigid framework for action. Yet that flow chart makes no reference to the consideration of scientific evidence, and so far no letter or written instruction has emerged that describes what scientific evidence could be considered or how it would be useful in establishing the wrongdoing.

Spinks' reply can in no way be used as the basis for the claim in an encyclopedia that scientific evidence is considered for that purpose. He answers "Certainly" when asked whether scientific evidence would satisfy the need for a second witness but does not eleborate; in the more detailed follow-up question he is asked about the acceptability of two things: "external forensic scientific ... evidence" and the evidence of a person who observes some corroborative aspect to the incident. Spinks replies, "We go much further than that," but then addresses only the second part of that question, ie an observer who provides some corroborative assistance. He makes (and is not directly asked to) no further mention of scientific or forensic evidence. What was he referring to? Where is the policy instruction? It's a shame Angus Stewart didn't ask him for that, but without any further evidence of such a policy, it would be wrong for an encyclopedia to state as verifiable fact that such a policy exists. Roller's suggestion that Spinks would be liable for prosecution if his one-word agreement was wrong is rather fanciful. My guess is he gave an answer off the top of his head to be helpful, but that answer was incorrect.

The bottom line in considering expanded coverage in the spinoff article is that a description of the "two witness rule" could include reference to acceptance of corroboration from an observer of a related aspect (the term "secondary evidence" is sufficient in the summary section of the JW article), but not to acceptance of scientific or forensic evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are skeptical about everything, and asking extra reference to statements made in court by a policy maker of the organization. And you want to see a policy written down? I personally know evidence from secular sources is acceptable, since I have involved with such a case (not child abuse). Since that would be an OR, according to Wiki guidelines you should include it attributing to Spinks. Just like you included Barbara Anderson's claim here. But don't push POV by entirely removing his statement. Roller958 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinks is not a policy maker, he is the head of the service desk at the Australian branch. And he does not cite any policy on scientific evidence, probably because it does not exist. BlackCab (TALK) 04:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how "skeptical" editors might be. Just provide a source supporting the claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinks is one of the policy makers for Australia. Just like I said before, This is what we call pushing POV. Just provide the source? Its what I added from royal commissions website. Spinks said so. Just like Barbara Anderson said so. Period. --Roller958 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. BlackCab (TALK) 12:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference is fairly clear, Roller: Anderson's comment is presented here as a viewpoint, a valid and pertinent criticism of a policy she describes as badly flawed. She is well established in the mainstream media as a critic of certain aspects of the religion with which she is well acquainted. You want Spinks' very brief, incomplete and rather offhand comment to be used as the source of a claim that a specific policy or process exists, when there is not a skerrick of external evidence to suggest it does. We would need something far more substantial than the word "Certainly". BlackCab (TALK) 21:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement from Anderson that "Policies protect pedophiles" is highly biased and controversial. I added a relevant rebuttal which the organization always uses in pretty much every cases as a major defense against such claims.--Roller958 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this article have a negative bias?

Roller958 has claimed above that this article displays an anti-JW bias. His latest statement is as follows:

“ This article is written with a lot of negativity against JWs. This is clearly evident by the fact that there is hardly any complementary statements. Further the word Watchtower society appears at least 25 times in total inside organization, beliefs and practices section. This is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS. The guideline is to use WTS only when describing evangelical functions, publications or administrative statements. One example in source of doctrine section, It says The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", instead it should be the church or the governing body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith".

The typical style for most section in the article as of now is

• Neutral statement (sometime setting up a stage for criticism)
• Criticism or occasionally a rebuttal

What is rare is anything positive. What about circulation of WT/Awake magazine, 200 million Bibles printed etc. That should have been mentioned in funding section to state where the money goes. 1 billion dollars revenue and only 70 million spent.

”

I would argue that his interpretation of the article's tone is wrong and that it is overall neutral. Repeated reference to the Watch Tower Society is necessary because, as cited sources show, that is the source of JW teachings and practices. It is certainly notable that JWs distribute so many bibles, and that so many books and magazines have been published -- but it is the WTS that has published them. Wikipedia should include this somewhere, but if here, doesn't this compound the problem Roller raises? BlackCab (TALK) 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania & New York (aka WTS) is a non-profit corporation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. WTS also exists in other countries with no connection to those corporations in Pennsylvania & New York. WTS is not church's leadership. Its the common name given to its legal entity used by religions leadership and their associates across the globe to distribute Bible, publish literature and legally defend Jehovah's Witnesses. Simply put members are not looking to a legal corporation called WTS for direction, they look to the Governing Body which give directions using its printed publications through a legal arm called WTS. The Governing Body's power is limited to interpretation of doctrines and policies, without violating religions fundamental teachings. If the Governing Body tomorrow teaches that "Trinity" would be the new interpretation for God then nobody is going to accept it. That was emphasized by a GB member recently, your first loyalty is to Jehovah, then to Governing body, then to branch committee and then to elders in congregation (collectively called earthly organization). Further more its confusing for readers to understand what WTS is, especially if they are directly going to a particular section of this article. They would better understand things if we used words such as "church", "church's leadership", "religion", "religion's leadership" when it comes to controversial doctrines and practices that are directed by its leadership through its legal arm called WTS. (eg. Religions leadership teaches that blood transfusion is a sin against God). For plain facts use Jehovah's Witnesses believe. (for example JWs believe we are living in last days, not WTS teach we are living in last days) Roller958 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Books are published by the WTS, assemblies are organised by the WTS and all letters to congregations and elders come from the WTS. It is a convenient and unambiguous way to describe the source of JW doctrines. The teaching organisation is widely known as "Watchtower" and I remain surprised that you see that description as a negative thing. I also disagree with your conjecture about what would happen if the Governing Body decided God was part of a trinity. As with every other "adjustment" (teachings on dates, "this generation", "superior authorities", blood components, and the identity of faithful and discreet slave to name a few) new doctrines are accepted, indeed must be accepted, without question. What was heresy yesterday becomes "current truth" today. The GB would find a way to explain the trinity and it would be accepted. For proof of that I need only cite the way the sheer lack of logic on the new "overlapping generation" teaching has been willingly ignored by the faithful. BlackCab (TALK) 04:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Which legal corporation are you talking about? The one in New York or the one in Pennsylvania? Or in Australia? One in Britain? If you insist on using that Jargon to equate a legal corporation with JWs leadership, go ahead. Tomorrow they may change the name to "Christian Association of Jehovah's Witnesses", New York & Pennsylvania. Just like I mentioned before, I am not here to entirely remove bias. There were two major ones, one false accusation against Rutherford, second about "second witness". Both the cases you were forced to make changes. I am happy with the result. Remaining it would take an independent editor to do anything. --Roller958 (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are becoming incoherent and I have no idea what changes I was "forced" to make. BlackCab (TALK) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that JWs are expected to follow everything GB says, virtually even if they asked all to jump off a cliff. Apart from that we don't need to discuss over and over again an established consensus, just follow what the guidelines say. Roller958 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Watchtower, 15 November 2011, page 20: "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are taking this quote out of context. As long as no conflict is involved with Bible principles such as to not commit murder, fornication etc, we ought to follow instructions, which may not be sound from a human standpoint. That's how its understood by members. -- Roller958 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Governing Body maintains the doctrine established by a previous president that blood transfusions, a lifesaving and routine medical procedure, are forbidden because of a certain interpretation of several biblical verses. Among all religions the JWs are unique in holding that belief. To my knowledge, no other theologian agrees with their interpretation of those scriptures and arrives at such a doctrinal view. Thus the Governing Body's interpretation has resulted, (as they themselves have often acknowledged) in the deaths of many members including unbaptised children. Yet JWs are required to accept that doctrine; to act contrary to it would result in their automatic "disassociation" and shunning. There is not a huge gulf between that situation and your hypothetical suggestion of the GB directing members to jump off cliffs. Obedience is obligatory.

Irrespective, replacing every doctrinal reference to the Watch Tower Society with "Governing Body" would not address your (erroneous) view that readers would draw the conclusion that JWs are ignorant people controlled by an elite group. The article fairly and accurately explains what JWs are taught. BlackCab (TALK) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Bible clearly asks to abstain from Blood, nothing to do with being obedient to GB. Scriptural interpretation on Blood transfusion were established when JWs where at least 1/10th of their current strength. So there is no point in correlating with theologians, members who joined know theologians have different view.

Using Governing Body as mentioned in the guidelines not only that it makes statements accurate, it improves the quality of the article and its readability. Roller958 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since, as a JW you will argue in favour of the Governing Body's current doctrinal position whatever they say, further doctrinal discussion is clearly pointless. Substituting "Watch Tower Society" with "Governing Body" would improve neither accuracy, quality or readability. BlackCab (TALK) 02:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, using "Watch Tower Society" is inaccurate and ambiguous. A corporation in New York or in Australia does not constitute a religions leadership. Though using "Governing body" can greatly improve the readability when compared to "Watch Tower Society" (since governing body is a meaningful term), "Governing Body" is not the only word we can substitute to improve readability. We can also substitute it with "religion","religions leadership", "denomination" based on the context. We just follow what the guidelines say. Roller958 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have identified several places where "Watch Tower Society" is better replaced with alternative wording. I'll have another look soon if there are more, though many of the descriptions of beliefs and practices refer to what is stated in WTS publications, which remains accurate. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the guideline suggests using "Governing Body" "when referring to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses or those that set policy or doctrine". Most remaining references to the WTS article (in a doctrinal sense) refer to what is written in WTS literature, which is the main teaching aid. I see no problem there. The "Criticism" section contains some references to the WTS that are arguably wrong, including the statement that "critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making, the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience." That disparagement in fact comes from the Governing Body through WTS publications, but the WTS per se does not make those statements. Similarly, the statement that "the Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet" may be incorrect; a check would need to be made of the cited magazine so see how they refer to themselves. On the whole there are relatively few instances where the phrase appears in a context that is arguably wrong. BlackCab (TALK) 07:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that Wiki is not an academic Book, readability is important. Even members don't use WTS anymore. They use "faithful and discreet slave" (aka Governing Body), "Branch Committee", "Branch" etc. News-media often use "religion","Governing Body" etc. What is your specific objection with simply saying "Jehovah's Witness publications" or "religions publication"? When describing official position, its not even necessary to say "Watchtower society Publications say", rather it is as simple as "Governing Body say" or "religion say". Further if we use "Watchtower Society Publications" that raises the next question, which Watchtower society? Publication of Watchtower Society of Australia may be different from that in New-York (Take for example The Kingdom Ministry). This is also true for policy matters, policies are adapted by country. Using "Governing Body" or "religion" is the single coherent wording that avoids ambiguity when referring to official position. Roller958 (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite a nitpicking argument. Since the doctrines of each tentacle of the Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania are identical, it's not an issue. The phrase is widely used in academic articles and clearly understood. BlackCab (TALK) 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly understood only by academicians, ex-JWs and JWs. Ask a reader what is "Watchtower Society"? He may say its a "secret society", or "society in Watchtower." Tell me what is your specific objection in using "Jehovah's Witness publications" or "religions publication" when referring to doctrines. If your objection is about "what Watchtower Society" say as opposed to "what witnesses say", we always have the choice of using what "Governing Body say"--Roller958 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the examples I raised above, I prefer the existing wording. Your objections and suggested alternatives so far seem to have no support. BlackCab (TALK) 20:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Roller958 is suggesting that "a reader" doesn't know what the "Watchtower Society" is. The article quite clearly provides the history and purpose of the Watch Tower Society and its relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it does this before any doctrinal statements are attributed to the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a problem. We can find 3rd party for comments. I put below a table to consolidate my suggestion. Watch Tower society is only required when historical discussions, administration, construction, printing facilities (with the exception of attributing doctrines), legal cases (that are not related collective representation of JWs doctrinal interests). When using Watchtower Society I propose to specify the location as well. (Watchtower Society of New York, Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Bible Student Association of Britain etc).--Roller958 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower society vs Jehovah's Witnesses vs Leadership

