Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Grizzuti

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

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

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

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

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

He now introduces three new arguments.

• He cites WP:NOTRELIABLE and claims she is at best a questionable source. That guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison was praised by the New York Times for the depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses and her work was widely published by major newspapers and magazines that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking. Her book was published by Simon & Schuster and also Robert Hale, (established 1936). I’ll let editors make their own judgment on that publisher’s credentials for serious subject matter. [1] And a conflict of interest? The editors of those newspapers and magazines saw no such obstacle to her writing about a subject of which she had extensive personal knowledge. She is cited by Holden, Penton and Crompton as well as Jewett & Lawrence (2003). The NYT used her, in turn, as a book reviewer.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:BRD, the addition should remain reverted (as it is now) until the discussion is complete.
It has been very disappointing to see certain editors so fixating on including Grizzuti that they have repeatedly reinstated the new material (see [3][4][5][6]) without waiting for discussion to complete.
One such editor explicitly states of Grizzuti, "Her inclusion is not crucial here".
Another such editor explicitly states, "I also don't think Grizutti's comment adds anything in particular to the article"
Since apparently no one thinks Grizzuti is "crucial" or "adds anything", then plainly the Grizzuti addition should stay reverted.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:BRD, the addition should have remained reverted (as it is now again) until the discussion is complete.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Ex-Jehovah's Witness Barbara Grizzuti Harrison in JW article agreed only that Grizzuti could be used here as a source regarding her own opinions; literally none opined that Grizzuti is a 'WP:Reliable source' regarding what JWs actually believe or practice. Regarding whether Grizzuti's opinions are so valuable that they must be included here (rather than over at 'Criticism of JWs'), editors here have opined:

• "Her inclusion is not crucial here" – BlackCab 03:12, 14 March 2012
• "I also don't think Grizutti's comment adds anything in particular to the article." – Jeffro77 13:23, 15 March 2012

Furthermore... per 'WP:Criticism#Philosophy, religion, or politics', "Integrating negative criticism into those articles can sometimes result in confusion: readers may not be able to discern the difference between what adherents believe versus what critics assert." Thus, while anti-JW activist Grizzuti may be a source regarding her own opinions (as the Noticeboard concluded), the fact remains that this article is about "philosophy, religion, or politics" and so unscholarly opinions cannot be juxtaposed alongside "what adherents believe".--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I sought outside comment on this very point, AuthorityTam. The consensus was for inclusion. BlackCab (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Grizzuti was not an anti-JW activist: that's your piece of fiction. Her comment also supports similar comments by other authors, so it creates no confusion. The inclusion, though not crucial, is helpful here, particularly in light of the fact that you have argued that the claim by all commentators is false. Since the same observation is made now by four separate authors, your strenuous objections to one of those sources (which WP:RSN agreed was perfectly acceptable) have questionable worth. BlackCab (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Education

Editor BlackCab has made the following edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the statement that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 'supposed' letter was published with the Watch Tower Society publishing code, 3/6/12a-E, and includes instructions that it is an addendum to "Index to Letters for Bodies of Elders (S-22)". As advised by BlackCab, it is currently also available at [7]. Even if it were not available online, WP:SOURCEACCESS states that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I will restore the material with a citation. It is not necessary to list Education under both beliefs and practices; the statement in question briefly describes a policy based on their beliefs about education.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your point? This isn't an article about the Amish, and no one has claimed that Amish policies about education are good, bad or other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The point: "I know of no other religion that goes that far. BlackCab (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)"
Thus the two examples of religions that actually go dramatically further.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability of "letter"

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

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

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

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

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

I am not making a personal attack on you, and I have said nothing uncivil.

I wrote a sentence that read "Elders, ministerial servants and pioneers may be deemed ineligible to serve the congregation if they, their wife, or their children undertake university education".[8]

You wrote: "(The WTS letter) is not a statement that a secondary education is bad, completely unnecessary or ill advised."[9] I had made no such claim. Those are your words.

You then wrote: "If another source can be found where a direct quote can be presented from a verifiable source which states that elders and ministerial servants who pursue a secondary education will be disqualified from their appointment, then this material may be re-submitted to the article for consideration."[10] This is another false accusation. Those words are yours, and in no way represent my view.

