Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Final authority

The lead states that the governing body "exercises the final authority on all doctrinal matters". Use of the word final here may imply there is some process by which other members submit ideas, which are then decided upon by the GB. However, this is not the case. I would therefore like to remove "the final".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the alternative you are thinking of? "exercises authority on all doctrinal matters"? StandFirm (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In cases where the local body of elders may have different opinions on the matter of any particular doctrine, they consult the traveling overseer, and in turn he may consult the branch committee, and in turn they may consult the GB for directions. For example I remember a case where the decision for inviting a disfellowshiped person for the marriage by a close relative was done in a similar manner. Furthermore if some member writes a letter to the GB (with his identity disclosed otherwise it goes to trash) regarding his personnel disagreement or opinion with a doctrine, the GB will reply him personally via the branch committee to convince him the reasoning for the doctrine. One example for this is cited here regarding a letter correspondence on the disagreement of blood transfusion. It suggests that they also give ear to the opinion of the members if it sounds reasonable, though they make the final decisions. Another reasoning for the word final is here

"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. The Governing Body as a whole considers adjusted explanations. What they learn, they publish for the benefit of all." - The Watchtower, July 15, 2010, page 23--Fazilfazil (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Holden (pg 22) writes: "The establishment of doctrines has been very carefully restricted to, and controlled by, the Society's Governing Body," Since there is no formal (or informal) process in which members of the religion can debate and decide on doctrines, after which the GB exercises its final authority, a more accurate statement, cited to Holden as a secondary source, would be that: "They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders (etc) that establishes and controls doctrines." BlackCab (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's examples are anecdotal at best, and do not indicate that any other members have any input at all into doctrinal changes anyway. Members may write to the Watch Tower Society, and then the Society tells them what they are expected to believe. From that perspective, there is no alteration at all from my previous position that 'final' does not belong. I don't really see any practical distinction between "establishes and controls" and the more concise "exercises authority".--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? The word "establish" is clear and concise enough, and they alone "control" those doctrines. "Exercise authority" is a very woolly term that allows a whole range of possible activities. It also has the benefit of a source. BlackCab (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind either way. My only real point here is that final does not belong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The word "Control" is not in a neutral tone. "exercise authority" was a better wording--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Not neutral? It is hardly bias to say, as many reliable sources have noted, that only the Governing Body has control over doctrines. It controls doctrines. No one else controls them. Members are required to accept them. There is no forum to express disagreement with them. The term is accurate, sourced and editorially neutral. BlackCab (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "establishes and manages" is better and nuetral--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should think about why you want to use a wordy euphemism instead of the concise and accurate "control". It's not clear how "establishes and manages" is better, and it's not really clear how a doctrine is 'managed'. Religions establish doctrines, they impose them, they sometimes change them, but they don't really 'manage' them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a puzzle why Fazilfazil thinks "controls" is "not a neutral tone". I agree that "manages" in this context is meaningless; he seems to be searching a thesaurus to find any option to the obvious, and most accurate, word. No one controls JW doctrines other than the Governing Body, and "control" is precisely what they exercise over them. It's not a pejorative word, it's a simple statement of fact. BlackCab (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As an ex-member you and perhaps your usual counterpart might be interested in using the word 'control' everywhere possible. But I just don't understand what is there to "Control" the doctrine. Is the doctrine a thing which unpredictably changes by itself so that someone should control it? Funny--Fazilfazil (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

'usual counterpart'?? It's not absolutely certain that you're referring to me, but from previous discussions you've been involved in, it seems quite likely. I am not the 'counterpart' of any other editor, and if you are making an accusation about me, you should indicate the specific disputed edits in an appropriate dispute resolution process. In any case, instead of making veiled accusations of bias, you might like to note that I actually stated above that I "Don't mind either way [which synonym of control/exercise authority/whatever is used]. My only real point here is that final does not belong." Though it is accurate to say th GB controls doctrine, any term that correctly conveys the top-down authority structure will do.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fazilfazil, the use of the word "control" carries an unnecessary non-neutral POV spin that suggests something clandestine and sinister, which is simply not the case and is unsupported except by the most fringe, biased sources. It's use here is therefore unacceptable. I think the use of "final" is appropriate, because not every scriptural idea comes directly from the Governing Body, as they do not alone make up the "Faithful and discreet slave" Willietell (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, you and your obsession with "POV spin". It is simply bizarre to suggest that as a source the sociologist Andrew Holden is either fringe or bias. Even James Beckford's landmark sociological study noted (page 221): "Doctrine has always emanated from the Society's elite in Brooklyn and has never emerged from discussion among, or suggestion from, rank-and-file Witnesses." On page 120 he also links the "control" of the Society's magazines by the Governing Body to the inability of those lower in the hierarchy to influence doctrine. "Control" remains the best word to describe the Governing Body's input into doctrines once it has "established" them. BlackCab (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BlackCab, that is your opinion, and I am sure you will stick to it. It is still however, WRONG for the reasons previously stated and the use of POV spin words like Control that are used in a suggestive manner is unacceptable, even if you personally like them. Find a neutral way of expressing the sentence, or don't include the information in the article, I don't really care which, but the use of Control here will not stand, nor will the POV spin. Willietell (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I fear we are going in circles. Is it bias to say a driver controls a vehicle or a central bank controls inflation? The sentence is not suggesting the Governing Body controls people. But the Governing Body most certainly controls doctrines. The source above is accurate enough: even if it was open to another group within the WTS to propose doctrinal changes, the GB is the group that has the control. BlackCab (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Encouraged

The article has suffered in the past from overuse of the word "encouraged", which is part of JW jargon. Members are forever being "encouraged" to take some course of action, when the direction from headquarters is commonly much more direct. In the present case, I have replaced the word "encouraged" from the sentence that did read: "Adherents are encouraged to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism over Watchtower teachings ..." The claim cites a 2001 Watchtower that explains what a member must do to be deemed a "mature Christian". This explains that such a person does not insist on personal opinions and has complete confidence in what the leadership says. It is therefore accurate to say that adherents are told they must have complete confidence. BlackCab (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The seriousness of the word "must" depends on the context and can be easily misunderstood by the reader. "must do to be deemed a mature Christian" is different from "must do to be not get disfellowshiped". Can you suggest any article which say that disciplinary action will be taken against to those adherents who don't have "complete confidence"? Having said that "told to" best fits the context.--Fazilfazil (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, this fixation with disciplinary action. I know of no article that threatens punishment for anyone who fails to have complete confidence in the Governing Body, and it's a ridiculous suggestion. BlackCab (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "Adherents are told they should have complete confidence ..." overcomes the issue. This gets across the concept of being urged to do something, without suggesting punishment if they fail to do so. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Adherents are taught they should have..... Johanneum (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Adherents are taught they should have.....Looks good. --Fazilfazil (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are taught that at all. They are certainly told that they must have complete confidence in the GB and obey it, if they are to become a "mature" Christian. I'm not aware of specific structured teaching program that instructs them they should have complete confidence in tbeir leaders. "Taught" is just another one of those fuzzy Watchtower words that avoid stating the obvious. BlackCab (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't his resolved years ago with the word "instructed"? --Soc8675309 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Additions to Criticism

Re: those who choose to leave the religion "are seldom allowed a dignified exit."