	Current wording	User:Roller958 proposal
1	At the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Watch Tower Society, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.	In 2012, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.
2	Watch Tower Society publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"	The religion's publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"
3	The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through publications published by the Watch Tower Society.	The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through its publications.
4	Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible	Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through its publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible
5	Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature	Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of religion's publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature
6	Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature	Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught through its literature
7	Watch Tower Society publications teach that humanity is in a sinful state	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that humanity is in a sinful state
8	Watch Tower Society publications teach that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven
9	Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914	Religion's publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914
10	The meetings are largely devoted to study of Watch Tower Society literature and the Bible	The meetings are largely devoted to study of religion's literature and the Bible
11	Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as wicked and are also shunned	Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in religion's literature as wicked and are also shunned
12	Watch Tower Society publications define the "world" as "the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants"	Jehovah's Witness publications define the "world" as "the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants"
13	Watch Tower Society literature directs Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"	The religion requires Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"
14	The Watch Tower Society provides pre-formatted durable power of attorney documents prohibiting major blood components,	The religion provides pre-formatted durable power of attorney documents prohibiting major blood components,
15	Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the Watch Tower Society provides information about current non-blood medical procedures	Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the religion provides information about current non-blood medical procedures
16	Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest	Jehovah's Witness literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest
17	Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization"	The religion strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the it is to be trusted as "God's organization"
18	Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity, and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination	Jehovah's Witness publications state that consensus of faith aids unity, and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination
19	Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and formerly, the International Bible Students) to declare his will	Jehovah's Witness publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and formerly, the International Bible Students) to declare his will
20	Some failed predictions that the Watch Tower Society had claimed were presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God"	Some failed predictions that the leadership had claimed were presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God"
21	The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet	The Governing Body rejects accusations that it is a false prophet
22	In cases where corroboration is lacking, the Watch Tower Society's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands"	In cases where corroboration is lacking, the religion's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands"
23	Watch Tower Society policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family	Jehovah's Witnesses policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family
24	In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation[372][373] and the Society has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing	In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the religion has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation[372][373] and it has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing

Comment: It would be really nice if the table above had some sort of clear indicator who created it. Secondly, I object with varying degrees of vehemences to many if not most of the changes proposed. Using the phrase "the religion" seems to me to be an attempt to avoid the issue of who issued the statement, and seems to me to rather clearly violate our policy of saying where our material comes from. If the publications of a specific group made a statement, then we should indicate that. If that specific publication is also circulated by others, well and good, but indicating who the original publisher is would still make sense because it properly attributes the sourcing to the source. Further, without having a clear identification of what "the religion" is, specifically whether it includes any splinter groups(?), the statements are to my eyes a rather clear impediment to clarity and ease of understanding, and that is really rather counterproductive. The other changes proposed seem to my eyes to pretty much suffer the same difficulty, in that they seem to be avoiding really clearly identifying the source making the statement. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the table. I don't object in stating the source such as adding "leadership", some printing factory have to publish the material right? (whether it is Watchtower Society or IBSA of London). However I object equating a legal corporation called Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania as the source of Witness doctrines. While the source is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a clear distinction. Roller958 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a widespread acceptance among publications about the JWs that the umbrella terms "Watchtower" and "Watch Tower Society" are acceptable descriptions of the source of doctrines and activities. As I have previously explained, all literature is published by the WTS and all correspondence on JW activities comes from the WTS. It is inextricably linked with the religion and is at its heart. Within Roller's table though, there are several suggested changes to which I'd have no objection. BlackCab (TALK) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The claimed example of distinction between "Watchtower Society" and "IBSA of London" is not only immaterial, but also misleading. The copyright owner of JW literature is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, regardless of which subsidiary does the printing for any particular country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So if Catholic Church prints its doctrine using a factory owned by its corporation called "Watchtower Printing Corporation", does that mean doctrines are of "Watchtower printing Corporation"? That's just doesn't make sense. The mere fact that religions use different legal corporations does not mean its teachings are originating from a corporation, its originating from those who control the corporation. Roller958 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A comment: I disagree to Roller958 when it comes to legal claims, as it is legal entities at both sides in a trial. You can only sue a legal entity. If it is WTBS who are sued, then the legal entity is sued, and the legal entity have to pay damages. It is possible not incorrect to state "Watch Tower Society literature" rather than "Jehovah's Witness publications", as there are not neccessary a conflict of both "Watch Tower Society literature" and Jehovah's Witness believings. The publications are, on the other hand, only a part of Jehovah's Witnesses' way to distribute new teachings. Other ways includes speaches at conventions, where new teachings are presented, without being published by any WTBS-publications at the time presented. Later on, the teaching is further explained in a publication, typical the study-edition of The Watchtower. The publications may teach the JW doctrines, but it is not given it is the origin for the teaching, even not when it is being presented for "common" members, as most members attend to the conventions. Since the article is about JW, and not about WTBS in particular, I can't see why claims like "The Society teaches" should trump what Jehovah's Witnesses believes. When authors not afflicted to the religion, is using "The Society" or simmilar, is it sometimes explained initially, and used with reservations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have the same view as you noted. I don't understand why BlackCab and Jeffro77 have a penchant to use "Watchtower Society". This treatment in Wiki to equate JWs doctrinal source with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania (just because it owns copyright) is unfortunately specific to JWs articles. John Carters opinion that we should always attribute the source is valid if there is dissenting opinion on doctrines. In such cases we can say "Governing Body" or "leadership". I agree that legal claims specifically involved with Watchtower Society of New York, Inc should be attributed as such. However my objection was against cases with collective representation of JWs beliefs. For example cases related to flag salute, military service etc. Roller958 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is as simple as it in almost all countries needs a legal entity both for legally publishing (off topic, but the Norwegian edition of Watchtower have for a long time listed a Norwegian editor, for legal reasons), and for being in position of owing copyrights. JW literature is rendering JW teachings (but may have multiple uses). Wheather it is the origin for "publishing" (like in making public available) new teachings, it is may not always correct, as of the example in my comment above. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The claim that I "have a penchant to use "Watchtower Society"" is not well founded. (Actually, the Pennsylvania corporation that oversees the denomination's worldwide operations is the "Watch Tower" Society.) If there is some specific instance of me changing some other wording in the article to Watch Tower Society to which Roller958 alludes, Roller958 should provide diffs. There are good reasons why the term Watch Tower Society is preferable in certain cases. 1) Use of the term Jehovah's Witnesses for both the organisation and its members can be ambiguous. 2) Production, distribution, and consideration of Watch Tower Society literature is a primary function of the denomination. It is very clearly explained in the History section that the Watch Tower Society is inextricably linked with Jehovah's Witnesses, and has been since the separation of both from the Bible Student movement, and it would actually be quite odd to stop using the term in the article after that section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. However in this whole above discussion you never mentioned that. Two or three comments you had were supportive of including Watchtower Society. So I misread. However, note that the corporation in Pennsylvania do not oversee world wide operation. It owns copyright for most of JWs publications. The one in New York controls most real estate assets, administratively it is the one which have legal oversight. Still in many countries JWs have independent corporations, where US corporations have no authority of. Roller958 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It hadn't seemed necessary initially to mention the self-evident content of the History section.

Your statement about which corporation oversees worldwide operations is incorrect. Our Kingdom Ministry (December 1984) confirms that it is indeed "the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which supervises the worldwide activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses". Your confusion may arise from the fact that it and the New York corporation are both headquartered in New York State, but the one responsible for worldwide operations is incorporated in Pennsylvania. Additionally, the Watchtower Society of New York is responsible for JW real estate in the US, not worldwide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It should not be inferred that I think that every instance of "Watch Tower Society" 'must' remain as they are in the article. It might be suitable to change some, and each would be considered on its merits. However, it is not necessary, as seems to be the intent of the table above, to avoid the term wherever possible (which seems more like 'whitewashing'). Some of the suggested alternatives are worded extremely poorly (e.g. "The meetings are largely devoted to study of religion's literature and the Bible") and others are misleading (e.g. "The Governing Body rejects accusations that it is a false prophet", though the cited source makes no reference to the Governing Body, instead citing statements from previous editions of The Watchtower).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say to whitewash. I said to remove WTS when talking about doctrines. I have agreed to include WTS in history section, legal and administrative statements.Roller958 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, there are some instances where the wording could be changed to the article's benefit. In the table, I'd support Rollers's suggestions for items 2, 13, 18 and 20 (but deleting "claimed were" in that sentence). Most of the others should remain as is. BlackCab (TALK) 09:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts on the points in the table. (In some cases, if a change were made, the suggested grammar would need to be improved.)

1, 10, 24 - not supported - removal of specific relevant information without sufficient reason.

3, 4, 6, 21 - not supported - it is misleading to refer to Watch Tower Society literature (or unattributed statements therein) as the literature (or statements) of the Governing Body or the leadership, as the authors are anonymous and GB does not write all of the material.

2, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23 - possibly change some - some instances could be changed for variety, but no strong reason to avoid referring to Watch Tower Society 'just for the sake of it'. (But strictly speaking, JW is a denomination of Christianity, not a religion)

7, 8 - possible change - concepts that are fundamental core doctrines and not of a controversial nature can be called 'JW beliefs'.

17 - change recommended - second part of sentence does not accurately reflect current view of Watch Tower Society (suggested wording also needs improvement) - perhaps Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning the direction of the "faithful slave", reasoning that it is to be trusted as part of "God's organization"

20 - delete identifier - prior context makes it sufficient to state that Some failed predictions had been presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to see some suggestions. Apart from points 1, 24, I still stand on my suggestions. Witnesses study literature of both Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc and Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc. That's correct. But, why does it matter to which corporation the copyright belong too? Its all written by church leadership. Its like attributing thoughts to the publisher of a book, than its writer. On the other hand, everyone know when someone say religion's publication, not all members are involved in writing it. Its going to be written by select few approved by religion's leadership. Its true in the case of any religion. If someone says Catholic Church's literature, I know its not written with the approval of every member of catholic church. Its written by church's leadership or with their approval. I even gave a compromise when I said we can use "Governing Body" or "leadership", as an excuse to some editors contention that Witnesses are controlled by its leadership. But the problem here is your insistence that we should use the corporation name (which owns the copyright), used purely for legal/administrative purpose.Roller958 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It is self-contradictory to suggest that it doesn't matter which corporation owns the copyright, and then to assert that it is otherwise ambiguous which subsidiary produces literature for any particular jurisdiction. And as stated before, there is no such thing as "Watchtower [Bible and Tract] Society of Pennsylvania"; the Pennsylvania corporation is the Watch Tower [Bible and Tract] Society, and all the other corporations are subsidiary.