You and I agree obviously disagree on the admissibility of the WTS letter, and I will seek outside comment on this soon. You have also disagreed with my interpretation of it, though your subsequent edit indicated you were content with the version once another editor expanded it. But you might care to explain why, when discussing the sentence I added to the article, you continue to change the wording in a clear and deliberate attempt to misrepresent my view. Disagreements over content can be difficult enough without editors making concerted efforts to misquote others. BlackCab (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

BlackCab , you need to go back and re-read what I wrote, I never once attempted to present either of those statements as "your view". the statement that " (The WTS letter) is not a statement that a secondary education is bad, completely unnecessary or ill advised." was not a statement I in any way attributed to you, but a remark I made in observation of what the letter is stating. The second statement which you quote as " If another source can be found where a direct quote can be presented from a verifiable source which states thatelders and ministerial servants who pursue a secondary education will be disqualified from their appointment, then this material may be re-submitted to the article for consideration. " was also never attributed to you and therefore there is no false accusation....except the one that is being made against me. Willietell (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Secondary education is high school. The letter addresses tertiary education.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite AuthorityTam's claim, I did not suggest anything about readers visiting JW elders to verify the letter. I simply stated that it is possible to verify that way. AuthorityTam's other over-simplications are also irrelevant. Nor is it necessary or relevant to claim that editors are "giddy" or that their arguments are "tortured". AuthorityTam continues to refer to the letter as "supposed", which is clearly a distortion of the facts, and there has been no serious challenge to the authenticity of the letter. A source does not need to be readily accessible to all readers in order to be an acceptable source (though it is actually available at the moment to all readers).

Willietell's selective 'interpretation' of the letter is incorrect, as the letter quite clearly goes beyond merely stating that higher education might take time away from attending JW meetings, as the letter specifically makes other claims that higher education is dangerous for Christians, and can lead to immorality and weaken JWs' faith, etc. It appears that Willietell also does not properly understand the concept of original research. (If the letter were a reply to a question asked by an individual JW member, that would be original research.) Additionally, his hypothetical appeal for a source that "elders and ministerial servants who pursue a secondary education will be disqualified from their appointment" is misdirection, as such has never been claimed in the article. He also again claims that something he doesn't like is "POV spin". The statement that was added to the article is almost a direct quote anyway, and does not in any way misrepresent the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has had a " selective 'interpretation' of the letter" it has been BlackCab and Jeffro77 , leaving out important qualifiers while focusing on creating POV spin of the "supposed" letter. As I stated before, I have little issue with the letter itself, if it turns out to be genuine, my issue is in the twisting of the letters message to push a misleading POV. Willietell (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted my recent restoration of the higher education letter. However, I can find no clear objection in Wikipedia policy to using documents that have been leaked. I will allow some time for any legitimate challenge to the letter's authenticity. (The fact that the letter has been leaked to a broader audience does not alter the fact that the letter had already been published for a limited audience.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the sharp division in opinion, I have raised a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations. There are very clear parallels between that leaked letter and information leaked through Wikileaks, so I'm sure that situation (or dilemma) has been discussed previously. I am prepared to accept whatever consensus is achieved at that noticeboard by editors who routinely address those questions. Please note that the discussion at this point is about one thing only: its admissibility. Debate about the interpretation of the letter, or how the instructions in that BOE letter are to be represented in the WP article (should it be accepted as a source), can be dealt with later. BlackCab (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Copy of the letter (or reference to it?) apparently available at http://www.testimoni-di-geova.info/IMG/pdf/2012-boe-03-06e.pdf (better than trying to download from the site that was originally listed).

After having read the "letter" it becomes even more obvious that the statement introduced into the article by BlackCab is unacceptable POV spin that twists the meaning of the source and completely ignores the largest portion/s of statements that display a view differing from the POV spin that is being attempted to be introduced into the article. For example this entire paragraph goes unreported in the editors version:

"As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving."