1) Holden was talking specifically about those who officially leave the religion and not just anyone walking away.( Thus either disfellowshipped or disassociated) The way it read was misleading. More of the context seems to help. 2) Two scholarly articles were added to support that not all agree with there terminology "totalitarian". If these points were already in the article please dirict attention to them here, because it seemed all one sided POV and not a NPOV. 3) If you do not like the format, could you please be so kind to perhaps fix it instead of deleting it? Johanneum (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jeffro77 Not only did I not break a text from a source I add to it, thus giving more of the quote. Please use talk instead of revert someones work. Thanks Johanneum (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything much of this paragraph is already a repeat of the section on "Sociological analysis." It may be well to combine some of this info. Johanneum (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

'See also' templates referring to other articles are not used at article Talk in the manner you used.

I think I've fixed your botched (not 'blotched') formatting. When you break up paragraphs mid-sentence, it makes diffs very difficult to compare, meaning your actual point was missed entirely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the whole Paragraph in quote:

Eric went on to explain how all the people with whom he used to go on holiday and out for dinner were Witnesses. He knew that, once he decided to leave, these friendships would be severed and he would be regarded as an apostate. All the former members with whom I spoke told me how they had been cut off by friends and family who refused to visit them, attend their weddings or even acknowledge them in the street.18 This is why defectors who make the smoothest transition are those who have found an alternative belief system or have the support of outsiders who are able to distract them from the milieu of the Society (Holzer 1968). But finding alternatives is far from easy given the years of constraint placed on devotees to limit their contact with the outside world and to refrain from reading apostate literature. Those who do eventually break free are seldom allowed a dignified exit.19 Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’. Johanneum (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No Problem. Thanks for correcting the paragraph split...didn't see that one. Johanneum (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I was seeing this.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that the view attributed in this article to Garbe in Between Resistance and Martyrdom is accurate. The Google books preview of Page 518 shows that he did indeed refer to the WTS leadership as "totalitarian", "requir(ing) complete obedience from the members". In his conclusion, on Page 523-524, he asserts that "the totalitarian characteristics in organization and ideology of the IBSA increased the conflict." For reasons I can't discern from that brief excerpt, The Routledge History of the Holocaust places its own interpretation on that material, deciding that Garbe "pointed out in his study" that the use of the term "was understandable but analytically problematic." I'd suggest deleting Garbe at this point in the article (presented as a dissent to the use of the term "totalitarian") and restrict that protest to the Routledge book. BlackCab (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed reference to Garbe, along with the source that doesn't mention Lichti. The second-hand source doesn't unambiguously provide Garbe's view. If he specifically says elsewhere that JWs are totalitarian his comment of 'analytically problematic' needs to be provided in context rather than taken as any kind of clear statement rejecting totalitarianism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede, since it is not a quote and if someone wants to they can follow up on the footnote in the actual article in the link. However the view attributed to Garbe is indeed very accurate. In order to appreciate this one would have to realize he is not agreeing with Michael H. Kater. He quotes Falk Pingel who also did not agree with Kater and so "expressed reservations" (on the same page mentioned above 518) On Page 520 he clearly shows that what Kater has done is inaccurate, since it puts the ideology (and totalitarianism) of the SS on par with the JW's. And this is Garbe says is not accurate. Thus he agrees in terms of aspects of "totalitarianism" but does not agree as to the application or reference which has Kater did, which can mislead others. Johanneum (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentally diseased

The section in criticism states "Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." This seems tweaked and misleading. For one reason ONLY apostates are condemned as those LIKE 'mentally diseased'. Further adding the word 'Not only' could wrongly suggest that the later is also announced in platform. Not all disfellowshiped persons are called as 'apostates'. Most of the time the reason is kept unknown to help the person to return back --Fazilfazil (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times already. The criticism is about the treatment of those who disassociate from the religion, that is, voluntarily and formally resign. Such persons are publicly named at meetings and then all members are required to shun them. The Watchtower, in the July 15, 2011 edition, says defectors are apostates (pg 15) and that apostates are mentally diseased (pg 16). The point was not lost on several major newspapers recently, which noted the religion's use of the term "mentally diseased" to describe those who choose to exit the religion. Holden's statement is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The text isn't "tweaked". After I queried the additional text added to the quote, the editor who provided the extended quote also provided the original paragraph from the source in the section above.

The conclusion that "the reason is kept unknown to help the person to return back" is fairly subjective; it is just as likely that the reason for not explaining why people left is to reduce the perceived number who leave due to doctrinal concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There could be legal reasons why the perceived cause of the disfellowshipping/disassociation is not identified, in order to avoid any problems of defamation. Generally, I suspect, the absence of a publicly announced reason serves to foster a sense of suspicion and danger surrounding the "sinner" and, possibly more importantly, to reduce the likelihood of people discussing the rightness or wrongness of the decision to disfellowship. In the case of disassociation, the congregation would certainly not be keen to advertise the fact that a person has quit because of doctrinal reasons. The suggestion that by withholding the reason for a defection or expulsion, the individual might be more inclined to return, seems highly speculative and unlikely. BlackCab (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses who are disfellowshiped know their status ahead of time. The elders make the status official for the rest of the congregation during a meeting. They say "so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witness." The details about why a person was disfellowship is NOT disclosed. The details about a person's mental state is NOT disclosed. Any other information about the disfellowshipped person beyond the simple announcement is simply NOT true. — Gorba (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that a public announcement is made that a person is mentally diseased. That term is applied by the religion's publications against those who choose to defect. The process is calculated to humiliate those who dare to quit and therefore serve as a deterrent for others to leave. BlackCab (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Holden say about "mentally diseased"? Otherwise you have to mention the reference to the publication and specify that the publications describe those choose to leave as mentally diseased.--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've restored BlackCab's version of the article. Fazil's edit clearly alters quoted text from a RS, and maintains quote marks attributing his new text to the author the RS. There's no way that edit may stand as it is. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fazil, yes, the Wikipedia article quotes Holden's words. The quotation marks that it is a quote. Why are you continuing to rewrite a quote from a book in an attempt to make it sound as if Holden said something else? BlackCab (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Scriptural references