The comparison with the Catholic Church is flawed, because its members do not identify themselves by saying "I am a Catholic Church".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even with points 1, 24 I recommend to use the full name of respective corporations involved. (WTS of Pennsylvania, WTS of UK). Or simply use religion. Roller958 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide me the source which says its a subsidiary. What is this Watchtower Society mentioned in this article then? There are multiple corporations around the world with the phrase Watchtower Society or similar. Rename all instances of Watchtower society in this article as Watchtower [Bible and Tract] Society of Pennsylvania. (pun intended). You are simply being desperate to keep that wording. "Jehovah's Witnesses publications say" is accurate and clear.Roller958 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Replacing religion's publication with denomination's publication is even a better wording as you suggested.Roller958 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There are publications not copyrighted by Watchtower Society. For example, Our Kingdom Ministry is a Jehovah's Witness publication not from "Watchtower Society" not from "Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania". It is from another corporation called "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.", which is not related legally to Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania.Roller958 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is, as you probably know, a subsidiary of the Watch Tower Society. The terms "Watchtower" and "Watchtower Society" have been used for decades by writers, and are commonly understood, to mean the central, controlling headquarters of the JWs. This encyclopedia follows that practice. BlackCab (TALK) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc is an independent legal corporation. It has nothing to do with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. Kingdom Ministry is published by that corporation, Kingdom Ministry is studied each week in church meeting and it is attributed wrongly to Watchtower Society in this article. All these corporations are answerable to Governing Body ultimately. You won't find any other encyclopedia which use the word "Watchtower Society" when talking about Witness teachings. You will find Watchtower Soceity in books discussing History of Jehovah's Witnesses and those giving in-depth examination (with reservations). As I said, some editors have a taste to keep Watchtower Society to support the accusation that Witnesses are nothing but a bunch of ignorant people who are blindly following a corporation. That's far away from the truth. Members don't even care of existence of corporations. Many don't even know what those corporations are, and what their names are. They care only about what the religion teaches. They care about what the Governing Body (leadership say). It does'nt matter if they publish using Watchtower Soceity or International Bible Students Association or Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. We already have a consensus on this in the guidelines. That guideline is apparently not followed here. Editors are trying to find loop holes in the substance of that guideline, by insisting on "Watchtower Society publications" (instead of Jehovah's Witness publications) --Roller958 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Roller958 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In most cases, the WikiProject guideline has been followed correctly. Apart from the one instance that I specifically recommended to change (item 17 in the table), none of the entries in the table use Watch Tower Society in reference to the leadership or those who set doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline was to use Watchtower Society or other corporation names when discussing purely Administrative, legal, teaching schools or publishing facilities. But editors here found a loop hole by using "Watchtower Society publication" when describing doctrines, where it is actually a "Jehovah's Witness publication". Most publication published by Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania have a disclaimer at the beginning similar to "Used or distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses" --Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be just making up what you think the 'spirit' of the guideline is. Actually, the purpose of the guideline has always been simply to avoid referring to the Watch Tower Society "when referring to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses or those that set policy or doctrine" (i.e. the Governing Body). The only instance with that implication (17) is the one I said should be changed. The relationship between Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society and their history is quite clearly explained in the article. The claim that editors 'found a loophole' is ridiculous, since if there were anything so 'insidious' going on, it would have been simpler to just change the guideline, which has been in place for about 10 years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller says "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc is an independent legal corporation. It has nothing to do with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc." Wrong. According to Wikipedia its establishment was announced in a letter by the Watch Tower Society and is a tool of the US branch committee of the JWs, which communicates with elders, congregations and individuals as the Watch Tower Society. Roller continues to nitpick over specific corporate names but ignores that the JWs operate under the umbrella of the Watch Tower Society as an administrative organisation. His claim that members "don't care" about the existence of the corporation is immaterial and his conjecture that editors prefer "Watchtower Society" in order to "support the accusation that Witnesses are nothing but a bunch of ignorant people who are blindly following a corporation" is false, without foundation and his own invention. BlackCab (TALK) 05:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You claim is false. The corporation was established by Jehovah's Witnesses under the guidance of Governing Body. Not by Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc nor by Watchtower Society of New York, Inc. It is under the direct supervision of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are misleading by trying to connect Jehovah's Witnesses Corporations as the source of doctrine, while it is clear that Bible and Jehovah's Witness leadership interpretation of the Bible is the source. Interpretations are published or orally spread. You as an ex-member have contributed in this and other article on alleged mind-control techniques used by Governing body Watchtower Society. So don't argue that your strong stand on this issue have nothing to do with POV, especially when my wording is accurate and does not change the meaning. Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania is not the sole owner of copyrights, other corporations own copyrights and publish materials provided by Governing Body or Branch Committees.--Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the parent corporation of the other subsidiary corporations. And there is still no such thing as the "Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania". Also, your claim that the corporations are under the "direct control of the Governing Body" is inconsistent with the Watch Tower Society's own position that the corporation's directors are not members of the Governing Body. It is very odd indeed that you are saying the corporations are under the direct supervision of the Governing Body, and then immediately claiming that others are "trying to connect Jehovah's Witnesses Corporations as the source of doctrine". Have you lost track of which position you're supposed to be defending? Maybe you need a break.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is not the parent corporation of Watch Tower Society of New York or Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. These three are independent corporations used in United States under the oversight of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Show me a proof otherwise.--Roller958 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who is good in going off-topic and then using minor points in my argument to talk about something else. I am defending the position of using "Jehovah's Witness publication say". --Roller958 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It may simply be his mistaken view that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is not the corporation that oversees activities of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. That error is shown to be false by the quote I provided from Our Kingdom Ministry above, which explicitly identifies it as the corporation that oversees their activities worldwide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1970 Yearbook, page 65-66: "All of these corporations have been organized by Jehovah’s witnesses, people dedicated to doing the will of Jehovah God. They all look to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania as the mother organization that supervises the printing and publication of all the literature that has proved so beneficial to Jehovah’s witnesses in their study of the Bible, and in their proclamation of the good news of God’s kingdom." (formatting added)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your quote is outdated. Since 1976 overhaul, Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have doctrinal oversight on matters. Before that Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Incs, President used to be the final authority on doctrines. I simply said legally corporations around the world are independent. They have the choice to reject or accept administrative directions from corporation in Pennsylvania. Your quote exactly tells the purpose of non-profit corporations. They are for administrative purposes. Non-profit corporations are required for the denomination to run. It is needed for copyright. It is needed to organize conventions, build facilities and so on. I am not contenting that fact. Today the mother for all doctrines is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. It doesn't matter if the mother of all publishing and printing facilities is Pennysylvania corporation or not. (which is not true, other independent corporations hold copyright for Kingdom Ministry) Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

See official statement on the purpose and nature of Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your response is predictable but wrong. The distinction between the GB and the Watch Tower Society has no bearing at all on the corporate structure of the corporations that are subsidiaries of the parent corporation. Absolutely nothing at all to do with 'source of doctrine'. And the quote from the 1984 Our Kingdom Ministry that says the Watch Tower Society "supervises the worldwide activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses" was published after the 1976 change to which you refer, and the other corporations are not independent, they are subsidiary. Please try to get your facts straight. --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mother organization" to denote the corporation that is primarily used in 1970 to publish literature is different from being a legal "parent corporation". They are not legal subsidiary. Show me the proof.--Roller958 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Concerning the Pennsylvania corporation, Brother Barr added: “Ever since its incorporation in 1884, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has played an important role in our modern-day history. Still, it is merely a legal instrument available for use by ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ when it is necessary.” - WT,January 15, 2001

"Because of the diversity and scope of our work, the Governing Body has approved the formation of additional corporations to care for certain needs of Jehovah’s Witnesses here in the United States. The new corporations are as follows: Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. These will operate along with Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. " - km 1/02 p. 7 -- Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even your own quote acknowledges that the other corporations you refer to function in the United States, whereas the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania oversees the corporations worldwide. There has not been any statement from either the Governing Body or any affiliated corporation that has indicated any change to the corporate structure—that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the corporation that oversees the activities of the subsidiary corporations. This, again, has nothing at all to do with claims about who sets doctrine.

And stop saying "Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania". There is no such corporation. Since you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the Pennsylvania corporation and its worldwide functions, maybe you should read the article a few times before attempting to comment further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to divert attention of this discussion by picking silly mistakes in my wordings. Stop mixing legal corporations with source of doctrines. Roller958 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And you keep telling Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the parent corporation. Stop making false claims. Get YOUR facts straight. You can check with US corporation database. There is no such single corporation that is the parent of all other corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. The three corporations in USA we just discussed are all independent of each other. They work side by side. They serve different purposes. Some corporations own buildings, some owns assembly halls, others own copyrights. Corporations are often separated to reduce legal accountability. They all are supervised by Governing Body and branch committee of USA. In other countries respective corporations are supervised by respective branch committees. If corporations in other countries need changes then the Governing Body have to talk with branch committees. Its not like Pennsylvania corporation commands and all other corporations follow (there is no legal binding). The question here is, why are we pushing POV to keep corporation names when attributing doctrines ? It is clear that using Jehovah's Witness publication say or Jehovah's Witnesses say or Governing Body say is accurate and clear. I summarize my reasons below.

1) There are multiple corporations with the words "Watchtower Society" around the world (Its ambiguous)

2) A corporation is not the source of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It's the Bible and interpretation of governing body.

3) Jehovah's Witnesses use other independent corporations without the words "Watch Tower" or similar to copyright its publications. (example Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses)

4) Using "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Governing Body say", therefore is accurate when describing official teachings -- Roller958 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you insist on lying? I have not claimed or implied that the Watch Tower Society is responsible for doctrine. I explicitly stated that the corporate structure is not related to doctrine. I have already provided Watch Tower Society sources that explicitly state that the Pennsylvania corporation oversees the operations of the other corporations worldwide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself. You are doing mild personal attacks using words such as "ridiculous", "lying", "I need to take a break". Focus on the content. Lying is different from having a wrong opinion based on wrong assumptions. If you can specifically point what I am wrong that would be useful. I am willing to apologize. Having said that you claimed that they were "subsidiaries", which you failed to provide source. I hope you used it with a legal connotation. If you are saying its an informal subsidiary, I again disagree. Corporations are independent. They are run by group of Jehovah's Witnesses upon invitation by existing members (30-300 individuals). Legally Governing Body have no authority over these corporations. Governing Body hope that the corporation members will agree with their direction. The reason is because one of the qualification for being a member of the corporation is being an "elder". If an elder don't follow guidance from Governing Body he will be scripturally disqualified and replaced. Therefore all corporations are getting directions from branch committee and Governing Body. Roller958 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep claiming that there is some intent by other editors for the article to suggest that the Watch Tower Society is responsible for setting doctrine. That claim is a lie. You making claims about the intention of other editors is not appropriate, especially if it is based only on your "wrong opinion based on wrong assumptions".

The Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson explicitly stated under oath to the Australian Royal Commission that the Governing Body does not write the publications of the Watch Tower Society, so it would be incorrect to attribute statements in Watch Tower Society publications to the Governing Body.

At no point did I claim that the Governing Body currently exercises formal control over the various corporations (your own straw man argument), although that is certainly the case informally. That said, it is the case that prior to changes in the 1970s, there was no formal Governing Body, and it was the president of the Pennsylvania corporation who had overall control of the corporations and the establishing of doctrine.

Whether or not there is a formal arrangement between the corporations indicating the Pennsylvania corporation as the parent, I have already provided a Watch Tower Society source that explicitly states that the Pennsylvania corporation oversees JW activities worldwide. You have not provided any source to indicate that the subservient corporations are either formally or informally independent or equal to the Pennsylvania corporation..--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (Secular Sources' use of Watch Tower)

I have stated above that the phrase "Watch Tower" is widely used as a description of the JW organisation and leadership. Here is proof of that from a range of major reference books and academic papers.

*James Beckford (The Trumpet of Prophecy, 1975): Beckford makes frequent and consistent usage of the term “the Watch Tower movement”. He writes: “The Circuit Servant is undoubtedly identified with ‘the Society’ rather than with particular groups of Witnesses (p.75). "The four District Servants of Britain who each have responsibility for about two hundred congregations or twelve Circuits are unquestionably seen by Jehovah’s witnesses as representatives of the Watch Tower Society because they have very little personal contact with the everyday life of Publishers.” (p.76) “It is believed to be impossible for a Jehovah’s witness to develop religious excellence in independence from the Watch Tower Society, and the more an individual aspires to such a condition, the closer should be his attachment to ‘God’s visible organization … once a Jehovah’s witness accepts the Watch Tower Society’s own definition of excellence, he or she can no longer aspire ...” (p.78) “The formal methods anc channels of promotion in the Watch Tower movement are well-known to most Jehovah’s witnesses ..” (p.78)

*Andrew Holden (Jehovah's Witnesses, Portrait ..., 2002): Constant usage of “the Watch Tower movement”, the “Watch Tower community” and refers to “Watch Tower theologians” (p.40) “I want to explain how I became interested in the Watch Tower community … I had to find out what kind of people converted to the Watch Tower organisation and why they did it.” (p.3) "The Watch Tower Society has been largely neglected by academic writers. Other than a small amount of literature that addresses Watch Tower conversion and recruitment …” (p.33) “Joining the Watch Tower community enables individuals to eschew those secular institutions …” (p. 39) “Only an organisation as highly insulated as the Watch Tower Society would be able to enforce fundamentalist doctrines and a puritanical code of cinduct with such a high degree of conformity.” (p.41)

*Linda Edwards (A Brief Guide to Beliefs, 2001): Consistent reference to "Jehovah's Witnesses" -- "Jehovah’s Witnesses teach" etc.