The material introduced by the editor is therefore unacceptable, I will remove it should it still remain. Willietell (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep claiming that anything you disagree with is "POV spin", and your repeated use of the term as jargon has lost all meaning. The statement that JWs "may" lose positions of authority for attending tertiary education is entirely consistent with the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking words to distort the meaning of the letter is in no way "consistent" with the source, it is in fact an obviously intentional distortion and misrepresentation of the source, and is not only unacceptable action, but is in direct violation of Wikipedia rules regarding source references, which states "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article , and should be appropriate to the claims made.". This material does not do that, what is stated in the letter is almost entirely different that what is being introduced in the edit, it is therefore not admissible in the article. Willietell (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell's explicit allegation that I have intentionally distorted and misrepresented the source is utterly false and we're now starting to go round in circles, restating our position. In any case further discussion on the letter is pointless at this stage because of the broad censensus at RSN that it can't be used. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Move Education to JW practices

I recently opined at this Talk regarding the Education section, that it should be at the related JW practices article (rather than its current home at JW beliefs). Are there any nontrivial objections to that proposal?--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You previously mentioned moving the appointment policy to the other article, which seemed a bit disjunct on its own. No major objection to moving the whole section, however it shouldn't be moved until the current discussion about the existing section has concluded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fear of demons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editor likely forgets his comment of 15 March 2012, which referred to a 1981 publication.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding what is "outrageous criticism"...
A book-length work which mentions a single paragraph or so regarding JWs "fear of demons" is not "outrageous criticism". By contrast, an encyclopedia article which inflates a few asides into supposed encyclopedic "notability" certainly is "outrageous criticism". That belongs at 'Criticism of JWs', not here at 'JW beliefs'.

The fact is that the JW beliefs about demons are not notable; their beliefs reflect a view common among conservative Christians including fundamentalists (nearly all of whom associate Ouija boards with demonism). The cited references tend to make that point of commonality (versus notability) plainly, but also tend to share a juicy anecdote which is hardly representative of a global religion with nearly 8 million active adherents and another 10 million in association (the anecdote relayers even tend to admit that the anecdotes reflect the individuals' locales etc). Further, three of the four currently or recently cited writers are former JWs, and among the nonformer-JW serious scholars (who have written at length about JWs), only one apparently mentions the matter at all (a so-called "anti-cult" writer who has for decades referred to JWs as a "cult"). It is WP:UNDUE to push the matter of "fear of demons" as hard as it's pushed at the current article; most of the material is better-discussed at 'Criticism of JWs'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, AuthorityTam, "the editor" did not 'forget' that I also cited a 1981 article (sigh). I hardly 'scrambled' to cite it though, and your implication that the issue was thirty years old was just plain wrong. The point is that I also provided much more recent citations. Why do you persist in these petty irrelevant insinuations?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dread v fear

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

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

An editor recently reverted to the loaded term "dread"; I've again reinstated the better-supported term "fear".--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

The present wording is accurate; yours is too oblique. The central teachings of Russell were that:

• God has a plan of the ages;
• He has given hints in the Bible of the timing (2520 years to 1914, for example) to those who are able to discern it;
• Jesus' Second Coming was an invisible one;
• He would establish God's Kingdom over the earth to restore to its edenic perfection;
• That kingdom would comprise 144,000 faithful anointed Christians;
• Obedient humans would be able to live forever on earth;
• Others would be resurrected to life on earth;
• The world would degenerate into turmoil at Armageddon and only those approved by God would be saved;
• God is not a trinity;
• Hell is the resting place of the unconscious dead;
• He has a faithful servant through whom he teaches obedient humans;
• Christians who have learned the "truth" have an obligation to teach others.