I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia, a resource dedicated to unbiased information, would not allow bible quotes or scriptural references to show the fundamental reasons for doctrinal claims made by Witnesses. For example two of the primary scriptures they used to justify their famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) preaching activity is Matthew 24:14 and 28:19,20. These two seem to be indicate directives by Christ to go out, preach the good news about God's Kingdom, and to make believers. Jehovah's Witnesses pride themselves on using the bible to back up their doctrines and yet when I read information about who they are on Wikipedia without scriptural references it truly sounds like madness. I think it would be advantageous at least to include some scriptures in order to provide a well-rounded article. I am not saying everything needs a scriptural references, but in the interest of Wikipedia's unbias and fairness scriptural references should be included for major doctrines. After all Wikipedia prides itself on strongly enforced cited sources, should this standard not extend to the bible as the source for the main tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses? — Gorba (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does contain some scriptural references where they help to explain beliefs or practices of the religion. The guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures explains where they are appropriate and how they should be used. They are usually unnecessary, however, and Wikipedia certainly does not use scriptures in the same manner Watch Tower Society publications use them, citing a scripture without explanation after making an assertion. If you see any places where the use of a scripture would be of benefit, please say so. BlackCab (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Do not cite supporting scriptures when explaining doctrines or practices. If discussing the interpretation of a particular passage, quote the passage and then provide the JW interpretation." This makes no sense. This is like asking someone to explain a lawyer's interpretation of a law, but not the law itself or even show that such a law exists. The Bible IS the main source for their tenets, and so everything they teach and believe is from that source. It seems to me that to deny this crucial piece of information does hurts Wikipedia's credibility. Gorba (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Everything they teach and believe is from that source". Not quite. Their prohibition on the medical transfusion of human blood is a contorted interpretation of a temporary scriptural admonition against drinking animal blood. Their prohibition of birthday celebrations is based on the very shaky foundation that two birthdays are portrayed in a "negative" way in the Bible and that celebrations have pagan origins. (Dogs, in contrast, receive a far more negative portrayal in the Bible, yet JWs are allowed to keep dogs; pinatas and wedding rings have pagan origins, yet are deemed acceptable.) But rather than speak in generalities, feel free to identify any specific teachings that suffer through the lack of a scriptural reference. BlackCab (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

When I say "main tenets" I am not referring to blood or birthdays I'm referring to these http://www.watchtower.org/e/201008/article_04.htm Those are the main tenets. At least those are worth scriptural references. If Wikipedia cannot allow scriptural references for those main tenets then I really see no reason to continue supporting the Wikipedia project financially. Gorba (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a bit petulant, Gorba. "Let me use scriptures or I won't donate money again." Those 10 tenets at the JW.org website are a perfect example of the lazy use of scriptures to claim biblical support for a dogmatic statement. The fourth point is a good example, in which the WTS dogmatically states God's kingdom will have 144,000 co-rulers. The website cites a clutch of scriptures from Revelation and Daniel with no clear relationship to one another; the WTS decides that the 12,000 members of 12 tribes in Revelation 7 are symbolic (as are most of the numbers in that book, the lake of fire, "days", the dimensions of the holy city Jerusalem), yet that the 144,000 in total is a real number. The 10th point cites a scripture to support its patently false claim that there is no clergy-laity distinction within the religion. I was in the religion long enough to know that elders are viewed as God's police, with the power to interrogate, judge, and punish their "brothers" without recourse. I think Wikipedia can do better than this. If it means it loses your donation, so be it. BlackCab (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that Gorba states that certain (unstated) JW beliefs "truly sounds like madness" when not followed by a cherry-picked scripture (in Watchtower style, with no regard to context or exposition). However, no one said scriptures can't be used at all, but that they should only be used when directly discussing that scripture. As has already been pointed out, this is indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not childish to request that the treatment other faiths receive in citing scriptures also be extended to article about Jehovah's Witnesses. Since it seems this policy is enforced and unchangeable then I simply have no choice but to deny funds in protest. Name calling won't change my mind. Gorba (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. We are not interested in your financial situation and your personal plans Bulwersator (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Thank you for making that crystal clear.Gorba (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proselytizing is standard procedure in Christianity. There's nothing special about JW's practicing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with proselytism. Every Wikipedia article, including the Jehovah's Witnesses article, all cite numerous references to verify the source of information presented. This same principle should extend to doctrine and tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses. In other words, "Where did Jehovah's Witnesses get this doctrine? Here's the main scripture they used." You can discuss and debate the accuracy all day long someplace else, but to simply not even disclose the scriptural reference is completely disingenuous to Wikipedia's founding principles. Gorba (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you twice to identify sections of the article you think would benefit from having a scripture. You keep speaking about generalities. Be specific or quit complaining. BlackCab (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gorba, as you were told before, no one said scriptures can't be used at all, but that they should only be used when directly discussing that scripture. As has already been pointed out, this is indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures. The reason that scriptures can't just be given Watchtower-style is that scriptures can be (are) interpreted in many different ways by different groups. JW doctrines are based on their interpretations of scriptures, and those interpretations are found in JW literature as well as other (secondary) sources. It is those sources that are given as citations for JW beliefs, because they provide the JW interpretation. It would biased in the extreme to just assert that a particular scripture can only be interpreted the JW way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

144,000 in lead section

I know the article's lead section is already long, but it's just occurred to me that one pretty glaring omission is a reference to the 144,000. It is one of those things, like their opposition to blood transfusions, that people have a vague knowledge of in terms of their distinctive teachings. it could easily be added as a reasonably brief sentence among their central beliefs: They believe a heavenly reward is limited to just 144,000 people; most members have the hope of living forever on earth. BlackCab (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Something similar could be added, but it is not neutral to imply that more (any) people 'go to heaven' (outside of JW belief). Because they believe non-JWs who die prior to Armageddon will also be resurrected, it's not accurate to say that their 'hope' of 'living forever' is limited to 'members'. Perhaps They believe that exactly 144,000 individuals receive a heavenly reward, and that the hope for others is to live forever on earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't they revised that in light of the fact they have more than that many members? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they haven't. They still believe 144,000 go to heaven to rule over the rest living on earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly fundamental JW teaching. Here's the first ref I could find, but there are so, so many. The Watchtower 1 February 2010, page 6:

How many go to heaven? As in any government, the rulers in God’s heavenly Kingdom are few in comparison with all the people who live under its authority. To those who will rule with him, Jesus said: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32) That “little flock” will finally number 144,000. (Revelation 14:1) That number is small in comparison with the millions who will enjoy endless life on earth as loyal subjects of the Kingdom.—Revelation 21:4.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"glaring omission" Ehh Black? Its obvious by your page that you have an enormous Jumbo Tron sized axe to grind here. With your apparent hate for this religion it seems like a conflict of interest for you to have any say about anything in this article whatsoever. --Ironious (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say, one way or the other, about the merits of the suggestion of mentioning the 144,000 doctrine in the lead?? If you have concerns about a conflict of interest, this isn't the correct venue for discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the religion, it's true. In my two decades in it I saw too much to remain indifferent. I think it benefits the public to be aware of notable information about the religion, including facts the WTS tries to hide. But I have no more a conflict of interest than any JW who wants to edit the page. As long as the information presented is accurate, properly sourced, and written in an editorially neutral way, we can all contribute to the article. I don't see that adding a detail about the distinctive teaching about the 144,000 is in any way a demonstration of hatred. But you're welcome to your opinion. BlackCab (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:BlackCab I don't necessarily disagree with you here, as I feel the belief of the 144,000 is notable, but isn't it already contained in the subheading God's Kingdom ? Maybe it should be expounded on there? I'm not against including it in the lead section, but the lead section is already rather lengthy. Willietell (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is rather lengthy. Also I feel its not as important as other core beliefs. Similar importance is there for many teachings like destruction of false religion via UN, visible organization, 1914 year, etc. But these are derived teachings of God's kingdom which need some kind of background understanding for the reader. But they are presented nicely in the appropriate subsections.--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The JW's are well-known for believing in the 144,000 thing. That's not at issue. However, it would be interesting to explore what scholars have to say about the significance of that number as a number. The Bible in general, and Revelation in particular, are filled with numbers that appear over and over again - 3's and 7's and 10's and 12's and such as that. Numerology was kind of a quasi-religion in itself, well-known to the Jews and early Christians, and by no means confined to those groups. Surely someone must have done a study on why the number 144,000 would have conveyed some special meaning to the readers of Revelation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

bible students

"Thousands of defections occurred in the first decade of Rutherford's administration, leading to the formation of several Bible Student organizations independent of the Watch Tower Society, [57] many of which still exist.[58] By mid-1919, about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society[59]. One contemporary record claimed that between late 1923 and early 1927, "20,000 to 30,000 Truth people the world over have left the Society."[60] William Schnell, author and former Witness, claimed that three quarters of the Bible Students who had been associating in 1921 had left by 1931.[61][62][63] Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large".[64]"

I don't understand why paster Russel is so desperate in injecting more sentences on the number of people withdrawn from the religion. I don't think such a long explanation is needed at all. Perhaps a single sentence stating that only a few remained and all others left would suffice. I do not think any witness editor would argue against this fact, given many witnesses' are proud that quality is much important than quantity for God. --Fazilfazil (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article certainly should not be used as a soapbox about other groups derived from the Bible Student movement, as such would not be neutral. However, the text you've quoted covers a very significant period of the development of JWs as a unique group following the leadership dispute of the Bible Student movement in 1917. For at least the last 60 years, JW literature has not even acknowledged that other 'Bible Student' groups still exist, and frequently claims that 'Bible Students' is just a former name used only by JWs—and this, also, is not neutral. I therefore think that the existing text is suitable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of soapbox creeping in when the point is labored. I have turned P.S.L. Johnson's observations on the comparatively brief 1923-7 period into a footnote, leaving in the main text two better indicators of the levels of defections: (1) the initial 1919 tally, showing the immediate impact of Rutherford's coup and the divisive pamphlet war; and (2) Schnell's figures that cover the entire decade from 1921-31. BlackCab (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Still I think its little bit exaggeration (Thousands of defections? ) and more than deserved --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that show that tens of thousands left. Why would you suggest it's an exaggeration when you haven't looked at the figures? BlackCab (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

JW statistics in the first half of the 20th century waxed and waned, but they waxed far more than they waned... It does seem remarkably odd that this article's current section on Rutherford's tenure includes a handful of dramatic claims about so-called "defections" from the religion (JWs fka IBSA) but the section never mentions that the number of adherents grew six-fold during the same time. I'll try to find time to perform edits which are obviously needed in light of the section's existing imbalance. You know, a related article (History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942) does a similarly effective job of hiding the fact that the religion's adherent count increased dramatically during Rutherford's tenure, and does its hiding by creatively including only-those-statistics which give the reader a mistaken impression. Here is what it says there:

Bible Students' yearly Memorial fell sharply again, dropping from 90,434 in 1925 to 17,380 in 1928. Rutherford dismissed their defection as the Lord "shaking out" the unfaithful. ...Under Rutherford, Jehovah's Witnesses grew from about 44,000 in 1928 to about 115,000 at the time of his death on January 8, 1942. That makes it seem as though the article fairmindedly concedes that during Rutherford's tenure the adherent count increased about 260%, while the actual increase is more like 660%. It seems unencylopedic for that article and this to cherry-pick particular years or not-comparable statistics. The actual statistics of IBSA/JW Memorial attendances are 1917:21,274 and 1942:140,450.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should note the huge increase that took place before Rutherford's death. The sentence Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large" is still laboring the point about defections and I'll remove that now. The big increase in adherents is accurately and fairly treated in History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942 and also appears in the intro at Joseph Franklin Rutherford. I don't know why you think the article hides the increase in the History article: it's clearly stated. BlackCab (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article presently ignores the fact AuthorityTam bought out. Given a lot of sentences are inserted for defections, I agree that its important to mention the huge increase that took place before Rutherford's death--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The import of mentioning the defections is that many Russell-era Bible Students left, which is not directly comparable to general growth. However, the influx of new members should also be mentioned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reinstatement in lead section

User:Fazilfazil has twice inserted the words "and reinstatement" to the section in the lead section that reads "Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning." He explains the addition with the edit summary "highlighting only disfellowshipping is not nuetral".

Reference to reinstatement in the lead section is unnecessary and to suggest that its absence creates bias is utter nonsense. It is certainly notable that the JWs have an elaborate judicial system to punish members. Their system of organised shunning of former members, including the refusal to speak to family members, has attracted controversy in the media and in published books, so it's appropriate that the article contain reference to it, and that a brief mention of this distinctive feature be included in the lead section. It is not, however, an important feature that in certain circumstances the religion also removes the punishment it has imposed. The article does note in the body of the text that "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by elders ..." and that is sufficient. It is certainly not so important that it needs coverage in the article summary.

It is also inaccurate and meaningless to say that "congregational discplinary actions include ... reinstatement". Reinstatement is not a disciplinary action. I will remove the words "and reinstatement" again. Please do not reinstate those words again; discuss the issue here first. BlackCab (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As probably a dissasociated former member your bias and discomfort is understandable. It is not correct to say that JW's follow military like discipline. Some dissatisfied apostates of the religion who dedicate their lives to portray disfellowshipping as cruel makes a lot of prejudice on internet. Since JWs are generally not responsive to negative criticism (because they are taught to win evil by their good conduct) this misconception have became widespread. Every new witness have made an informed choice in this regard. They clearly know that they will be disfellowshipped from the congregation if they persistently involve in immoral and unbiblical actions.(according to JWs interpretations). Therefore disfellowshipping is not a surprising thing to them. And witnesses believe that disfellowshipping is a actually a kind of love shown (just like a father disciplines his child) to the unrepentant sinner to help him to come back to senses. Also they are taught that this will help the church clean from immoral influence. However elders do visit yearly the disfellowshipped individuals to help them to come back. An old report (which was before present in this article) showed that about half of the disfellowshipped persons were reinstated later on a particular period. Hence it is an important part of congregational discipline. Therefore highlighting only the one side of the coin at the lead is a clear violation of neutrality. It is also noticeable that the fact JWs are persecuted around the world is also missing in the lead.(which is more known than disfellowshipping). I am not unreasonable and I would appreciate independent editor comments--Fazilfazil (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

