Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

Higher Education

When I was still serving as an elder in the late summer of 2006 in a congregation of JWs in SoCal we received a letter from the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" (READ: the Governing Body) directing that ANYONE pursuing a higher education would be disqualified from privileges of service. I remember this quite distinctly because I had just received by BA in Education in June a few months before. In 2002, I had decided to pursue a degree under the Society's then current "it's a personal decision" policy and was quite shocked at their drastic policy change and also angry because (by implication) I was being made to feel bad because they changed their mind.

I did not make a copy of that letter. Has anyone? --DannyMuse (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you intending starting a section in this article? You could try asking the same question at the jehovahs-witness.net forum and see if someone has it. BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This would require a reliable source rather than the anecdotal evidence above. There is nothing in the elders' manual (2010) or the publishers' manual (2009) supporting the claim above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems likely that the personal circumstances of editor DannyMuse may have colored his memory (making him "feel bad" and "angry" about a supposed letter). Rather than a "drastic policy change", perhaps a letter reminded those with special privileges that appointments remain subject to the collective consciences of their local elder body and their congregation. That has always been the case, and no one had "changed their mind" in 2006.

• The Watchtower, April 1, 1975, page 219, "And the consciences of others should be considered in another respect. ...if you are interested in a special privilege of service in the Christian congregation, the conscience of the body of elders comes into the picture. ...if they are asked to recommend you for special service, their conscience has to be at rest."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather speculative answer, AuthorityTam. He says he recalls it because he had recently received the BA. Your answer doesn't address the central issue of whether the GB decided that pursuing a higher education was the sort of ungodly conduct that could warrant removal as an elder. It sounds a weird suggestion, but in an organisation that revels in making rules for people, I'd say nothing is impossible. BlackCab (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a certain editor responds to a new thread tending to disparage JWs by inviting the disparager to team up with anti-JW propagandists (eg here and here).
But a comment which includes an actual verifiable reference showing that JWs have long had a policy possibly related (but markedly different) to that alleged by the disparager is 'speculation' and must be met with a namecalling rejoinder ( 'it's "weird"!' Gasp!).
Both responses are sadly typical of the editor LTSally aka BlackCab, who has a seeming fixation to attack me (AuthorityTam).
How about we cut to the chase? If an editor believes 2006 introduced some notable new JW rule, he should support his claim with a verifiable reference.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what the two links to the JWN forum are supposed to indicate and what your oblique references are actually to. I think you have a bit of a complex there, old son: I have no fixation to attack you. I care nothing about you. If there are any fixations, it seems to be yours about my previous username; I'm still genuinely puzzled at why you keep pointing this out and whether you are implying anything (if so, what?) You really are rather odd. But back to the point: an editor did wonder if a new JW rule was introduced in 2006; he has therefore come to this page to ask if anyone knows anything about it. I referred him to the forum, which is probably a better place for that discussion. BlackCab (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The anecdote in question is unsourced and can't be used unless a valid source is provided. End of story. Speculation either way is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's reference to "a certain editor" is simply uncivil. As is attempting to dredge up irrelevant edits from years ago. Please stay on topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This whole page should be deleted

This whole heading should be submitted for deletion because all of it comes from a slanted non -NPOV. It is filled with Inconsistencies and outright lies of those with a pointed agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.65.231 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss. What are the lies? What are the slants? If you can support your ideas with sources, a re-write could be possible. However, be prepared to defend your proposed changes with something other than OR or only JW sources. Vyselink (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I need help, How do I formally request the deletion of this page of lies? 72.152.65.231 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, go to AfD. However, I am going to warn you that you will probably not get far, as you haven't even talked about it here yet. Like I said, discuss. Give examples and sources that back your opinion. Vyselink (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be required to give sources when those who posted this fictitious material were not required to do so? Where did your NPOV disappear to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.65.231 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. And as far as I can see, there are currently 179 references to sources in this article. And I did not say you could NOT use JW sources, just be prepared to defend them if you use ONLY JW sources. Vyselink (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you had looked, you will see that there are an overwhelming number of references to official Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publications. Vyselink (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is extensively sourced, and is fair, balanced and accurate. BlackCab (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of lies and innuendo and presented from a lopsided negative point of view and should immediately be deleted without further discussion 72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the above, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and be accessed readily as www.watchtower.org this would be a direct link to exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, without the unnecessary biased commentary and negative use of colorful adjectives that seem to have found their way onto the Wikipedia version, aside from the blatant lies that are also found there.72.152.65.231 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Give me one lie or innuendo. Just one. We can discuss it, hopefully come to a conclusion, and move on. Vyselink (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion to add the official site was a good one, so I put it under external links. Vyselink (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a corporation's official website has no bearing at all on whether an article should exist on Wikipedia. The anonymous editor is yet to present any example of content of this article that he imagines to be "inconsistencies", "outright lies", a "page of lies", "fictitious material", "lies and innuendo", "blatant lies".

What is absolutely certain is that no changes will happen if the editor will not indicate the specific content to which he refers. If/when he decides to elaborate, then potential issues will be addressed. It is considerably unlikely that such would warrant deletion of the entire page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the addition of the official website doesn't magically make this article great, but it was a good idea. So I added it. Even if we are going to (hopefully) re-write some of this to have not so many JW sources for this page, an external link to the offical website makes sense. Vyselink (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem at all with the external link. However, the anonymous editor contends that the existence of the official site eliminates the need for this article altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, the IP user....... Vyselink (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This first sentence is a blatant lie and is completely false. "The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr.[1]" as stated This first sentence is a blatant lie and is completely false, Jehovah's Witnesses no more follow the teachings of Charles Russell or other former or even present presidents of the WTS than do the protestant religions follow the teachings of King Henry VIII.. This article is biased and short on facts and heavy on less than half truths, too many to simply start listing here, for lack of time, correct it or delete the page.98.92.242.93 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This just shows your complete ignorance of the history of your own religion. Russell founded the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and his teachings and writings were the basis for the entire religion. For example, in the March 1st, 1923 Watchtower (page 71) it explicitly states "He (Russell) did the Lord's work according to the Lord's way. If, then, Brother Russell did the work in the Lord's way, any other way of doing it is contrary to the Lord's Way and therefore could not be a faithful looking after the interests of the Lord's kingdom." If you read that, (which I doubt you will) you'll understand that that's saying "do it his way or you're wrong". Rutherford had so much power that he was able to completely ignore the legal will (as in the dying document) of Russell, and according to the Watchtower, June 15th, 1938, single handedly ELIMINATED the editorial committee of the Watchtower over an article he wanted published: "...but, by the Lord's grace, it [the article] was published, and that really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee, indicating that the Lord himself is running his organization". As for Knorr, all he had was complete control of the WTBTS. Yeah, totally not true. Read your own religious publications why don't you. Vyselink (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are a relatively new religion. Their set of beliefs didn't come out of thin air. The WTS has repeatedly related how Russell arrived at certain beliefs and then began expounding them in his books and Zions' Watch Tower magazine. Many were modified over time, but today's set of beliefs come, without question, from those Russell taught and Rutherford and Knorr later "adjusted". Your suggestion that the entire page, much of which is drawn directly from WTS publications, be deleted is ludicrous. BlackCab (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor needs to read Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, wherein it is clearly outlined that JWs' beliefs developed from the teachings of Charles Taze Russell. Of course, many of their teachings have changed since then, and that is not in dispute. The fact remains that their beliefs are based on Russell's teachings. It seems ludicrous that a JW would even dispute that.

Perhaps the anonymous editor should move this discussion on to the next point that he believes to be a 'blatant lie'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's some food for thought for you guys

(Matthew 25:41-46) 41 “Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘Be on YOUR way from me, YOU who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. 42 For I became hungry, but YOU gave me nothing to eat, and I got thirsty, but YOU gave me nothing to drink. 43 I was a stranger, but YOU did not receive me hospitably; naked, but YOU did not clothe me; sick and in prison, but YOU did not look after me.’ 44 Then they also will answer with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them with the words, ‘Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did not do it to one of these least ones, YOU did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”98.92.242.93 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the discussion, and at best is some kind of weak religious 'threat'. Please present the next point in the article that you believe to be a 'blatant lie'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Change the first lie first, then we can more on to additional points of interest in the article, otherwise, I will find out how to formally request this pages deletion and request it. And neither is a threat, only a promise.( Here's a hint for you, Jehovah's Witnesses follow the teachings laid out in the bible, they follow Jesus Christ and serve him and the creator of the universe, Jehovah, who is the only God in existence. They don't believe in following any "man", but believe what is stated at (Psalm 146:3-4) 3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. 4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish.98.92.242.93 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • jv chap. 5 p. 42 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) ***

FOLLOWING those words Charles Taze Russell proceeded to outline the developments that led to his publishing Millennial Dawn (later called Studies in the Scriptures) and Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence (now known as The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom). This history is of special interest to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why? Because their present understanding of Bible truths and their activities can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, and from there to the Bible and early Christianity.

Now please move on to the next statement that you believe to be a 'blatant lie'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was totally correct, you didn't read a thing. This is why your AfD is going to be summarily dismissed. Vyselink (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No AfD has been raised for this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh ik. But he will as soon as he learns how. He'll raise it just to "prove a point" about how the "anti-JW group" that we are a part of (by the way, why didn't you tell me I was in this group? are there benefits?) is providing false information, and when he does it'll be dismissed. Vyselink (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

He's added an AfD template to the article, which is only the first part of the process. If/when he completes the process, I think it will be fairly short-lived.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's submitted for deletion, so make the page more realistic and closer to true, of I will not give up on this point98.92.242.93 (talk) 12:30 pm, Today (UTC+10)

However, if he wishes to proceed with the AfD nomination, he'll need to register a username or provide a very convincing argument at Talk. The AfD template states: "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another example of not reading the information available. As for you, IP user, you "not giving up on this point" is irrelevant, because you have yet to make one. We have given you documented (by your own religion no less, not even secondary) sources that prove that the only point that you have argued (which, to refresh your memory, is that "This first sentence is a blatant lie and is completely false. "The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr.[1]") is wrong. Vyselink (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you honestly think I cannot create a user account? really? I'm trying to be reasonable, the three of you are trying to be obstinate, all I'm asking is for this slanted page full of half truths and innuendo to be made less biased, you guys are the ones who wish to keep it as a page that simply attacks witnesses. Do you really think that I wouldn't like a page on Wikipedia that honestly explained Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs? Seriously? I just want the page to be true, not slanted to such a state that it is unrealistic. And Jeffro 77, I've been a baptized witness for over 2 decades, I know more about what Witnesses believe than you seem to think. 98.92.242.93 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering that several editors, including myself, have previously recommended that you create a user account, I don't see the prospect as especially threatening. So far, the only specific claim you've made about the article is shown to be false from JW publications. Please present the next statement in the article that you believe to be a 'blatant lie'.

I don't really care how long you've been baptised, and 'time baptised' doesn't necessarily equal a specific amount of knowledge anyway. However, you have demonstrated that your knowledge of your religion might not be as good as you might like to think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can create an account, please do so, it would make everything SOOOO much easier. As for this particular debate, the whole thing started with me ASKING (practically BEGGING) you to give me just one thing that was a "lie" or "false". Finally, just now, you gave the first sentence. That's a start. But, when you were given documented sources from the religion you claim you have been in for over two decades, that state, enequivocally, that your assumption is wrong, instead of discussing it, or challenging it with other sources, all you continue to say is that it's a lie. Wikipedia is not interested in YOUR version of the truth. Back up your claims with SOURCES. Do you have a new book from the WTBTS that says "Actually, in fact, our religion is not based on the teachings of CTR"? If so, then please provide it, as I would love to read it. Vyselink (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not really clear what the anonymous editor expects of other editors. Are we supposed to guess which parts of the article he imagines to be biased??--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro 77, since you "know" Jehovah's Witnesses so well, you likely already know what parts are biased, and since blackcab, claims to have been an elder and to have given "thousands" of talks on the TMS(which I don't believe after comments he's made showing a lack of comprehension on certain things any witness would know) he should also know, and the only one I have doubts about is Vyselink, because I don't know how much he ever understood as a child and how much he listened when his parents took him to meetings or during home and personal bible study periods to which he would have become exposed, so he may not have as much of an understanding as you two seem to indicate you do.. Anyway correct the page, I am willing to help, but at this point you don't seem to genuinely wish to correct it, therefore I don't trust that you will make a real effort, thus the request for deletion98.92.242.93 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Other editors do not need to speculate about what you might be unhappy with, based on your judgements of those other editors. You are the one disputing article content. It is your responsibility to raise the specific issues at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern IP user, but believe me, I don't argue for/against anything that I don't have a good knowledge in. As for THIS discussion, I am still waiting for an answer to my plea: what is wrong with this article? You've given one point, which has been replied to with documented source evidence. What is your counter reply? (That's what's known as a "dicussion".) Vyselink (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So far, the anonymous editor hasn't discussed anything. Sources have been presented for the single point he has raised, and the editor's response is basically I just don't like it. You must do one of the following for improvement of the article to proceed:

• If you have not accepted the responses to the point you have raised, based on the JW sources that have been provided, present your specific counter-arguments (from reliable sources) to the explicit statements from JW literature that indicate JW beliefs to be based on the teachings of C. T. Russell.
• If you have accepted the responses to the point you have raised, present what you believe to be the next specific problem with the article.