These all remain core Watch Tower Society teachings. Most of them are unusual, or unique, to the Witnesses. Though there have been changes over the years, with the introduction of such dogma as the requirement for public preaching and the prohibition of blood transfusions, birthday celebrations and singing national anthems, as well as development of doctrines on Armageddon, those teachings of Russell, and then Rutherford and Knorr, are most certainly the basis of today's JW doctrines. The Penton source cited uses the word "basis". Your suggested wording would suggest there is only an historical link to the early teachings. It is much stronger than that and the current wording is an accurate reflection of that. BlackCab (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that for the most part, the points you brought out are still some of the core beliefs that Jehovah's Witnesses hold to, they are by no means the only ones and many things which Russell, Rutherford and Knorr understood to be true and no longer beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. The idea of christian neutrality was not held by Russell in a way that Witnesses understand it today, the use of Tobacco, the celebration of Christmas and other pagan holidays such as Easter, Halloween and New Years, the use of religious images, such as the cross, and many that you mentioned, blood transfusions, birthday celebrations, nationalism and the list goes on and on. The doctrinal changes have been too numerous to list without missing many,even changes announced as recently as the 2011 convention program are a divergence from the beliefs held by the early members of the organization. To say that the beliefs are based of these older beliefs is doing a disservice to the reader as well as misinforming them at the same time. A more accurate statement is needed in the lede. I think mine is better, but I am willing to listen to other alternatives, it needs to be improved upon, whether by myself, or by some other editor, but improvement is necessary. Willietell (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kww and BlackCab. "Historical connection" is far too weak, and "greatly modified" does require SOLID sourcing. "Based on" is indeed the most accurate descriptor. I can't see how that can be denied, especially since it is the wording used in a reliable text. I think you're reading something into it that just isn't there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What "reliable text"? the source does not say "based on" the source says " can be traced back to", there is no way a reasonable person can say this is not showing a historical connection. To use the phrase based on adds non-intended content to the source, it is therefore a misrepresentation of the cited source. Perhaps a RfC needs to be opened to get a fresh perspective on the issue..? Willietell (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The first source, Penton, uses the word "basis". I don't see what good an RfC would do. You've already received the opinions of three different fellow editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think waiting for additional input from editors who have displayed a more reasonable perspective would seem appropriate in this case. Willietell (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, the opening sentence says the beliefs are based on the teachings of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr. Every one of the doctrines you mentioned were introduced by one of those three men; the details are contained in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and History of Jehovah's Witnesses. The sentence is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The president of WTS does not introduce or make doctrine, another flaw in the introduction, an introduction which immediately following this misinformation, states that " Since 1976 all doctrinal decisions have been made by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders at the religion's Brooklyn headquarters.". A statement which directly contradicts what you are stating, as the president of the WTS is not synonymous with the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses both cannot be introducing these doctrines, either one is or the other, but not both. Willietell (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to be teaching you about the history of your own religion, but your latest claim is quite nonsensical. Russell, Rutherford and Knorr (the latter using Fred Franz as his theologian) determined the doctrines of the religion they headed, as all non-WTS sources acknowledge. (I am not aware of whether WTS publications explicitly discuss who established doctrines ... they are usually expressed in a form that "Jehovah revealed that ...." which does not answer the question. Secular historians, however, do.) The sentence you quote is correct: from 1976 the role of doctrinal development was delegated to the expanded Governing Body. There is therefore no contradiction. The doctrines the Governing Body today tinkers with (overlapping generation, the date when the sealing of the anointed concluded) were those almost entirely developed by the first three presidents. BlackCab (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor Willietell is quite correct: since 2000, the president of Watch Tower has no known role in doctrinal beliefs (eg see here). Besides that, the current lede largely ignores 'MOS:LEDE', and plainly needs work. For example, the 'first sentence should mention the 'GBJW', and since this is a "...beliefs" article and not a "History..." or "Development of..." article, it seems odd to mention Russell et al at all in the article, much less in the lede.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Willietell is certainly correct that today the president of the Watch Tower Society does not establish doctrines. And nor does the article state that! I find it odd that AuthorityTam is surprised by the inclusion of Russell's name in the article. As explained above, the core doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses were established by him and then modified by his successors. He is as integral to the doctrines of the JWs as Joseph Smith is to Mormonism, Mary Baker Eddy to Christian Science and L. Ron Hubbard to Scientology. No article on JW beliefs would be complete without mentioning him, Rutherford and Knorr. BlackCab (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mention of former presidents should likely be limited to a historical section in a subheading within the article. I think inclusion in the lede is misplaced as well as misleading when considering the current beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Willietell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

