Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 7 March 2012

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jehovah's Witnesses at the Reference desk.

	Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2011 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Witnesses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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 . 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)

Scriptural references

I find it hard to believe that Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's unbias and fairness scriptural references should be included for major doctrines. After all Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Use of scriptures explains where they are appropriate and how they should be used. They are usually unnecessary, however, and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages cannot allow scriptural references for those main tenets then I really see no reason to continue supporting the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 carrots→ 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with proselytism. Every Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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, many of which still exist. By mid-1919, about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society. 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." William Schnell, author and former Witness, claimed that three quarters of the Bible Students who had been associating in 1921 had left by 1931. Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large"."

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 (note the reference in the elders’ manual to the disfellowshippable offence of "brazen conduct" that includes speaking to disfellowshipped persons) and . 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, adultery, apostasy, bestiality, blood transfusions, "brazen conduct" or "loose conduct", drug abuse, drunkenness, extortion, fornication, fraud, gambling, greed, homosexual activity, idolatry, incest, interfaith activity, lying, manslaughter, murder, "perverted sex relations", polygamy, pornography, reviling, sexual abuse, slander, spiritism, theft, and use of tobacco.

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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ,,).--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)

In light of the immediately-preceding comment, this diff seems interesting.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The linked diff is not directly relevant. Whilst BlackCab's statements (which he acknowledges are anecdotal) are not reliably sourced content for the article, it is related to the topic being discussed. This is not at all the same as a vague invitation to discuss JW beliefs in general. Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw this earlier today and intended to go back and remove AuthorityTam's rather stupid comment, but forgot. I don't understand why he constantly descends to this level of bitchiness, when it has no relevance to article talk page. Why would a person be so obsessed with inane point scoring against another editor? Why do it here? There seems to be a real campaign of goading, carried out on a level he calculates will be just below the threshhold for a WP:ANI report. BlackCab (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... I say 'this diff is interesting' and that unleashes insults that I am "stupid" and 'bitchy' and "obsessed"?
Certain editors need to WP:CHILLOUT.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor claiming WP:TALKO recently deleted several comments above. The editor misapplies the guideline (which explicitly states, "you should exercise caution in and normally stop if there is any objection"); I've restored the deleted material.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So you want to retain your little attack. Okay then... in what way was the other edit "interesting"?? The material that was deleted certainly wasn't interesting, and the distinction has already been clearly noted above. The other edit certainly was not related to any specific topic of discussion related to the article and was attempting to use the Talk page as a general discussion page. You know very well that Misplaced Pages is not a forum. So apart from your on-going campaign to quash civility and hostilely present other editors in a bad light, just how was the other edit "interesting"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I say something, to try breaking this up? If it was BlackCabs removal of an open invitation to use this talkpage for a general discussion, that started this discussion, I agree with the removal. The invitation was breaking with the policy of not making this room into a forum, and a warning is given on the top of this page. Someone involved into this project could may have guided the new user who added the invitation into policies here, so the user could be useful to the project. If its true that some of this article is incorrect, and it could be proven, it would be interesting to have a look into it. Either way, I am sure the fightening parts does know that use of harsh wording and accuses could make a negative value of their meaning in the actual discussion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Grrahnbahr, my removal of an invitation to "answer many questions about Jehovah's Witnesses" at a talk page was clearly in accordance with WP:TALK. Unfortunately AuthorityTam has chosen to use that