If you refuse to do either of these things, it is unlikely the article will be changed. Of course, there is also the principle of WP:BRD, wherein you may make an edit first, and then discuss. However, if you edit against concensus, your changes will not be retained. Similarly, if you make disputed changes, and refuse to discuss, your changes will be reverted, and if you continue, your actions will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Well, from the looks of it, this AfD nomination was made in bad faith, just because he doesn't like it. It's unlikely that the deletion discussion would continue (even if it did, it would soon be closed as speedy or snow keep), so is it alright to remove the template now or not yet? 112.208.111.55 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of giving him 24 hours or so to make his case, but I won't strenuously object if there is consensus to remove it sooner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor appears to have comprehension problems. He criticises me for having claimed on my user page that I was an elder and that I had given thousands of talks on the theocratic ministry school. In fact my user page contains no such claims. I was a ministerial servant and over my two decades of membership gave hundreds of talks. BlackCab (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The call for deletion is silly; it has no basis. I've known JW's for 40 years, and the article is correct in every theological aspect which I've looked at. The only reason to delete such a comprehensive article would be that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the group's beliefs. But they are a notable group, and their beliefs are of undoubted significance and relevance. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns

Sorry guys, but my schedule is kind of tight right now and I will not have much Wiki time until the middle of next week, then I will start to address some of these issues, which are so numerous that they will take more than one sitting.Willietell (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Incredible. BlackCab (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As the only objecting editor has indicated he has no immediate intention of stating any specific objections, I have removed the tags for the time being. If/when any actual concerns are raised, the relevant template(s) can be applied to the article. (The editor eventually elaborated.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Basis of beliefs

The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell—founder of the Bible Student movement—and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr.[1][2]

This statement violates WP:npov and misrepresents the cited source [2]. It is a false statement, as the Witnesses beliefs are no more based on the teachings of Charles Russell than the Protestants beliefs are based on the teaching of King Henry VIII. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on their understanding of the bible, as is duly noted at their official web site, so accurate information is available, therefore it should and MUST be used. To do otherwise calls into question the neutrality of the page.

A religion's doctrines do not appear out of thin air. As the WTS publications themselves have repeatedly stated, today's doctrines are rooted in the 19th century teachings of CT Russell, many of which were later modified by subsequent presidents and, latterly, the Governing Body. I have added a reference to Penton (1997) who unambiguously connects today's JW doctrines with the founder of the Watchtower movement. Every other written history of the religion, without fail, also starts with CT Russell. It was he who determined that the present "age" was almost over and that God's Kingdom was imminent. It was he who taught that there was no hellfire and no trinity; it was he who used the Bible to establish key dates in the modern age upon to which his chronological system seemed to point, and of course 1914 was one of those (although with quite a different interpretation today compared to that of his time). It was he who saw the importance of warning the world of what he believed was about to happen, because he believed he had been granted special insight into God's plan of the ages. It was he who argued that modern "Christianity" had apostatized from primitive Christian doctrine. Those remain key JW teachings and outlooks, and your denial of that is a refutation of historical fact. The sentence does say they are Bible teachings, that is, they are based on their understanding of the Bible. Your complaint that the sentence "violates NPOV" is ludicrous. There is nothing in that sentence that contains any bias or in any other way conflicts with the guidelines at WP:YESPOV. BlackCab (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, My statement above stands on its own merits, the cited source material is misrepresented, and should therefore be deleted, even the Wikipedia article on Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't go to the extreme propaganda presented here with respect to the basis of JW beliefs as it states:

Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are based on their interpretations of the Bible, with a preference for their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.[8]

As far as historical facts are concerned, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses today differ greatly from the time of CT Russell, who really had only an elementary understanding of many of the bibles principles and teachings. Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, as you have pointed out, has progressively changed throughout the stream of time as their study of the bible has lead to a greater understanding than was evident in the time of CT Russell. Therefore to say that JW beliefs are based on the teachings of CT Russell is inaccurate and false. I have no real objection to including references to CT Russell in the page, my position is however, if reference to him is included, it needs to accurately depict his impact on current beliefs, which is not accurately depicted in the current page. If reference is to be included to Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr, then there needs to be a reason for this and an explanation of who they were. If you are going to assert that certain beliefs are based on the teaching of any of the three, then identify those teachings and associate them with the particular person whom you feel developed the belief, don't just throw the unsupported statement out there that beliefs are based on their teaching, support it with cited references. Willietell (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As you have already be shown in an earlier section on this page, the JW publication, Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (page 42) states:

FOLLOWING those words Charles Taze Russell proceeded to outline the developments that led to his publishing Millennial Dawn (later called Studies in the Scriptures) and Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence (now known as The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom). This history is of special interest to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why? Because their present understanding of Bible truths and their activities can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, and from there to the Bible and early Christianity.

Your objection therefore has no merits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The link between today's JW doctrines and the teachings of Russell, Rutherford et al is as clear as the link between doctrines of Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy, or the LDS Church and Joseph Smith. In an article on the church's beliefs, the origin of those beliefs is obviously noteworthy. The wikilink in the intro is sufficient to lead the reader to JF Rutherford (who formulated the modern-day teaching on Armageddon, "God's organisation vs Satan's organisation", organised preaching, prohibition of Christmas and birthday celebrations, flag salute, the change in doctrine re 1914, etc etc). BlackCab (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, The statement misrepresents the source, the source, as you clearly state, says can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, it does not say based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell, which carries an entirely different implication, thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:COAT ,because it serves to forward an agenda. If you wish to include some historical section which details the involvement of C.T. Russell or any other person associated with the early history of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have no objection to this, but do so in a manner that does not misrepresent the facts. The facts are that Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs today differ greatly from those beliefs held by C.T. Russell. A number of beliefs have been adjusted to bring them more in line with current understanding of the scriptures. Christmas is no longer celebrated, Smoking is no longer viewed as an acceptable practice, Christian neutrality regarding world governments is better understood. There are numerous other things that have changed that make the statement that The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell false and misleading and a violation of WP:COAT and WP:NPOV because to make such a statement is to ignore present reality. Willietell (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, in each of your three comments on this section, you are quoting only half the sentence. It does not stop at attributing the basis of their beliefs to CT Russell, but includes two others who, in combination with Russell, provided the vast bulk of today's teachings. The second sentence notes that the Governing Body has directed doctrinal development since 1976. This therefore negates the points you made in your most recent comment referring to later changes (though doctrines on Christmas, smoking and political neutrality were all introduced within the time of Rutherford and Knorr). You have claimed the sentence lacks neutrality -- in other words, is biased. For that claim I can see no support at all in your argument. You also claim that sentence (or the half you keep quoting) is also a coatrack, but have not said why. What is the coat? What is the hidden thrust of the statement? BlackCab (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if Willietell were right (he's not), this objection about a single sentence has nothing to do with WP:COAT. Willietell needs to read and understand what COAT is actually about. Aside from that, Willietell has suggested that some doctrines have changed from Russell's teachings, which is true, but not relevant to the fact that their beliefs are based on the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell, and many of Russell's core doctrines remain (see also Development_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_doctrine#Doctrines_unchanged_since_1879). All Christian religions base their beliefs on "their interpretations of the Bible", so Willietell's preferred wording is essentially redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems Willietell has great difficulty understanding that one thing based on another can be somewhat different. (More accurately, it seems that he wants the article to suggest that JWs have a much more direct link to God and/or the Bible rather than the group's actual doctrinal development from the 1800s.) To illustrate, Ten Things I Hate About You is based on The Taming of the Shrew, even though they're substantially different. Similarly, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the teachings of Charles Russell, and most of the fundamental teachings remain unchanged.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your illustration is poor, as also it appears, your understanding of the definition of the word redundant. By using the phrase based on the bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell this article distorts the truth and therefore violates [WP:NPOV]] user:DougWeller please do not continue to delete this tag as this discussion is not over...I have been away for a little bit due to having two surgeries in the last couple of weeks and have been recovering, but now I am back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk Willietell (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You are alone in this strange belief. There is no consensus for change. BlackCab (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Doctrinal decisions

Since 1976 all doctrinal decisions have been made by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders at the religion's Brooklyn headquarters.

This statement is not properly sourced material and constitutes WP:OR. Which calls into question WP:NPOV.

See WP:LEADCITE. There is no need to cite a source in an article's lead section when it is dealt with in detail later in the article. Your objection that the statement is biased and original research (by implication, untrue) is curious: are you actually suggesting it is wrong? Who do you say has made the doctrinal decisions? BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was right or wrong, I simply said the statement was unsourced, and since I am made to provide a cited source for every single thing I put in an article or have it viewed as me adding WP:OR, I will hold others to an equal standard.Willietell (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A citation isn't required unless a statement is likely to be challenged or actually challenged. If you are saying that this is factually wrong then a citation is required. Is that what you are saying? Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• The witnesses themselves say this [1] Darkness Shines (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines, the site you have linked is not an official JW site. Additionally, the page you've linked is an old mirror of a Wikipedia article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Ref provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While the June 15, 2010 Watchtower on pg. 3, Under the subheading Governing Body Committees is not specifically talking about doctrinal decisions, I, in the interest of showing the assumption of good faith on your part, will accept that reference, however, bear in mind that others might bring it into question, because it appears to be somewhat out of context with the article. Willietell (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All activities (which includes the JWs teaching and writing committees), as stated in the quoted source, is pretty unambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Human existence

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the present age of human existence is about to be terminated with the direct intervention of God, who will use Jesus Christ to fully establish his heavenly government over earth, destroying existing human governments and non-Witnesses,[4][5]

This statement misrepresents the cited source material[4][5] , and does so in such a way as to make a false statement, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that human existence is about to be terminated, but exactly the opposite, that man will live forever on the earth. This statement therefore violates WP:NPOV as well as misrepresenting the source material.

The sentence does not say that human existence is about to be terminated. It says the present age of human existence will be terminated. The WTS lingo for this is "this system of things", which is meaningless in a secular encyclopedia. If you'd like to propose an alternative term that suggests the same thing, please do so. There is no issue of bias or neutrality involved here. BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I did, and you reverted the edit.Willietell (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The presence of the present age of makes it impossible to parse the sentence in a way that implies the end of all human existence, and it would be meaningless to suggest a heavenly government over an unoccupied earth.

This objection therefore makes no sense.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, your objection here doesn't seem to actually have any basis in the passage you object to. You pulled "human existence is about to be terminated" out of context and object to its implications, but in the context of the whole sentence, as BlackCab and Jeffro77 have pointed out, doesn't misrepresent the source and there is no NPOV violation. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, for this sentence to be acceptable, the phrase present age of human existence is about to be terminated needs to be restated in a way that does not mislead the reader, currently it misleads the reader into making the assumption that Jehovah's Witnesses belief is that human existence is about to be terminated, which is patently false. The source material cited does not use this terminology or imply this in any way and is therefore misrepresented. This terminology is being used to forward an agenda and therefore violates WP:COAT and WP:NPOV. Willietell (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you claim bias and a coatrack claim. What bias is there and towards whom or what? What is the coatrack? What is the hidden thrust? So far only you seem to be reading this odd interpretation into what is a fairly straightforward expression of a religious doctrine. There is therefore no consensus for your objection. I'd suggest this issue be closed. BlackCab (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, COAT refers to articles, not an editing dispute about a particular sentence. Apart from that, no one with a reasonable understanding of English could interpret the sentence in the way Willietell suggests.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As you still have not addressed the fact that this violates WP:NPOV my argument remains basically unchallenged, am I therefore to assume that you agree that this statement violates WP:NPOV ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you like. I do not agree with you. Nor do any of the uninvolved editors who have examined the article agree with you. There is zero consensus for your view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Willie, your objection in this section has been challenged by three different users, so your claim that it hasn't is pretty disingenuous. You continue to pull a sentence fragment, "the present age of human existence is about to be terminated", and say that it misrepresents the sources, but you are not addressing the fact that the whole sentence represents the cited official JW sources. The sentince in question goes on to say "...with the direct intervention of God, who will use Jesus Christ to fully establish his heavenly government over earth, destroying existing human governments and non-Witnesses, and creating a cleansed society of true worshippers." It explicitly states that there will be a society of true worshippers remaining, therefore it is not possible to read the whole sentence and think that JWs believe that all humans are about to be terminated. Your objection here therefore has no legitimate basis in the quoted passage, and you have not demonstrated that it violates NPOV. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dawn, then it should be no big deal to make adjustments to the phrase the present age of human existence is about to be terminated UNLESS the use of that phrase is simply to distort the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, as I contend. You see, the only reason to keep the phrase (which isn't supported by the cited sources) is to attempt to convey a distorted message, to make a false assertion, which again makes the statement WP:COAT and violates WP:NPOV. Therefore, if you are truly interested in making the article adhere to WP:NPOV it a simple matter of a number of relatively minor changes that unfortunately are encountering major resistance by biased editors who seem intent on maintaining a non-neutral point of view in this article. Willietell (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Re: the passage "distorts" actual beliefs - you have stated this particular concern repeatedly; I and others have continued to disagree. You say the phrase implies that JWs believe that humans are about to be terminated, but it has been pointed out here a number of times that, as long as one reads the whole sentence, it is impossible to come to that conclusion. You have yet to address the sentence as a whole, and you have not demonstrated that the passage violates COAT or NPOV to anyone's satisfaction but your own.

If you have a suggestion for a way to rephrase the passage, why don't you propose it? Nobody else who has responded here thinks there is a problem with it, so the onus is kind of on you. It seems like you are just trying to make it appear that this NPOV discussion is ongoing so your tendentious NPOV tag can stay on the article despite consensus. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am only trying to get a very bad article corrected, and unfortunately I am receiving little cooperation in the effort. I have rewritten the material above, simply to have the edit reverted. Rather than get into an edit war with a number of biased editors I am trying to resolve the issues in talk. Unfortunately that does not exempt the biased editors from participating in talk or attempting to hastily remove the POV tag from the article before the discussion is over. You seem frustrated, I am not trying to frustrate you. I am truly only seeking a well balanced article, as in its current state this one is not well balanced, but one-sided and inaccurate. You have provided a couple of reasonable suggestions for alternatives, but you will note that they have also been found objectionable, because some editors will resist any change to this article that doesn't further attack Jehovah's Witnesses. I will not mention them by name as I feel that you should be able to figure that out on your own. This discussion is not over but only beginning, as this a a very long article that has now gotten even longer with the inclusion of a Salvation section. I still have many points to bring up, but we need to arrive at a better introduction before continuing further into the article. Willietell (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have located the change you made to this sentence. Here it is. The key section in this rambling rewrite would appear to be: Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the weeds, as described in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds are those who profess to be Christians but prove themselves to be “sons of the wicked one” because they cling to the world of which the Devil is ruler. These are separated from “the sons of [God’s] kingdom” and are marked for destruction by a direct intervention of God, who will use Jesus Christ to fully establish his heavenly government over earth, destroying existing human governments, Which they view as being under the authority of Satan the Devil. [5][6] and creating a cleansed society of true worshippers. An encyclopedia should aim to be concise and informative; yours was neither. BlackCab (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that your edit refers only to the destruction of false Christians and human governments. The JW doctrine is that God will detroy all humans of all religions and all countries, including children, except baptised Jehovah's Witnesses who go preaching. Your edit is therefore incomplete and wrong. BlackCab (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Participation in preaching

All members of the religion are expected to take an active part in preaching.