*Joseph Zygmunt (Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity, 1970): Refers to "the Witness movement", "the Witness sect".

*Richard Singelenberg (It Sorted the Wheat from the Chaff, 1989): “The Society’s literature" … "according to the Watchtower Society’s doctrine" … "the Society advanced the theory" … "Obviously the Society considers this a policy worth following" … "the Watchtower Society keeps extremely detailed records of the missionary efforts of its adherents" … "the majority of the authors commenting on the Society’s prophetic failures agree that …”

*Matthew Schmalz (When Festinger Fails, 1994): "the Watchtower movement", “Watchtower prophecy”, “the Watchtower leadership”, “the reaction of the Watchtower to the failure of its 1975 prophecy”, “when the Watchtower succeeded in denying the specificity of its 1975 prophecy”, “the Watchtower’s ability to enforce such strict discipline”.

*Robert Crompton (Counting the Days to Armageddon, 1996): Refers repeatedly to "Watch Tower" as the current formulator of doctrine. “One of the difficulties which is encountered when attempting to provide a systematic description of current Watch Tower millennialism arises from the fact that the Society’s own treatment of the subject proceeds in an ad hoc manner.” (p.115) "Watch Tower interpretation of prophecy” (p.116). “Turning to current Watch Tower doctrine …” (p.129). “The Society’s leaders have therefore been under growing pressure to provide satisfactory answers.” (p.137)

*George Chryssides (Historical Dictionary of Jehovah’s Witnesses (2008): “There are few independent studies of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that is, studies that are not written by the Watch Tower organization itself” … “one’s understanding of Watch Tower doctrine.” … “I am very grateful to have experienced the help of the Watch Tower Organization”.

*Ronald Lawson (Sect State Relations, 1995): A mix of expressions. “Under Rutherford's leadership tension between the Watch Tower and the state was heightened” … “falsely asserting that Watch Tower leaders had been imprisoned in the US in 1918” … “Since few Witnesses have received higher education, and therefore been exposed to challenging concepts and information, the Watchtower has been able to maintain strong discipline, which it has reinforced by demanding that members attend many meetings..” “The Witness response …” “The Witnesses’ attitude towards society …”

*Bryan R Wilson (The Persistence of Sects, 1993): “These two large-scale highly organized sects are the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, whose adherents have, since the 1930s, been known as Jehovah's Witnesses.” … “The Witnesses tend to restrict the education of their young people to the minimum”

*Rodney Stark & Laurence Iannaccone (Why the Jehovah’s Witness grow so rapidly, 1997): “the Watch Tower leadership now seems determined to avoid setting any new dates.” … “Above all, they are to remain faithful to the authority of the Watch Tower Society”

It is clear that those sources, cited on this and other JW articles, embrace the usage of "Watch Tower Society" and its variants to describe the organisation and those who set policy and doctrine. Wikipedia appropriately follows that usage and Roller's allegation that that wording suggests some anti-JW agenda by some editors is shown to be completely baseless. BlackCab (TALK) 05:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I again disagree. There used to be a time when Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennysylvania, Inc was under the tight control of Jehovah's Witness leaders (currently governing body). They were the first officers of that corporation, it was founded by JWs leaders. Historically therefore its role is important. This is the very reason why many secular sources equate doctrines as if originating from Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennysylvania, Inc. However since 2000, members of Governing Body have no officer roles in Society. The corporations current president itself is not known by much people. All corporations are managed by groups of Jehovah's Witnesses in their respective countries where respective corporations are incorporated. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc are products of denominations publishing efforts, not to the spiritual leadership. None of the Governing Body (spiritual leadership) have any direct role in the affairs of the Society. Regardless, corporation members have a spiritual obligation to be submissive to Governing Body decisions. In fact the charter of various corporations available online specifically state that one has to be "an elder" and "invited by existing members" to be a new member of that corporation. "The Society" probably means the same thing to Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere (today they use "branch" or "Governing Body" to refer to spiritual leaders), but their terminology is irrelevant unless your audience is only Jehovah's Witnesses. And given the changes in how JWs corporations work newer sources may decide to break that legacy and use "Jehovah's Witnesses teach" , "Governing Body teach", or "Jehovah's Witnesses leaders teach". Wikipedia shouldn't follow that legacy when describing current teachings. These and other reasons discussed above therefore reinforces my proposal to use "Jehovah's Witnesses say", "Governing Body say" or "Jehovah's Witness publications say" are accurate and unambiguous. I have included sources that use such wordings, just for the sake of editors who may be thinking that secular sources never use my proposal. Quick google scholar search shows numerous sources use (Jehovah's Witnesses believe or Jehovah's Witnesses teach or similar. I do support to use corporation name when discussing non-doctrinal matters or policies specific to the relevant corporation. Roller958 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is not the same being as Jehovah - "The four major cults" by AA Hoekema (1979)

Jehovah's Witnesses teach when Jesus gave up His flesh for the sins of the world, He could never take it on again and be a man - "What Do I Do Now?" by W Green (2007)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. They therefore devote themselves to its study and strive to apply its counsel in all aspects of their lives - "obedience to scripture and religious conscience", Journal of Medical Ethics by DT Ridley (1999)

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all terrestrial animals - including insects - descended from archetypal generic 'kinds' - The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses by Gary & Heather Botting (1984)--Roller958 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You are blatantly cherry-picking. Gary and Heather Botting in fact commonly use "Watchtower" in describing the source of doctrines. "The official position of the Watch Tower Society is that those who reject the Genesis account of creation 'reject Christianity'" (p.33) ... "Jehovah's Witnesses conform to the dictates of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society because ..." (p.33) ... "Any child who turns his back on 'the Truth' by rejecting the teachings of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is regarded as a dead loss..." (p.114) ... "young Witnesses who are taught by authoritarian parents that the Watch Tower Society teaches the truth ..." (p.116).

Hoekema similarly uses the phrase freely: "To use their language, the Witnesses insist that the Watchtower Society is 'the instrument or channel being used by Jehovah to teach his people on earth'." (p.247) ..."Jehovah's Witnesses do not really subject themselves to the authority of God's Word, but simply manipulate the Scriptures so as to force them to agree with Watchtower teachings." (p. 249) ... "At this point the anti-Reformation character of Watchtower teachings becomes very clear" (p. 279). BlackCab (TALK) 21:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If, as Roller suggests, reference to WTS is no longer appropriate, sources acceptable for Wikipedia will eventually reflect that and use some other terminology. Until then we should stick to the lead of existing sources rather than create new terminology based on the opinion of one JW member here. BlackCab (TALK) 22:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not cherry picking. You will find that most encyclopedias use "Jehovah's Witnesses teach". The authors who focus more on "Watchtower Society" are generally who write a critical examination or an in-depth analysis of its history. Neutral books on Jehovah's Witnesses are rare. In your sources except "George Chryssides" most have written critical view on Jehovah's Witnesses. Gary & Heather Botting book is highly critical toward JWs. That's not relevant. Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania's wings has been axed. It's today just a legal instrument. It's governing body who have spiritual oversight, they oversee and proof read all doctrines copyrighted by different corporations. Since 2000 we have different corporations copyrighting material from governing body. Therefore its accurate to say "Governing Body teach", "Jehovah's Witnesses policy" or "Jehovah's Witnesses publications teach"--Roller958 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to laugh when JWs repeat the Watch Tower Society jargon in reference to JW corporations as "legal instruments". A legal instrument is a type of document, not a corporation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And despite labelling this section "secular sources" Roller cites Donald Ridley, a member of the Watch Tower Society to support his argument! [12] Note that it was Roller, not me, who first introduced the Bottings. The suggestion that the works of an author who expresses any "critical" view of this high-control religion should be dismissed speaks volumes about Roller's motives here. BlackCab (TALK) 22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not relevant. High control religion is your claim, many disagree including secular scholars. I didn't even know if he is a Jehovah's Witness or not. I randomly picked from google scholar. You have extensively used ex-JWs sources in this article. Today Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc is just a corporation. Jehovah's Witnesses use other corporations to publish its literature (for example Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc) --Roller958 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just different arms of the same octopus, Roller. BlackCab (TALK) 22:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I opened a thread in NPOV noticeboard--Roller958 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to comment on this matter, but my input will be brief. I agree with Jeffro77 and BlackCab, and wish to add the following quote from Penton to the list above created by Cab

"Next to the Pennsylvania corporation, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Incorporated, is the most important incorporated entity of Jehovah's Witnesses. Although it is subservient to the Pennsylvania corporation and receives its funds from that society, it is the body which is the legal owner of the vast New York properties and directs the printing and publishing activities of Jehovah's Witnesses both in American and abroad. In other lands and more recently in the United States it has sometimes been necessary or advisable to incorporate other organizations under the laws of those countries. Although all such entities are nothing but legal representatives of the American corporations, they do serve some practical purposes." M. James Penton Apocalypse Delayed, Third Edition, University of Toronto Press 2015, page 312.

That, combined with the other quotes and arguments put forth above by Jeffro77 and BlackCab, make the argument in my opinion. Vyselink (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And what does it has to do with doctrines? The mere fact that Watch Tower Society, a non-proft corporation, which owns properties does not mean we use it to describe the source of JWs doctrine. Roller958 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep going on about 'doctrines' that are presented in Watch Tower Society publications. Perhaps you are simply confused about the semantics. For Wikipedia's purposes, Watch Tower Society publications are the source that we cite for the presentation of JW doctrines. Since those publications are authored anonymously we cannot say the source in that context is anything other than the Watch Tower Society. That is not the same thing as suggesting that the Watch Tower Society is 'the source' of 'doctrine' in the sense of establishing doctrines. The article quite clearly states that the Governing Body assumes the responsibility of establishing doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Penton also uses "Watch Tower leaders" in regards to creation and changing of doctrine. For example (same book cited above)

"Watch Tower leaders have even claimed more authority, on a far less rational basis, than the papacy...Of course, Watch Tower leaders have never claimed infallibility as such; yet, curiously, they have claimed consistently to speak ex cathedra on behalf of the entire Witness community. And woe betide the person who questions any doctrine they should teach...Watch Tower leaders have argued that Jehovah's Witnesses must accept (or at least not question openly) even false doctrines as taught by the society in order to gain salvation. (page 237)

And later, when speaking about the changing of doctrines, Penton uses "society", as in the WTBTS, as the source of doctrinal changes "However, as shown in Chapter 5, woe betide the individual Jehovah's Witness who publicly doubts any aspect of the chronological system maintained by Watch Tower publications at any given time. Furthermore, when the society changes a doctrine...Yet in looking at the many times in which the society has changed major doctrines" (247-248)

And earlier in the book, from pages 176-180 in the sub-chapter labeled "Doctrinal Changes" he repeatedly refers to the Watchtower and its publications as being the source through which the GB proclaims its doctrines. "Watchtower publications had proclaimed...Watchtower Society was giving greater emphasis...In the 15 October 1995 issue of The Watchtower, the society decided...The Watchtower stressed...the Watchtower Society had long continued to teach..."

There are plenty more just in that section, let alone the entire work. Vyselink (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if this is good enough for Roller958: 1980 Yearbook, page 257: "The first of these, formed in 1881 and incorporated in 1884, is known today as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. It is the parent of similar religious corporations formed world wide. Among such are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and the International Bible Students Association in a number of British Commonwealth nations."