my discussion is not about the rights and wrongs of shunning; nor is your interpretation of the figures on reinstatements correct. Your suggested wording is wrong and there is no need to include in the summary that shunning injunctions are sometimes lifted. BlackCab (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's claim that negative comments about disfellowshipping are merely a beat-up by 'apostates' is simply untrue. Various newspapers have reported on articles in JW literature that promote the bizarre practice of shunning. Indeed, even an Awake! article said that shunning is cruel (when it is done by other groups), and stated that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." Awake! 2009 July p.29) Additionally, it is not the case that all JW necessarily make a fully reasoned and informed choice before baptism. Many, primarily children of JW parents, feel pressured to get baptised; articles have appeared in Watch Tower Society literature 'encouraging' children of JW parents not to put off baptism, even if they're worried that might subsequently commit a 'serious sin'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, this is not the point of the discussion. Fazilfazil has claimed that without adding that reinstatements sometimes occur, the article is not neutral. (He took that opportunity to make a personal attack, accusing me of bias and "discomfort" as well on the sole basis that I left the religion. I'd prefer he just addressed the content and left his prejudices and assumptions out of this). Using the same logic, the lead section should also say that (a) some JWs decline to do door-to-door preaching because they don't see the point of it and don't like it; (b) many do celebrate birthdays privately in defiance of the official teaching; and (c) some Witnesses do have a wide circle of "worldly" (non-JW) friends despite the warning about the influence of "bad associations". The lead section, or summary, highlights in brief the most distinctive features of the article's subject. Detail on the subject is contained further down the article. The practice of punishing and shunning is a distinctive trait; the fact that they sometimes withdraw that punishment later is a detail. BlackCab (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you two editors are zealously opposing a single word reinstatement in the lead section. My opinions were based on my honest observations and I believe that its not neutral to only highlight shunning in the lead. Please don't take it emotionally. I Suggest the following minor change.

Congregational discipline include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning, and reinstatement.

I have raised a RFC --Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Reinstatement in lead section

Please read the above discussion and give your valuable input. Is mentioning the word 'reinstatement' regarding congregational discipline in the lead section relevant to the article? Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter was resolved months ago, so no new comments are really needed. Editors may recall that this article was approaching "good article" status in July 2011, and the lede's discussion of disfellowshipping and reinstatement was a matter than had to be and was resolved (my small contribution).
This is how the paragraph read on 31 July 2011, at the time the article received its "Good Article" tag:

Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may eventually be reinstated if they request it.

I have restored that well-scrutinized wording, albeit without the reference.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with this article, or enormously familiar with JWs. I was attracted here by the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy‎. But I am staggered that something as banal as excommunication is considered worthy of the lede. Is there anything distinctive about JW excommunication practices from any other church - RC, Lutheran, etc.- other than this church's terminology is different (as indeed RC differs from Lutheran)? All churches discipline, all churches temporarily exclude from communion, the practice dates from 1 Co 5. None of the, few, WP:RS in this article or the section on JWs in excommunication demonstrate anything distinctive other than a localised terminology. Remove from lede, not notable/distinctive. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The JWs pride themselves on a strict judicial system aimed at "keeping the congregation clean". I know of no mainstream religion that pursues "wrongdoers", including those who dissent from official teachings, quite as vigorously, to the point that family members are forbidden to speak to the ousted individual -- for life, if they do not "repent". As the article notes, even those who choose to formally resign from the religion are organisationally shunned; this too attracts a lifetime punishment of shunning. The practice of disfellowshipping and shunning has attracted much criticism and is the subject of several sociological studies. It is certainly notable and certainly worth inclusion in the lead. There are multiple sources cited in both the "Disciplinary action" and "Criticism" sections, supporting its notability and distinctiveness. BlackCab (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you haven't tried to convert to a non-islamic religion in Iran, Somalia or rural Afghanistan. Or to JW in Jalisco. Or to any protstant religion in Chamula, Chiapas.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've got me there, Maunus. So OK, excluding the hardline Islamists of Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan who cheerfully behead those who stray from their flocks, and the Catholic defenders of Jalisco and Chaula, the JWs are still notable for punishing defectors and "sinners" by refusing to speak to them again (and writing almost dejectedly how the law no longer allows stoning for defectors). Among "Christians", that conduct is certainly unusual. BlackCab (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What is "usual"depends on time and place - and it is pretty much universal for communities to practice some kind of punishment of individuals who reject core values of a community (it is also likely universal that minority groups practice a stricter discipline for rejecting core values than majority groups). Think of coming out as gay in a presbyterian family in Alabama, telling your hippie parents that you've decided to become a wall street broker, or your amish community that you liked the city better, or your hassid rabbi that you've decided to get a divorce from your husband to focus n your cown career. All of those actions are bound to have negative social consequences for the indvidual - quite likely including shunning. The reason this is notable for JWs is that it has received a lot of attention in the sources - and because JW gives it a lot of attention themselves in how they formulate their rules. Not because it is inherently unusual for christians. So my point is that it should be mentioned an included - but not exoticized.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. Hippie parents may well turn their back on their stockbroker son. The critical distinction here is that this is an organisational shunning: members are directed to shun certain individuals; those who defy the direction are themselves subject to punishment. I'm not sure what exoticizing the issue is, but we agree that it should be mentioned. Which it is. BlackCab (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

By exoticizing I mean framing the practice as if it is "exotic" or "unusual" compared to some implicit standard of what is "normal". So yes, mention the practices matter of factly is wht we should aim for - then we can give mre attention to the specific problems of JW shunning practices in the controversy section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, so what, BlackCab, as I understand it, you are saying is that the mechanism of excommunication/restoral may well be exactly the same as other conservative Christian churches, but there are 3rd NPOV WP:RS which demonstrate that shunning is a more systematic practice among JWs than e.g. "treat as a tax collector or publican" etc of Catholics and other Protestants. On the face of it, I'd be prepared to accept this on the basis that some of the refs in the relevant para in this main article and the linkthrough Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline article do appear to be NPOV WP:RS. What I'm not sure yet, as I've only glanced at a couple of sources, is whether the NPOV sources really make a good case for JWs being notably distinctive on compared to conservative Bible Belt examples. I'm wondering if WP:Synthesis and WP:weight need to applied more in these sections. Prima facie these sources also show JWs using family members to recover excommunicated members, just as Catholics and other Protestants do. So how strict is this rule not to talk to the excommunicated? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to compare to some arbitrarily chosen example or standard (especially not unless we have a very good RS that does that). We should just use RS to describe the practice and any notable criticisms of the practice.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note, after writing above I just noticed the quotation marks, " " on Among "Christians", that conduct is certainly unusual. BlackCab (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) - that raises my eyebrow. Is the point that JWs are not "Christian" because they practise shunning? Or are the quotation marks because they are already not "Christian" for some other(?) reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fairy sure that Blackcab does not oppose defining JW as christin and she meant that most mainstream denominations do not practice regulated shunning as JW do (which of course depends on one's definition of mainstream).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

JWs are explicitly instructed thusly:
"What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. ...If we imitate our heavenly Father we will remember that he even showed certain considerateness toward the first human pair after their disfellowshiping in Eden, providing them with clothing. ...So, not “mixing in company” with a person, or treating such one as “a man of the nations,” does not prevent us from being decent, courteous, considerate and humane."-The Watchtower, August 1, 1974
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Further, talking with a disfellowshipped individual is not considered as a serious sin as per JW teachings, and therefore it does not allow another disfellowshipping for that reason --Fazilfazil (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Authors such as historian James Penton, sociologist Andrew Holden and former JW Governing Body member Raymond Franz have found the JW disfellowshipping/shunning practice sufficiently distinctive to devote extended sections of their books to the subject. This alone indicates notability without the need to attempt a subjective comparison with the systems employed by other churches.

For the record, I have argued in the past in favour of JWs being described on Wikipedia as a Christian denomination. The religion has repeatedly argued that they alone are Christians and that other churches are pretenders, hence my decision to quote the word "Christian" on that instance: it’s an all-embracing term they should all be included in, though they are uncomfortable with being grouped with others they feel are led by the devil.

To the question of how strict the rule is about talking to the excommunicated: AuthorityTam’s quote from the Watchtower is a good example of the level of instruction given to members on what they may and may not do. The article was written as a direct response to a perception that disfellowshipped JWs were being treated harshly, so in that article they directed that kindness should be extended in cases of personal hardship.

Quotes from Watchtower publications indicating the rigidity of the rules are available at pages such as [1] (note the reference in the elders’ manual to the disfellowshippable offence of "brazen conduct" that includes speaking to disfellowshipped persons) and [2]. The latter website article includes an extended quote from an August 2002 Our Kingdom Ministry newsletter that detailed who may and may not be spoken to, including a reinforcement of the prohibition on speaking to relatives and offspring living away from home. In short, the system is dictated by the Governing Body with carefully detailed instructions on who must be shunned and in what circumstances. Such shunning is triggered by a public announcement at a JW congregational meeting and is not rescinded until elders formally adjudge an individual to be "repentant" and a subsequent announcement is made. Members are obliged to obey these directives.

Interestingly, the 1974 Watchtower article cited by AuthorityTam argued that shunning should be reduced or removed when an errant baptised member themself rectifies their behaviour (for example marrying after engaging in premarital sex); authors have identified a watershed 1981 Watchtower article that did a U-turn and significantly strengthened the system of shunning, extending it for the first time to any who formally resign from the organisation. That Watchtower remains the standard text referred to as the official position, and this was reinforced in the 2008 manual, Keep Yourself in God’s Love. BlackCab (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that this issue is again going to pop-up in future if this article is considered for FA status. I am not entirely convinced why such an importance is needed to have a paragraph on the lede. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, your comparison of JW disfellowshipping (a formal direction to shun friends and family who leave the religion) with Catholic excommunication (exemption from participation in a simulated cannibalism ritual) is flawed. Catholic excommunication does not involve shunning; excommunicating vitandus was officially abolished in 1983. The JW practice of shunning is covered in studies of the religion, and in media reports about the practice, and meets the requirements of notability. WP:LEAD states that notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77, I am sorely tempted to link the comparison of holy communion to "simulated cannibalism ritual" for the editors on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism to see, even though it is not in article space. This kind of think/talk is not compatible editing any religion pages on WP. Hi BlackCab, I'm afraid I have never heard of James M. Penton and a quick Google does not indicate he is a credible NPOV WP:RS, though Andrew Holden appears to be. The problem with too much quoting Watchtower is WP:PSTS. Back to Holden, I have just read through the section pp77-81. Holden seems NPOV but lacks comparative data - what I, as someone with little experience of this church, would expect to see is some benchmarking to Mormon, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, acts of excommunication and recovery - what is being described in Jehovah's Witnesses: portrait of a contemporary religious movement 2002 Page 79 is considerably milder than that in some Elim Pentecostal congregations. What particularly caught my eye was this:

Disfellowshipping is, however, much less common than informal discipline such as counselling. ... members told me that, in his own congregation of nearly a hundred people, there had not been a case of disfellowship for seven years.

This confirms my concern that sth that happens once in 7 years and is secondary to counselling and doesn't appear significantly different from (eg. example just given Elim Pentecostal) really doesn't justify headlining in the lede? Or perhaps if it does may this needs to go with it? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Two further things - perhaps when having followed the RfC call here I should have scrolled up and noted that one of the editors (can't quite follow who, BlackCab?) is an excommunicated JW. There are no hard and fast rules about this on WP - and I hope there's been no "outing" going on - Democrats can edit Republican bios and so on, but that raises a flag; we wouldn't normally expect an ex or excommunicated member of any church to be promoting a particular view on the subject in the church's article. Second point. Following the Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline#Disfellowshipping (which seems to contain a lot of WP:primary sources) we see the following:

List of "serious sins" Jehovah's Witnesses consider many actions to be "serious sins", for which baptized Witnesses are subject to disfellowshipping or formal reproof. Actions for which a member can be disfellowshipped include: Abortion,[18] adultery, apostasy,[19] bestiality, blood transfusions,[20] "brazen conduct" or "loose conduct",[21][22] drug abuse,[23] drunkenness, extortion,[24] fornication, fraud,[25] gambling,[24] greed,[24] homosexual activity, idolatry, incest, interfaith activity,[26] lying, [27] manslaughter, murder, "perverted sex relations",[28] polygamy,[29] pornography,[30] reviling, sexual abuse,[31] slander,[25] spiritism, theft, and use of tobacco[23].[32][33]

Well hang on.. with the exception of blood transfusions and tobacco these are considered serious sins in any conservative Christian church. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whole bunch of issues there, In ictu oculi.

1. Penton is widely cited by other authors of books on JWs, so your lack of knowledge of him doesn't exclude him as a RS. (I have just done a Google book search and he appears at the top of the list, as the author of several historical books on the religion published by the University of Toronto Press).

2. Anecdotally, members of every JW congregation would be aware of members who have been disfellowshipped. It is far from a rare incidence. Of the 12 chapters of the elders' manual, Shepherd the Flock of God, seven chapters are devoted to the subject of disfellowshipping. A July 1992 Watchtower stated that "In recent years disfellowshippings worldwide have been approximately 1 percent of publishers." With a total active membership of seven million that's 70,000 a year; most congregations would be about 100 to 150 publishers: do the math.

3. I am not disfellowshipped; I quit attending meetings. That no more excludes me from editing JW-related articles than the several active JWs who also edit articles, busting their balls to portray their religion in the best possible light.

3. Yes, the JWs are a moral people; commendably so, and they probably outshine other denominations in terms of emphasising the need for high moral standards. Like strict denominations, they have a list of "serious sins", and all power to them. Unlike other denominations, however, they formally expel and shun (a) those who smoke tobacco; (b) those who engaged in premarital sex; (c) those who exercise a conscience decision to accept a blood transfusion; (d) those who divorce and remarry; (e) those who voluntarily resign from the religion; (f) those who buy a lottery ticket or bet on the races; and (g) those who question or challenge Watchtower teachings. Those who are shunned must remain shunned until they die unless they "repent". For those who have formally resigned membership, of course, it means the only way to resume normal familial contact is to ignore their conscience and rejoin the religion, even if they no longer believe it.

An official directive that close friends or family members cease speaking to a baptised Christian who falls into any of those categories may be commonplace in churches in your area; in mine it would be most unusual. JWs practise all those things, and therefore the practice is notable. BlackCab (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've myself seen specific statements in comments on other books that Penton's book Apocalypse Delayed is still counted the best academic source yet printed on the JW's. And I tend to agree that disfellowshipping among JWs is probably notable. Individual excommunication among the older groups of Christians (I'm a Catholic) of which I am aware is generally not widely discussed, nor is it necessarily seen by members of such groups as necessaily being that big a deal, given the number of schismatic groups in those fields anyway. The JW are a bit better organized, and apparently a bit less freely blending into broader society, and different standards seem to apply there. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would contest that rather sharply - and I have read statements to the contrary. Academic researchers would tend to use Holden or even Beckford rather than Penton's rather limited account. I (having published academically on JWs) would certainly not use Penton as a general reference, but only use him to source his particular views and conclusions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite Penton's unhappy personal experience with the religion, Andrew Holden, Robert Crompton, Bryan Wilson, Stark & Iannaconne and George Chryssides (see an observation on his work pg 147 at [3]) routinely use him as a source. Are there any particular statements sourced to Penton you'd challenge? In the section dealing with discipline and disfellowshipping, he is cited only in reference to the claim that disputing the Society's doctrines is regarded as apostasy, a serious sin that can warrant disfellowshipping. For the rest of the article he is mostly used as a source for doctrinal and historical matters; the one clear matter of opinion (regarding demons) the article very clearly notes that it is his opinion. BlackCab (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly use him as a source. Holden and others also use Frantz as a source - as should we. But not as a general reference which is something else. I am not challenging any particular usage of Penton in the artyicle - but the general notion that his work could be regarded as the "best academic source yet printed" - because it isn't (perhaps was when it first came out (at least on American matters and general history) but it isn't anymore, by a longshot.)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the 1970s, Penton's book-writing projects have benefited from a dearth of independent JW scholarship, but no one should pretend he is (was?) not deeply biased against Jehovah's Witnesses (a religion which had previously expelled him). For example, in May 1981, Newsweek magazine called Penton "one of 50 ex-Witnesses in Alberta, Canada, who are now working actively to debunk the sect's teachings". I've summarized just a few quotes from other scholars about Penton at Talk:James Penton#Anti-JW bias. Ironically, I first noticed the bias in Penton's book Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship (but it was pro-JW bias, from 1976 before he was disfellowshipped). An example of Penton bias? Here at Wikipedia some time ago, certain editors were trying to get the article on former Watch Tower president J. F. Rutherford to include claims that he was an alcoholic; one by one, every single "authority" for the claims was shown to be unverifiable. Other scholarly works ignore the unsupported rumor-mongering; but Penton? Rather than behave like a historian and cite names and dates, Penton does a tabloid-esque TMZ-type claim: "Former workers at the Watch Tower's New York headquarters recount tales of his inebriation and drunken stupors. Others tell stories of how difficult it sometimes was to get him to the podium to give talks at conventions because of his drunkenness." No names, no dates, just un-academic anti-JW claims that their president was a decades-long public drunk. I suppose Penton can be an occasional source, but one used with eyes open and a grain of salt.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree: one has to be careful about what one quotes him on and make clear when views are just his opinion. The same caution can be applied to any source. Watch Tower Society publications are outrageously biased when presenting an account of the succession crisis after Russell's death and have yet to present both sides of that story. A wide range of sources is always beneficial. BlackCab (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said my first impressions were that Penton was not a WP:RS, now that I find he has a WP bio that confirms initial impressions. Anyway, back to the subject. Anyone wanting to productively contribute to WP religion articles should aim to work from mainstream academic sources and source comment from there. WP isn't a blog. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we wrap this RfC up?