This statement is unsourced and therefore constitutes original research. It is, while somewhat accurate, nevertheless expressed in a negative way, and leaves out important aspects surrounding what exactly is meant by the word expected. A more truthful statement would say that , "Witnesses are encouraged to engage in the preaching work to the extent that their individual circumstances allow" therefore, this statement is a WP:COAT because it disguises its purpose, which is presenting Jehovah's Witnesses and their support of the preaching work in a negative light, which also violates WP:NPOV.

I have added a secondary source for this statement. The statement is true: JWs are expected to preach; it is described in literature (and in the cited source material) as an obligation. BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My statement above stands on its merits as accurate, the sentence needs to be rephrased into a less negative tone that doesn't lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion. It is essentially a half-truth, because it fails to explain why the Witnesses take part in the preaching activity and exactly what they are expected to do based on their individual circumstances. Willietell (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

JWs are expected to preach. It's a plain fact. (User:Sonic19912011 even claimed at my Talk page, "I was preaching-that's my job".[2]) Indeed, JWs who do not submit reports of their preaching activity are given special labels, irregular and inactive, if they don't report 'preaching' activity for one month or six months, respectively. JW literature is full of claims that preaching is mandatory, e.g. The Watchtower, 15 January 1997, page 23: "Similarly, the work of preaching and disciple making is an obligation, a requirement, on which our very lives depend."

Wikipedia should not attempt to convince readers whether or not JWs should preach, as that would constitute POV-pushing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read my posted objection, or are you simply trying to ignore the pertinent points? I stated that:

This statement is unsourced and therefore constitutes original research. It is, while somewhat accurate, nevertheless expressed in a negative way, and leaves out important aspects surrounding what exactly is meant by the word expected. A more truthful statement would say that , "Witnesses are encouraged to engage in the preaching work to the extent that their individual circumstances allow" therefore, this statement is a WP:COAT because it disguises its purpose, which is presenting Jehovah's Witnesses and their support of the preaching work in a negative light, which also violates WP:NPOV.

Also, to bring up User:Sonic19912011, is causing me some distress, because you are seemingly attempting to associate him with Jehovah's Witnesses AFTER having posited this diff[[3]] on a talk page exposing him as an impostor, so I fail to understand your motive, unless it is to mislead, and I certainly hope that it is not, but if you would care to explain I will listen. Willietell (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, there is no need to copy and paste your original statement. It adds unnecessary length to a section that will end up becoming very long. The sentence is neither biased nor a coatrack. It is a statement that cites a reliable source (Holden) and is also supported by statements in WTS publications that use the term "obligation". The statement is presented in editorially neutral language. It is no more "negative" than the statement in the lead section of Jehovah's Witnesses practices that "Members practice a strict moral code, which forbids premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, and blood transfusions." It's simply a fact about a notable aspect of the religion. To date you have gained no support for your objection and I'd suggest that this be finalised. BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell wants to use encouraged as a euphemism to soften the meaning of "expected". However, JWs are told, as stated in the 1997 Watchtower referenced above, that preaching is "an obligation, a requirement, on which our very lives depend." They are also told that if they don't preach, they will be 'bloodguilty' (The Watchtower, 1 July 2000, page 11: "We also preach out of love for people and in order to avoid bloodguilt"). JWs are therefore clearly expected to preach. Those who don't report preaching are also labeled irregular (1 month missed) or inactive (6 months missed).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell claims he is 'distressed' by my reference to User:Sonic19912011. User:Sonic19912011 claimed that a relative of his misused his account to make the edit for which Willietell provided a diff. In any case, User:Sonic19912011's implication in the diff I provided that preaching is a JW requirement is consistent with JW literature, as has already been stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Watchtower article you partially quote says this:

In order to have a proper attitude toward our ministry, we must have the right motive. Why do we preach? The main reason is seen in the words of the psalmist: “Your loyal ones will bless you [Jehovah]. About the glory of your kingship they will talk, and about your mightiness they will speak, to make known to the sons of men his mighty acts and the glory of the splendor of his kingship.” (Psalm 145:10-12) Yes, we preach in order to praise Jehovah publicly and to sanctify his name before all mankind. Even when few listen to us, our faithfully proclaiming the message of salvation brings praise to Jehovah. 13 We also preach out of love for people and in order to avoid bloodguilt. (Ezekiel 33:8; Mark 6:34) Related to this are the words of Paul when speaking of those outside the Christian congregation: “Both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to wise and to senseless ones I am a debtor.” (Romans 1:14) Paul felt that he owed it to people to declare the good news to them, since it is God’s will that “all sorts of men should be saved.” (1 Timothy 2:4) Today, we feel the same love for and obligation toward our neighbor. Jehovah’s love of mankind moved him to send his Son to earth to die for them. (John 3:16) That was a great sacrifice. We imitate Jehovah’s love when we expend time and effort telling others about the good news of salvation based on Jesus’ sacrifice.

And if you wish to use the Phrase that The members of the religion feel that they have an obligation to take an active part in preaching I will accept that, however the use of the word expected carries a certain negativity that is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk Willietell (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If "members of the religion feel that they have an obligation to take an active part in preaching", it is only because the publications of their religion's leaders have told them it is an obligation. So leave out their "feelings". Let's address what the religion instructs them to do. Your suggested rewording is unacceptable. BlackCab (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, no one is one of Jehovah's Witnesses because they were pressed into becoming one, it was a free choice, as Witnesses believe your religion is a most important matter and one that should be a conscious choice rather than a matter of chance, people who remain Witnesses, do so as a matter of choice. If they ever chose to leave the organization, they are likewise free to do so without being ostracized in any way, all they have to do is discontinue attending meetings and stop identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses, they are then considered, inactive, they are no longer counted in the official membership of the organization and provided they do not resume identifying themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses, and do not engage in an attack campaign against the organization, are not subject to disciplinary actions for wrongdoings. I personally have two relatives in this position, one who smokes, one who attends a Methodist church. Neither is disfellowshipped, because neither identifies themselves as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The point of this is that it really does not matter what you opinion is as to why members of the religion feel that they have an obligation to take an active part in preaching work, only that they do and the statement is therefore accurate and supported by reference , whether this is "because the publications of their religion's leaders have told them it is an obligation" is irrelevant to the fact that it is nonetheless, how members of the organization feel about the preaching and teaching work. Willietell (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

All this aside, the statement in the article is sourced and accurate. It is not negative, not biased, not a coatrack, or disguised attack, as you claimed, and you have provided no better argumentation in support of those three wild claims. There is no consensus for change and this issue is closed. BlackCab (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Channel of anointed

(the approximately 10,800 "anointed" Jehovah's Witnesses), which Witnesses believe is used by Christ as a channel for God's progressive revelations and to direct Christians on biblical matters.[13][14][15]

This statement is misleading and misrepresents the source material, as Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that all of those professing to be "anointed" are used to "channel...progressive revelations" and "to direct Christians in biblical matters", there are in fact, those who profess to be "anointed" who serve in christian congregations only as publishers of the good news of God's Kingdom along with their brothers and sisters who do not profess to be "anointed" and have little to do with organizational matters. This statement therefore is not only incorrect, unrepresentative of the source material, but also disguises it's purpose, which is to make a misleading and disparaging remark about Jehovah's Witnesses, thus violating not only WP:NPOV but WP:COAT as well.

The statement is accurate and sourced. Organized to do Jehovah's Will (2005, pg 16) states: "So the 'faithful steward, the discreet one,' must symbolize the composite body of Christ's spirit-anointed footstep followers who live on earth at any given time. Yes, Christ uses this body to publish information on the fulfillment of Bible prophecies and to give timely direction on the application of Bible principles in daily life." JW literature abounds with statements saying that God and Christ use the anointed (who form the "faithful slave") as his channel. BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, your objection seems to be based on the fact that, according to you, not all members of the faithful discreet slave class channel revelations, but the passage in question doesn't say that all "anointed" members channel revelation. It merely says that the faithful and discreet slave class ("as a whole" is implied here): "is used by Christ as a channel for God's progressive revelations." The sentence has 7 different citations and all of them are JW sources. (BlackCab has provided a very good one here.) This passage is therefore well sourced and neutral. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Dawn Bard, I think it does imply that and that a reasonable reader would take that to be what the sentence was saying, which is why I object to the sentence as misleading and misrepresenting the source. To fix this is a simple matter, it shouldn't be cause for such upheaval. If seven sources are available, then quote one of them in context and this should solve the issue. Willietell (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear exactly what you think is wrong with the text, Wiilietell. The sentence says (a) doctrines are established by the Governing Body, which (b) is said to represent the "faithful slave" class which (c) is itself used as the channel by which Christ for the progressive revelation of ideas and doctrines. Point (a) is a given; point (b) is supported by four WT references and point (c) is also supported by WT references. You claim the statement is disparaging, is biased and a coatrack. How does it disparage, how is it biased and precisely what is the "coat" that disguises the "rack"? BlackCab (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Willietell doesn't understand COAT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to have missed it, I will again refer to my original objection as it states all that is needed to see this is a misleading sentence, based only partially on the truth.

This statement is misleading and misrepresents the source material, as Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that all of those professing to be "anointed" are used to "channel...progressive revelations" and "to direct Christians in biblical matters", there are in fact, those who profess to be "anointed" who serve in christian congregations only as publishers of the good news of God's Kingdom along with their brothers and sisters who do not profess to be "anointed" and have little to do with organizational matters. This statement therefore is not only incorrect, unrepresentative of the source material, but also disguises it's purpose, which is to make a misleading and disparaging remark about Jehovah's Witnesses, thus violating not only WP:NPOV but WP:COAT as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change. Let's move on. BlackCab (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Willietell doesn't understand the point of WP:COAT, which is about disguising the point of articles. The alleged (but unfounded) dispute is about bias, not a coatrack issue.

Aside from that, whilst it is true that JWs only receive doctrine from the GB and its assistants at headquarters, it is also true that they are said to be taught, according to JW doctrine, by 'the faithful slave' made up of the 'remnant' of the 'anointed' '144,000'. Wikipedia does not attempt to resolve such contradictions. It just presents both points, and these are accurately covered in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Consultation with anointed

Governing Body seeks neither advice nor approval from any "anointed" Witnesses other than high-ranking members at the Brooklyn headquarters.[16][9][17]

This statement misrepresents cited source material[16][9] while using source material that is WP:Fringe and biased[17] as it comes from a disfellowshiped ex-member with questionable motives, source material from such individuals violate WP:NPOV as the author has an obvious conflict of interest. The statement is also presented in a disparaging way, Violating WP:attack and WP:NPOV

The statement is made in a neutral tone and is based on a reliable source. WTS publications themselves make the same statement (see, for example, WT, June 15, 2009, page 24, which is cited in the article), and several authors have found this notable: though the Governing Body describes itself as a "spokesman" and "representative" of the global "body" of anointed JWs, it makes its decisions independently of that body, in other words, without consulting those for whom it speaks. BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the cited sources are misrepresented, they should be removed, if you have an additional source which you feel presents the material, then cite it,so that it can be verified. WT, June 15, 2009, page 24 is not the cited source and Franz is WP:Fringe and an unacceptable source due to his extreme bias as a disfellowshiped apostate.Willietell (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't disparaging. Are you saying it is inaccurate? If so, what would you replace it with? As you've used numbers for the sources you don't approve of, and those numbers may have changed, I can't comment on them. At the moment those represent two Watchtower sources and Andrew Holden's book. What's wrong with them? Or how are they being misrepresented? None of them are Franz. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Same source as before [4] they say this themselves. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

At least now I know what web site this entire page was plagiarized from, seemingly word for word. I wonder if this could be copyright infringement? The web site, however, is NOT produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, but by some apostate organization. It is also WP:Fringe and therefore cannot be used. Again, this whole page needs to be immediately deleted.Willietell (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the numbers would be a problem today, I didn't think about them changing at the time, to get an accurate look at the references by number, examine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs&oldid=469357671

This is the page at the time I wrote the responses. I will correct this by copy/pasting the references in the future. Willietell (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the site provided by User:Darkness Shines is a mirror of the Wikipedia article, and is not an official JW site. It is true that the site cannot be used as a source, not only because Wikipedia does not consider blogs to be reliable sources, but also because it is a mirror of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia cannot cite itself.

However, the point in question is well sourced, and verifiable from JW publications, including the 2011 Watchtower (page 22) cited in the article, which states The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused again, what does this statement Governing Body seeks neither advice nor approval from any "anointed" Witnesses other than high-ranking members at the Brooklyn headquarters. have to do with this one The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones.. That source reference, August 15, 2011 watchtower pg. 22 is a discussion of an entirely different topic than what is claimed by it's use as a source reference and if need be I can paste the whole article here for those who wish to read it and verify that it is misrepresented as a source reference. The sentence is in violation of WP:NPOV because it attempts to paint the Governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as some sort of dictatorial leadership in the readers eyes, it therefore also violates WP:COAT, because it pushes an agenda. Willietell (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in the "Source of Doctrines" section identifies the source of doctrines (the GB, as spokesman for the faithful slave class), and this accurately presents the official view of the religion. The second sentence presents another piece of information, namely that the GB does not first consult any but a handful of that "slave class" it claims to "represent".

That issue is addressed at length by Franz, a former Governing Body member, who is cited, as well as two WTS statements. You earlier claimed Franz had a conflict of interest and represented a fringe view. That's something you need to take up at the forum that discusses reliable sources (please show the courtesy of notifying other contributors, including me, if you do so, so we can contribute to the discussion). However Franz's book is cited by many other authors, and his reliability has never been challenged by those authors.

One of the two WTS sources cited is the June 15, 2009, WT article, "The Faithful Steward and its Governing Body", which on Page 23-24 states: "Christians who have truly received this anointing ... do not believe that their being of the anointed gives them special insights beyond what even some experienced members of the 'great crowd' may have ... Are all these anointed ones throughout the earth part of a global network that is somehow involved in revealing new spiritual truths? No. ... the Governing Body does not consult with each individual member of the slave class before making decisions."

The second WTS source is the August 15, 2011 WT, page 22, which states that the GB "does not maintain a global network of anointed ones" and does not keep a list of their names. (A footnote on the article refers readers back to the June 15, 2009 WT article cited above). With no contact list of members of the slave class, it is clearly impossible for the GB to consult with any but those closest to it.

You have claimed the sentence in the Wikipedia article misuses those sources. I see no evidence of that. You say the statement disparages the religion, is an attack and is biased. It is certainly not an attack. I don't see that it is biased or disparages the religion; Franz certainly claims the religion is being deceptive in its statements, but the Wikipedia article doesn't repeat that claim. An alternative way of dealing with this, then, could be to state that Franz claims the GB doesn't consult with .... (etc) and then add a sentence stating that the WTS acknowledges that individual members of the slave class do not contribute to doctrinal development and that the GB mantains no contact with them. That still leaves the reader free to appreciate that (a) the GB makes doctrines; (b) it does so on behalf of the slave class yet (c) it maintains no contact with the slave class. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you objection here only proves my objection in the previous subheading to be correct. Willietell (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your view. BlackCab (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim on doctrinal changes

Watch Tower Society publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose[18][19][20][21] to some headquarters staff.[22]

Use of the word "claim" violates WP:NPOV and creates an unnecessarily negative tone, the extension to the sentence "to some headquarters staff" is misleading and misrepresents the source[22], serving as a disparaging remark and making the entire sentence a WP:COAT.

You are wrong. See WP:CLAIM. "Claim" is a word to be used with care, but it is not banned. The sentence is correct, though if you'd like to suggest an alternative (asserts? states? teaches?) I'd have no objection. The reference to "some headquarters staff" accurately represents the statement made in the July 15, 2010 Watchtower. BlackCab (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not wrong, the use of the word claim here creates a non-neutral tone and leads to reader to the conclusion that they should favor one side over the other, and I have the July 15, 2010 Watchtower. and it does not say that Jehovah reveals his will and purpose "to some headquarters staff", so therefore that is a misrepresentation.Willietell (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What would you have it say?? No one has ever proven that God exists, let alone all the other conclusions that must be reached in order to accept that JWs' 'progressive revelation of doctrines' is anything other than a claim. It has been established that the Governing Body makes all doctrinal decisions, and the Governing Body are headquarters staff.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because the Governing Body are headquarters staff, does not make all headquarters staff part of the Governing Body, the statement is misleading and the inclusion of the phrase to some headquarters staff needs to be eliminated. the term claim needs to be eliminated by rephrasing the sentence in a manner to present the idea in a more neutral light. Possibly along the lines of Watch Tower Society publications which detail doctrinal changes and refinements are said to be the result of a process of progressive revelation, by which Jehovah gradually reveals his will and purpose[18][19][20][21] This would allow for maintaining the same source references, eliminate the inflammatory nature of the sentence and still present the desired material in a neutral manner. Willietell (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions below hadn't taken into consideration the issue with "some headquarters staff." I don't disagree with you here. How would people feel about ending the sentence with "...to the Governing Body" or just removing the end of the sentence per Willietell? My suggestions for replacing the word "claim" are below. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, no one has suggested anything about all headquarters staff. The Watchtower cited in the article states that the Governing Body and other 'representatives of the slave' at the headquarters have things 'revealed' to them by God. The phrase some headquarters staff could be replaced with something like members of the Governing Body and their assistants. It would be fairly ambiguous to entirely omit to whom things are supposedly revealed, which might then be inferred as all JWs, or some other random subset. It would also be inaccurate to say they claim such things are only revealed to the GB, because the Watchtower cited makes the claim that things are also revealed to 'representatives of the slave'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How about this change to the wording: "According to Watch Tower Society publications, doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose[18][19][20][21] to some headquarters staff.[22]"?(see my post above, "some headquarters staff" might not be the best wording) "According to" is one of the more neutral alternatives to "claim" suggested by WP:CLAIM. Would this work for everyone? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Another alternative might be "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation..." Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Holden (2002, pages 58-81) deals at length with the pride JWs take that they eschew orthodox Christian mysticism in favour of a rational construction of beliefs, i.e. that almost all their beliefs and doctrines can be studied, learned and explained using logic. It is only fair then, that Wikipedia explain their source of doctrinal development using a similarly rational approach. The WTS has long used the term "progressive revelation" and this has been widely noted in secular studies of the religion. To whom are these "truths" revealed and how? A secular encyclopedia shouldn't shy away from asking, or answering, the question. The July 15, 2010, WT article cited, directly addresses the issue of how God would "reveal" deeper insights in the "last days". Paragraph 10 is already quoted in the citation footnotes, explicitly stating that God reveals information to "responsible representatives of the 'faithful and discreet slave' at world headquarters". Those insights are considered by the GB before published as doctrines.

Willietell claims the statement is misleading, misrepresents the source, is disparaging and (again) a coatrack (though of what he again does not say). I think it's factual, based on reliable sources and presented in an editorially neutral manner. I have earlier suggested options to "claims" (asserts, states, teaches) in the first part of the sentence and I think an encyclopedia should use the provable statement that WTS publications assert (or teach, etc) rather than the rather presumptuous phrase that Witnesses believe it. BlackCab (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My objection here as noted is based on the inclusion of the phrase to some headquarters staff which is ambiguous and unrepresentative of the source material. I have no objection to Dawns statement of: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation..." or to simply dropping the statement as Dawn also suggested as in : "According to Watch Tower Society publications, doctrinal changes and refinements result from a process of progressive revelation, in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose[18][19][20][21] , but to include the addition of to some headquarters staff is a distortion of the source material, is misleading and is therefore WP:COAT because it disguises the articles hidden agenda of defamation.Willietell (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no hidden agenda of defamation. BlackCab (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You could also put it as:

• ... publications describe their doctrinal changes and refinements as resulting from a process

But remember that from the viewpoint of Witnesses, they are not "interpreting" the Bible but grasping its real meaning. Perhaps much more than other religious groups, they feel they 'have the truth' and therefore disdain to be described in hermeneutical terms. This aspect of the JW belief system may require more than a minor wording change to convey. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They are interpreting. They can call it whatever they like. There are any number of other religious groups—especially groups of similar size and smaller—that feel just as absolutely sure that theirs is the 'only' 'truth', but they're also interpreting. The article does not need to employ JW euphemisms to generally define their beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for sharing your POV, as I have shared mine. Yes, they can call it whatever they like, and religious scholars who study those folk and their ways can call it something else. Let's not take sides here; remember WP:NPOV and "describe the dispute". See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (policy) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (a helpful essay). --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of your aggressive response is unclear, and I stated a simple fact, not some arbitrary POV. This is an encyclopedia, and per its standards, the article should report about the group in generic terms, such as those employed by "religious scholars who study those folk."--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Back on track, there's nothing wrong with your actual suggestion of using 'describe' instead of 'claim'. Regarding the other issue of Willietell's complaint—about headquarters staff—it is accurate and its import should not be removed, though as I mentioned earlier, it could be changed to something to the effect of 'the GB and their assistants'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Watchtower article cited (July 15, 2010) does not in fact specify who at world headquarters is aided by holy spirit to discern "deep truths". They may not be members of the Governing Body; they may not even be "assistants" of the Governing Body. The Watchtower could conceivably be referring to a doorman or laundry worker who happens to claim to be an anointed Christian. Publications have previously stated that the GB is the representative and the spokesman of the slave class (always referring to the GB as one entity); that Watchtower is clearly referring to specific individual "representatives" who come to decisions and then pass these on to the GB "as a whole" for consideration and a vote. Again, how these individuals are nominated as representatives is not stated. The most that can be said about those who discern deep truths is that they are headquarters staff. Anything beyond that is guesswork and original research. BlackCab (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, here is the cited source material in its context:

• • • w10 7/15 pp. 22-23 “The Spirit Searches Into . . . the Deep Things of God” ***

During the Time of the End

Speaking about the time of the end, an angel foretold: “The ones having insight will shine like the brightness of the expanse; and those who are bringing the many to righteousness, like the stars to time indefinite, even forever. . . . And the true knowledge will become abundant.” (Dan. 12:3, 4) Who would be the ones having insight and who would shine? Jesus provided a clue in his illustration of the wheat and the weeds. Speaking about the “conclusion of a system of things,” he stated: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Matt. 13:39, 43) In his explanation, Jesus identified “the righteous ones” as “the sons of the kingdom,” anointed Christians.—Matt. 13:38.

Would all anointed Christians “shine”? In a sense, yes, for all Christians would participate in preaching, in disciple making, and in building one another up at meetings. Anointed ones would set the example. (Zech. 8:23) In addition to this, however, deep things were to be revealed during the time of the end. The very prophecy Daniel recorded was “sealed up” until that time. (Dan. 12:9) How and through whom would the spirit search into these deep things?

When the time comes to clarify a spiritual matter in our day, holy spirit helps responsible representatives of “the faithful and discreet slave” at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood. (Matt. 24:45; 1 Cor. 2:13) The Governing Body as a whole considers adjusted explanations. (Acts 15:6) What they learn, they publish for the benefit of all. (Matt. 10:27) As time goes on, further clarifications may be needed, and these too are honestly explained.—See the box “How the Spirit Revealed the Meaning of the Spiritual Temple.”

Clearly, user:BlackCab is correct in his statement that the sentence as written could conceivably be understood as referring to a doorman or laundry worker. Accounting for the source material, this is clearly not the case and the POV spin in this sentence causes a misrepresentation of the source. He is however incorrect in his assertion that "The Watchtower article cited (July 15, 2010) does not in fact specify who at world headquarters is aided by holy spirit to discern "deep truths".", because it clearly does, stating " holy spirit helps responsible representatives of “the faithful and discreet slave” at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood.". This statement clearly does not reconcile with the sentence which uses the phrase "in which God gradually reveals his will and purpose to some headquarters staff.", which is ambiguous and open to broad interpretation. I suggest the following substitute, Watch Tower Society publications describe doctrinal changes and refinements as resulting from a process of progressive revelation, in which "holy spirit helps responsible representatives of “the faithful and discreet" slave at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood." Which may itself need a definition of "faithful and discreet slave" for the sake of clarity. This will eliminate the POV spin and also clarify the statement. Willietell (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is not 'POV spin', but no objection to using the quote. 'Faithful and discreet slave' is already described and linked under Source of doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed , changes made to article as agreed. Willietell (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that change, though I have reinstated the Penton reference in which he devotes several pages to the JW doctrine of progressive revelation. BlackCab (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of doctrines

The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[28]

This statement is misleading, as the articles found in "The Watchtower" under the heading "Questions from Readers" clearly show that concerns of those who have questions regarding doctrinal matters are regularly addressed and therefore this statement, while sourced, is clearly false, therefore in the interests of adhering to WP:NPOV a rebuttal statement should be included to balance the viewpoint expressed.

The statement is sourced to sociologist James Beckford, who returns to this theme many times in his study. There is no evidence that "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower is anything but a discussion page with questions posed by Watchtower authors in order to clarify, restate or change a church teaching; the page is never used as a forum allowing JWs to challenge, dispute or contribute to teachings. If you, Willietell, decided a specific teaching (blood transfusion ban, perhaps, or the view that the 144,000 of Revelation is a literal number, or the requirement to shun someone who has disassociated from the religion), was wrong, is there a forum such as the synods or conferences of other religions where you could argue your point? What would happen if you debated such a doctrine at a congregation meeting? Witnesses are told to accept without question all doctrines given to them by the Governing Body, and this is what authors such as Beckford, Holden and Penton have stated. BlackCab (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on what BlackCab said above, there is an independent reliable source which asserts this, and no clear statement to the contrary from within the Watchtower itself. Based on that information, I would have to say that the statement should stand, although if there is a direct contradiction issued by the Watchtower, which is not apparently contained in the first statement so far as I can see, that would be reasonable to include as well. John Carter (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it makes sense to you or not does not address the WP:NPOV concerns, whether it is properly referenced or not it presents the information in a negative tone and does not present an opportunity for rebuttal as to why the particular view may be held. The statement is clearly written to support a particular view and therefore is also WP:COAT because it disguises its purpose of supporting an agenda. Willietell (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have previously queried whether this comment should be in the article, with the question of whether such avenues of objection are available to members of other religions. It was pointed out that other religions have various options such as synods etc. Additionally, the statement is reliably sourced. See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_53#Forming_doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

By 'makes sense' I meant I agreed. I'd missed this mention of WP:COAT when I posted earlier, but this is confusing 'coat' with pov. If we have a reliable source for it, it doesn't matter if it's negative or positive. POVs can and should be included, but in a NPOV fashion. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As User:Jeffro77 himself also pointed out in his link, most religions of note do not make allowances for their members "to criticize or contribute to official teachings". However, BlackCab is incorrect with regards to Questions from readers as this series of articles allows for members as well as non-members to address concerns regarding doctrinal issues to which they might have questions. These are then addressed and presented in the article, which addresses certain concerns raised by the person or persons who asked the question. There are also steps members can take to address issues, like taking concerns to members of the congregational elder body, which is encouraged if you have a question for which you have personally been unable to find a satisfactory explanation. So the statement is misleading as, first of all, it depicts Jehovah's Witnesses as being unique in not making available a means for its members to " criticize or contribute to official teachings" and secondly it is incorrect as it ignores instances where they do make provision for this. Willietell (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement is based on a reliable source. There is no consensus for removal. Let's move on. BlackCab (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that Willietell has misrepresented my comments here. Though I stated that I have previously queried whether the article content in question was appropriate, Willietell ignores what I said immediately after. Specifically, it has been pointed out in previous discussion that members of other religions have synods etc by which doctrines can be officially questioned. No such option exists among JWs. The Questions from Readers articles to which Willietell refers have nothing at all to do with changing or challenging doctrines, but simply provide the headquarters' views on such questions; nor is there any evidence that such articles are actually the questions of readers and not simply topics chosen by headquarters staff. Though members may ask elders questions, they are then expected to accept whatever doctrine is current rather than having any input.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

synod [ˈsɪnəd ˈsɪnɒd]

n (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a local or special ecclesiastical council, esp of a diocese, formally convened to discuss ecclesiastical affairs [from Late Latin synodus, from Greek sunodos, from syn- + hodos a way] synodal less commonly, synodical adj Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 Synod -an assembly of the clergy; of ministers or elders.