Branch offices are also specifically considered subsidiaries of the Pennsylvania corporation.

2005 Yearbook, page 11: "Also, on November 28, 2003, the Ministry of Justice of Georgia registered the local branch of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania."

1999 Yearbook, page 213: "By November 15, 1993, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, a legal agency used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, had been reregistered and Jehovah’s Witnesses were once again legally recognized as a religion in Malawi."

1997 Yearbook, page 91: "Ever since 1948, Jehovah’s Witnesses had been seeking official recognition of their Bible education work in Benin, but this had been refused. What a joy it was, therefore, when they saw the name Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania in the official journal of Benin"

1985 Yearbook, page 38: "This is the report from Britain. They were greatly stirred by the 1983 annual meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania held at Leicester."

1982, page39: "in Milan ... In February 1976 the application was renewed and, at long last, accepted. The branch office was notified of the decision in June of that same year—the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania was legally recognized.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I highly question if parent religious corporation does mean they are legally binding. Its simply suggesting that other corporations were created in a similar line, with the similar name with the original corporation in Pennsylvania. They are managed independently and run independently. For example corporation charter of IBSA, of Watch Tower Society UK, of Watch Tower Society of Australia all clearly shows they are managed by Jehovah's Witnesses in respective countries.--Roller958 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your claim is utterly ridiculous. You have been provided an explicit statement from the Watch Tower Society that the named Pennsylvania corporation is the "parent" of all the other corporations worldwide, including the two main subsidiaries that are explicitly named. The direct statement that "the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania ... is the parent of similar religious corporations formed world wide" is not remotely similar to your claim "Its simply suggesting that other corporations were created in a similar line". It is preposterous that you are even still trying to make the claim. The fact that a corporation in any particular country is staffed by people in the respective country is mundane, and is entirely unrelated to the wider corporate structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Of the instances in the table that are suitable to be changed, I have changed about half. (Those labelled in the table above as 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 20.) This includes one instance that may have been misleading, a few that are core JW beliefs; the majority of the changes are simply for variation of prose. I have not changed instances in the Criticism section that relate to criticisms of specific claims made in Watch Tower Society publications. This includes policies relating to child sexual abuse, which Governing Body member Geoffrey Jackson explicitly stated are produced by the corporations (of which the Pennsylvania corporation is the parent), and are not made by the Governing Body.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You've done a good job. BlackCab (TALK) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still at a loss as to how the use of Watch Tower Society is a 'POV issue', or the manner in which it is supposed to be the centre of the 'negative bias' that purportedly plagues the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Roller's main concerns are met after the changes. I am now waiting for "by whom"-tag at a couple of the changed sections. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how any of the recent changes necessitate any 'by whom' tags. No sources were removed. If there is some concern that any of the changes do not properly attribute any cited statements, the source of the statements—the Watch Tower Society—can be restored.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's utterly ridiculous that Jeffro77 keep hanging on the technicalities of Watch Tower Societies. Hope in future we would use "Jehovah's Witness Publications" instead of "Watch Tower Society publications". If editors feel otherwise I can't do anything else. Nothing further.--Roller958 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)--Roller958 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

16,17,18,22,23 I made changes in these numbers which you said could possibly changed --Roller958 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Although JWs are strictly speaking a Christian denomination, they are rarely, if ever, referred to casually as a "denomination". I can find no usage of that term in any published work—most refer to it as a religious group or new religious movement, but neither term is useful in sentences such as "The ??? has been criticized for its "two witness rule" for church discipline ..." and "In cases where corroboration is lacking, the ???'s instruction ..." I have therefore reverted to describing it as a "religion", which the dictionary describes as "a particular system of faith and worship". BlackCab (TALK) 21:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I had already corrected the problematic part of 17. Aside from that, my actual words were "possibly change some", and it's not necessary to change almost all of them. The changes that have been made since are not of major concern, and nor are BlackCab's reversions of some of the more recent edits. Prior to these more recent changes, the RFC respondent stated that the article's use of the term was already consistent with the relevant WikiProject guidelines.

I agree in principle to use religion where sources prefer that term over denomination (even though it is less accurate). However, in the case of criticism of the 'two witness' rule, organization would be a better term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that any proposals to change the terminology to describe the group be first discussed here and consensus achieved. There is no sense in edit warring. I also would like to reaffirm that the article had achieved a good balance of terminology. As far as I understand the situation, where administrative decisions are involved, the Watch Tower Society is the responsible party, while where matters of doctrine are involved, the Governing Body is responsible. Widely-shared beliefs or characteristics may conveniently be referred to as those of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" without specifying the Society or Body. HGilbert (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeffro77 have said in the edit "Watch Tower Society is sued" to justify his revert that "Watch Tower Societies policy". However the local congregation is always sued regardless. Everyone know that when we say Catholic church's policy its originating from their leaders, (In my understanding there is no voting by members on church policy/doctrine in catholic church). The difference among JWs is elders willingly follow official teachings worldwide. I would say its correct to use church/religion/denomination's policy rather than "Watch Tower Society" policy. Some readers may be confused since in some countries they don't have a local "Watch Tower Society" to be accountable legally. There are many disillusioned ex-JWs who drag in "Watch Tower Society" everywhere just because they feel its the corporation that is behind their misery. That's the very reason why we have guidelines in Wiki, which is not necessary for other religions. At-least BlackCab had a better argument that "Watch Tower Society" is often found in dedicated books on subject, however since 2000 the leadership have no position or authority in corporations. Its a legacy and corporations are a legal instrument. Having said that I am not pushing this further.--Roller958 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As previously stated, a legal instrument is a type of document, and the JW jargon use of that term as a reference to corporations is inaccurate.

The statement about "voting by members on church policy/doctrine" is not relevant to anything at all. A Governing Body member explicitly stated that the policies relating to handling of child sexual abuse are produced by the administrative corporations, not the Governing Body.

The claim that BlackCab had a 'better' argument is misleading, as he referred to different instances of the term. I referred to specific policies that relate to court cases where the litigant was the Watch Tower Society. In some instances, local congregations have been sued in addition to suing the Watch Tower Society.

Roller958's invented claim that "disillusioned ex-JWs who drag in "Watch Tower Society" everywhere just because they feel its the corporation that is behind their misery" is an irrelevant straw man argument.

As the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the parent corporation of all corporations used by JWs worldwide, there is actually no confusion where a particular country does not have a branch office.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Invented claims? Its a clear story that critical ex-members of Jehovah's Witnesses are more active online than that of any other religion. There are websites named watchtowerlies, watchtowerfiles, watchtowerdocuments, watchtower exposed and so on. Some of the conspiracy theories are so hilarious. Some say Watch Tower is an Illuminati others say Watch Tower is by free Masons. One guy even said JW spokesperson J R brown is dead and cloned. They often write one sided stories, comments, speculations and rumors. They don't show peace or unity, often contradict and don't even know what they are exposing. They write with a pride as if they have a happy life, but their actions show otherwise. This in turn causes a ripple effect of attack "WatchTower!, WatchTower!, WatchTower!" until the end. That's the very reason why we needed a guideline on that to keep balance. --Roller958 (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

So if I'm reading this right, Roller has been trawling through anti-JW websites and has decided that their use of "Watch Tower" is in itself a pejorative term, so therefore he wants that term removed from this encyclopedia. Yes, there are many websites (of varying quality) created by ex-Jehovah's Witnesses—like those who have exited Scientology and other cults, many individuals feel a sense of anger and betrayal over the level of control, brainwashing and deception to which they were subjected. But regardless of the terminology used at those websites, this encyclopedia article must be based on reliable sources and be accurate, balanced and fair. It is all of those things and the use of "Watch Tower Society" remains accurate and appropriate. As a single purpose account editor, Roller is again venturing into murky waters of attempting to modify this article to show his religion in a more favorable light—in this case to evidently remove what he perceives as a similarity in wording to websites that oppose JWs. All editors need to be vigilant to possible attempts at promotion, advocacy and recruitment. BlackCab (TALK) 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Peace! I said the guideline on use of "Watch Tower" is needed to keep check on neutrality, given a large army of ex-JWs with an accusation of "brainwashing" by "Watch Tower". You yourself just said it! Not everyone buys "brainwashing" claims though. I would say many are brainwashed by reading books of ex-members. Such personal observations are irrelevant. Having said that, check my edit history, since my last warning on SPA I only edited JW articles 19 times with active participation in talk page. I made 43 edits on other articles as well. We had a heated debate here so I have more comments on talk pages. Don't try to block editors just because you think its in conflict with your interest. There is another editor who only edits JW articles focusing on criticism and you had no issue. Roller958 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And you shouldn't promote your POV, specifically because you have a record of writing critical content on JWs articles. I have a record of keeping NPOV through discussion. --Roller958 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An interesting comparison, though I doubt a book written by an ex-JW could possibly match the JWs for mind control. This is a religion that limits information, limits members' associations with non-members, demands attendance at multiple meetings during the week to reinforce doctrines and behavior, uses the threat of expulsion and family shunning to deter dissidence, condemns "independent thinking", critical analysis and higher education, demonises opponents, encourages feelings of guilt and inadequacy, encourages apocalyptic fears, exaggerates the dangers of life outside the "security" of the organisation, highlights a claim of organisational exclusiveness and prophetic fulfillment and uses loaded language and labels to create a dread of contact with those who have already defected. BlackCab (TALK) 22:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If anything its the Bible that causes "mind-control". Not sure what you mean by "limit of information", but all confidential manuals of JWs are online (Including branch manual and elders manual). Never heard of anything mentioned in there that I don't know off. Bible asks limit association with world (since its ruled by Satan being no part of it), shun those who deviate and rebel, it talks about dangers of not feeding from Jehovah's table, it talks about organization (under Moses, under apostles) and the importance of gathering together. It talks about apocalypse and need to fear God and so on. So what you guys essentially need to do is burn all copies of Bibles. If teaching certain interpretation of a religion would make people to be "mind-controlled", I would say all religions are using "mind-control". Pun intended. And some evolutionists are "mind-controlled" since theories are not proven, but they believe in them. Roller958 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing is you were unhappy to be living within the boundaries specified in Bible as interpreted by Witnesses. So you left. To the contrary most Witnesses are happy to be in the boundaries set in the Bible, which they whole heartedly believe and accept. Most Witnesses would say they can't even think about leaving the organization, in fact the organization is their life. It makes them happy. So whatever makes people happy that works. I have nothing else to say. --Roller958 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your simplistic description shows you have no understanding of why I left the JWs, but that's fine. One day, possibly—hopefully—you will look back and re-read your arguments with a deep sense of embarrassment. BlackCab (TALK) 23:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller958, you really need to stop. You claimed that the article went against a WikiProject guideline. Though that claim was false and the guideline had not been breached, I made the effort to compromise by changing many instances of a term that didn't need to be changed. After you raised an RFC—after you had been told that some instances could be changed—the RFC respondent stated that relevant guidelines have been followed correctly, yet you continue to rant about the alleged motives of unrelated 'ex-JW' websites. Seriously, just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Was that just a coincidence that all my Rfcs and most of my new discussion in past ended up with some changes? And that happened this time too. I was pleasantly surprised when you did this change in response to my request to verify source. And I thank you for often doing typo on my edits. Above discussion was something I had with BlackCab not relevant to this discussion. There is scope for improvement, but use of "Watch Tower" is now more in line with the guidelines. --Roller958 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Entirely incorrect. The fact that your suggestions and complaints have result in changes demonstrates that other editors are willing to compromise, and since the purpose of article Talk pages is to discuss article content, it's unremarkable that some of your suggestions have resulted in changes. (Just looking over this talk page history, you've started around 20 discussions in about 5 years, and have only requested a few RFCs, so the unverified suggestion that all of them have 'resulted in changes' isn't especially significant.) You were already told[13] before making your unnecessary RFC request[14] that some instances could be changed. The RFC respondent said the guidelines were already followed (although I identified 1 instance that could be construed as being against the guideline). The changes I made were as a concession, and had already been indicated prior to your frivolous RFC.