Re: Please read the above discussion and give your valuable input. Is mentioning the word 'reinstatement' regarding congregational discipline in the lead section relevant to the article? Fazilfazil (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - if congregational discipline is notable enough for the lede (of which I'm not convinced given the lack of NPOV sources) then yes "reinstatement" should be mentioned per WP:NPOV. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is no lack of NPOV sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. As was the case just a few months ago when this article was elevated to "good article" status, if the lede mentions disfellowshipping then the lede should mention reinstatement. It's nice to see this resolved again despite certain efforts to remove any mention of JW reinstatement from this article's lede (see 12/28,2/3,2/3 and [4],[5],[6]).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. The use of the word 'reinstatement' should have a purpose in direction of improving the article by being mentioned in the lead section. As far as I can see it does so. As long as disfellowshipping is mentioned in the lead, the possibility of reinstatement should be mentioned to keep the lead balanced according to the NPOV-policy (a lot of readers may only read the lead section). Mentioning 'reinstatement' will also keep the article and the lead more accurate, because it removes the posibility for the reader to draw a conclution that disfellowshipping is absolute, when, according to (the unverified) sources given above, about 50% is reinstated. Reinstatement is also near as common as disfellowshipping given the source is correct (1% and 0.5% are both small digits, 50% rejoining is quite significant), and I am not sure if any of those are significant important information for the lead. It also seems that the subject draws significant more attention to JW-critic sources than from other sources. Either way, I don't see why the two words should be removed, when a sentence is spended for information of near same importance. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I accept the consensus view on this. I'll briefly adress, however, Fazilfazil's statement above that a report showed "about half of the disfellowshipped persons were reinstated later on a particular period." This is dealt with more fully at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 48#Disfellowshipping sentence in beginning of article, but there are two sources for this belief:
1. A 1974 Watchtower indicating that over a 10-year period half a century ago 40 percent of those who were disfellowshipped were reinstated. That statistic was gained prior to the watershed events of 1975, and also prior to the greater use of the internet to gain information about the JWs. My guess (though untestable) is that the number of people who are DFd and later reinstated would be much smaller.
2. A comment to Holden from one elder of one congregation that, "upon repentance, the majority of disfellowshipped members are allowed to return to the congregation." (Emphasis mine). The statement is a local anecdote only and can in no way be used as a universal statistic; furthermore, that elder speaks only of those seeking reinstatement. It may be that of 1000 people disfellowshipped, only 20 show repentance. While the elder's statement would be true if 11 of those were later reinstated, it would remain a fact that 989 of those 1000 (or 99 percent) remained disfellowshipped.
The bottom line is that there is no usable figure indicating the proportion of disfellowshipped JWs who are later reinstated. BlackCab (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are making wrong conclusions. I would say that the 40% or even 50% above is still true. It is a less common event among JW's that someone get dis-fellowshipped and its been cited by some editors in above discussion. Also its been cited by WT publications frequently that majority are disfellowshipped for sexual immorality and not for apostasy. Its reasonable to believe that persons who are not disfellowshipped for apostasy are more likely to repent and come back, because they are disfellowshipped not for their lack of faith in the religion. Further WT publications have cited experiences of those got reinstated, where they say that family ties and losing friends from congregation was one reason to repent about their wrong doings. You may conclude that internet have a wide impact on witnesses. For one reason this is wrong, for example in US, where internet is accessible to every one, the number of people baptized this year was nearly 34,000. For many new adherents the Bible and witnesses' sincerity in teaching them is the reason that motivates in their decision, and not the history of JWs. Therefore no one cares or even interested to know about 1925 or 1975. Another reason is that witnesses' are convinced enough using Bible about the dangers of independent thinking, reading apostate contents on internet and their own wrong expectations regarding the Armageddon. So even if they encounter such websites it is very likely that they would not even read such material. In addition I know witnesses' who have read these kind of materials online and conclude that there is no reason to go out of the faith, because they think that the logic in those literature are not convincing. And no one can conclude anything from the year book statistics, because I believe there is far more people who go inactive but not disfellowshipped.--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. Most disfellowshippings would be for reasons of immorality; most who become dissatisfied simply leave (though I have friends who were both disfellowshipped some years after ceasing association. They were pursued by elders in another state after a complaint that they had criticised the religion to a family member. Neither of them was known to JWs in the state to which they moved and they maintained no contact with JWs other than their family). I know of several others who were DFd for immorality and none sought reinstatement. My experience, like yours, is anecdotal; until there are reliable figures, it's really all speculation. Most new converts, as I did, accept the religion at face value and do not explore wider aspects of the religion. Only later do some develop a realisation about the basis of its teachings and the effect of its control methods. Studies (and forum comments) show that many, however, despite developing a distaste for aspects of the religion, feel forced to remain because the cost of the alternative (being shunned for life by their family) is a cost too high to pay. The vast majority, of course, are content to remain. But disfellowshipping remains a significant and controversial control/discipline method. BlackCab (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

JW and homosexuality

According to the section «Ethics and morality» homosexuality is considered as a serious sin. It could be limits in my English knowledges, and the Norwgian article of same subject «Homofili» is fooling me, but I have to make a comment here anyway: I do not have any refs by hand, but as far as I know, JW separates actions from orientation, whitch meens homosexuality is not considered as a sin as far as it isn't practiced. (because homosexuality is or could be the sexual orientation rather than performed action?) Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right that JW do not consider the orientation but the practice to be a sin.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a statement from a recent Watchtower regarding the subject:

I hope this provides all the information you needed on the subject, if not, ask and I will provide additional references.Willietell (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a lengthy quote from a Watchtower publication that is unnecessary on this page, and is also probably a breach of copyright. Willietell, provide a link to the article if you wish, or include a brief quote from the most important section of the article. But really, the question has been answered. BlackCab (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:BlackCab please do not continue to disruptively delete my input into talk page discussions as you have done here [7] this in uncivil and improper. If you don't the material I have presented, rebut, but don't delete my input. Willietell (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Also these are cited direct quotations, not a copyright violation. Willietell (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. The WP:TALK page explains that comments must be brief and to the point. This is not a place to copy and paste entire copyrighted articles from other publications. Get rid of the Awake article now. BlackCab (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the edit is rather lengthy, but the question raised required more than a short explanation, because complicated questions sometimes require rather lengthy answers. The Awake article covers those situations well and thus I felt it proper to include the lengthy amount of information in this limited situation to provide a more complete understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses position on the practice of homosexuality. the information is properly cited and is therefore not a copyright violation. It is rather lengthy, but I will not make a habit out of it. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether you cite the Awake article correctly is immaterial. WP:COPYVIO explains that "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." BlackCab (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have let the removal stand at the insistence of "seemingly" two editors, I my choose to provide a link in the future, if the discussion seems to need additional input.Willietell (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Seemingly" two editors? Are you suggesting Maunus and I could be the same person? Get a grip. BlackCab (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This Talk page is not the proper venue for general questions about JW belief, beyond discussion for improving the article. Maunus' brief response was more than sufficient within the scope of this page. If someone asks a general question about JW belief that requires more than a brief response, you should direct them to the WP:Reference desk or to sources outside Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my question was to contribute to make a better article, by scoping to a place where the article possible is unaccurate. If homosexuality could mean the orientation, this could make the article unaccurate, by crediting JWs for possible controversials view they don't have. If homosexuality could mean the practiced action only, then the article is good on this topic. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that your question was a problem. However, the lengthy response (since removed) was not necessary. My comments about questions on Talk pages wer intended more generally.

I have modified the article slightly to refer to homosexual activity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted the article so that there would be a complete and unmistakable answer to the question asked, the material was properly cited and therefore copyright is not an issue. It was in fact, not the entire Young people ask article, but only the section dealing with the question asked. I feel that to delete it was unnecessary, but I will not attempt to put it back due to the unreasonable uproar that has been the response to posting it. Additionally, I personally feel that much has been made of little with regards to my posting a slightly lengthy article, but nonetheless, it is gone, so the issue is closed in my mind. That is, unless someone still has doubts as to the subject matter. Willietell (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You could have cited perhaps a sentence or two to clerly make the point. A minor change has made the article more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When a quote goes beyond a few sentences in most cases, links are preferable. You will get into copyright issues with entire paragraphs. And the talk pages get long enough as it is without pasted article content. Linking makes things way easier for all involved, not to mention, Wikipedia has policies regarding pasting in that much of info. The point actually can be summarized in a few sentences. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, here is an example of a quote which serves Wikipedia's purposes and respects copyrights:
Awake!, ©Watch Tower, December 2010, page 23, "Rather than get ensnared in a debate about the cause of homosexual desires, [a Witness asked about the matter should] emphasize that the Bible prohibits homosexual conduct. ...The Bible...simply directs those with same-sex urges to do the same thing that is required of those with an opposite-sex attraction—to “flee from fornication.”"[emphasis retained from original]"
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)