Exactly where are the non-clergy involved in these discussions? How is this in any way inclusive of the laity in determining doctrinal matters? It isn't, your point is therefore moot. Willietell (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

'Active' (preaching) JWs are supposedly 'ministers'. Your rebuttal is therefore invalid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you are splitting hairs, while it's true that all Witnesses are ministers of the good news and take an active share in proclaiming the good news of Jehovah's Kingdom, this is not the same as being a part of "church leadership" as is the case of those participating in a Synod, which represent half of a clergy/laity distinction. The laity are no more involved in the Synod and the development of church doctrine than is an average "publisher of the good news" at the local Kingdom Hall. There is therefore no notable difference here to report on. Secondarily, where is the opportunity presented for the laity to criticize the decisions of the Synod? Historically speaking, those who have done so have been excommunicated and ostracized or even executed for making statements which run contrary to the teachings of the churches of Christendom. So in reality, the environment in Christendom truly seems to be more harsh, because Jehovah's Witnesses to date have never executed anyone for voicing a disagreement over biblical understanding of a scripture. Willietell (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're off on another tangent. The issue has been discussed and there is no consensus for change. This issue is closed. BlackCab (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Contrary teachings

Members who promote privately-developed teachings contrary to those of the Governing Body may be expelled and shunned.[29][33][34][35]

Statement misrepresents source [34], however the statement is rooted in truth, but presented in a one-sided manner, thus making is fail to adhere to WP:NPOV and teetering on the verge of violating WP:COAT. A rebuttal giving Jehovah's Witnesses position on why members may be disfellowshiped would be needed to adhere to WP:NPOV, the information was available in source[29], however it was not presented, making the sentence biased and fail to adhere to WP:NPOV and teeter on the edge of becoming a WP:COAT

Ronald Lawson, the author whose statement you say is misrepresented, wrote: "There is little room for independence of thought and no toleration of doctrinal diversity. Those seen as deviating are readily expelled, and all members, including relatives, are then expected to shun them." The statement therefore is accurately sourced and accurate. I'm not sure how a rebuttal could be added, but if you'd like to suggest one, please do so. I have, however, removed Holden as a source for that statement; his description of the requirement for complete obedience to the "absolutist" message emanating from the GB belongs a sentence or two higher. BlackCab (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What page, when I read it, I didn't see that statement, I'm not saying I could not have missed it, but let me know exactly where it is so I can see it for myself , please.Willietell (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See here [5] where it clearly appears in

"Sect-State Relations: Accounting for the Differing Trajectories of Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses" by Ronald Lawson, in Sociology of Religion Vol. 56, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 351-377 Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Again I asked for an exact location for the statement in the reference material cited, please do not attempt to respond with a 26 page citation as this is not a full citation. I cannot be expected to go on an exploration mission to find cited material, if you say that the source makes the statement, then you should be able to provide the location, complete with page number, not a 26 page range. If you cannot, then delete the unsourced/improperly sourced material. Willietell (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability states: The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. There is no onus on other editors to make it easier for you to verify a source beyond providing what the source said. Additionally, the second Google search result from the link provided above shows the original text from the original PDF.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact the Wikipedia article cites the page number. It's 371. BlackCab (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the cited sources for the passage in question is from The Watchtower, so your request for a JW source has already been fulfilled. Note that the non-JW source quoted here says that "[t]hose seen as deviating are readily expelled, and all members...are then expected to shun them", but the Wikipedia entry softens this to "...may be expelled" (emphasis mine). This shows that JW and non-JW sources are being incorporated to adhere to NPOV. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, by main objection to this sentence in more to the presentation that the content, as I noted it is rooted in truth, but fails to supply more that a one-sided position and thus becomes non-neutral. The inclusion of the reason Jehovah's Witnesses do not permit divisions to crop up inside the congregation is needed to balance the statement and make it adhere to WP:NPOV. This can be easily done, so the resistance to this seems to indicate bias. Willietell (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you that by their refusal to allow members to debate official doctrines, the JWs are unusual. The fact is therefore notable. The sentence to which you refer (noting that anyone promoting a contrary doctrine faces expulsion) is directly related to that fact. However if you are convinced this presents only half the story and that more information would balance it, please suggest your amendment here. BlackCab (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend this alteration to the section:

Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage Witnesses from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through independent Bible research. Instead encouraging it's members to act and speak in an organized and unified manner, believing that Jesus Christ instructs Christians at John 10:6 to "become "one flock" under his leadership". They also feel that in accordance with their understanding of 1 Corinthians 1:10 that the entire worldwide organization should "speak in agreement" on doctrinal matters thus members who promote privately-developed teachings contrary to those of the Governing Body may be expelled and shunned........this additional information can be supported by the reference source "Watchtower, June 1st 2011 pg. 15". This I think should help to eliminate the issue of a lack of balance here— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs)

Your suggested text uses forms of the JW euphemism encourage twice, where such is actually a direction. The current statement is concise and accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WTS publications do use the 1 Corinthians 1:10 scripture often to reinforce their requirement for doctrinal unity. Use of that reference and statement in the "Source of doctrines" section would add more information and I don't see a problem with it. BlackCab (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference to 'speaking in agreement' from Corinthians could be included in the section, but should not be used as an attempt to 'justify' disfellowshipping for independent teachings. JW literature doesn't directly employ that scripture that way and is therefore synthesis. The first sentence of Willietell's suggestion with the euphemism encourage basically restates the existing point and is redundant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it could be referenced to this material to provide sourcing:

• • • it-1 p. 788 Expelling ***

Some of the offenses that could merit disfellowshipping from the Christian congregation are fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idolatry, apostasy, and the causing of divisions in the congregation. (1Co 5:9-13; 6:9, 10; Tit 3:10, 11; Re 21:8) Mercifully, one promoting a sect is warned a first and a second time before such disfellowshipping action is taken against him. In the Christian congregation, the principle enunciated in the Law applies, namely, that two or three witnesses must establish evidence against the accused one. (1Ti 5:19) Those who have been convicted of a practice of sin are reproved Scripturally before the “onlookers,” for example, those who testified concerning the sinful conduct, so that they too may all have a healthy fear of such sin.—1Ti 5:20;

While 1 Corinthians 1:10 isn't cited here, the reference to "causing divisions in the congregation" is clear and rooted to that scripture.

The scriptural reference at Titus 3:10 states:

(Titus 3:9-11) . . .. 10 As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; 11 knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.

This scripture is actually used in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 1:10 as well as many other scriptures (1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Thess. 2:3, Acts 20:30, 2 Peter 2:1-3, etc...), as being the basis for the disfellowshipping of those who would cause divisions inside the congregation by promoting self-proclaimed doctrine that is outside the bounds of scriptural teaching. Willietell (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I never really viewed the words, discourage and encourage as JW euphemism's, but if you have an alternate choice of a word that conveys the same meaning, I will certainly entertain it. I would possibly substitute the word admonish for encourage , but it's likely that you would also consider admonish as another JW euphemism. But I am open to suggestion here. Willietell (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The scriptures you cite are used in WTS literature in regard to promoting sects, but they don't explicitly address the issue of promoting privately-developed teachings. The two are not the same thing, yet you are synthesizing a proof that they are. If I, for example, came to the conclusion that the reference to 144,000 people in Revelation was, like every other number in that book, symbolic, and began to tell people my view that there was no biblical basis for believing God chose 144,000 people since Jesus' death to constitute a heavenly government, I would not be trying to develop a sect; I would be urging people to research and think about it for themselves and test the logic. My reasoning is no more or less "scriptural teaching" than what the Governing Body says; both of us are simply interpreting scripture. If you wish to provide a WTS rebuttal, or defence, then find a statement in a Watchtower or WTS book that says those who promote a privately-held view must be expelled because they are considered to be trying to develop a following, and then cite the scripture they use to support their argument. That would therefore explain why they do not tolerate people reasoning for themselves about scriptures. The article thus far states what does happen if someone shares their dissenting views; what you want to do is explain why it happens. BlackCab (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary

This completes the first section, as this is long article, it cannot reasonably be addressed in its entirety in one sitting, so other elements of concern will be addressed in a progressive manner.Willietell (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I restored the tags as this fellow complained on ANI. Willietell Your wall of text above is a waste of time, you need to discuss one thing at a time, not hundreds. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I feel the page should just be deleted, because there are so many areas of concern that need to be addressed, it would be better to delete the page and start from scratch. Willietell (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have broken Willietell's points into separate headers so each can be addressed individually. It is good to finally see this user identify the points of the article he has previously described as "Inconsistencies and outright lies of those with a pointed agenda". Few of the points he has raised thus far have any legitimacy; most complaints seem to reflect this user's ignorance or misunderstanding of basic issues such as neutrality, citation of sources and original research. His suggestion that the page be deleted and rewritten from scratch remains as pointless as it first was. BlackCab (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold here, but I'm going to go ahead and remove the POV tag on the article. Willie doesn't seem to be interested in discussion anymore. He has tried to debate his position, but multiple editors have addressed his concerns; few of which has any validity. If anyone feels I am out of line on this one, feel free to restore the tag. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. BlackCab (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I disagree and the tag will remain until these disputes have been addressed, the agreement of two clearly non-neutral editors hardly represents a consensus and aside from that, this discussion is only beginning as all issues cannot be discussed at once, later issues will be addressed as soon as others are resolved. Willietell (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that you will be satisfied by anything that actually complies with our NPOV policy. You've just tagged the article again but not raised any specific concerns, and dragging this out over a period of weeks or months while keeping it tagged is simply not acceptable. You dropped out of the discussion so the tag was removed. You don't seem to understand our policy on NPOV. What I suggest you do is go to WP:NPOVN and see what people say there. If they agree with you, the tag can be replaced. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't drop out of the discussion, I had a couple of surgeries and have been recovering, I didn't real feel it was necessary to give this kind of personal information to you, but since you seem to demand it, that is the reason for my short absence. You continue to hastily remove the tag, knowing that the discussion on this article is only beginning. Please again, do not remove the tag until this discussion is over! Willietell (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A number of uninvolved editors have commented, and none have agreed with any of your complaints. You have received responses to all of the points you've raised, and no one agrees with you, and no amount of going round in circles will change that. You may continue with other avenues of dispute resolution if you like, but so far your only real basis is that you don't like the article content, which is not likely to result in changes to the article. If you have different objections, you're welcome to move on to those, but you will need to learn to work collaboratively rather than just expecting the article to be changed to suit you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the website the info was supposedly taken from had their page posted July 6th, 2009. The page was copied onto the site in question from this revision. User:Willietell appears to disagree with any negative critisism on the article, to the point of trying to have this page deleted multiple times on shaky premises. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the page identified by the nominator appears to be simply reproducing this Wikipedia article. The nominator has been running a campaign for several weeks to have this page deleted for spurious, baseless reasons; this is his latest attempt. --BlackCab (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow my comment disappeared, so I will state it again. The page contains a copyright from 1999 http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/. While the article may seem to have a date attached of 6 July 2009, that date is likely simply a revision of the article and not the date of its "writing", however, the copyright date MUST take precedence when considering the age of the article. Perhaps the publisher can be contacted to obtain permission to plagiarize their material and further alter it. Again the site in question is:

http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my comment, I forgot where I put it, it was on my talk page:

This page: http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ has a copyright from 1999, unless this article has been on Wikipedia since before that time, it must be a copy of this article in violation of copyright laws. I was willing to work to correct the page, but I'm not willing to violate the law, I must obey them...I'm sure you will agree. The copyright information is at the bottom of the web page, so scroll all the way down Willietell (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While you are correct that the page has existed with a copyright since 1999, you can clearly read that that information was not posted to the site until July 6th, 2009. This date is AFTER the orginial article I linked you was created. You can tell by looking at the diffs before that date that the article was being revised since 2004. The is no copyvio issue here. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that is the case, the article has a copyright from 1999, the 2009 date is likely a revision of the original article, therefore while your argument on the surface may seem logical, I must assume the copyright date is correct. Willietell (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Willietell (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page was created in August 2010, along with Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Both were a split of an article, Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, which had been created some years earlier and constantly edited to reach a size where it needed splitting. See this edit from 2006. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me the edit from 1998, all you are really doing is proving that articles are revised and that the copyright date is likely correct. Willietell (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article did not exist in 1998. I have provided a link to the Wikipedia article as it was in 2006, three years before that content was added to the WTIS website. The copyright 1999-2012 note at the bottom of the WTIS page clearly refers to material on their entire website, not that specific page; that same notice appears on their JWs vs the World page which was evidently created only in 2001. There is no evidence that Wikipedia is using material lifted from the WTIS website. BlackCab (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: For the sake of posterity, I'll note that admin Fastily deleted the page at Willietell's request, then reinstated it[6][7] after being asked to reconsider the evidence. BlackCab (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I still have a relatively high amount of skepticism regarding the origins of this page and am genuinely concerned it may be a copyright violation. I am not entirely sure how to go about determining the exact age of this page (remember I am still relatively new here). If possible, could someone please show me how to check on the origins of a particular page to determine its age and who wrote the page, as I really don't know how to do either. Willietell (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You are flogging a dead horse. However you can visit the original article before it was split in half here, go to the very top of the article to access the redirect page (written in small text) and enter it there. From that point you can click the "View history" tab to examine every edit ever made. BlackCab (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I still have serious questions that perhaps you could answer. UserBlackCab claims that the page has been in existence since 2004 and that the sight http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ shows the article written in 2009, however, the site also notes that the page was reconstructed in July 2009 after it crashed in Jan. 2009 http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/ , which would seem to indicate that the article was simply replaced back in July 2009 as the site was reconstructed. This site shows a copyright from 1999 and I still have serious doubts as to whether this is a not copyright violation.Willietell (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a lie. http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/, which you've already linked, shows posts dated 2009, 2007 and 2006. Other pages on the site also show posts from additional years. You have also specifically been shown the exact version of the Wikipedia article from 5 July 2009[8] that was copied to the other website on 6 July 2009. Just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Salvation section

I have rewritten the Salvation section, adding secondary sources and reducing the number of primary sources. I have opened a new thread at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation#Redundancy of article suggesting that that article be proposed for deletion, primarily because it contains insufficient relevant material based on secondary sources to warrant a spinout article. It looks like there's a bit of POV-pushing in there as well that's only obliquely related to the main subject of the article. If I proceed with an AfD and it succeeds, there'll obviously be no need for the "Main article" tag at the start of the Salvation section of the Beliefs article. BlackCab (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Willietell was asked to take this to WP:NPOVN to justify the tag, but chose to restore it instead. I think this is a misuse of the tag and suggest that either someone else take to to NPOVN or it goes to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

He has produced a reason (surgery) that would explain his absence, but is still flogging dead horses all over the joint. I don't have the time right now to read all his responses, but he has so far gained agreement from no other editor for any of his points. At what point does that attitude become disruptive editing because he refuses to get the point? BlackCab (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted this over to the WP:NPOVN. Hopefully some more editors will help gets things squared away here. I didn't want to drag this into the ANI arena just yet. I think it's still barely clinging to the content side of things. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here, coming in after seeing the above request. I have no involvement or strong feelings and very little previous knowledge on this topic, so I am looking at it with a set of fresh eyes.