The only reason you were "surprised" is because my editing does not actually reflect your false accusations and assumptions of bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes in controversial articles editors often compromise on their POV, that's how we improve articles. I have compromised a lot. And your claim about "frivolous" Rfc is entirely baseless, you made at-least ten changes after I made Rfc which you call as a "compromise", but it was making it more inline with the guidelines. Sometimes unless I raise Rfc its hard to reach compromises on POV. Having said that its not fair to be judged by someone who have written a blog article (which I don't want to put a URL as you have mentioned in my talk) about alleged contradictions of JWs on the date 1914. You may need to reexamine your "I am the unbiased editor" attitude described above. --Roller958 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're still going on about this. Despite your distorted insinuation that the RFC prompted to make the changes, back in reality, I suggested the changes prior to the RFC. I had no control of the timing of your frivolous RFC prior to me actually implementing the changes I had already suggested. There was also nothing stopping you from making the suggested changes I had indicated instead of raising the RFC. The editor responding to the RFC said the guidelines had already been followed correctly.

As a result of my research of JW doctrines over the years, I have found various issues from an objective rational standpoint with their modified Adventist eschatology, and I make no apology for making that information available in appropriate avenues independent to Wikipedia. I am by no means alone in disagreeing with their extremely fringe views about 1914, and this in no way indicates that I have demonstrated bias in Wiki editing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So at least you agreed that you have point of view on different JW beliefs from your research. I raised Rfc few times because this article is controversial and sometimes its hard to reach consensus. Further there are critical editors who are counting my edit history to find a way to sanction me. So I let you do that by making consensus from independent editors. --Roller958 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to imagine that you have a point in suggesting that I have views that are anything other than completely agreeing with JW doctrines. Such agreement is not at all a requirement of editing any article, and the insinuation is a ridiculous assertion that warrants no further comment.

As previously stated, the RFC had no bearing on the changes I had already suggested, and the person who responded indicated that the relevant guidelines had already been followed. Your tangential reference to other RFCs you have raised in the past is not relevant to this discussion (and I have no interest in reviewing your past RFCs at this time). In this instance, your RFC was unnecessary, as consensus to make changes to the article had already been reached (as a concession; the article already complied with the relevant guidelines apart from one instance that could have been misinterpreted).

Your claim that 'critical editors' are trying to 'find a way to sanction you' is both unsubstantiated and irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Progression to A-class status

This article gained good article status in July 2011.[15] The process was often tough, with much discussion, but it lifted the quality of the article significantly and has been useful in defending it from other proposed major changes. The article has continued to evolve since then and I'd be very keen to push it to the next step, A-class assessment. From there, it could potentially move to Featured Article status. The process requires external review, and then responses to suggestions, which is where it may get tricky. Christmas time may not be the best moment to do it -- I'm away from home for a few weeks -- but I am interested in finding if other editors are willing to become involved in this process early in 2016. BlackCab (TALK) 07:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly be involved. Vyselink (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

'Year text'

Someone using various IP accounts (three addresses geolocate to the same location and provider) has repeatedly added a comment about an annual business meeting of the JW's parent corporation as a 'mini-coatrack' for the JW 'year text'. As JW editors have repeatedly pointed out in the past, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania is a corporation that fulfils administrative functions, so its annual meeting is not directly related to worship. Additionally, the JW concept of the 'year text' (JW jargon) is not necessary in the main article. In subsequent edits, the IP editor added a string of primary sources for the statement, however this does nothing to establish notability of the overly specific trivial detail. If the 'year text' is to be considered notable, please provide secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of all Wiki Articles on Jehovah's Witnesses

Dear Wiki:

All the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses found in Wiki are an argument board between Ex Jehovah's Witnesses and Current Jehovah's Witnesses. This takes away from the basic information about Jehovah's Witnesses needed by researches and the public and undermines the integrity of Wiki.

For example this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses is edited by Wiki writer BlackCab who is an ex Jehovah's Witness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ABlackCab It also has many references by James Penton also an ex Jehovah's Witness. Noted Historian Detlef Garbe in his book 'Between Resistance and Martyrdom' said of James Penton "His work has not been taken into consideration... His statements, source selection, and interpretation reflect a deep-seated aversion against this religious association, of which he had once been a member." Thus it's accuracy is called into question."

This seems the case with all Wiki articles on Jehovah's Witnesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany They reflect a deep seated aversion against this religious association of which Blackcab and Penton had once been a member. Similarly, you cannot make any edits in this article without BlackCab changing or stopping them.

All articles on Jehovah's Witnesses should have been written by a writer who has had absolutely no affiliation past or present with Jehovah's witnesses and thus no bias. It calls into question the accuracy of all other information found in Wiki.

Please keep the honesty and accuracy of Wiki intact by having all the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses re-written by someone who has absolutely no affiliation past or present with Jehovah's Witnesses and thus no bias. Please keep the articles simple and concise and give us a basic belief structure and a simplified history and keep all past and present bias out of the mix.

Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce the Builder (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is childish to expect that the only editors who should write about a subject are those who are not familiar with the subject. It is also extremely inappropriate to editoralise articles as you did here. Did you have anything other than ad hominem nonsense to offer? If you believe there are POV issues, you need to discuss content, preferably one issue at a time rather than making pointless blanket claims across a whole range of articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See my response regarding this editor here. BlackCab (TALK) 03:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Bruce the Builder, Wikipedia is a community of mostly unpaid volunteers who devote their attentions to whatever articles pique their interest. That is true for any article from Plato and Marcus Aurelius to Asterix and Pokémon. Why would we ban volunteers from their favorite areas of research just because their writing is not a love letter to the topic? Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Bruce the Builder has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Numah007.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Bruce the builder, I feel your pain, I tried to honestly edit these pages years ago, but, unfortunately, the same editors you are currently experiencing issues with, two primary ones, but also about a dozen or so others who always appeared to come to the rescue when they needed assistance to keep the pages POV and the same Jehovah's Witnesses bashing page they all have become, constantly fought those efforts until I simply had more important matters to worry about and stopped editing for the last few years. I personally have little time to commit to this project at the current time, and really it's like trudging through mud to get even a simple error corrected, because the editors in question wish the errors to exist and fight tooth and nail, as a group, to make sure they stay intact, so it becomes like running in quick-sand and thoroughly unenjoyable, so then, what's the point. Wikipedia, as a community seems content to allow this type of behavior from longstanding editors and presents them with various awards for said behavior. Its unfortunate that the general public is unaware just how inaccurate they make the articles with their POV editing. Unfortunately, for some of those editors it becomes impossible to assume good faith, because they have demonstrated a history and a continuous pattern of bad faith edits and circular arguments. I could name them, but that would be inappropriate an unnecessary, as you most likely already know who they are, as your comment indicates. Hang in there till you tire out, and I wish you the best in your effort to reduce the misinformation presented through the lack of NPOV in this set of articles on Jehovah's Witnesses.Willietell (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Trudging through mud to get even a simple error corrected." Willietell, your last edit was this one, in which you added the entirely unremarkable fact that church meetings for worship and "study" are open to the public. Really, it is unnecessary and reads like a handbill, so it was removed. As I recall, you arrived here in a blaze of righteous indignation demanding the entire article be deleted. Anyway, any substantive issues you want to raise about the accuracy of this article may always be raised on a separate thread. BlackCab (TALK) 07:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

For an example of Willietell's 'commitment' to honesty, see Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II#User:Willietell attempting JW apologetics (again).--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As expected, Sybil has shown her hear again, I fully expected you to remove the edit, as indicated by my previous post to this talk page. Nothing objective that does not bash Jehovah's Witnesses is left intact by Sybil.Willietell (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear who "Sybil" is, which seems to have been used in the context of some kind of snide personal attack. Your addition of religious services being 'open to the public' is mundane (and mildly promotional). It's not clear how it adds anything of encyclopedic value to the article. Do you want to discuss the issue on its merits, or are you just here to attack editors?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary "Noting the tendency of editors to make JW's seem like a secretive cult, I don't think it can be taken as to be assumed" is also quite inappropriate. Whether the added statement 'can be assumed' should be based on article content, not on your opinion of other editors. The article content quite clearly shows that JWs are involved in public preaching, which automatically disproves your claim that 'editors' try to make the article seem like a 'secretive cult'. Stick to content or you will be reported for personal attacks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Two thoughts about BlackCab's reversion[16] of Willietell's edit:

1. Though it doesn't really add anything to the article, inclusion of the fact that JW meetings are 'open to the public' is not especially problematic. There may be a mild promotional implication and it probably isn't necessary at the main article; however, it is already mentioned in the more specific Jehovah's Witnesses practices article.
2. Describing Willietell's edit as a "good faith" edit is incorrect, as Willietell's edit summary quite clearly expressed bad faith regarding the alleged motives of other editors.

Since Willietell seems to imagine that the entire article is overwrought with bias, perhaps he would like to start a section about one issue at a time, starting with what he considers to be the most significant. If his biggest concern is about saying JW religious services are open to the public, the article is doing very well indeed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The description of the edit as "good faith" was unintentional. I hit the wrong button. The statement is entirely redundant and the promotional tone of the wording exacerbates the problem. It sounds like something that would be written on a handbill for a meeting. BlackCab (TALK) 07:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations in lead

Some recent edits suggest a misunderstanding of the purpose of the lead. It is not necessary for the lead to go into detail about subjects, which is the purpose of the body. The lead is a summary of the body.

• The statement that the reason for the name change to Jehovah's Witnesses related to distinguishing Rutherford's group is well sourced in the body. Though not mandatory, I have added named links to these refs into the lead.
• I have trimmed back the run-on sentence in the lead about 'reproving'. Unlike the practices of disfellowshipping, disassociation and shunning that have received media attention, 'reproving' has not been identified as a notable aspect in secondary sources, and is therefore not necessary in the lead. The practice is still mentioned in the article body.
• The sentence about conflict with governments summarises that aspect of the Persecution section. Various countries are named in that section, with sources, and there is a link to a child article. It is not necessary for this level of detail to be repeated in the lead. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have had conflicts with governments is often cited in JW literature. Whilst the conflicts may be controversial, the statement of fact that such conflicts exist is not controversial, and it is therefor not mandatory to repeat the citations in the lead.

Hopefully this is sufficient; however, editors are welcome to discuss issues further. --Jeffro77 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have any secondary neutral sources to support the name change, especially the claim that the change was to " symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions" as the cited sources are anything but netural.

• Removing the reference to reproving is biased as it displays a non- NPOV attempt to show only the most severe actions taken in discipline and does so unnecessarily in the main lead of the article. Sources for the information are provided in the link, but can be added to the lead if you think it is necessary, I didn't but it can be added. However to leave only the most severe discipline is biased and unacceptable...also, it was not a run-on sentence. I will be restoring the information, if it isn't necessary to discuss the information entirely in the lead, it isn't necessary to discuss it at all and the whole sentence about discipline needs to be removed to obtain NPOV.

• The suggested summary was simply an idea and a suggestion that I felt might make the article more informative for the reader, if it is too much work for you, then at some point maybe another editor can undertake the task. I feel it will make for a more interesting article if the reader doesn't have to leave the article to go off on a tangent looking up countries where the persecution stated in the article lead occurred.Willietell (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not really clear what would satisfy your request for a "neutral" secondary source, other than 'a source that agrees with your position'. You are welcome to present other secondary sources that comment on the subject. (It's also interesting that you complained that the detail about the name change wasn't sourced in the lead, but you had no qualms about adding comments about reproving to the lead without citing any source.)

I provided a clear reason why reproving isn't necessary in the lead. Your response does not give any consideration to that reason, instead making an unrelated and unsubstantiated claim about bias. As previously stated, you are welcome to provide secondary sources on the matter. The target article you linked has only 10 (out of 108) secondary sources, and of those, zero are about reproving.

As previously stated, various countries are already mentioned in this article in the Persecution section, so your claim that editors currently must "go off on a tangent" is entirely false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your statement that the target article has "zero" sources about "reproving" is simply untrue, perhaps you missed them and need to go back and look at it again. The link took you directly to Jehovah's Witnesses: Congregational Discipline, then to the subheading on reproof, in fact, the same article linked to the discussion on disfellowshipping. The problem seems to be that there is an attempt in this article to give WP:undue to the subject of disfellowshipping in the lead without giving WP:due to the action of "reproof", an attempt which clearly violates WP:NPOV ,WP:ARTN, WP:NRV,WP:WEIGHT,WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE. I'm sure, thru working with a co-operative spirit, we can correct this clear violation.Willietell (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's plainly obvious that you are intent on ignoring what other editors have actually said. I did not say the target article has no sources. I stated the verifiable fact it has no secondary sources about reproving. There is no point in discussing with you if you are going to misrepresent what other editors have actually said, and then string together some duplicate policy shortcuts that all point to the same policy, without any actual indication of how the single policy has actually been 'violated'. Since you love citing the neutrality page so much, how about applying what it actually says about balance: "drawing on secondary or tertiary sources". As previoulsy stated, provide reliable secondary sources showing the point to be notable enough for the lead of the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents here.

1) Willietell, Rogerson and Beckford are WP:RS. Your definition of "neutral", based on the past arguments you've made on other JW topics, appears to be "anyone who doesn't disagree with me". That is not how WP works, this is:

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the main space fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ".

So here is what you do. You do not remove the WP:RS sourced statement, BUT, if you feel it has been overemphasized and that another viewpoint (backed up by reliable sources) is just as valid put it in. If it has met the above requirements, it will be left.

2) Please see WP:ARTN and WP:NRV as to why "reprove" does not belong and should not be in the lead. Vyselink (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Weight to see why "reprove" does belong, and if not included, then the entire discussion of congregational discipline needs to be eliminated from the lead, because in it's present form the article lends WP:undue to the action of disfellowshipping. Either reproving can be added to provide balance, or the entire discussion can be eliminated from the lead. Also, please discontinue the personal attacks that you seem to have initiated in your above comment, which states "Your definition of "neutral", based on the past arguments you've made on other JW topics, appears to be "anyone who doesn't disagree with me"." and please stick to content. I simply asked for better sources, not just ones that are EX-Jehovah's Witnesses carrying on a grudge against an organization to which they no longer qualify to remain a part. A simple request, I didn't make a huge point of it as the article in fact is inundated with references from these "biased" so-called secondary sources, which should really be considered primary source's from an opposing point of view.Willietell (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Also please see WP:undue which states in part "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement" for more information.Willietell (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have again removed reference to reproving from the lead. Its inclusion has nothing to do with the editorial neutrality of the article and it is a minor detail that has attracted next to no attention in secondary sources. And allow me to comment that for a church, the JWs are remarkably obsessed with the notion of punishing members. Their definition of shades of severity of punishments, the depth of instruction to elders on weighing up misdemeandours and the ritualised public announcements and record-keeping, is just a bit sick. It speaks volumes that it warrants a lengthy and detailed Wikipedia article all of its own, proudly maintained and expanded by members themselves. BlackCab (TALK) 00:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Willitell, I find it interesting that you accuse me of personal attacks, when what I did was make an observation about your definition of what is "neutral", and then at the end you say "A simple request, I didn't make a huge point of it as the article in fact is inundated with references from these "biased" so-called secondary sources, which should really be considered primary source's from an opposing point of view". That is exactly what my observation (not a personal attack) on you was about, so in a way I thank you for proving my point.

I have also undone your deletion of disfellowship from the lead. It is more than accurately sourced, and is quite fitting to be in the lead as it is an area of the JW's that has received a lot of attention. Vyselink (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Willietell clearly has no support for his edit and needs to cease pushing that change. I also find it amusing, and quite predictable, that he dismisses as a source all material written by former JWs on the grounds that they are "ex-Jehovah's Witnesses carrying on a grudge against an organization to which they no longer qualify to remain a part". The work of writers such as ex-Witnesses Penton, Rogerson and Crompton has been widely accepted as accurate, reliable and balanced; it is very much kneejerk cult thinking to assume they carry "grudges" and that their observations therefore have no merit. Willietell once again shows why he is too close to the subject of the article to edit with any impartiality. BlackCab (TALK) 04:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that JW 'reproving' is not an especially notable element of the group. I have repeatedly asked Willietell to provide secondary sources for the additional details if he believes they are of sufficient weight for the lead. It's really not too much to ask.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

His latest push to remove all reference in the lead section to JW disciplinary processes is probably an attempt to sidestep that request. All in all, there's a growing COI problem with that editor. BlackCab (TALK) 08:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Finance

Why is there so little information on their spending?Sir.Fluffers (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Sir.Fluffers

There may be a lack of information available in reliable secondary sources. Are you suggesting any specific content be added?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that there should be more information if available. Surly they spent money on the upkeep and construction of their kingdom halls and the printing of their publications. Sir.Fluffers (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Sir.Fluffers

Every large business spends money on its building, infrastructure and production costs of its products. This is not generally a special point of interest. If you think it warrants greater attention here, please provide suitable secondary sources discussing the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Encouragement and counsel

I have again removed material added by a blatantly conflicted JW editor who is stating as fact that JWs who fail to report their "ministry" to elders for a month "would likely be counseled by elders to offer encouragement to remain active". This is completely speculative and unverifiable. Encyclopedias are not a place where it is suggested what elders might do in a perfect world. Similarly the claim that JWs "who miss six consecutive months are termed 'inactive' and efforts are made to reactivate such ones." This reads like a puff piece written by a JW to impress others.

It is anything but neutral language to suggest they are "offered encouragement" to do more witnessing. Authors of some studies on JWs use such terms as "relentless pressure" and "badgered" and "hounded" to describe efforts to spur members on to more vigorous activity; for the same reason Wikipedia articles should avoid those terms when discussing JW practices and use clearly neutral terminology that expresses neither support for nor criticism of those practices. BlackCab (TALK) 03:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. In this edit, one pro-JW editor claims to be returning the article to an NPOV version even though he is:

• removing a statement quoted from a secondary source and supported by a JW publication about discontinuing Bible studies
• replacing a factually correct statement about submitting field service reports with an unverifiable claim about simply 'missing service'
• restoring clearly non-neutral language about 'encouraging' and 'extending help' that are not in all cases perceived in such a manner.

Willietell has repeatedly claimed that the article contains serious issues of bias, but is yet to clearly identify any such issues, and the IP editor has not bothered to discuss any edits at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your attempts to classify editors by your perceived view of their religious beliefs shows your bias.

Regarding your bullet points, the information you claim is "quoted from a JW publication" clearly misrepresents that source. Your second bullet point is certainly not "unverifiable" as multiple publications exist that make the very point, though from primary sources, which, in an article filled with primary sources, should be no issue. The terms "encouraging" and "extending help" are not "non-neutral language" if they are properly representing the source, this is after all a section on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and are taught, not what User:Jeffro77 & User:BlackCab would like for them to believe. Willietell (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you concede that an elder (and indeed the Governing Body) might deem his urgings to a JW to do more field service to be "encouragement", but the individual might interpret it as harassment or intimidation, or pressure? The term "encourage" has a distinctly positive (in fact, unctuous) flavour, but the article should take a neutral view. "Counsel" in this case is a reasonable and sufficient description of the process. BlackCab (TALK) 04:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not 'classifed editors' by some 'perceived view' based on 'personal bias'. You have previously explicitly stated your own affiliation with the religion in question.

I incorrectly stated above that the quote was from a JW source; it is actually from a secondary source—the preferred type of source for Wikipedia articles. Sorry for any confusion. That said, the cited JW source does also indicate the termination of studies where the student does not want to "serve Jehovah", which is obviously a JW euphemism for JW membership. I have reworded the sentence to be more consistent with both sources.

The cited source indicate that the labels 'irregular' and 'inactive' relate to a failure to report preaching activity rather than merely 'missing service'.

It is not 'neutral language' to suggest that a person 'should' 'preach', and definitely not neutral to frame such a directive as 'encouragement'.

Willietell also claims that the wording discussed is in a "section on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and are taught". This claim is wrong for two reasons. 1) Even a beliefs section should be clear where there is any implication that what is stated may be in 'Wikipedia's voice'. 2) The relevant section is about JW practices, not JW beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no "instruction" on as much time as possible. They are encouraged/advised is the correct word.--Roller958 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Further the "objective" of preaching is not just add new members. Preaching is done as a "witness" to all nations, whether they would become a member or not.--Roller958 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

While the instruction to JWs to spend as much time as possible in 'preaching' is phrased in JW publication in a manner such something 'members want to do', these statements are from the Watch Tower Society, which is the source of doctrinal instructions to JWs. For example, The Watchtower, 15 December 2010, page 7: "Because the preaching work is of such importance to us, it deserves our giving it as much of our time, energy, and attention as possible. Commendably, many are doing just that. Some have simplified their personal affairs so as to take up the full-time ministry as pioneers or missionaries or to serve at one of the Bethel homes around the world. Their life is very busy. They may have made many sacrifices, and they have many challenges to meet. Yet, they are richly blessed by Jehovah. We are happy for them. (Read Luke 18:28-30.) Others, while unable to join the ranks of full-time proclaimers, devote as much time as possible to this lifesaving work, which includes helping our children to get saved."

JW preaching doesn't even happen "in all nations", so the vague doctrinal claim to that effect isn't correct in practical terms, and is more a figurative belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Encouragement and counsel

I have again removed material added by a blatantly conflicted JW editor who is stating as fact that JWs who fail to report their "ministry" to elders for a month "would likely be counseled by elders to offer encouragement to remain active". This is completely speculative and unverifiable. Encyclopedias are not a place where it is suggested what elders might do in a perfect world. Similarly the claim that JWs "who miss six consecutive months are termed 'inactive' and efforts are made to reactivate such ones." This reads like a puff piece written by a JW to impress others.

It is anything but neutral language to suggest they are "offered encouragement" to do more witnessing. Authors of some studies on JWs use such terms as "relentless pressure" and "badgered" and "hounded" to describe efforts to spur members on to more vigorous activity; for the same reason Wikipedia articles should avoid those terms when discussing JW practices and use clearly neutral terminology that expresses neither support for nor criticism of those practices. BlackCab (TALK) 03:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. In this edit, one pro-JW editor claims to be returning the article to an NPOV version even though he is:

• removing a statement quoted from a secondary source and supported by a JW publication about discontinuing Bible studies
• replacing a factually correct statement about submitting field service reports with an unverifiable claim about simply 'missing service'
• restoring clearly non-neutral language about 'encouraging' and 'extending help' that are not in all cases perceived in such a manner.

Willietell has repeatedly claimed that the article contains serious issues of bias, but is yet to clearly identify any such issues, and the IP editor has not bothered to discuss any edits at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your attempts to classify editors by your perceived view of their religious beliefs shows your bias.

Regarding your bullet points, the information you claim is "quoted from a JW publication" clearly misrepresents that source. Your second bullet point is certainly not "unverifiable" as multiple publications exist that make the very point, though from primary sources, which, in an article filled with primary sources, should be no issue. The terms "encouraging" and "extending help" are not "non-neutral language" if they are properly representing the source, this is after all a section on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and are taught, not what User:Jeffro77 & User:BlackCab would like for them to believe. Willietell (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you concede that an elder (and indeed the Governing Body) might deem his urgings to a JW to do more field service to be "encouragement", but the individual might interpret it as harassment or intimidation, or pressure? The term "encourage" has a distinctly positive (in fact, unctuous) flavour, but the article should take a neutral view. "Counsel" in this case is a reasonable and sufficient description of the process. BlackCab (TALK) 04:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not 'classifed editors' by some 'perceived view' based on 'personal bias'. You have previously explicitly stated your own affiliation with the religion in question.

I incorrectly stated above that the quote was from a JW source; it is actually from a secondary source—the preferred type of source for Wikipedia articles. Sorry for any confusion. That said, the cited JW source does also indicate the termination of studies where the student does not want to "serve Jehovah", which is obviously a JW euphemism for JW membership. I have reworded the sentence to be more consistent with both sources.

The cited source indicate that the labels 'irregular' and 'inactive' relate to a failure to report preaching activity rather than merely 'missing service'.

It is not 'neutral language' to suggest that a person 'should' 'preach', and definitely not neutral to frame such a directive as 'encouragement'.

Willietell also claims that the wording discussed is in a "section on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and are taught". This claim is wrong for two reasons. 1) Even a beliefs section should be clear where there is any implication that what is stated may be in 'Wikipedia's voice'. 2) The relevant section is about JW practices, not JW beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no "instruction" on as much time as possible. They are encouraged/advised is the correct word.--Roller958 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Further the "objective" of preaching is not just add new members. Preaching is done as a "witness" to all nations, whether they would become a member or not.--Roller958 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

While the instruction to JWs to spend as much time as possible in 'preaching' is phrased in JW publication in a manner such something 'members want to do', these statements are from the Watch Tower Society, which is the source of doctrinal instructions to JWs. For example, The Watchtower, 15 December 2010, page 7: "Because the preaching work is of such importance to us, it deserves our giving it as much of our time, energy, and attention as possible. Commendably, many are doing just that. Some have simplified their personal affairs so as to take up the full-time ministry as pioneers or missionaries or to serve at one of the Bethel homes around the world. Their life is very busy. They may have made many sacrifices, and they have many challenges to meet. Yet, they are richly blessed by Jehovah. We are happy for them. (Read Luke 18:28-30.) Others, while unable to join the ranks of full-time proclaimers, devote as much time as possible to this lifesaving work, which includes helping our children to get saved."

JW preaching doesn't even happen "in all nations", so the vague doctrinal claim to that effect isn't correct in practical terms, and is more a figurative belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Christian Denomination??

JW is more like a cult than a denomination of Christianity. With all the reinterpreting of the Bible which is kind of nothing like normal Christianity. I don't think it should be labeled as a denomination of Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto9181 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The term cult is poorly defined in the intended context, and it is not mutually exclusive to a group also being a 'Christian denomination'. The major differences between JWs and 'mainstream' Christianity are clearly indicated in the article. Despite those differences, Jehovah's Witnesses are quite definitely within the broad definition of Christian—specifically, they are a nontrinitarian Adventist movement, which is ultimately derived from Protestantism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Evangelism

This whole subsection seems rather choppy, poorly written and lacking in style, together with the subsection on God's Kingdom. They are sections that should represent the two most highly recognizable activities of Jehovah's Witnesses and yet, they contain little information of merit. I think they need considerable work. Given time, I intend to expand these sections to be more complete and better written with some Semblance of style and cohesiveness. Willietell (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you will endeavour, as other editors do, to find reliable secondary sources for anything you add. Given your strong pro-JW agenda, you should take care to avoid adding material with a promotional tone. You should also give close attention to the section of the Advocacy article headed "Identifying advocacy". It would be a shame for you to waste your time on material that would fail Wikipedia policies on neutrality. BlackCab (TALK) 05:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The Evangelism section in its current format seems to contain the most pertinent information. The current remark in the article about the number of languages in which literature is produced is mildly promotional and otherwise largely trivial. I don't see any other concerns with the section at present. The God's Kingdom section contains a brief overview of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs about the subject. Neither section has any significant stylistic problems, and based on the current content of the sections, there aren't any significant issues with the flow between ideas. However, any legitimate improvements are always welcome. Obviously the sections should not have the aim of either promoting or defending doctrinal views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole section is written skillfully to suggest theories invented by now dead ex-JW Ray Franz. That guy didn't last enough to materialize his dream. That's why this section adds in detail the requirement to report field service hours, counsel for inactive ones and about quit studying if not interested. It is to suggest that JWs have no love for people, but their only intention is to convert people and they are forced to do so. Common as a JW, I love the ministry, I enjoy talking to people about God. I report because I want my worldwide friends to get encouraged by my share in the ministry. I know I will get counseled if I quit preaching because its plainly written that we are to preach, so elders are concerned about my relationship with God. I would quit studying if my student is not making any changes in his life in accordance with what the Bible teach. Such truths are indigestible for people who have no respect to the Bible. However I went ahead and reduced the falsehood intensity, don't want to discourage the hard working editors here who write em and keep good watch on them.--Roller958 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The 2001 Our Kindom Ministry cited in that section states unambiguously that the goal of preaching is to guide people towards baptism as a JW. It is hard to determine which part of that evangelism section is a theory advanced by Ray Franz (who is not used as a source at any point), and your apparent glee that an old man dies somehow jars with your claim to love people. And your addition of a small quote from a trial doesn't support your change to the article. BlackCab (TALK) 02:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted Willietell's recent edit. Firstly, it is not necessary to 'defend' why JWs engage in 'preaching', particularly since some form of 'ministry' is common to all Christians. Additionally, it is far from neutral, and entirely unnecessary, to claim that 'preaching' is in "fulfillment of" (rather than a response to) a biblical comamand, and the fact that "Witnesses are taught they are under a biblical command to engage in public preaching" is already stated in the paragraph.

Regarding Willietell's other objection, it is quite clear from the context of the paragraph, and blatantly obvious from the cited and quoted source, that the 'advice' to cease 'unproductive' Bible studies comes from the leadership and not 'the Government, Catholic church or an elementary school teacher'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The information was supported by the Watchtower article cited, The preaching work has more than one aspect, as has been stated by another editor somewhere else on the talk page, I put it into the article. The edit was made to indicate what Jehovah's Witnesses BELIEVE therefore it is irrelevant whether you consider it "necessary to "defend" why JW's engage in the preaching work, as the information wasn't put in place to "DEFEND" anything, but to inform the reader, especially one with little knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, which brings us to the other point you made, it may be clear to someone familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses who might "advise" (poor choice of wording) them to discontinue a study, but to the unfamiliar reader, it needs more explanation or rephrasing. I chose to rephrase the language. Willietell (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Previously responded regarding both aspects below. It is not helpful to respond out of sequence. In short, the additional text you supplied duplicated content already present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The choice of the word "advise" was based on the statement from the cited and quoted primary source that it "may be advisable" to discontinue 'unproductive' sources. The context is clear, and the source makes it doubly clear even to someone not already familiar with JWs, that such advice is from their own literature and not some external third party. On the other hand, your change of the wording to "may consider" completely removed the fact that terminating 'unproductive' studies is a recommendation by the leadership rather than something arbitrarily decided by some individual members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There is some merit in part of this edit. As I recall, JWs claim two aspects to their evangelism: to gain recruits (ie those who will be "saved" when God goes on the rampage and slaughters all those babies) and to do a visible preaching work as a witness or warning. This would help explain to readers why they persist in public ministry when it seems to be very ineffective in actually gaining recruits (I was recruited in that fashion, although I was a rarity). It would be better if a secondary source was found, however, and I would suggest that reference to Jesus "commanding" Christians to do something is a POV. My reading of that passage of scripture is he was telling his apostles to go forth to preach and baptise. The JWs have taken this to mean it applies to all members of their sect, although individuals do not in fact baptise anyone. BlackCab (TALK) 05:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement that 'there is a biblical command to preach' (that was already present in the article) clearly states it as their view. The contention that individual members are not also expected to baptise those to whom they preach (or who should do the 'preaching') is a matter of interpretation, and doesn't need to be mentioned in the article unless specifically raised in secondary sources (though I don't think you're actually suggesting inclusion of this apparent inconsistency in the article). As an aside, comparison of average fertility rates (number of children per family) with the number of Bible studies reported for most countries shows a very strong correlation, indicating that by far the majority of JW 'recruits' are 'born in' to the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the "evangelism" section of the Jehovah's Witnesses practices article provides adequate coverage, with two secondary sources, of the "visible preaching" aspect of their ministry but nothing at all on what their own literature says is their primary goal—to make recruits. BlackCab (TALK) 06:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be warranted to extend the sentence about the asserted 'biblical command' to briefly mention the belief that preaching is also intended to serve as a 'warning'. Though that aspect should not be shoehorned into the sentence about the purpose of the 'Bible study' program, as was attempted by the edit in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Christendom

An editor who is a JW has repeatedly inserted the term "Christendom" in place of the phrase "mainstream Christian" in the "Eschatology" section. The word "Christendom" is used by the JWs as a pejorative term and as George Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses points out (p. 26) the JWs link that term with their view that all manifestations of Christianity apart from theirs are apostate and corrupt, have failed to heed God's word, are divided politically and spiritually, support war and are due to be destroyed by God. When used by JWs it is therefore a manifestly loaded term that bears no resemblance to the usual, non-JW definition of Christendom. The editor has used the word in reference to the JWs' distinctive view of the Greek word parousia because it is part of pejorative JW jargon, but it has no meaning to non-JW readers and therefore has no place here. I have removed it. The article therefore now correctly states that the JW view of parousia "departs from the mainstream Christian belief" about the Second Coming. BlackCab (TALK) 01:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would argue that a term that has been in use for 1400 years is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the term so you develop a more accurate understanding and then perhaps you can put the edit back as it belongs instead of continuing these constant attacks by reverting every good faith edit made by any editor who doesn't parrot your WP:POV opinion. You could begin by actually reading the Wikipedia page Christendom, you could also bother to simply look up the term in the dictionary.Willietell (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My dictionary says Christendom is the part of the world where most people are Christians. The article's discussion of the meaning of parousia is unambigiously about what that word means within mainstream Christianity. Your use of the word conforms to the JWs' use of it when they are deriding and vilifying the beliefs and practices of mainstream Christianity. Your agenda is clear to me, but it's best the article be written in a way that presents material in a neutral form that is easily understood by most readers. BlackCab (TALK) 04:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You might want to invest in a better dictionary. Willietell (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the definition BlackCab provided is correct. In modern usage, Christendom most often refers to the collective body of Christians or Christian nations; that is, it refers to a group of people. Use of Christendom in the manner employed by JWs to refer to a set of beliefs is an outdated affectation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that BlackCab meant that the JW-pejorative usage "has no meaning to non-JW readers" rather than claiming that the word is "unique to Jehovah's Witnesses". Rephrasing a sentence just to include the JW-pejorative Christendom rather than simply referring to mainstream Christianity certainly looks like an attempt to employ the JW jargon usage of the term. Use of the term Christendom as a synonym for Christianity (the belief system) is pretty much obsolete in modern English, and the term is generally used to refer to the collective body of Christians (people), which is not the sense employed in the relevant sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Governing Body

I have reverted a recent edit by MisterCrazy8 about the JW redefinition of the 'faithful slave' 'class' as referring to the Governing Body 'when performing administrative functions'. This is for three reasons.

1. Although the cited source refers to involvement in producing literature in reference to the Governing Body 'acting as' the 'faithful and discreet slave', it makes no reference to 'administrative functions'.
2. The wording implies a nuance of some magical or otherwise undefined phenomenom that takes place specifically when Governing Body members gather to perform specific tasks, whereas no such mechanism is either defined or claimed by the Governing Body or by the Watch Tower Society.
3. The purpose of the sentence is to indicate the contrast between the old and new identifications ascribed to the 'faithful slave' 'class', and no specific activities are indicated for those identified for the previous supposed group; the additional detail is therefore superfluous to the contrast.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)