edit as an excuse for another of his pointless and childish attempts to attack an editor with whom he seems to be a little obsessed. His comment adds nothing of value to the page and says more about his own strange fixation than anything else; the fact that he has chosen to reinstate his snide and unnecessary comment after it was appropriately removed by another editor underlines his determination to sidetrack discussion of article content with his own imaginary wars against those who have stated their disagreement with the religion. What can I do? If he chooses to have his infantile behavior restored to the page after its removal, that's his business. I'll stick to discussions on content. I have confronted him directly on his talk page about this; he pretends not to see those comments and persists with his odd behavior. Good luck to him. BlackCab (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is important to discuss the topic, not the users (at least not in a negative way: AuthorityTam has also made important contributions to this article), and I will not take part in the change of words between you. The fact that some users not is agreed about a topic, keeps up the chase to get the article balanced and accurate, but it is important to stick to this projects policies. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have frequented this talkpage for several years now during which the three of you have been constantly bickering like this. However I do believe that the only reason that this article has not degenerated into madness is because it has been maintained in the vacuum between JW positive and critical editors which has meant that only edits that have been actual improvements have been allowed. They say walled gardens are bad, but they are often the most well kept - at least when there are several gardeners keeping each other on their toes. So AuthorityTam - please don't get yourself topicbanned or blocked for personal attacks or the like. The page needs you - try to keep your critical comments to the content side. BlackCab and Jeffro - please don't abuse talkpage guideline by removing comments from editors with whom you have now been in a running dispute of several years, and don't revert to bullying just because there's usually two of you and one of him. Focus on the content and give each other leeway on the talkpage. You all need each other to maintain this article - even though sometimes you feel it would be easier without the others.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's attack was clearly not at all related to this topic, and is part of a long running form of behaviour of attacking editors, usually BlackCab. It is entirely appropriate to refactor Talk pages to remove statements that have no purpose other than to attack editors. The only reason AuthorityTam has not been reported more often for his entirely inappropriate actions is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the pro-JW position. However, if his behaviour does not improve, he will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has certainly added some value to this and other JW-related articles with his strong pro-JW leanings and extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the religion. However it usually is accompanied by an outpouring of bile, sarcasm and hostility. I'd vastly prefer he dealt with other editors in a more civil manner and addressed content rather than personalities. Your suggestion that I or any other editor is bullying him is patent nonsense. I have repeatedly approached him directly on his talk page to address perceived conflicts. He ignores those approaches and returns to his usual practise of antagonism and provocation. BlackCab (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In my experience non of the three of you are particularly mild in your argumentation style. Now, I'm not a believer but I do believe that you reap what you sow and that the way to get along with others is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And as for bullying I think you are all capable of that, it just so happens that it is easier for you and Jeffro to get a long for a while than for AuthorityTam to do so which means he is in the minority most of the time. And just to make clear - it is never a good idea to remove a talkpage comment from someone with whom you are in a dispute. Let someone who is uninvolved take care of maintaining the talkpage theny you guys can maintain the article·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so sure. I think when an editor has for no apparent reason added a snide or goading remark with no direct relevance to the article, it's better to delete the comment and minimise any satisfaction he may gain from seeing it there. Like erasing graffiti, it may eventually persuade him that there's no benefit in posting those comments. BlackCab (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but someone who is in a dispute is not in a position to judge that. And when two editors in a dispute are removing comments by the third then that cannot really be characterized as anything other than bullying.