First I picked ten statements at random and checked the references. This, BTW, is a great way of checking whether a Wikipedia article is an attack piece or a puff piece - in both cases the references tend to not support the statements they are attached to. In this case, ten out of ten citations I checked support the text they are attached to.

I did have a bit of trouble though, because so many of the citations are not online links I can check. We are well into the 21st century. Is it really true that there are no online copies of publications such as Awake! and The Watchtower that we can cite?

Then I looked at the tone. It seems to be quite good, neither an ad for the religion or an attack page dominated by the religion's enemies. Overall, you are doing a good job.

I do have two questions: first, what are those bridges in the background of the HQ picture? Might I suggest naming them in the caption? "in the background are..." Second, what it the point of the tombstone? Is that a special Jehovah's Witness grave that is somehow different? Or is it just a stock photo of a generic grave?

Next I looked at the talk page. You have two problems. First problem: Willietell is being aggressive rather than collaborative, and as far as I can tell has convinced nobody to agree with him. Second problem: various other people are engaging Willietell by saying things that were said and ignored previously. You have to figure out as a community how to stop going around and around in circles, and this will necessarily require you not responding to arguments that have been discussed several times already. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Guy Macon. JW articles have previously become battlegrounds between pro- and anti-JW editors and in the past two or three years significant effort has gone into seeking secondary sources for as much information as possible and also removing language that adopts a tone either complimentary or critical of the religion. One or two editors who have had no previous input have already expressed their views in the threads above and your comments reinforce the consensus that has so far emerged. Further comment from other uninvolved editors would be welcome to try to overcome the impasse. BlackCab (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the most recent nine months of The Watchtower and Awake magazines are available online at the JW media site[9]. Some older articles have been adapted into web pages at the official JW website[10], but the selection in that format is fairly arbitrary, far from exhaustive, and not indexed by original date of publication. Very old issues of The Watch Tower (1879–1916) are available online[11].

I really don't think that the bridges in the picture are especially relevant to the scope of the article.

It seems that Willietell simply doesn't like the article, despite the fact that other editors do not agree with him. If he cannot accept consensus and continues going round in circles about points that have already been dealt with, it may be necessary to file an ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon, since I have been able to find few references cited here that do not use POV spin in presenting material, please list the 10 that you found for inspection. And Jeffro77, what I don't like about the article is its failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. This matter can be readily resolved with just a little cooperation from the editors who claim to be non-biased , but instead they seems intent on retaining this article word for word, which in itself should bring into question the motive behind such determination. The points I have addressed thus far are actually relatively minor, the resistance to those changes has been off the scale, which defies all logic, unless there is some ulterior motive in keeping the POV slant to the article. Remember:

"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Willietell (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect that everyone here knows that. As this is now at WP:NPOVN I suggest you go there and raise any specific points that you have. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "please list the 10 that you found for inspection", No. Also, please do not twist my words. I said that the references match the text they are attached to. POV and spin are a different issue than whether the citations match the text. Your POV concerns are being discussed on the NPOV noticeboard, so I will not comment on them here. If you know of a citation that does not agree with the text it is attached to, list it here for evaluation and possible correction. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood you then, I took your statement to mean you examined the cited references and thought they were well represented by the material. If that isn't what you mean, then exactly what does "that the references match the text they are attached to" mean? Also, I have already cited, in the material above, instances where the article misrepresents the cited source material and to re-present it here yet again is redundant and unnecessary, as you can simply read the material above included in subheadings found under the major heading of Willietell to indicate specific neutrality concerns. Willietell (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I "examined the cited references and thought they were well represented by the material." I did look at your previous postings, and found no actual claims of instances where the article misrepresents the cited source material. Please keep in mind the difference between the two things. A statement could be completely biased and non-neutral and be based on a citation that is not a reliable source, yet still have (biased) text that matches up with the (unreliable) source. Two different issues. You have only claimed bias and non-neutral POV. You have never claimed a specific case of text-citation mismatch. If you have such a case, tell us where rather than asking us to search everything you have ever written. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am now unsubscribing from this page. If anything comes up that looks like it requires a response from me, please drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fear of demons

User:Willietell has twice inserted a line about the observations by Penton and Beckford about the JWs' fear of demons being "at odds" with Watch Tower Society statements about what Jehovah's Witnesses should feel about demons. It is a clear statement of POV to state that observation A is "at odds" with statement B. The implication is that statement B is reliable while observation A is dubious. Another editor could equally choose to state that statement B is at odds with observation A. Both present a "POV spin" to use Willietell's favorite expression. Willietell's presentation of the source was also poorly done. Please stick with existing citation styles and note that The Watchtower is not published by Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, every Watchtower states on page 2, that it is "published by Jehovah's Witnesses continually since 1879". Willietell (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That statement is incorrect, because prior to 1931 there was no such group s Jehovah's Witnesses. On the same page of The Watchtower as the words you've just quoted, it contains the message that: "The Watchtower is published semimonthly by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. and Eatch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada." Copies printed in Australia (where I live) will probably therefore say they are published by the Australian corporation with a similar name. The copyright holder is Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania." For Wikipedia's purposes that is the body we use when citing the magazines. BlackCab (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "at odds" simply notes that the two statements contradict each other. There's no particular POV or bias. "The reported fear of demons is at odds with the official teachings" and ""The official teachings are at odds with the reported fear of demons" mean the same thing, and neither gives more preference or weight to either side of the issue.—Kww(talk) 13:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We cannot say that the two statements are "at odds" with each other without a source. That would be OR. Only an reliable expert can provide that interpretation, and it has to be published in a relaible source. There's also a major weight problem in undermining what "is", on the one hand, with what "should be", on the other. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I began to address this matter last year, at: Talk:JWs#Undue and demons.
I haven't thought about this for some time, and now I note that that article, like this, currently states: "Researchers including sociologist James Beckford and psychologist Havor Montague have noted Jehovah's Witnesses' dread of demons, which James Penton says is "sometimes so extreme that it becomes quite superstitious.""

Experienced editors already know that Penton and Montague are both former Jehovah's Witnesses and neither argues that individual JWs are more demon-dreading than their non-JW neighbors. When the article by "Havor Montague" touches on demonism, it is only a brief comment on the writer's own anecdotal thoughts, and he explicitly states, "The concern over demonism is partially the result of the Witnesses' lower class background and the tendency for JW's to come from the more fundamentalist religions, and not necessarily a result of the Wt's [that is, "Watchtower's"] explicit teaching".

Entire books and treatises have been written on JWs... none has contained any substantive analysis or more than a few sentences about this supposed 'extreme dread of demons'? Should we ignore that sparsity and insist that every encyclopedia article on JWs and JW beliefs must include it?

My understanding of all the references in context is that it seems laughably POV to suggest that JW adherents are typically fearful of the demons, much less particularly fearful in a way that their neighbors or other Christians are not. Both articles need some attention to how they discuss the matter of JWs and 'demon dread'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As a bit of an outsider, I think that maybe some form of mention regarding the JWs and demons/evil supernatural entities might be relevant. I remember when going through a recent biography of Michael Jackson that he was involved in some controversy with the JWs regarding the use of zombies(?) in his Thriller video, and that he went so far as to write a specific apology for using such creatures in a JW publication. And no one said that every ecyclopedia article should mention it, just this one. Having said that, if it is sufficiently notable, it might make sense to perhaps spin off such content into a separate article, with perhaps a summary section here. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, John Carter, can we conclude that you would support removing so-called "demon dread" discussion from the main 'Jehovah's Witnesses' article? That main article currently states, "Researchers including sociologist James Beckford and psychologist Havor Montague have noted Jehovah's Witnesses' dread of demons, which James Penton says is "sometimes so extreme that it becomes quite superstitious." Penton also notes that avoidance of "demonistic practices" has released many people in Africa and Latin America from fear of spirits.".
It would likely be less disruptive for a self-described "bit of an outsider" such as yourself to perform that edit there.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A statement in a JW publication about how JWs should view demons does not contradict an observation of how JWs do view demons. I initially tried to balance Willietell's edit with this, but I don't feel strongly about mentioning it.

I'm not aware that Jackson was ever officially a member of the religion, though his mother was/is(?). However, Jackson did indeed express regret about the "occult" overtones of Thriller, which he said was due to his "strong personal convictions". This is recorded in the 22 May 1984 issue of Awake!. I'm not sure that it, specifically, indicates fear of demons.

There are various other anecdotal reports of 'demon attacks' among JWs. JW publications do present ancient and modern tales of demonic possession and disturbances as literal, and warn members that possessing objects associated with spiritism or certain types of music can 'invite demons'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

JWs beliefs regarding demons are not dissimilar to the beliefs of other Christian religions, and it seems unlikely that JW publications contain a distinctly higher percentage of column-inches pertaining to demons than the publications of other Christian religions; has any academic analysis compared something objective like that? No? So this is an explicitly anecdotal tempest-in-a-teapot by two former JWs (oh, and an apparently from an unspecific, as-yet-unprovided quotation from one other source: Beckford). Despite that, editors are insisting that including this so-called "belief" is not beyond obviously WP:UNDUE? Even if this one article mentions JW beliefs about demons (which beliefs seem remarkably coincident with the rest of Christianity), the expression "dread of demons" seems needlessly loaded and contradicts what JW publications explicitly state (including about what JWs "do not [do]"), to wit:

• "Demons are dangerous, but we need not dread them. Their power is limited."–The Watchtower, 2006-01-15, page 7
• "God’s people do not dread demons."–The Watchtower, 1986-10-15, page 24
  

I hope to see edits more in line with encyclopedic discussion and the spirit of WP:UNDUE.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the way JWs are told to feel about 'demons' is not directly comparable with observations of how they do feel about them. A 2006 Questions From Readers article in The Watchtower asked, "If a person is being harassed by the demons, what can he do to get relief?" Rather than recommend that such a person seek medical or psychiatric treatment (in reality such experiences have many physiological explanations ranging from drug use to hypoxia to sleep paralysis to schizophrenia to plain old fatigue, etc, etc), the article instead treats 'demonic attacks' as actual experiences, and recommend prayer and throwing out "books, magazines, movies, material from electronic sources, music recordings that have spiritistic overtones, as well as amulets or other items worn for “protection” or linked to spiritistic practices." (I personally know of two unrelated firsthand experiences of JWs who claimed they were harassed (and in one case, possessed) by demons; in both cases, the situations were treated seriously by JW elders.) In addition to cases that are purported to be 'real', tales about demons are also sometimes told among JWs in similar manner to the way many people tell 'ghost stories', and are analogous to that end. Some JWs avoid items as innocuous as windchimes because they may be perceived as being associated with 'evil spirits'. As stated before, I'm not sure it's essential to include Penton's comments on the matter, however it is reliably sourced and consistent with other facts, including JW publications—such as the Questions from Readers article—that can reasonably be seen as encouraging paranoia and superstition about 'demons'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(I agree that it is probably not necessary to mention at the main article.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days so I am only now noticing that again, my edit to provide a more balanced article has been reverted in an attempt to distort the facts and push POV spin over reality. The information from the Watchtower needs to be restored, because undue weight is being given to fringe anti-Jehovah's Witnesses sources which is causing an inaccurate article to be presented. Jehovah's Witnesses do not in fact have a " dread of demons ", only a healthy understanding of exactly who they are and what they are capable of doing. In a sense, its much like having a knowledge of snakes, You understand what they are and what they are capable of, and so you handle yourself accordingly when encountering one. This is not a dread, and therefore these inaccurate sources need to be rebutted to provide a more accurate depiction. Also, Jeffro77, I have wind chimes at my front porch, because I like the sound they make in a lite wind, just FYI. Willietell (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of 'demons' is completely unattested, and a healthy understanding is that they don't exist. Conversely, publishing views about throwing out items in order to avoid demons encourages paranoia and superstition.

I have no interest in the way you decorate your porch. I correctly stated that some JWs avoid ... windchimes, and their reason for doing so. See The Watchtower, 1 June 1981, page 31.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam protests that "JWs beliefs regarding demons are not dissimilar to the beliefs of other Christian religions, and it seems unlikely that JW publications contain a distinctly higher percentage of column-inches pertaining to demons than the publications of other Christian religions". In fact WTS publications remain fixated with demons. A 1988 Watchtower article that commendably addresses the issue of higher rates of mental and emotional difficulties in society today ("Mental Distress—When It Afflicts a Christian", October 15) devotes four paragraphs to raise the question of whether the sufferer is the subject of demonic attack or has "received any suspicious items directly and deliberately from individuals who are involved in some form of demonism". I very much doubt other mainstream religions would raise that possibility when canvassing the causes of poor mental health. I recall a JW party in the mid-1980s where those present pored over the host's record collection to see if there were any albums that could invite demons into the house; discussions of what objects could increase the risk of demon attack were not at all uncommon. The Smurfs urban myth became the stuff of legend and is well known in JW circles. I spoke to a Catholic woman recently whose son has become a JW elder. He became very agitated after spending a night at her house, complaining that Catholic literature in the room had led to what he believed was the presence of demons overnight. This is common JW thinking and I don't think any JW who denies this is being honest. BlackCab (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Though JWs don't necessarily think about demons every single day, words such as demons and demonic are definitely used more among JWs than they are among mainstream Christians. (I also recall a talk at one of their conventions, in which Jumanji was cited as "a movie about a demonic board game," causing a JW family to 'wisely' leave the movie theatre.) Their thoughts about demons may be on a par with fundamentalist religions that espouse the 'evils' of Harry Potter, and is certainly more than the mainstream.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, these two editors are certainly ready with personal anecdotes about JWs and demon-fearing; perhaps these editors' personal experiences have affected their view of this matter... Despite that an editor may "recall a talk at one of their conventions" or speak "to a Catholic woman recently", the fact remains that JW publications (that is, something verifiable) are not "fixated with demons". The fact that two editors above are scrambling to quote Watchtower magazines from the 1980s plainly implies JWs' lack of "fixation". JWs publish mountains of literature, so naturally their publications have addressed the matter of demons; but I'd invited a comparison of column-inch percentages (that is, an objective measure): do other Christian publications never mention demons? And regarding JW beliefs, I'd earlier compared them with inspecific other Christian religions (rather than with every other Christian religion or some ambiguously-claimed "mainstream Christianity"); in fact, the evidence continues to pursuade me that JW do not 'fear demons' in a manner differently than other Christians (such as fundamentalists) do, and so it is WP:UNDUE to include more than the briefest of mentions of it here (and none at all at the main JW article). Manufactured criticism like this is better-relegated to 'Criticism of JWs', where no one will be surprised to see an outrageous criticism supported only by an "anti-cult" writer and three former JWs. Editors should also be reminded that all three cited former JWs acknowledge the verifiable 'JW belief' (that demon power is limited and the faithful need not fear demons), and then the former JWs opine regarding some observed JW practice, or rather, the practice of some JWs (which can hardly be considered to apply globally to the entire Jehovah's Witnesses religion). In fact, former JW Havor Montague explicitly states of his anecdotal observations of the practices of certain JW adherents "The concern over demonism is partially the result of the Witnesses' lower class background and the tendency for JW's to come from the more fundamentalist religions, and not necessarily a result of the Wt's [that is, "Watchtower's"] explicit teaching" [bold added]. This encyclopedia article cannot be allowed to color eight million adherents (and obscure explicit JW beliefs) with such thin paint. When this current article discusses formal JW beliefs, that seems distinct from the claimed practices of a handful of JWs observed by former JWs (and one "anti-cult" writer) typically decades ago. Regarding whether JW 'demon-fear' should have more than the briefest of mentions here is this article (and not at all at the main article), I hope to see the Talk discussion continue.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The anecdotal evidence was only provided to back up the veracity of the statements of the reliable sources that have already been provided. The article presents the conclusions reached by those researchers based on their observations of JW behaviour. As recently as 2009, The Watchtower has claimed that students playing with a Ouija board (a board game that is and always was marketed as a toy) evoked "the presence of demons" (15 April 2009, page 11).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the issue of The Watchtower I cited in this discussion on 14 March was from 2006, not "the 1980s". It seems odd to note that JWs 'only' fear demons in a manner similar to "other Christians (such as fundamentalists)", which are actually a small subset. The fact that fear of demons exists among JWs is hardly "an outrageous criticism", and is no more outrageous than stating that someone believes in ghosts or astrology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dread v fear

I hope to see the following subthread resolved almost immediately: The theologically-loaded expression "dread of demons" has no place here; the "dread" claim is by one source, an expelled former JW named by Newsweek as "one...now working actively to debunk the sect's teachings" and who also claims that JWs have primarily themselves to blame for being victims of Nazi persecution. I've replaced "dread" for "fear". I hope an editor will not reinstate the loaded term "dread" without discussing it here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "fear" is acceptable, with the quote showing Penton's observation. I'll take this opportunity to restore the Grizzuti reference as per the endorsement at WP:RSN following an impasse here. Grizzuti has been accepted as a RS and broadens the range of published authors who have found this worthy of mention. BlackCab (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Grizzuti

The recent laughably-labeled "minor edit" adding a quote by Barbara Grizzuti Harrison has been reverted; as an unabashedly anti-JW activist she was nearly the antithesis of 'an objective academic', the writer left the JW religion more than 50 years ago and the cited work is her memoir, the citation's first of two facts is what she herself terms a "bizarre account" more than 30 years old, the citation's second of two facts actually contradicts the point it ostensibly supports (by quoting Watchtower: "one can see from this that one need not live in fear of the demons."), and besides all that her mixed use of the term "demons" renders her quote entirely unencyclopedic (too-cleverly, she metaphorically opines, "Their demons are never exorcised.").--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The woman who AuthorityTam dismisses as "an unabashedly anti-JW activist" is described by Wikipedia as a "journalist, essayist and memoirist" who wrote for publications including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Village Voice, The Nation, Ladies' Home Journal and Mother Jones magazine. Among the people she interviewed were Mario Cuomo, Jane Fonda, Gore Vidal, Francis Ford Coppola, Nadia Comăneci, Alessandra Mussolini and Barbara Bush. She gained a wholly complimentary obituary in the New York Times which described Visions of Glory (the source of her quote on demonism) as a mix of autobiogrtaphy and "detailed historical research". Wikipedia notes that her background as a JW, rather than disqualifying her as a commentator, informed her insights, and she was consequently "often asked to write about movements that were perceived to be cults; she described families affected by the Unification Church and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and reported on the U.S. government's deadly standoff with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas."

Her book meets the requirements of a reliable source. Her frequent criticisms of the religion in Visions of Glory do not negate the reliability of her observations of it from the perspective of her long involvement in it and her position as a staff member within the religion' world headquarters. The book is anything but anti-JW polemic and the NYT obit noted that balance: "She portrays the religion as racist, sexist and totalitarian, but also details members' kindness to one another, their care for the elderly and their courage in the face of persecution." Her comment here is particularly valuable in highlighting the dichotomy between the WTS statements about how JWs should feel about demons and the noticeable dread they have about the risk of demon activity. I will restore Grizzuti Harrison as a source. BlackCab (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Grizzuti's so-called "observations" occurred more than 50 years ago, and she opined rather than expressed an academically-useful analytical conclusion on an account that happened more than thirty years ago. Furthermore, her hesitation to disparage every last adherent of Jehovah's Witnesses (a few of whom she concedes might have been kind, caring, or courageous) hardly qualifies her memoir as a "reliable source" for the beliefs of the religion "Jehovah's Witnesses". Plainly, for Wikipedia's purposes, it is at best a "questionable source". The guideline WP:NOTRELIABLE states, "Questionable sources are those...which rely heavily on...personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims". The claim that JW "dread of demons" is notable is a "contentious claim". Grizzuti's works are full of disdain for the religion, and Grizzuti's association with it ended more than 50 years ago. If Grizzuti's cited memoir is a reliable source, that might be regarding her own experiences and her opinions. But her labeling a passage from The Watchtower as "this bizarre account" and as "this misbegotten advice" certainly is plain old personal opinion and–yes–"polemic". Whatever the editor's protestations, this one cited passage has more that is self-evidently polemic; Grizzuti writes:
But of course the result of all this misbegotten advice [in The Watchtower] is to keep the Witnesses in constant fear of "demon harassment." Their demons are never exorcised.
Polemic has "pejorative implications of the dignity of opposition". Grizzuti's mocking taunt that "their demons are never exorcised" seems a rather explicit pejorative against the Witnesses' dignity. And again, Grizzuti's own work quotes The Watchtower: "one can see from this that one need not live in fear of the demons." Again, I have removed Grizzuti per WP:NOTRELIABLE but could just as easily have removed it for lack of relevance.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam’s initial reason for her disqualification as a source was that she was not an objective academic. He bases this on two arguments: that she is an "unabashedly anti-JW activist", which is patently untrue; and that her observations, based on a lifetime of experience, were contained in a memoir. He has since expanded on this to complain that her observations occurred more than 50 years ago (an unsustainable assumption and irrelevant even if true ... see below) and another false, and quite strange, claim that her book disparages "every last adherent" of the religion.

He now introduces three new arguments.

• He cites WP:NOTRELIABLE and claims she is at best a questionable source. That guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison was praised by the New York Times for the depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses and her work was widely published by major newspapers and magazines that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking. Her book was published by Simon & Schuster and also Robert Hale, (established 1936). I’ll let editors make their own judgment on that publisher’s credentials for serious subject matter. [12] And a conflict of interest? The editors of those newspapers and magazines saw no such obstacle to her writing about a subject of which she had extensive personal knowledge. She is cited by Holden, Penton and Crompton as well as Jewett & Lawrence (2003). The NYT used her, in turn, as a book reviewer.[13]

• He says another reason to disqualify her is that she is making "contentious claims". He has previously claimed that there is no substance to the statement that JWs have a dread of demons and demon activity, yet the article already cites three reliable sources. The addition of the personal observations of a former member of the religion might have served to counter any lingering scepticism, or suspicion that it is a fringe observation. How "contentious" is the claim? Do a Google search on "Jehovah’s Witnesses fear of demons" or "Jehovah’s Witnesses Smurfs" and see for yourself. There is a wealth of evidence that it is a notable distinctive fact about the religion. Although they are not usable at Wikipedia, books such as Diane Wilson’s Awakening of a Jehovah’s Witness here and forum discussions such as this and this and this and this show how widespread the knowledge of the JW fixation is. Notable? I think so.

• Finally, AuthorityTam labels Grizzuti Harrison’s writings as polemic and unencyclopedic because she makes a whimsical link between their dread of demon harassment and the metaphorical phrase about their failure to exorcise their own demons. His protests are beginning to have a whiff of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Her inclusion is not crucial here, because the academic references are sufficient to prove fact and notability, but it’s useful because it is the personal observation of a highly respected author and journalist. BlackCab (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I know little of this persons writings, and I personally have never read them. However, the points made by User:AuthorityTam appear to be sound reasoning and I find myself agreeing with the viewpoint he has presented. I don't think that a source tainted by tremendous personal bias can be relied upon as trustworthy. I therefore consider it to not be a reliable source reference. Willietell (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the inclusion of additional source references expressing the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses have some extreme dread of demons does not in and of itself negate the fact that rebuttal material from WT sources is necessary on this controversial claim to maintain a balanced WP:NPOV. The Watchtower references as well as the rebuttal material therefore needs to be restored to adhere to WP:NPOV . Willietell (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So you've formed an opinion about someone you haven't heard of based on the opinion of someone else? Interesting. What "tremendous personal bias" do you say Grizzuti Harrison had? You didn't explain that, or reveal what you base that statement on. BlackCab (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on Grizutti so far, because I know practically nothing about her. However, BlackCab has presented indications about how other reliable sources view her work. I don't see how that is trumped by personal opinions to the contrary. However, I also don't think Grizutti's comment adds anything in particular to the article.

It is indeed the case that BlackCab's edit was not technically a 'minor' edit, but I'm not sure that it was especially 'laughable' either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Input from uninvolved editors would help. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ex-Jehovah's Witness Barbara Grizzuti Harrison in JW article. BlackCab (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the addition should remain reverted (as it is now) until the discussion is complete.
It has been very disappointing to see certain editors so fixating on including Grizzuti that they have repeatedly reinstated the new material (see [14][15][16][17]) without waiting for discussion to complete.
One such editor explicitly states of Grizzuti, "Her inclusion is not crucial here".
Another such editor explicitly states, "I also don't think Grizutti's comment adds anything in particular to the article"
Since apparently no one thinks Grizzuti is "crucial" or "adds anything", then plainly the Grizzuti addition should stay reverted.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Grizzuti was a travel writer; she was not an academic and certainly was not an expert on sociology or religion. Her Visions book was a memoir of a JW who left the religion 50 years ago, when there were maybe a million JWs globally (there are now 7 or 8 times that). Grizzuti may be a reliable source for the names/dates/etc which are plainly presented as facts, but Grizutti's biased observations and obvious opinions are not useful in this article or any article except perhaps "Criticism of JWs".--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You include me in your claim (by your diffs) that editors are "fixating on including Grizutti". But you also contradictorily quote me where I said it doesn't necessarily add anything to the article—my ambivalent response is hardly that of someone who is "fixated", and I don't mind too much either way. I explicitly stated that I know practically nothing of her, and I restored the edit based on a response at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Additionally, the responder at the RSN suggested that Grizzuti's opinions are suitable as a reliable source in the context used. BlackCab has provided various sources that accept Grizutti's views about religions as reliable; the response at the RSN noticeboard concurs; Kww also restored the edit in question. Your objections seem to be based on your opinion alone, and not an impartial one; Willietell says he supports you for no particular reason, which doesn't add much to the discussion. You might need to review your own 'fixation' on this topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph regarding this supposed dread is simply POV pushing and well beyond inaccurate. The official WT position needs to be represented if this false information is to be kept. I have restored the rebuttal material. Willietell (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It presents the observations of reliable sources. As stated previously, observations of how JWs do act do not contradict statements about how JWs should act. There is no problem simply stating that JW publications say they shouldn't 'dread' 'demons'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(Just to confirm, my recent removal of Grizutti was indeed unintentional. It was inadvertently removed when I restored the Index of Letters to Elders citation.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Education

Editor BlackCab has made the following edit:

"Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wives, or their children undertake university education."

Which seems to misrepresent his following cited source material, which follows:

"Letter to all bodies of elders from Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, March 6, 2012,"

"Re: Reminders from Kingdom Ministry School held during 2011 service year."

"Satan, the master of deception, has made the pursuit of higher education dangerous for a Christian. Many of our young people have been misled from the faith or have become involved in immorality as a result of pursuing higher education ... higher education often erodes faith in Jehovah God and in the Bible ... Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and its Governing Body when it comes to education. Would an elder, a ministerial servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. ... Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher education? Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful participation in field service, or other theocratic activities? ... if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation ... The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve.”

As this statement seems to manipulate the source material by taking portions of it out of context while disregarding other portions as well as systematically redacting sections of the letter that might lead the reader to a different conclusion, I am questioning the accuracy of this purported "source" material. Even the amount of source left intact would seem to suggest that the edit put forth by the editor is pushing POV rather than presenting an accurate reflection of the source reference. I therefore consider this a misrepresentation of the source material and as such, have removed it from the article. Willietell (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The added sentence is a fair summary of the cited material. I can't see anything that is "taken out of context". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

of course you can't...sigh. Maybe a neutral editor will be able to see the difference between

• " Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wives, or their children undertake university education.

and the statement that

• Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. ... Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher education? Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful participation in field service, or other theocratic activities? ... if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation ....

There are a great deal of qualifiers here before jumping to the conclusion put to the fore by the aforementioned editor and that is taking the statement out of its original context. Willietell (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what parts of the letter you believe are being manipulated, taken out of context, or leading readers to an incorrect conclusion. The source material is quite clear that Watch Tower headquarters is instructing elders that they should consider the outlook and actions of any elder/MS/pioneer who is undertaking university education (or permits a spouse or child to do so). It then instructs that any who, because of their attitude towards that education "no longer qualify to serve", they should be deleted. That is stated quite plainly and the sentence in the WP article states this. They may be deemed ineligible to serve. It is a distinctive fact about JWs that they would choose to delete as an elder a man who attends university, or allows a member of his household to do so. Coverage of JW beliefs on education should reasonably reflect this. BlackCab (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell has a point on this one. The source states that the pursuit of education must be interfering with his religious practices or be being sought for material advantage. The summary should include some summary of those conditions as well.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the phrases you suggested to the text. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with that, though the tone of the letter suggests the onus of proof is on the elders etc to prove that they do still qualify. The Watch Tower Society's clear stance, as outlined higher in the letter, is that university is a bad place for a Christian to be. Still, the additional wording can't be said to be unfair. BlackCab (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The original statement that JWs may be ineligible for JW positions of authority if they or their family members undertake higher education is entirely consistent with the source, which outlines conditions that may result in removal from such positions of authority. The source does not merely indicate that higher education is a 'problem' only if it interferes with religious duties or is sought for 'material advantage'. The source also claims that higher education a) is made dangerous by Satan, b) misleads JWs, c) leads to immorality, d) erodes faith in God. It states not only that elders and their families should not seek higher education, but also should not recommend higher education to other members. The addendum is not entirely accurate, but it is sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The unpublished supposed "letter" has been removed from the article per WP:BURDEN, which states, "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." BTW, the claimed appointment policy would be among JW practices rather than JW beliefs.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'supposed' letter was published with the Watch Tower Society publishing code, 3/6/12a-E, and includes instructions that it is an addendum to "Index to Letters for Bodies of Elders (S-22)". As advised by BlackCab, it is currently also available at [18]. Even if it were not available online, WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I will restore the material with a citation. It is not necessary to list Education under both beliefs and practices; the statement in question briefly describes a policy based on their beliefs about education.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I support to remove the letter as it violites a policy (WP:SOURCES); "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." As far as I can see, the letter is published, but not made available to the public in any form, probably not even for the congregation. I do, however, have no reason to doubt a letter like this could be send to each to the elders of all congregations, but all we got for now, is BlackCab's/Jeffro's word for it, so it would most likely not be concidered as reliable according to the policy. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That is something I had not considered, as I didn't really consider doubting the existence of the letter, I just didn't care for the contorted interpretation of it. However, Grrahnbahr is correct that it seems likely the letters fails to meet WP:Verify, as such, it should most likely be deleted and all reference to it removed until such time as WTS decides to make it available for distribution to the public . Willietell (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell has twice complained that the statement from the WTS is being contorted or manipulated, despite the fact that another editor has added some additional material to overcome any objections. Willietell is yet to explain what is being contorted or what inaccuracy the WP sentence contains. His complaints about the interpretation of the letter aside, however, no one has yet challenged its authenticity, and therefore denied that the society holds a policy of deeming university attendance a reason to delete an elder or pioneer.

The guideline at Wikipedia:Published states that a "published" source of information is something that is "created for distribution and actually distributed with a transfer of ownership to the public, or a group of people." The letter from a WTS corporation is addressed to "All Bodies of Elders". If its distribution was limited to the US, that is more than 13,300 congregations. Since the letter is an appendix to the Shepherding the Flock book, and all such WTS policies are applied uniformly around the world, that means the letter has been, or will be, sent to 109,000 congregations, and therefore conservatively five times that number of individual elders. They very definitely constitute "a group of people" to whom this material has been distributed. BlackCab (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The claims about "the supposed "letter"" and that "all we got for now, is BlackCab's/Jeffro's word for it" are laughable and readily testable. Any person can go to the link (supplied above) where the letter is available (accessible), print it out, take it to a JW elder and ask if those elders also received a copy of that letter (verifiable). The letter, distributed as an addendum to another published work of JWs, is itself a published work (published). The claims seem to be a fairly desperate attempt to censor something those editors consider to be unfavourable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I an not trying to censor anything, my objection is, as stated above, to BlackCab's contorted interpretation of the letter, whether it is genuine or a fabrication. I personally think the letter is possibly genuine but can't be certain until I personally receive one. However, I don't think that we can take the leap to say that it has by any stretch of the imagination been released for public distribution. BlackCab's insistence that I have not explained "what is being contorted or what inaccuracy the WP sentence contains" is yet another contortion of the facts, as I have clearly stated my objection. Still at the risk of repeating myself, I will restate it The letter clearly does not state "that the society holds a policy of deeming university attendance a reason to delete an elder or pioneer". It states that if they allow such pursuit of a secondary education to interfere with their abilities to fulfill their congregational responsibilities or such activities as having "regular meeting attendance, meaningful participation in field service, or other theocratic activities" or if they promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation ...". This is an entirely different position, this is a position that shows the primary concern is not the pursuit of a secondary education, but that of ensuring that congregational responsibilities are considered of foremost importance . Thus the statement " Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. ... Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher education? " As an elder or ministerial servant in the congregation, they must take the lead in putting Kingdom interests before secondary pursuits. This is not a statement that a secondary education is bad, completely unnecessary or ill advised, just that it may expose those who undertake such pursuits to influences they might not otherwise be exposed to on a regular basis and should therefore be prayerfully considered before undertaking such an endeavor. Therefore the interpretation put forth by BlackCab is twisted, takes the source out of context and pushes a POV that is not in line with reality. Willietell (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But that concern was already addressed by another editor, with additional wording that you have just tweaked. Why do you write here complaining that the article still contains a twisted, contorted viewpoint? I think your interpretation of the letter is rather narrow. It specifically addresses university education, rather than trade training or a sporting or occupational pursuit that could equally interfere with meeting attendance, witnessing and congregational responsibilities. It claims that higher education is "dangerous for a Christian" because it could weaken their faith or lead to immorality and then directly addresses the question of whether university education would lead to the disqualification of elders, etc. From that point it is down to a local judgment of whether the Witness has a "positive attitude" towards Governing Body warnings about university education, and whether he/she is respected in the congregation. My original wording was correct, but the additional wording expands on that, and I have no objection to it. BlackCab (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, your claim that "This is not a statement that a secondary education is bad, completely unnecessary or ill advised" is a straw man argument. Nowhere, on this page or in the article, did I suggest that. (The three Watchtower articles cited in the WP article do, however clearly take that stand.) The letter to bodies of elders, as clearly indicated by the closing paragraph of the "Pursue divine education" section (page 2), was written to make it crystal clear that depending on the individual's attitude towards WTS warnings and their level of field service and meeting attendance, pursuit of university education is a reason for the possible deletion of an elder or pioneer. The letter provides that simple directive, then provides guidance to elders on how that rule may be applied. BlackCab (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking of a solution. The only possible controverse I can see out of the letter's content, is the fact it states that pursue divine education could lead to delete of elders and pioners. It appairs as Willietells view of it is more as an indirect consequence of promoting higher education, and I wouldn't exclude that possibility. The rest of the letter is pretty much well-known stuff (why I could't see any good reasons to doubt the letters authenticity). A significant, and probably growing, part of youth growing up among JW in western-oriented countries do take higher education, if not such a letter would be waste of time. The university conditions mentioned could be various for different locations (in most countries in western Europe, young people stays home or live by themselves while being students), and in some countries higher educations is more or less necessary to get a real job (more than 30% of the workforce of Iceland did have higher education a couple of years ago). I would ask if it is common to delete elders or pioners of the reason mentioned in the letter. If it is common, it should be mentioned. If not, I wouldn't categoric dismiss it as irrelevant, but I would ask if it is a representative way to describe JWs view of education. Since most of the letter describes settings described other places in the montain of literature published, I think it could be decent to find another way to verify the statements. I think a balanced way to describe it, would me more like they encourage some education, but discourage higher education, and why they do so. I think that is more accurate than mixing in conciderations elders are told to do. I will just state I still don't think the letter is a good source, as it is presented (just like wikileaks). Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The article already states the WTS view that strongly discourages pursuing education beyond secondary level, and why the leadership opposes it. The letter shows the extent of the organizational pressure to abstain from it. I know of no other religion that goes that far. BlackCab (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Taliban denies girls access to school, I think that goes more far. Education beyond secundary level is not forbidden for JW, just discouraged. The letter describes more the high standard (criterias for use of the word standard is sure discussable) for elders and pioners than it describes the possibility for taking higher education. As far as I know, going for higher education is not being "sanctioned" in any way by JW, maybe unless the member do have "privilegies" (I am not sure, if education alone actually is a reason for sanctioning even for those carrying a "privilege"). But it sure is an organizational pressure to abstain from it. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Amish religions typically disallow even high school education. A lapsed Amish adherent who does receive higher education cannot be reinstated until he renounces both his higher education and any "profession" for which the education was a prerequisite (such as medicine or law).--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability of "letter"

On Friday (23 March 2012), I'd removed some claimed correspondence with this comment:
The unpublished supposed "letter" has been removed from the article per WP:BURDEN, which states, "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."
At least three editors in the thread agree that the "source" is currently un-usable.
An editor replied with the near-nonsequitur, 'But the letter has a date! and look a random list of letters includes a letter with the same date! and you can download a PDF from some random website!'. The same commenter suggests, Print it and show it to some random JW elder in your town and ask him if it's accurate.
That's not how Wikipedia works. If the so-called "source" is actually encyclopedically useful, it will eventually become commented-upon in some actually-verifiable publication and then can be included here. Until then, the giddy impatience of certain editors is simply premature. None of their tortured arguments meets even the most relaxed interpretation of verifiable for Wikipedia's purposes. If such a "source" had previously survived at this or other articles, it's likely because of the confusion or inattention of editors here. Editors can still make their points; the claim has been made that the contended source agrees with verifiable sources, so the only logical course (for now) is for certain insistent editors to simply source from the verifiable source. WP:SOURCES plainly states, "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable." I've again removed the unpublished claimed correspondence.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped for a respons from Jeffro and BlackCab regarding the possibility to use other sources to discribe same subject (JW and education), but the focus for them now may stays at defending the use of the letter. The main goal with this section should be to give a correct view of what JW believes about education. The fact the letter could be "interpreted" different (Willietell and Jeffro interpreted the content of the letter in different ways), should also be concidered when using the letter. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with AuthorityTam . If the letter is ever released for public distribution and becomes a verifiable source, then at that point it could be included. Until that happens, the letter is simply another piece of WP:OR and cannot be allowed to be presented here as factual. If another source can be found where a direct quote can be presented from a verifiable source which states that "elders and ministerial servants who pursue a secondary education will be disqualified from their appointment" , then this material may be re-submitted to the article for consideration. Until such a source is presented and a direct quote is supplied, this material should not remain in the article. The requirement in this case for a direct quote will help eliminate the POV spin that seems to crop up on a regular basis. Willietell (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement is not original research; it reports on a document that has been distributed to at least 13,000 congregations and possibly 100,000. Once again Willietell has invented a sentence to which he now objects. A little more honesty in comments would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one submitting an unverifiable "letter" as a source reference, I am not the editor who originally brought its verifiability into question. I simply agree with the points made by the editor who did. Please don't take my willingness to work with you towards a solution as a display of weakness and an invitation to become uncivil, as that is not the case and your personal attack upon me is unwarranted and I will respectfully request that you desist from such remarks in the future. Willietell (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede

I have made the following change to the lede to address its inaccurate presentation:

The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses have a historical connection to the Bible teachings of Charles Taze Russell founder of the Bible Student movement; and successive presidents of the Watch Tower Society, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Nathan Homer Knorr. However, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses have been greatly modified over the group's history as understanding of numerous scriptural passages have changed as a result of what is considered increased light from God's holy spirit.

However User:Kww has reverted it claiming that "based on" is a more accurate description. "Greatly modified" requires an independent source comparing the modern beliefs to the original"

Personally, I think this is pretty much common knowledge that should not require a heavy sourcing, however, in the interest of being cooperative within the group, I am seeking input from fellow editors in an effort to arrive at a reasonable solution. I feel that to say "based on" is inaccurate, because of the numerous changes in the organizations beliefs over the years, even some core beliefs under Russell have been modified. The cited source states "Because their present understanding of Bible truths and their activities can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, and from there to the Bible and early Christianity."

• • • Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom chap. 5 p. 42 Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) ***

Notice it says "traced back to", which demonstrates a historical connection and not "based on" which conveys an inseparable bond. Since there cannot reasonably be an argument presented that states that Witnesses have the same beliefs today as they held in Russell's time period, nor that of Rutherford or even Knorr, I feel that the edit I made is the more accurate and should stand, but I am asking for objective input from editors to resolve the issue without engaging in an edit war, as that is simply tiresome. Willietell (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)