I don't think that would work. Currently those early presidents are mentioned only in the intro as well as the section on "Restoration of true Christianity". Though the origin of the beliefs is worth noting in brief, I don't see any need for a history section in the article when this dealt with at the other two articles I mentioned earlier. BlackCab (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A single sentence in the lead indicating the source of the most fundamental JW beliefs is not undue focus on Russell, nor would it be necessary to add a History section just for such a single sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My issue with the "single sentence" in the lead, it that is is inaccurate, as has been demonstrated by AuthorityTam's link, as well as by information I have already provided. I fail to understand the persistent attitude towards presenting knowingly inaccurate information to push POV spin. Willietell (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So what are they based on, Willietell?—Kww(talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam's link to the Don A. Adams article does nothing to "demonstrate" an inaccuracy. We all agree that the current president makes no doctrines. The article plainly says (twice in fact) that doctrines are established by the Governing Body. There is in fact nothing inaccurate in the lead section, so I'm stuffed if I can see what error anyone is "insisting" be retained. Be precise here, Willietell. What is the error? And if there is "POV spin", whose point of view is being expressed and what is it? You seem to use this "POV spin" term a lot without knowing what it means. You are actually making no sense here at all. BlackCab (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

In answer Kww, I would say that Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs are based on their understanding of the bible, relying primary on their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, since its completion. They are not, however, based upon the beliefs of any single individual or small group of individuals, but have been altered significantly since the groups inception in the late 1800's as modern day events as well as further scriptural study brought about a modified biblical understanding. (note that I am not suggestion this as the introduction into the article, just answering the question posed). Willietell (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But what is the inaccuracy you say is still in the lead? Or do you now agree that it is not inaccurate? BlackCab (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is stated here[11] Willietell (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Use of the title LORD or GOD to be considered the rendering of the name of God

User:Jeffro77 has brought up a point and states that he considers the use of the titles "Lord" and "God" to be the rendering of God's name as a translation of the Tetragrammaton. I consider this to be inaccurate as "God" and "Lord" are merely titles substituted for God's name in place of a translation. Please offer input so that a consensus might be reached in the article. Here[12] is the diff as to how the article has been edited. Willietell (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "rendering" is the exact right term for "substituting in place of a translation". Why you consider it "inaccurate" is beyond me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The definition of render, as used in this instance is as follows:

ren·der [ren-der]

verb (used with object)-to translate into another language: to render French poems into English.

Origin:

1275-1325; Middle English rendren < Middle French rendre <Vulgar Latin *rendere, alteration (formed by analogy with prendere to take) of Latin reddere ‘to give back’, equivalent to red- red- +-dere, combining form of dare ‘to give’

My issue is that the titles "God" and "Lord" are not equivalent to the Tetragrammaton, but are instead a substitution for it. Thus my edit, making this exact point, with a specific source reference supporting this idea....It should have never been reverted, but I will seek consensus of the community to get a broader perspective. Willietell (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"LORD" and "GOD" found in most translations are a rendering; whether it is a correct rendering or the best rendering is beside the point. Other translations use the terms GOD and LORD (in all capitals) as a name, distinguished from the use of the words in the generic sense without capitals. There is also disagreement among scholars about whether Jehovah is "equivalent to the Tetragrammaton", with most favouring Yahweh as more accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, while Yahweh may be the more accepted translation by "most scholars", Jehovah is by far the more commonly accepted translation of the divine name. Additionally, translating the Tetragrammaton "Yahweh" presents consistency issues with the translations of other biblical names, which would then also have to be changed. Names such as Jesus, Jehu, Jeremiah,and many others would suffer from the same rules of translation and would thus change. But this is an entirely separate issue, as the titles God and Lord are not translations of the Tetragrammaton, but are words inserted to avoid using the divine name instead. The citation in the article deals with how the divine name is rendered by the NWT and contrasts other bible translations, which do not render the divine name, but substitute a title instead. That is the entire point of the edit. My edit makes this point clearer and is more accurate, which is why I made the edit in the first place, for the purpose of clarity. Willietell (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's actually much support for your claim that "Jehovah is by far the more commonly accepted translation of the divine name." Most scholars and most Sacred Name Bibles use the form Yahweh. Some other religious groups also use the name Jehovah, but I've seen no evidence that they make up the majority. References to Jehovah are most commonly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses.

A rendering is any substitution in translation. It doesn't need to be a transliteration, nor does it need to be an exactly equivalent term. The choice of wording in any Bible translation (including paraphrases) is properly referred to as a "rendering".--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the titles Lord and God are not renderings of the Tetragrammaton, but of the Greek words Ky'ri-os and The-os', meaning Lord and God respectfully, (as in that order). Words which began to appear in later copies of the Greek Septuagint in the latter part of the 3rd century and were used, not as a translation of the Tetragrammaton, but intentionally as a substitution for it. To state the article as if these are translations of the Tetragrammaton misinforms the reader and presents Wikipedia as ignorant of commonly known fact. Willietell (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The article simply states that the NWT renders the name of God as Jehovah. The statement is correct and does not require elaboration at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The statement is perfectly fine as it is. Willietell is seeing a problem that just isn't there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As of yet you have still failed to provide a justifiable reason for reverting a properly sourced edit other than you "don't like it" and consider it to be too much information. If it were a particularly long edit, I might see your point, but it only changes the paragraph by a couple of words, so that is a meaningless excuse for reverting properly sourced material. As stated before, the titles God and Lord are not renderings of the Tetragrammaton, but of the Greek titles The-os' and Ky'ri-os, therefore to state in the article that they are in fact titles utilized by a number of English bible translations is appropriate, sourced and without question, accurate. The edit I made should therefore be restored. However, if you still feel differently, then perhaps a RfC is in order to get a broader perspective. Willietell (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The current statement is direct, unambiguous and accurate. There is no reason to replace it with 'defensive' wording, and you don't have any support for your interpretation of rendering.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "defensive" about my chosen wording. There is nothing to defend in the paragraph. The use of Jehovah for the Tetragrammaton stands on its own merits. If anything, refusal to acknowledge that GOD and LORD are titles used to replace God's name is what is defensive. There really has been no input from other editors, hopefully interested editors will take part in the discussion soon, then maybe a consensus can be reached. Willietell (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is simply no need at this article for a 'crusade' about 'replacing God's name'. The decisions made by other Bible translators are out of scope of this article, and it is not necessary for this article to try to 'prove' that those translations are inferior. But your main objection here seems to center on your confusion about the meaning of the word render. If an ancient text literally said "Ogg go shop", different translators might say "Ogg went to the shop" or "the man went shopping". Both would correctly be referred to as renderings, though the second rendering is a paraphrase.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To attempt to distort the facts under discussion does little to further the discussion. This has never been a " 'crusade' about 'replacing God's name' . Nor has it been an attempt to " 'prove' that those translations are inferior". Also, I have no "confusion about the meaning of the word render ". The problem is that you made a defenseless revert to a properly source edit based on a very flimsy excuse and are now attempting to detract from that fact by bringing up ridiculous points that have little or no bearing on the edit. Please stick to content and leave off with your unsolicited and baseless comments about me as an editor. I do not have trouble understanding, I am on no crusade about replacing God's name and my objections have already been clearly stated, so there is therefore no need for you to add further interpretation to them. Again, PLEASE STICK TO CONTENT! The material is properly sourced, there is no justifiable reason for its removal...please restore the properly sourced material, or lets open an RfC and get this settled by a consensus from other editors. Willietell (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be turning this very minor issue into a very major case and the length of the thread on this discussion is absurd. The current wording is fine. It reads well and is perfectly comprehensible. It conveys a simple thought that "Jehovah" appears where the words "God" or "Lord" appears in other Bibles. For my money, it's no big deal if the words "the titles" are inserted before the word "GOD", but it's more succinct without, and it's reaally no big deal if they're not included. Constant use of RfCs on such piddling issues make it much less likely that other editors will respond where outside comment is sought on more divisive or troubling matters. BlackCab (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that an RfC is not necessary for such a trivial matter. I still don't see any reason to change the current wording. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The insertion of "the titles" clarifies to the reader that the titles are used in many bibles in substitution for the Tetragrammaton without going to the lengthy explanation of how or why this is thought to have occurred and also makes it clear that they are not a direct translation of the Tetragrammaton. I feel that it is useful to denote this in this rather succinct way instead of expounding on the subject with a rather lengthy explanation. If the use of "the titles" is not satisfactory for some editors, I can attempt to re-write the section to include the more complete explanation, but at the time that seemed a little out of scope to me, thus the short phrase. I don't think that a RfC should be necessary, but without a reasonable effort from editors to accept even the most minor alterations to the article, I feel that I have little recourse but to seek input from a broader group of editors. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But the meaning is already clear, Willietell. Three editors have expressed the opinion that the existing explanation is sufficient. It hardly seems worth the bother of escalating this minor, minor issue. There is no howling factual error or blatant misrepresentation. You are arguing endlessly over a phrasing you are simply unhappy with. This is how WP works: sometimes we have things read the way we want them to, sometimes we don't. Sometimes we just have to accept it and move on, and I'd strongly suggest this is one of those times. Leave the RfCs for the bigger issues. BlackCab (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can patiently wait for a time for additional input from editor's who do not consistently mirror the same opinion no matter the point. If no additional input comes from unbiased editors, I may choose to give it up as a lost cause, or, I might decide to pursue the RfC....my mind isn't quite made up yet. Willietell (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What, for you, constitutes an 'unbiased editor'? In what manner do you consider Dominus Vobisdu to be a biased editor? It seems that you consider an 'unbiased editor' to mean 'an editor who agrees with you'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

When editors, over an extended period, display a pattern of mirroring certain other editors on a disproportionately consistent basis, regardless of the topic, and particularly when they make claim to not be involved in the topic, but tend to show up to the "rescue" of the editor in question, I find it more than difficult to consider that particular editors opinion to be that of an additional editor. I must conclude that I am really only hearing the opinions of a single editor. I know little about editor Dominus Vobisdu, except that a perusal of his/her edits shows that he/she does not normally edit Jehovah's Witness related pages except when You (Jeffro77) or BC need assistance arguing a point as here [13][14][15][16][17]. I see little effort from the editor to actually make substantive edits to the page, only to come and mirror the views expressed by certain editors. I therefore have difficulty considering his/her expression to be more than a knight in shinning armor riding to the rescue of friends, and thus not an unbiased editor at all. Willietell (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I could make similar claims about you 'coming to the rescue' of AuthorityTam at article Talk pages and the current and previous ANIs. However, I do not claim that your actions there indicate that you are specifically working 'in tandem' or 'colluding with' AuthorityTam.

I don't know BlackCab. I've been an editor here for a few years longer than him, so your claim that I 'show up to "rescue" him' is fairly transparent. I review my Watch List and edit as I see fit.

I don't know Dominus Vobisdu, but from what I've seen, his involvement with JW-related articles began as a result of his responses to various RFCs. Your frequent conclusions that any editor who disagrees with you are somehow colluding (you've made such claims about several editors, including admins) comes across as a bit paranoid.

You did not answer the question about what kind of editor would qualify for you as 'unbiased'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ATam and I have disagreed on points before, but I consider his input to the project to be valuable. He has questioned or reverted my edits before [18][19], however, he has not demonstrated a pattern of doing so as a matter of course, as if he were on a mission to undo most every edit I make, as some have seemed to display. He contributes substantive material to the article pages as well as the talk pages of articles and takes an active part in making the project better. He doesn't just show up to add weight to one side of a disagreement and then disappear until the same side of a different argument needs added weight again. WP:TE says there are no unbiased editors " It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. " and I must therefore recognize this as true. I feel that we can work together for the betterment of this project, however it becomes more difficult when simple matters such as whether clear titles such as The-os' (GOD) and Ky'ri-os (LORD) can be designated as such in the article or not become a point so dissentious as to be argued in a thread this long. There is nothing incorrect about the edit. If necessary, I can provide a source stating that they are indeed "titles" and not a transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, but I assumed that this would be unnecessary at the time. I seek only the betterment of the project and an environment conducive to working in a spirit of cooperation for its improvement. Willietell (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is ridiculous. The current wording is absolutely fine. Willitell, the other editors aren't using IDLI, they're giving what is called a "reasonable argument." You keep ignoring their points with Red herrings and it's incredibly WP:TE. There is your outside opinion. SÆdon^talk 07:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Willietell, the thread is this long because you continue to argue about an absurd point and refuse to accept the views of others. Just get a life. BlackCab (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)