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have requested, several times, that if AuthorityTam has problems with editors, that he should address the matter at the editor's User Talk page or use Misplaced Pages's established processes for dispute resolution. There is no excuse at all for AuthorityTam's frequent personal attacks on article Talk pages that have no bearing at all on relevant discussion. In this case, I removed his attack on BlackCab, and I won't remove the attack he restored as that is for BlackCab to decide. However, if AuthorityTam makes a personal attack about me, I will delete it, and if it is restored, it will be deleted again and he will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That comment is not even a personal attack, although it is snarky and unconducive to collaboration, and probably borderline incivil - but so is much of what BlackCab and you say. But each one of you should examine their own conduct first and then that of others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The comment was clearly intended to malign BlackCab's motives, and is part of an on-going effort by AuthorityTam to malign the editor at the slightest opportunity. Because it is part of on-going behaviour, it is a personal attack. When BlackCab responded to AuthorityTam's snide remark, AuthorityTam seems to plead innocence, claiming that the 'this diff is interesting' is somehow innocuous, despite the obvious intent. When editors approach AuthorityTam at User Talk to discuss problems, he simply ignores them. Even when admins have told AuthorityTam to strike out comments, he has ignored them. AuthorityTam is not merely a poor victim of 'bullying'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is also not what I have been saying. The three of you have been stashing it out over the past couple of years and it is hypocritical to be willing to give but not to accept - especially when it is two against one. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Again... I have requested, several times, that if AuthorityTam has problems with editors, that he should address the matter at the editor's User Talk page or use Misplaced Pages's established processes for dispute resolution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the three of you deserve each other. l'enfer c'est l'autres...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to pay attention to my comments. I have never claimed infallibility, and realise I at times respond uncivilly when riled (as you just did). However, I have certainly not made personal attacks with either the ferocity or frequency as has AuthorityTam. He is still welcome to discuss any perceived problems at User Talk, as are you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fairminded editors would do well to go back and re-read this entire thread. In just this one thread, two editors have namecallingly referred to me as "stupid", 'bitchy', "obsessed", "inane", "childish", "infantile", and 'hostile'. By contrast, I haven't launched any personal attack, and certainly not with any "ferocity or frequency". During all of 2011 and 2012 so far, I've only made 129 comments on Talk pages (an average of less than ten per month), and none of them has been personal attack (see for yourself). Aside from two certain editors, has anyone else seen anything from me like that which is described at 'Misplaced Pages:Personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?'? Regarding what one editor might post about another's behavior, that guideline explicitly states "Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."; so times when I have done exactly that are fully within the guideline. Incidentally, that guideline further states, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam lists a few words, which he attributes to 'two editors' (intending myself and BlackCab). I've in fact used none of those words here, with the exception of the related word hostilely, which was an accurate description of AuthorityTam's snide remarks, oblique references to other editors' comments, frequent rehashing of years-old comments (usually BlackCab's), and failure to even attempt to discuss perceived problems at User Talk. Regarding AuthorityTam's other 'request', I will quote User:Fences and Windows, who has previously advised AuthorityTam that "Digging through an editor's old comments to find what you think are incriminating comments and then posting them is looking like a pattern of behaviour that might constitute harassment." (I know of this particular comment because the same editor directed AuthorityTam to strike an attack against me at an AfD, which he failed to do.) So rather than plead innocence, just stick to content. If you have a problem with an editor, discuss at their User Talk page. (A predictable response is that I have not given this reply at User Talk. I have repeatedly attempted to engage AuthorityTam at his Talk page, and he has not responded.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they used "hostile" or "hostilely" or other terms, certain editors in this thread have resorted to namecalling, and that's disappointing.
When challenged to support his allegation that my "attacks" have been 'ferocious and frequent', User:Jeffro77 dredges up a lonely tepid caution from a matter in the first half of 2010!
Since User:Jeffro77 himself introduces the matter, others should see for themselves that none of my edits there involved anything like what is described at the WP:Personal attacks#WHATIS guideline. In 2010, User:Jeffro77 had simultaneously created AfD proposals for three separate articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and I had questioned whether he could do so objectively, considering certain comments he'd previously made about JWs; my only so-called "attack" (again, in the first half of 2010!) was apparently my citation of the editor's own diffs and links! See the AfD's:

• 'Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing'
• 'Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses reference works'
• 'Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents'

Further, User:Jeffro77 is disingenuous in complaining that I didn't strike my AfD comments, as all three AfD's were closed for editing on the same day as the strike request (compare this with ,,). Editors should know that defending oneself against repeated empty accusations gets tiresome. Editors should re-read this thread and note who resorts to namecalling and comment deletion while claiming "attack" and "incivility" and "quashing". BTW.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You just can't admit that you're ever in the wrong can you. Why will you not properly engage editors at User Talk, or use proper dispute resolution methods if you have a problem with an editor?? (I have asked him this at User Talk, but he keeps ignoring.) Why do you feel the need to 'advertise' your supposed 'innocence'. Not only was there no attempt to strike your irrelevant claims from the AfDs (which you were explicitly informed were taking comments from years ago—before you were an editor here—out of context), but there was also no I would but it's been closed, or Okay, I won't do it again, or any other such attempt at rectifying your breach of policy and ameliorating the situation (on the contrary, you later attempted to defend your actions, amongst an edit with a purportedly mundane edit summary; my response at the time is here).

I tried to remove an irrelevant argument from this page (it's still unclear how removing an edit violating WP:FORUM was "interesting"), but you restored it, in order to inflame the situation, just as you continue to do. If an editor upsets you, try to resolve it with the editor at the time, and then try let it go. I am not saying I've not been guilty of the same things. I'm saying I've tried to improve the situation. It is now your turn.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed he also linked a separate edit I made to his Talk page in March 2010, which he also irrelevantly linked at another Talk page today. For the record, now that it's been returned to my attention, I have clarified and apologised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam also claims I was unable to provide any recent evidence of personal attacks. I previously provided links at AuthorityTam's User Talk page about this matter, which he seems to have ignored. However, he has indeed continued attacks on editors, mainly baiting and attacking BlackCab, a) that "editors are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "infantilejuvenile", , b) an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM, and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute, c) a further attack on BlackCab's motives, d) dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,, in addition to other edits retributively mocking other editors' preceding comments, such as a) after being told to stick to content, b) after indicating something was only his opinion, c) after he had unnecessarily attacked a source, and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion. And that's just since last month. In particular, AuthorityTam's constant attacks on BlackCab (as well as his irrelevant attack on me at 3 AfDs) constitute what is referred to at WP:Personal attacks#WHATIS as "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. ... speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." So, at the very least, AuthorityTam is just as guilty as anyone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Certain editors would likely prefer that their accusations go unrefuted, but a wrongly-impugned editor such as myself can hardly be faulted for calmly linking to the evidence. None of User:Jeffro77's links show "ferocity or frequency", or qualifies as WP:Personal attacks#WHATIS, for that guideline explicitly states, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". Obviously, an editor's former affiliation with Jehovah's Witnesses may be immaterial, but his repeated disparagement of them is another matter. Furthermore it seems unlikely that other editors will consider my use of terms like "predictable" and "disingenous" to be on the same footing as "stupid", 'bitchy', "obsessed", "inane", "childish", "infantile", and 'hostile'. Oh, and of all the editor's links, none evidence my use of the term "infantile", so the editor will likely strikethrough his unwarranted accusation about my supposed use of that term.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, it was "juvenile", not "infantile" (collecting the information was tedious). Clearly there is little difference in meaning anyway, and is not at all on the scale of listing a bunch of words I didn't use at all and attributing them to "two editors" including me (a bit like saying AuthorityTam and Hitler are guilty of incivility and exterminating Jews).

The only way in which BlackCab's "disparagement" of the religion you so dearly defend is "repeated" is that that you keep rehashing his comments.

It's clear that in the world of AuthorityTam, AuthorityTam can do no wrong. Everyone else can see that is simply a lie. And you can't even address me directly, instead arrogantly referring to "certain editors", and you are abolutely "hostile". You clearly have no interest in civility, resolving disputes, or making peace. When you decide you want to try, go ahead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the cited thread shows plainly that I'd merely responded to another's "first mention" of the term "juvenile". Does anyone miss the irony? This one remaining accusation of what was supposedly my "personal attack" was actually an insult introduced by the object of the editor's apologism! An editor who is offended by the banal term "certain editors" seems likely to be offended at much and likely to imagine "attack" where there is none.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes- I'm going to conclude that reinstatement should be covered in the lead if discipline is covered, because to leave it out only addresses half the topic. If a parent disciplines a child for improper behavior by applying restrictions upon their activities, should there also not be a mention made of the release of those restrictions when the child's discipline has ended? This seems to be only common sense. This seems to also be the case in the consideration of disfellowshipping unrepentant wrong doers, as reinstatement is simply the completion of the disciplinary process, and not the beginning of some new process. Willietell (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's already there, and has been for some time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages.--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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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, 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.”""
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking (note 5)

I had changed the note for marking, from "most common example given" into "a common example given". I'm not sure if even this is right. It seems that the topic marking is barely mentioned in JWs literature, at least literacy as marking. A section in Organized to do Jehovah's will is named "Marking disorderly ones" (page 150), and among the examples given, the one from the note is not even mentioned. It does also lack of independent sources (even though I believe JWs own sources usually is good enough when it comes to describing their own belivings). Being marked, as described, do probably have some effect on the marked ones, but the impacts is not even close to those from disfellowshipping. The fact that it also seems just briefly mentioned in JWs literature, makes me also ask if this is important to the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

JW 'marking' is certainly not as severe as disfellowshipping; I don't object to it being at this article, but also don't think it's essential here. (It is covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline.) The cited source states, the elders may warn the congregation by means of a talk that makes clear the Biblical view—be it of dating unbelievers, or whatever the improper course is. I agree that it is better to refer to the example as a common rather than most common..--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

1. "Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit". The Watchtower: 31. April 15, 1988.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• GA-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• GA-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles