Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Please use a dictionary before using some words. For instance the word 'cult', refers to a human being in charge of a program, organization, etc. Jehovah's Witness are NOT A CULT. They look to Jehovah and Jesus Christ as their leader and they are not human beings. This is done by using the Bible as their source of information.

The above statements are completely useless in the determination either way whether JWs are a cult or not. Any group can claim that it looks to an entity whose existence is not proven, and such a claim has no bearing at all on whether the group is or is not a "cult".--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They are willing to use any Bible that's available in the language spoken where they live.

The only way one can know what the NWT says in comparison with other Bibles is to sit down read the same scripture in both (or even more Bibles). This should tell you about the accuracy of the NWT versus other Bibles. Also remember that the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION is just that a translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scriptures. The scribes had to be accurate in writing down the words in the Bible, so much so they had to count each letter. Likewise Jehovah's Witnesses also need to be just as accurate, for this is pleasing to God.

In regards to some Bibles that are printed, it states the name of the Bible and calls it a version. Version is a person's point of view. Do we need to have more confusion in our lives? Many people in many lands through out the world prefer the accuracy of TRANSLATION. (Not the unreliable mind/brain to remember which version of the story is true.)

In the preface of some Bibles it states the reason why Jehovah's name was removed...because the Jews felt that name was to sacred to pronounce. This is opposion to part of what his son, Jesus, came to earth for. And that was to make his Father's name manifest to the people of the land. (Zoees 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)) zoees

Zoees, do you intend this section as a discussion point, or a pulpit?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• /Archive 1: 2004
• /Archive 2: Jan. 2005 to November 2005
• /Arhive 3: "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs"?

Mediation

Hi, I'm your friendly cabal mediation :). A request has been made by User:Duffer1 for cabal mediation. You can add your 0.02€ here. After you have each stated your cases we can get along with the mediation. Thanks - FrancisTyers 17:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation was accepted before I got the chance to tell you guys I requested it hehe. Duffer 17:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

1. The New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase.
2. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word.
3. Effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing, and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]).
4. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose.
5. Whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.

My immediate question is who is saying these things. That is a long list of citations for would not conflict with their beliefs but we aren't attributing this to anyone? Couldn't we have it something like this obviously contrived example:

Reverend John Doe of X and Father Sean O'Reilly of X, among others believe that this rendering takes into account the pre-existing beliefs of the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Citations for 2, 4 and 5 would be nice too. Point 1 needs to be adjusted as above:

According to the publishers of the New World Translation, it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase (citation)

I doubt that such adjustment will be needed, following the spirit of "no weezle words": as long as there is no dispute or doubt about their stated intentions (they did state them). Harald88 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is the opposite of Weasel words. It is assigning a point of view to a real set of people that can be verified. Weasel words would be something like "Some people say that it is intended to be a literal..." and then not providing a citation. You are using "Some people say" instead of giving a real entity and citing it. Of course this part might not be in dispute in which case it is not needed, but I felt better safe than sorry ;) - FrancisTyers 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how the culture here works but I DON"T THINK IT IS FAIR to say it is INTENDED to be a literal Translation, as if it is NOT authentically one! This is biased and this is not said of other translations. ALL formal equivalence translations are INTENDED to be literal!

Thats my initial thoughts, any responses? - FrancisTyers 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a "Reverend John Doe" if Mini and Tommstein familiar with the believes could point to the renderings in question?--Mini 00:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. It doesn't have to be Reverand or Father specifically, it could be Dr. Enoch Garcia or Mr. Nikolai Alexandrovich or whatever. These are merely examples. - FrancisTyers 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you mean "why can't Mini and Tommstein point out where the translation is faulty", this is covered in the no original research policy. - FrancisTyers 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That is the answer to my question. So i have to write an essay and publish it on the internet or have to find someone who did it already. Thanks for clarification, i try to get some sources.--Mini 09:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

quote from wikipedia: In this translation, all the key doctrinal differences between Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses are made explicit. --Mini 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The only part that is disputed, by Duffer1, is the last part of sentence 3: "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])." If you think the rest should be documented too though, sure, that's valid (I have never touched any of that, though, so I don't know where it came from, although I personally know the first three sentences to basically be true from having dealt with this translation for decades). Your proposed revision for point 1 also seems better than the present sentence to me. Which means, prepare to have it contested by certain others with almost 100% certainty.Tommstein 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so its citation time then. Can you find me a citation that says the NWT was translated as such that different words would be chosen where it would not conflict with their beliefs, or something similar. I'm not interested in examples, I'm interested in someone having published something to this effect. Thanks - FrancisTyers 15:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your adjustment of point one is pretty much a paraphrase of what the introduction to the NWT says; It's accurate, easily sourced, and reads well. As for the citations, I can provide you published resources that are critical (Metzger (1953, 1964), Mantey (1980), Countess (1987)), and/or I can also provide you published resources (neutral: Dr. BeDuhn (2003), and affiliated: Mag. Art. Rolf Furuli (1999)) that refute Mantey, Countess, and Metzger's out of date and verifiably inaccurate criticism. Who do you want to listen to and how much of it do you want to hear? :) Duffer 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I was really looking for is a source from the publisher that states this (I may have used citation incorrectly here). What I was looking for is something like:

According to the publishers of the New World Translation, it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. (Publisher, 2003)

or if you have other sources:

According to the publishers, and other commentators, the New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. (Publisher, 2005) (BeDuhn 2003)

Something like this. Basically instead of stating that the New World Translation is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase, we attribute this statement to some person or group of people. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thought, maybe not good: it suggests doubt about their intentions and thus would be unallowed POV except if one can cite a reputable source where such doubt is motivated [1]::::::However:

The publishers of the New World Translation stated that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. sounds to me rather neutral; and even better would be to cite a part of what they state, for example:

The introduction to the New World Translation states: "... [..] ..." Harald88 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this would be fine, great even. :) - FrancisTyers 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No! The introduction says "made to give as literal a translation as possible"--Mini 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be true if we are attributing it to someone or some group. - FrancisTyers 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine to me. Write what ever you want if it has not got to be true.--Mini 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - FrancisTyers 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no.. you've just given the already extremely hostile editors of the NWT and related Jehovah's Witnesses pages (user:Central and user:Tommstein) yet another means to circumvent accuracy, NPOV, and this websites' highly ineffective conflict resolution process. I appreciate your efforts at mediation for us, but I must plead with you to take a look at the underlying reasons (User Contrib. Central, User Contrib. Tommstein) of why these mediation requests are even occuring, and will likely continue, have a look at the most recent ( nonsense that's taken place just today, and that is over changing one word from "cow" to "bovine"! These two have been warned countless times by other editors to maintain civility but it doesn't happen. Please look into this. Duffer 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What occurred today is that Duffer1 argued that something wasn't derived from blood because it was based on a part of blood, and proceeded to continually remove this fact. If someone wants to look into something about why there are so many problems here, take a look at this: User:Tommstein/List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses. Yes, Duffer1 is one of the stars, and continues adding to his portfolio, like with the edit that this is in reply to, for instance. Someone, please do investigate this, if so inclined.Tommstein 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Tommstein outright lied about things that I have said, I even tried to defend myself but he deleted that TWICE! Duffer 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I provided a thousand links for verification. In reality they go to a black hole, not what is claimed.Tommstein 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were talking about the disputed text: "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs." As for attributing a citation to point number 1, you can find this in the New World Translation (With References), Introduction pgs. 6, and 7:

• "The Translation Into English (skip first paragraph) - In the New World Translation an effort was made to capture the authority, power, dynamism and directness of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and to convey these characteristics in modern English. (skip next paragraph) Paraphrases of the Scriptures are not offered. Rather, an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought. In that way the desire of those who are scrupulous for getting an almost word-for-word statement of the original is met. (skip to next paragraph) Taking liberties with the text for the mere sake of brevity, and substituting some modern parallel when a literal rendering of the original makes good sense, has been avoided. Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits."

Do you plan on going straight down the list to cover sources first? Just curious, cheers. Duffer 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, give the sources in any order you see fit. I note Tommstein and Mini haven't given a source for point 3 yet. - FrancisTyers 20:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There have been eight sources for weeks or months now.Tommstein 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"... where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought." This is a direct statement to allow a change for their beliefs. Who else defines "the thought" of the text if not the translator? At one point you skipped "... is met. It is realized that even such a seemingly insignificant matter as the use or omission of a comma..." and you may know that ancient greek did not know a comma (think about Luke 23:43).--Mini 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly: that is the dilemma with all translations on whatever subject -- as I explained at the start. I hope that that is clear now. Harald88 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That is, but that is not what is in dispute here. Changing to different words when theologically convenient after claiming to always use the same word when context allows is.Tommstein 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's some quotes: (Dr. Jason David BeDuhn Truth In Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, 2003):

• (on proskuneo pg. 48): In our exploration of the Greek word proskuneo in the New Testament, therefore, the NAB and NW receive the highest marks for accuracy, while the others (NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, AB, LB, KJV) show a tendency to lapse into interpretive judgements guided by their theological biases.
• (on the entirety of the NWTs New Testament, pf. 163): While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said that the NW(T) emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. Holding a close second to the NW in its accuracy, judging by the passages we have looked at, is the NAB. Both of these are translations produced by single denominations of Christianity. Despite their distinctive doctrinal commitments, the translators managed to produce works relatively more accurate and less biased than the translations produced by multi-denominational teams, as well as those produced by single individuals.

Dr. BeDuhn is not a Jehovah's Witness (as if that somehow makes his testimony more credible..). Duffer 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This has all already been addressed on the actual mediation page.Tommstein 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, thanks Tommstein. Here is my suggestion for a rewording:

... context allowing, and, in the opinion of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and others where such would not conflict with their beliefs. ([1] [2] [3] [4])

How about that? Another option would be to quote the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and say:

The Watchtower Organization has changed the Bible to suit its needs.

so long as you attribute the quote. - FrancisTyers 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

CARM? If this nonsense is allowed, then can we at least post a view contrary to the above from a source that's actually reputabile, and accredited? Duffer 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to add your own sources. That's what WP:NPOV is all about! :) You are also welcome to add sources that discredit the CARM. How about:

... context allowing, and, in the opinion of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry - an organisation set up to convert Jehovahs Witnesses - and others where such would not conflict with their beliefs. ([1] [2] [3] [4])

Of course its getting a bit long now, you might want to split it up. - FrancisTyers 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, their translating the same word differently isn't just someone's opinion, unless we are now to insert 'opinion disclaimers' after every single fact in the article or encyclopedia, and Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry doesn't even play any special role that I know of (besides happening to be where some of these links are from).Tommstein 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. and ... most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them.. We are not here to make assertions, we are here to present conflicting views. You are probably concerned because CARM is an explicitly anti-JW organisation which will make it seem less neutral. Well, feel free to find and attribute a more neutral source! :) - FrancisTyers 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Was there a point to that? Facts no longer exist, only opinions? And to think that my comment about disclaiming every fact (which apparently don't exist any more) wasn't intended to be serious.Tommstein 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please read the Wikipedia policy and guidelines on this if you have further questions. - FrancisTyers 09:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a known fact of translation work that the choice of words is a matter of opinion. To expand on my earlier example: How would you translate a phrase "they will inherit the land/earth" without depending on your opinion of the context? Harald88 08:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And this is exactly, why it is not a Literal translation but rather somewhere between formal and dynamic equivalence.--Mini 10:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No one has claimed that there do not exist instances where judgment and opinion are needed. Thank you for the red herring, it was tasty.Tommstein 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus time

Ok, nows the time to try and hash it out. Here is my suggested consensus text, incorporating the constructive input so far. Let me know what you think, feel free to suggest additions, subtractions and changes of style, etc. - FrancisTyers 10:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The publishers of the New World Translation stated that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing, and, in the opinion of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and others, where such would not conflict with their beliefs. ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.

The heading that this paragraph is found under is: "Characteristics of the Translation." While much controversy surrounds the NWT, that really isn't a characteristic of the bible itself. I suggest (as I proposed before mediation even began) that the criticism be relegated to it's very own paragraph, or even, entire section. As it is (above), there is no room for rebuttal from sources that are actually accredited. I suggest:

• "The publishers of the New World Translation stated that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts."

Either directly following this paragraph, or in it's own section elsewhere in the article, have something like:

• "It is the opinion of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, and other critics of the translation, that the NWT is a "highly biased" and untrustworthy reproduction of the original texts, though modern, accredited scholars such as Mag. Art. Rolf Furuli, and Dr. Jason BeDuhn have come forward to express their approval of the NWT as one of the most accurate, and least biased, modern translations available."

This allows for both the criticism, and approval of the translation, without slanting the article in one direction or the other. Duffer 13:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I doesn't mention "where such would not conflict with their beliefs.", which is the part I think Tommstein wants to get in, and he has sources. Where would you suggest that placed and how should it be worded in your opinion? Personally I think you can make the room for both sides. I don't see a problem with criticism having its own section, do you Tommstein? - FrancisTyers 13:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Duffer1's suggestion is an abortion. I do not mind at all there being a whole section dealing with criticism. The only thing is, creating a whole criticism section does not justify the removal of "where such would not conflict with their beliefs" from the sentence it is in, because then the sentence would just be incorrect (with a gaping hole). It would be somewhat along the lines of:

The Holocaust never happened.

====Allegations that the Holocaust happened====

See what I mean. A whole section discussing something does not warrant the rendering of other sentences incorrect.Tommstein 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Tomm wants: "where such would not conflict with their beliefs", but that is a 'criticism' of the translation, not a 'characteristic' (Tomm has sources, but so do I). If you add the 'criticism' paragraph to the middle of the 'characteristics' paragraph, then we'd have a rather convoluted paragraph. I suggest adding the criticism either directly below the main paragraph or in another section of the article that would allow for further investigation of the specific criticisms. Duffer 13:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a criticism of anything, just a statement of fact, although, if you want to consider it a criticism of something, it would be of the "characteristics" of translation. I have not seen any sources yet that say that this translation never translates any words differently when the context doesn't absolutely demand it, just a Witness who likes the translation and one non-Witness that likes some parts of it and devotes an entire appendix to parts he doesn't like about it. Until we find a source actually stating that they never, ever break their 'word-for-word equivalence', all defenses and other assertions to the contrary are moot.Tommstein 02:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is someone's criticism. The NWT translators do not claim that it is an exact word-for-word equivelant (unless you mean the Kingdom Interlinear Translation). Please note my above (The Translation Into English) quotation of the Introduction of the NWT, specifically the last line: "Uniformity of rendering has been maintained by assigning one meaning to each major word and by holding to that meaning as far as the context permits." Duffer 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The disputed part of the sentence is in reply to the earlier part of the sentence, not anything the translators themselves did or didn't say. The quote in your last sentence, however, says pretty much the exact same thing, 'one-meaning-per-word' equivalence as far as the context permits.Tommstein 02:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Redux

How about something like one of the examples below.

1. The publishers of the New World Translation state that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry and others state that in addition to allowing for context, the translators also made allowances for their beliefs ([1], [2]), although this is disputed by a number of academics. ([3] [4]). Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.
2. The publishers of the New World Translation state that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. There is a continuing debate as to if the existing beliefs of Jevohas Witnesses were taken into account when making the translation and this is covered more fully in the criticism section. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.
3. The publishers of the New World Translation state that it is intended to be a literal rendering rather than a paraphrase. According to Jehovahs Witnesses, to a very great extent one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. Some maintain that this makes the translation sound wooden, stiff or verbose, whereas others feel that it favors accuracy, facilitates cross-reference work and helps preserve the flavor of the original texts.

Feel free to chop and change them around and repost them. - FrancisTyers 17:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on #2 and remove: "and this is covered more fully in the criticism section" until we actually get a "Criticism" section? (if we even want a criticisms section?), By the way, thank you Francis. Duffer 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you know that this is unlikely. Please try to be constructive. - FrancisTyers 09:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Reduces a simple, verifiable fact to the 'opinion' of 'critics'. Also seems to claim that some academics have said that they have nowhere, at all, translated things differently when not demanded by the context, while I haven't seen any sources that indicate that.
2. There's also continuing debate about whether the world is round, man landed on the moon, and the Holocaust happened. This is only slightly less ridiculous, in that all the evidence is in written form and can be checked by anyone. Even one of Duffer1's 'defense witness sources' has an entire appendix in the same book Duffer1 quoted from taking issue with some Witness theology shenanigans they played in making the translation, to say nothing of the criticism he sprinkles throughout the book that he couldn't dedicate entire appendices to.
3. Isn't this the same thing we would have if Duffer1 just got his way and we deleted the part he doesn't like?Tommstein 06:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input. If you can find a better source, a more neutral source, or a source that states that this is the belief of a large number of people then I'm sure we can discuss this problem you have with attributing ideas more. This is not the same as deleting it at all, because it is still in there, just attributed, see WP:V. We have a whole page on Holocaust denial, perhaps you'd like to make a page "Criticisms of the NWT" or something, that page could go into a lot of detail. Make sure your edit is properly attributed to the source and sticks closely to what the source actually said. Wikipedia policy states that:

Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

From WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. So, in this case, the JWs have a minority view (that their translation is best), but the people who actually bother to write criticism of their translation have an even more minority view. Please read up on Wikipedia policy and try to be constructive. Thanks! :) - FrancisTyers 09:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How many Witnesses have you seen putting up pages stating that the translation never, ever uses different meanings for words when not demanded by the context? My running count is at 0. How many sources are there saying the opposite? Plenty. I fail to see how this is the minority view, as you have claimed without references yourself. I also fail to see how an insertion could be much less low-key than adding a few words at the end of an existing, incorrect sentence.Tommstein 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To a very great extent, one English word has been selected for each Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word and effort has been made to adhere to this rendering, context allowing. This does not say that the translation never, ever uses different meanings for words when not demanded by the context. You really think that this is not a minority point of view? As far as I am aware the majority of people could not care less about the JWs or their NWT and the number that actually do is I think probably smaller (significantly) than the number of practicing JWs. - FrancisTyers 11:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If it "does not say that the translation never, ever uses different meanings for words when not demanded by the context," then that supports what I'm saying. No one says that, except Wikipedia editors Duffer1 and possibly Cobaltbluetony.Tommstein 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's something interesting I stumbled back into last night. It is from former Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses member Raymond Franz, regarding a discussion he had with his uncle Frederick, who later became the President of the Watch Tower Society ('God on earth', if you will) and was one of the translators of this translation, probably the main one since he was Vice-President at the time and the only one that had even meager education in these languages. It is taken from Raymond Franz's book Crisis of Conscience, page 27:

"Somewhat disturbed by what my research revealed, I approached my uncle with the evidence. His response took me by surprise. 'Don't try to understand the Scriptures on the basis of what you see today in the organization,' he said, and added, 'Keep the Aid book pure.' I had always looked upon the organization as God's one channel for dispensing truth and so this counsel sounded unusual to say the least. When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words 'to office' in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, 'Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased.' I walked out of his office wondering if I had actually heard what I had heard. In future days I was to remind him of these statements on more than one occasion during Governing Body sessions."

I apologize for interjecting even more actual research into this argument, but I couldn't resist.Tommstein 08:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well.. thank you for your time Francis, user:Tommstein has been indefinately banned, this decision has been upheld by the ArbCom. I think Tomm was the only one who objected to my deletion of the line "and where such would not conflict with their beliefs ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])" (except maybe Mini). I'm going to RV the paragraph, but i'll leave the dispute tag for abit to give others a chance to object. Duffer 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to write whatever you want - wikipedia takes anyones opinion (and i'm not the one to argue about english expressions). As you stated right before inserting my nick: "no reasonable person would" add an objection ;) --Mini 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, unless anyone has any objections I'll close the case? - FrancisTyers 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wether the facts show this or the WTS states that - it is up to you as mediator to close this case. Just as a reminder: "Rather, an effort has been made to give as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not, by any awkwardness, hide the thought." (Introduction to the NWT, emphasis added) --Mini 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I mean to say is that I am not a final arbiter of this page, if there are no objections, i.e. if there is still a dispute, I will stay and try and help you guys hash it out. If on the other hand there is no dispute remaining then I don't see a reason not to close the case. - FrancisTyers 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost

I think the point in question could be summarized like this: Critics of the New World Translation argue that deviations from single-word for word translating by the NWT translators was done in such a way so as to support their beliefs, whereas the translators believe that the research done to come to this translation was decades in the making and was the source of their beliefs; this translation stands as a reflection of that research. - CobaltBlueTony 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do the critics "argue" but the defenders "believe"? This implies one is more sincere than the other. Perhaps we should say that the translators "assert". Merecat 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Merecat. joshbuddy 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Septuagint & Tetragrammaton

I didn't think versions of the Septuagint that were used by first century christians would have had the Tetragrammaton in it. From what I understood, the very few that did were in a different place and time. (Two centuries earlier) joshbuddy^talk 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Archived

I have archived most of this talk page because it was really long. You can read the old stuff at the top.whicky1978 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

paragraph removed

This paragraph was removed by 70.124.216.193 (talk · contribs) :

"Critics of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation argue that the new translation was commissioned not so much to bring the language up to modern use but to remove the strongest evidence of the deity of Jesus Christ from the Christian Scriptures. For this and many other reasons they contend that it was designed specifically to support Jehovah's Witnesses' theology and doctrine."

I agree with its removal, but on the basis of its lacking any reference or sourcing. If someone wants to restore it, please provide the needed reference/source for this statement of established views, or discuss further here. - CobaltBlueTony 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth

I will work to combine the two editions of this page and from there we can add and take away. Hopefully this will stop the nonsense.Johanneum 00:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The pages were basically the same. I guess someone is just having fun. I started with the edition "23:27, 7 April 2006 Johanneum (switched supportive and critical around matches main page on jw's)" which is backed by Smyth, Cobaltbluetony. It seems that just the one paragraph was not in the other edition. Even then at least some of the info is double, could we just delete that and try to prevent this going back and forth? I know it will not stop the vandalism though :-) Johanneum 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We are dealing with anonymous vandals (possibly all the same person), who use false edit summaries, refuse all discussion and throw away many days of neutral edits at a time. There's no point in trying to compromise with this behaviour. In any case, I can't work out what you're proposing: there have been so many changes that it's hard to keep track. – Smyth\^talk 10:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Try asking an admin for semi-protection, any users who have registered in the last 4 days will not be able to vandalise the page, I think that IP addresses are also blocked. Ansell 11:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ansell, I should have just left your last version. sorry about that. In the lastest revert, we are missing a paragraph, you can add it to the page if you wish. This was the paragraph that I added because it was the only major difference between the reverting war. Johanneum 12:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't revert or I will be accused of 3RR myself, however, I agree that the missing part of the paragraph has useful information and should be ressurected by another user, thus confirming the consensus for at least that part of the article being changed. Ansell 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

It appears the dispute tag could be removed and movement toward concensus reinstated. I am going to pull it. Feel free to reinsert if I am incorrect. George 21:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Supportive sources

It would be nice to see some Supportive sources that aren't written by Witnesses.--Jeffro77 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't exist. Evangelical scholars largely stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA" after spending a few minutes with Stafford. Duffer 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the ad hominem response?--Jeffro77 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of subject

While commendable the contributors for their time and their efforts, my subjective opinion is that the article they created tends to be out of subject. Instead of giving enough information about the concept of the NW project as regards its language and the features of its editions (especially the Reference Bible and the Interlinear), it focuses too much on the use of the Divine Name and the rendering of stauros, while both subjects should be analyzed in different articles and not in this one. Of course, the use of Divine Name in NT and the rendering "torture stake" have caused much controversy, but they are not conclusive about the quality or the style of the NW. Any serious scholar would estimate the translation as a whole, and not only by judging the rendering of two or three words. So initially we intended to translate the English article into the Greek Wikipedia, but soon we preferred to make a new one, which, according to our opinion, would help the reader to understand what the NW really is as a linguistic project, a translation that helps even the unscholarly reader to communicate as much as possible with the original text of the Holy Scriptures. With respect, --Vassilis78 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (Athens, Greece)

Languages table

I don't think that a table listing each and every langauge that the NWT has been translated into is really necessary. It is sufficient to say that it has been translated into 62 languages. At the most the languages could be included in a footnote. Including it in the article, especially considering that it is such a long list, doesn't really help the reader. I guess I am saying it is not notable. BenC7 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am tending to agree with the notion that the list, especially in table form, is not truly beneficial to the article, but someone else doesn't seem to "get" how Wikipedia works and has reverted my placing of it in footnotes again. Not in the mood to get into a 3RR, especially with someone who could be my brother/sister, so a little help in communicating with this individual would be beneficial for civility and smooth editing. - CobaltBlueTony 16:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cross

I'm worried that the current revision of the article seems to present a biased, Jehovah's Witness view, about what "stauros" meant, stating that it is a fact that stauros did not refer to the cross, but I'm sure there are many scholars who would disagree. This will have to change for an NPOV artice.

Also the usage of the "Cross and Crown" symbol by Jehovah's Witnesses should probably be mentioned somewhere. Theusername 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, there is a good essay on this subject posted on an ex-JW messageboard here [2]. Although I've never seen such a thorough discussion of this subject I'm not sure that such a link would qualify to appear in the article, but it would be useful for someone who tries to improve the Wikipedia article (which may be me). Theusername 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a point, i wouldnt trust everything you read on those message boards. As ive looked at them and much of the info is a little off from the truth. This probaly comes from changes the Jehovahs Witnesses have made over the years, or someone trying to distort the truth...? --Iron Chef 21:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. Thanks for pointing it out. I have pulled the whole section, as it was inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. BenC7 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Iron Chef 02:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

---

THE WORD STAUROS OBVIOUSLY MEANS CROSS. WHAT´S THE GREEK LETTER FOR "T", IT IS THE LETTER "TAU". ANYONE CAN GUESS THAT THE WORD STAUROS COMES FROM THE LETTER "TAU" AND THE SHAPE OF THIS LETTER WHETHER LATIN OR GREEK IS A CROSS. JEHOVA´S WITNESS DO NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE NOR HISTORY, ´CAUSE CRUCIFICATION WAS THE COMMON DEATH PENALTY IN THAT AGE.

I beleive you are mistaken. FWI if your trying to make a point, do it in a tacful way. Not an ALL CAPS RAVE. That just makes you look childish. --Iron Chef 21:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reasoning. It makes as much sense as saying that cats are naturally scathing, because the word 'scathe' contains the word 'cat'.--Jeffro77 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep re-reading you statement, trying to make any sense out of it. It sickens me to see people so confused about history. --75.6.215.91 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From Homer down to the New Testament there is not a single case that the word "stauros" was used to denote "T". The "T" meaning was introduced with the influence of Latin, and specifically by the altering of the semantic domain of the word crux.--Vassilis78 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Disfellowshipped"

It is ad hominem to say that things were said by "disfellowshipped" persons. The implication is that JWs shouldn't believe something because it was stated by a 'disfellowshipped' person, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether what they say is true. It is sufficient to say they are former members.--Jeffro77 07:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

citation needed

the lead in states that there was another bible at one time published by the WTBTS. I have not heard of this, please provide more information. what was the Bible called? Ice9Tea 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe they have published the King James Version (which is and has been in the public domain for some time). I believe they also had the copyright to the American Standard Version, which they liked because it uses the name "Jehovah" instead of "LORD" in the Old Testament.71.142.67.206 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD's

Any body interested? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination) SV 19:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence, Free Translation, Paraphrase

The designation of formal equivalence in this info box is inconsistent with the info boxes for other translations. Generally, Formal Equivalence applies to translations that italicize implied words. Dynamic Equivalence is generally literal, but does not give a formatting designation to implied words. Free Translation is strongly idiomatic, but still stays somewhat with the text. Paraphrase is not bound to the Greek text. Examples of Formal Equivalence on the Wiki info boxes are ASV, KJV, NKJ, NASB. Examples of Dynamic Equivalence are RSV, ESV, NAB. Examples of Free Translation are REB, NJB. Paraphrases are the Message, the Living Bible, Philips, etc.

I understand that the NWT calls itself Formal Equivalent, in spite of the insertion of the Divine Name in the New Testament. Even granting that, however, is the problem of consistency for all the translations. A Dynamic Equivalent can still be more accurate than a Formal Equivalent, so it is no insult to give that designation. The ESV, for instance, is generally considered more accurate than the King James (because of the textual basis), but it is not as Formal.

All that being said -- it's no compliment to claim to be formal and no insult to be Dynamic. In fact, current translation theories predominantly prefer Dynamic as superior to Formal, because of the better transmission of meaning.

The only "fighting words" for me would be words that unfairly represent or mis-state positions of non Jehovah's Witnesses. I feel that Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to state their position fairly in their own article and to have their positions presented fairly when they are mentioned in OTHER articles on Wikipedia. The same should be true for Jews and Christians. Dynamic vs. Formal equivalence does not fall within that category, obviously. It's inconsistent with the info boxes for other translations, but if you need to give that designation to your translation, you can do as you like. However, I would encourage you to be consistent with articles and categories for other translations, if you can do so.

Thanks. Tim 02:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the NWT does format implied words with brackets. One of the more predominant criticisms surrounding the NWT is their insertion of "other", in brackets, in Colossians 1: 16,17,20 to bring out the implied meaning in the passages that Jesus did not create himself. I would like to point out also that BeDuhn is not a Witness and he puts the NWT in the formal equivalence category. I don't see dynamic equivalence as an insult, I believe that formal is just more accurate. Duffer 02:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read (or even heard of) DeBuhn. I looked him up on Wiki and saw that he rated the NAB highly, which I know from other reading to be correct. As for the other translations mentioned -- they weren't listed. Do you know which ones he compared? I'd like to compare his accuracy designations with other studies I've read. Tim 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The bibles compared along with what type he views each to be, KJV (Formal), RSV & NRSV (Formal but he considers the NRSV "looser, moving in the direction of dynamic equivalence" pg.31), NIV (Formal, "less formal than the NRSV... closer to the NAB", a "theological translation"), NAB (Formal), NASB (Formal but with several "deeply flawed" KJV instances), Amplified Bible ("Interpretive, not a translation at all" pg.35), Living Bible (Paraphrase, "not a bible translation at all"), TEV "Good News Bible" (Dynamic, highly interpretive), NWT (Formal). Duffer 08:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just looked at my copy of the NWT, and the brackets you refer to are not the same thing I was talking about. The brackets you are referring to are theological more than translational, based on the idea that Jesus is a created "thing." Christians have regarded Jesus as "begotten, not made." Whoever is right is beside the point, though. Again, this isn't a fighting issue. My only concern is that non Jehovah's Witness positions be presented accurately. And that would make the article stronger anyway, since accurately stated positions can be more accurately addressed with your own positions. I absolutely do not want to mis-state your positions either, which is why I wrote asking for your help in that regard. Best, Tim 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The brackets have nothing to do with theology. Did Jesus create himself "through himself" or not (16)? Is he before God or not (17)? Does he reconcile himself to himself or not (20)? You'll also notice the other bracketed additions: "God" in 19, "He shed" in 20, "his" in 22, "good news" in 23 etc...Duffer 08:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer -- the first half of these are theological points that you are raising, not translational. Did Jesus create himself through himself? That's theological. Christians will answer that Jesus was "begotten, not made." He wasn't created, and the insertion of "other" is driven only by a thological... motivation. Is he before God? Again, theological. Christians will answer that he is God, and that God isn't a "thing." Does he reconcile himself to himself? Again, theological. Christians will answer that Jesus isn't a thing, and that he reconciles all things to God. God in verse 19 would be the only example to this point. Have you had a chance to find the other versions that BeDuhn reviewed? What was his criteria for accuracy? This section alone couldn't score well on a normal concordance examination. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1d.pdf is an example of the kind of examination that BeDuhn would need to do in order to score concordancy -- and that only measures literalness, and not necessarily accuracy to a particular text. The King James scores very high in literalness to the Textus Receptus (and accuracy to the Textus Receptus). But it would score low in accuracy to a more modern Greek text, such as the Nestle-Aland. Tim 12:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I hadn't seen your other answer to my "which versions did he examine" question. I see now why you were scoring the NWT as "formal". BeDuhn was listing translations as formal that are in the Dynamic Equivalent range in the other Wiki boxes. These are the ones listed so far:

Formal Equivalent: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAS 95 Update

Dynamic Equivalent: MRD, RSV, ESV, TCE, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB

Free Translation: NIV, JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT

Paraphrase: Living

I've put BeDuhn's Formals in Bold, and Dynamics in Italics. The list on the Master's Seminary has the same sequence, but starts "Free Translation" at the NIV level. If you are labeling Formal all the way out to the NIV, then yes, the NWT would be "formal." But that's really stretching the term. The Master's Seminary nearly did the same, but by the NIV they were using the term "Free Translation." I haven't seen a thorough study of the NWT. Just looking at it I would place it in the same range as the Dynamics listed about. But since you are calling those Dynamics "Formal," it makes sense that you would be calling the NWT formal. That is, if the NIV is "formal" then the NWT is formal. But if the RSV is Dynamic, then the NWT is Dynamic. It depends at which point you start the range.

On this list, where would you place the NWT in the sequence listed? That is, which translations do you believe are closest in concordancy to the NWT? Tim 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How individual Wikipedia editors would evaluate the literalness of the translation is utterly beside the point, as this does not constitute a reliable source. Since the discussion here shows clearly that it is not possible in this case to produce consistent, reliable, and verifiable scholarly judgment of this matter, I have removed the line from the infobox. Do not add it again without citation of a better source. The version is theologically unacceptable to many people, fine, that can be treated in the article with citations of reliable sources. But the translation is obviously KJV-derived (which can also be treated in the article with citations of reliable sources), so the translation philosophy infobox is simply not a place where these higher-order disputes can be adjudicated. "Compromise" should be avoided, too, as it gives the false impression of positive information or agreement where there is none. Unless someone is ready to link to scholarly journals' favorable book reviews of the alleged authorities mentioned here (BeDuhn, etc.), keeping their conclusions out of the infobox is a no-brainer. If these authors meet the threshold of notability and avoiding undue emphasis, then their arguments can be cited in the article. Wareh 16:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Translation has nothing to do with the KJV. I think that the only thing Tim and I can agree on is that the TR is rubish compared to earlier manuscripts. I agree that my opinion does not matter however, Formal Equivalence is sourced by an independent (non-JW) scholar, that is so far, the only scholar I am aware of that makes any claim of formal or dynamic. For those reasons I will restore "Formal Equivalence" to the info-box ("The NW(T) is a formal equivalence translation, with occasional ventures into dynamic equivalence..." Dr. BeDuhn, Truth in Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, ISBN 0761825568, pg. 39).

Tim, I'm not labeling anything, BeDuhn is, I agree with him. Also what do you make of the bracketed additions of textually implied meaning that aren't "other" that I pointed out? I really don't want to argue with you about "other" in colossians, but I do want you to understand how the addition is not theology. In verse 16 the passage says "by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth...". Saying that Jesus is not a noun (a "thing") to be included within the confines of grammar, is philosophy, if Jesus exists then grammatically he is a thing (a noun). Did that thing create itself through itself? Of course not, "other" is implied in the grammar. Duffer 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, I've ordered BeDuhn's book. The question is how formal and how dynamic it is in relation to other translations. As I said, Wiki already lists RSV as dynamic and NIV as free. Since BeDuhn lists them both as formal, it brings into question what he means by that in sequence to the others. To give a different example -- we've had the same problem with reading levels. Zondervan lists the King James at a 12th grade reading level and the NIV at 7.8. The problem is that it doesn't say which scoring system or sample was used. The KJV only scores at 12 on the SMOG index, and the NIV 7.8 is close to the Flesch Kincaid. So -- one person calling it formal doesn't tell about it's relation to other translations when dynamics and free are ALSO listed as formal. More in a few hours. Tim 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. The problem is that there just isn't enough neutral review of the NWT. I know there are some very outspoken critics of the NWT but I don't believe any of them have taken the time to review it and say if they think it's a Formal or Dynamic.. I am glad you've ordered the book, it's an easy read that leaves theology at the door, and does not spare any of the reviewed bibles from criticism. Duffer 12:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, I agree that it's difficult to find neutral POV on the NWT. It's also difficult to find consistency in labeling the Equivalence rate of translations. Most sources I've found agree on the general sequence on the spectrum, but not on the labels. The sequence I gave above is generic enough -- but even there the labels are different depending on who's doing the labeling. For instance, every reviewer I've looked at rates the RSV as more literal than the NIV. But some sources list both as formal (as you say BeDuhn does), some list both as dynamic, some list RSV as formal and NIV as free (Master's Seminary), some list RSV as formal and NIV as dynamic. Another source (Comfort) lists dynamic as closer to paraphrased than thought for thought! At one point I was listing a percentage of Equivalence rate based on a prepub study just because the labels aren't consistent in the different studies out there, but the prepub was dragging it's heels and I had to go back to generic labels. The NWT is normally dismissed from any kind of study. But, whether a person agrees with a translation or not is ultimately irrelevant to the Equivalence rate -- since accuracy and Equivalence rates are two different things entirely. If Metzger were supplying the translation type label it would be in an entirely different category altogether.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that BeDuhn's label is 100% correct. Here's the sequence that seems to come from the descriptions you gave me:

Formal: KJV, RSV

Formal, but with deeply flawed KJV instances: NASB

Formal, but moving toward Dynamic: NRSV

Formal, but less formal than NRSV, closer to NAB: NIV

Formal: NAB????

Formal Equivalence, with some Dynamic Equivalence: NWT

Dynamic: TEV

Interpretive (paraphrase???): Amplified

According to the BeDuhn information you've supplied, the NWT seems to be less formal than the RSV, NRSV, NIV, and NAB -- which are all listed as Dynamic on the Wiki info boxes based on other sources. I've also read that BeDuhn has strong criticism for the use of the anglicized Divine Name in the NWT, but I don't know if this is his only basis for the Dynamic "ventures" you quote him as saying.

As it stands, however, the BeDuhn scale above appears close to the other scales, but (as I mentioned above) the labels are the problem. Almost everything is formal! Additionally, you quote BeDuhn as saying the NASB has "deeply flawed KJV instances." That's an accuracy judgment, not an Equivalence rating. So, do we agree with BeDuhn? Let's say that we both do. You agree with the label "Formal". Let's say I agree with the scale: less formal than all the translations listed as Formal, and less formal than most of the translations listed as Dynamic. What do we do, then? Do we list nearly everything as formal just because BeDuhn calls almost everything under the sun formal? Or do we list it in the same category as the other translations that BeDuhn associates it with? That would mean we would quote his "ventures into Dynamic" because the translations he associates it with are all listed as Dynamic.

If everything is formal, then the usefulness of all the info boxes for every single translation is destroyed. And this is the problem. I personally don't care about the theology involved, or the accusations of bias either way. I'm simply trying to preserve the integrity of the info boxes and keep them from being robbed of all meaning.

Another subject: you ask "Did that thing create itself through itself? Of course not, "other" is implied in the grammar." Christians believe that Jesus is Jehovah -- or at least one Person of Jehovah. I have no vested interest here. It's simply an observation of what they believe; not a statement of ultimate truth. So, when Christians read that passage they read: "Jehovah created all things." When Jehovah's Witnesses read that passage they read: "a being created by Jehovah created all other things." Who's right? Again, I personally don't care. However, "other" is supplied by the NWT for theological reasons, not grammatical ones. Are those theological reasons correct? That's a different subject entirely. Tim 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly make matters easier if there was a uniform procedure for rating a bible's accuracy. I think it's fine to say that the NWT is Formal with Dynamic tendencies. Also I apologize for the bias accusation. Duffer 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, I agree. It would be fantastic for there to be a uniform procedure. There have been attempts, but the sample sizes and interpretive nature of the work require that translations be listed in relation to each other, rather than in absolutes. One person may rate translations very stringintly, and another less so. As long as they each do so consistently then the translations in their own study fall in a pretty fair sequence. But you couldn't take the readings from one person's study for one translation against the readings for another person's study for a different translation, because their methods may be different from each other. It's like using the Gunning Fog readability index for the NIV against the Flesch Kincaid index for the KJV. If you did that, the KJV would appear easier to read! Anyhow, I'm looking forward to reading BeDuhn's book, and I'm glad to have found out about it. And thanks very much for pulling back the bias accusation! I don't remember it, but I appreciate it :-). Be well. Tim 20:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Superstition 'reference'

I have removed the reference to Exodus 20:7 because it is not actually 'supportive' of the statement it follows. Though it does not contradict the statement, it also does not explain it. The 'Jewish superstition' to not use 'god's' name at all was a later theological development.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff -- the ten commandments is the only source for the practice. Even the Talmud is derivative here, and points to Exodus 20:17. Tim (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments do not explain not using the name at all. Exodus only provides the background for why the name came not to be used at all, and is not the reason. The verse mentions nothing about superstition, nor about never using the name, and is therefore invalid as a reference. It would be suitable as part of a parenthetical statement at best.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, if the statement being referenced was "don't take up the lord's name in vain", then the Exodus reference would be appropriate. However, it does not explain never using the name at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff -- there is not other source for the "Jewish superstition." If you don't accept that, then I invite you to FIND a Jewish source that gives any other reason for the practice. Once you'll look, you'll put the Exodus citation back in yourself -- because there is no other origin for the practice. But don't just delete a source and leave NOTHING in its place. That's disrespectful to Wikipedia readers. They aren't stupid. They know the practice had to come from SOMEWHERE.Tim (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I propose deleting the text regarding the listed translators of the NWT. The reason is that the list itself is not verifiable. Raymond Franz's memoirs (or exposé, if you prefer) should be heavily discounted according to Reliable Sources guidelines: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution." The same would apply to the comments William Cetnar. Given that these two lists differ somewhat, and that there motives for giving the list are clearly impure (they knew the translators wished to be kept anonymous to keep critical focus on the accuracy of their work, and not on their own persons) -- a wish that certainly R. Franz (not sure about W. Cetnar, but likely) pledged to support -- shows that the characters of these two are somewhat questionable. Moreover, the lists that these two published are not identical casting some doubt since Henschel was no minor figure. Furthermore it is not known if R Franz/W Cetnar used names that would be easily attacked, or if their lists were exhaustive, or if the disputed versus were the actual work of these men (of which there are truly very, very few -- apart from the use of "Jehovah" as a NT translation principle, probably less than two dozen in the entire work).

If it were the case that Franz provided a list of translators merely because they wanted to remain anonymous, it would not be worth providing a list. But the list was provided because the credentials of the translators were called into question. Also, there is a distinction regarding whether Raymond Franz's recollections were merely vague memoirs of incidental events, or accounts of events and people he was clearly familiar with. Additionally one list having an extra name, but that still includes all of the other names, does not invalidate the possible accuracy of either list, as would two completely disparate lists of names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This Article discusses the New World Translation, and criticisms about its alleged inaccuracies are well presented. The dozen or so verses that are in dispute have been extensively examined and written about, and on both sides. The translators were completely open and candid about the issues raised by critics in their explanations to Readers, by the NWTTC in advance and later by the WTB&TS in various responses, so hearing from them as individuals on these issues is of no practical value, mudslinging notwithstanding. And the NWT translators aren't the only one writing in support of their work, nor are they the only group rendering these questioned verses as they generally did (there are a dozen or more other translations that render John 1:1c as something different than "the Word is God"). If, say, Readers prefer the argument of Dr W Barclay that translating John 1:1c as "a god" is "grammatically impossible" then the Readers can investigate whether this is really grammatically impossible or not. This Article alerts and informs the Reader to that very extent. And that's the point: The Reader has been duly alerted and thus can research the matter further starting with the references given. If putting in the Divine Name 237 times is a case of special pleading, then what is intentionally deleting it 6,828 times? The Reader of the NWT is clearly informed as the the translation principles, and the counterpoints are well presented herein and in the references criticizing the NWT -- knowing who did it is an aside. All translations carry the bias of their translators, and not even all the detractors of the NWT agree amongst themselves. The list itself is not verifiable nor does it add any insight into the real matter at hand: The accuracy of the translation. The translator list is specious. -- cfrito (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Of the list of NWT translators you write, “The list itself is not verifiable”. At this point should the Watchtower organization itself or any other entity publish a list of NWT translators we would have no means to authenticate the names beyond taking the entity’s word for it. So what precisely are you looking for in the way of verification? The text you keep disputing contains referenced source material published by two different individuals with firsthand knowledge. When a criticism of the NWT is one of translator qualifications then having knowledge of translators is germane. Please explain yourself.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: R Franz was not a member of the Governing Body during the time the translation was done so he did not have "first hand knowledge." Not even close -- years had passed. He wasn't even at the World Headquarters until years after the release in printed form to the public at large. You have published a complete and utter falsehood. And he was long gone before the 1984 Edition was prepared. As to the other "source", his list is different -- if they both had "firsthand knowledge", why wouldn't the lists be identical? The fact is they named the names they knew were in lead administrative roles. You yourself have written extensively about discounting sources with a known bias (e.g., Carolyn Wah). And when you personally took issue with her phrasing, you used it as prima facie evidence that she is not to be considered at all. Here we have two people with a clear axe to grind perpetuating "first hand knowledge" that they did not have as "fact", and their stories don't even match. It was just five high profile names: How hard is that to get right?

Cfrito: I have not said Ray Franz was a governing body member during the time the NWT was produced. I have said that Ray Franz had firsthand knowledge of the translation committee. Please get your allegations correct before attempting a rebuttal.

Firsthand knowledge means a person has immediate access to information rather than having obtained it second hand. As a member of the highest rank in the Watchtower organization Ray Franz certainly had firsthand access to all the affairs impinging authorship of Watchtower publications, and the NWT is a Watchtower publication in case you have not noticed. Firsthand information does not require concurrency. It only requires immediate access. Ray Franz had immediate access by virtue of his high position in the organization, not to mention his many years in the organization’s editorial department. If a governing body member cannot be said to have immediate access to this sort of information then no one in the Watchtower hierarchy can claim firsthand knowledge of this information.

As for the names provided by Cetnar compared to those provided by Franz, it is not an inconsistency that Cetnar names an additional person as a member of the NWT translation committee because neither man has insisted that they have given the names of all the members of that committee. Franz, for example, writes only “The New World Translation bears no translator’s name and is presented as the anonymous work of the ‘New World Translation Committee.’ Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind.” (Crisis of Conscience, p. 54) For a discrepancy of this information to create a disagreement it would have to pose a contradiction, but the list of names by Cetnar and Franz do not contradict one another.

You are quite correct to point out the problem of bias. But neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar have anything to gain by inventing names as translators of the NWT, and the names provided by these two men are complementary. Furthermore, the names published from Cetnar occurred in 1974, which was 6 years prior to Ray Franz’s resignation from the governing body. Given the admittedly guarded nature of NWT translators, the publication of this information undoubtedly spawned discussion of this very piece of information within higher Watchtower circles of information control, which would place Ray Franz right in the middle of the conversation. (We know Watchtower officials read and consider information like this. See Wah, Review of Religious Research, 2001, Vol., 43:2, pp. 161-174) Additionally, given Cetnar’s list was published several years ahead of Franz’s, had Franz been presenting anything other than firsthand knowledge he would have mirrored Cetner’s list of names precisely. But he did not do that, did he. Franz published names consistent with Cetnar’s but not in contradiction to Cetnar’s. Neither man had anything to protect or gain by publishing anything other than their actual firsthand knowledge of individuals they knew to be part of the NWT translation committee.

By the way, I have not remotely suggested that author Wah should “not be considered at all”. I have said that in instances where she writes on behalf of the Watchtower organization as a representative of that organization what she writes in the way of defending that organization should be discounted. Please note that discount does not mean dispose of (i.e., not consider at all). Again, please get your facts straight.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of the Wikipedia standard, especially in the absence of any official statement regarding the actual translators from official documentation, I support the removal of the passage:

"Although the members of the committee that translated the NWT wish to remain anonymous, Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body[48], has claimed that the translation committee consisted of 6 members:[49]

William Cetnar, a former Witness who resigned from the international headquarters in 1958 and was disfellowshipped from the religion for apostasy in 1962[50], also included Milton Henschel as a member of the translation committee.[51]

It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz having formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations.[52] These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators.[53]"

These citations are more appropriately placed on a page called "Testimony from Disgruntled Former Jehovah's Witnesses".

Comments? -- cfrito (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: "Disgruntled"? Have you ever heard the expression, point of view (POV)?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Yes "disgruntled" is a basis for a POV. You said it yourself. Franz's list is a POV and adds no insight and should be removed.

Cfrito: The point of my question was to express it inappropriate for an editor HERE to label an “ex” as “disgruntled” because to do so is to assert a POV on the part of the Wiki editor. This is the POV prohibited by Wiki policy. Of course author’s cited and quoted by Wiki editors are frequently asserting their POV. This is precisely why Wiki policy directs that all published POVs have a place within Wikipedia without attributing undue weight to one POV over another POV. You should read up on this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the above referenced section for the reasons given, and as there have been no objections or comments, consensus is assumed.. -- cfrito (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) f

cfrito: Your edit is undone. The material meets Wiki standards for inclusion. Furthermore, the presentation of this material is neutral in that it correctly attributes the source and the form of information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Would you please explain yourself? You have deleted criticism from the Criticism Section! If the Criticism Section is not the place to put criticism then there should be no Criticism Section!

Marvin Shilmer: I deleted innuendo and unsupportable rumor from the Criticism Section. R Franz was not present during the period when the NWT work was done, and he was not in a position to know such details -- he was a rank-and-file member at that time with no special inside track. R Franz was appointed to the Governing Body more than two decades after the NT work was complete (where most of the criticism is aimed) and wasn't even present at JW HQ until 5 years after the final parts of the OT were completed. What R Franz wrote in his book was from memory, without consulting any documentation (and that makes an assumption that there is documentation). Therefore, i repeat: The reason is that the list itself is not verifiable. Raymond Franz's memoirs (or exposé, if you prefer) should be heavily discounted according to Reliable Sources guidelines: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution." R Franz simply could not have had "firsthand knowledge". That's a pure fabrication. Creating an 'air of dishonor' around the NWTTC's noble goal of permitting Bible translation to stand on its own legs rather than bask in self-glorification, is a POV. -- cfrito (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have not suggested Ray Franz was present at Watchtower headquarters during development and publication of the NWT. I have suggested that by virtue of his position later on as a governing body member (not to mention years working in the editorial department!) that he was placed him in a position to have firsthand knowledge of who made up the NWT committee. Tell me, if governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does?

After accusing me of “innuendo and unsupportable rumor” (said of my edits you deleted) you write, “R Franz wrote in his book was from memory, without consulting any documentation”. I know Ray Franz. Years and years ago I worked with Ray Franz to know him personally. I also happen to know Ray Franz has plenty of documents at his disposal so that issues such as this are not strictly a matter of his personal recollection years after the fact. Particularly Ray has a lot of personal notes taken during governing body sessions and from his work in Watchtower’s editorial (writing) department. I know this because I have seen it with my own eyes. But I am unable to cite these as sources because to date Ray has not seen fit to publish this mass of material. But I doubt you know Ray Franz. I doubt you’ve ever worked with Ray Franz. And, I know for a fact you are absolutely unable to prove your statement that Ray wrote what he wrote about the NWT committee “without consulting any documentation” with a result that he wrote from memory. Talk about “innuendo and unsupportable rumor”!!!

I have edited the material in the article. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: It's clear you sympathize with R Franz. If he has the copies of his documents or his contemporaneous notes that answer this question with finality, let him produce them. Then you won't need the WTB&TS copies and you can publish your "translator list" without fear of having it deleted. In the end it won't mean that the NWTTC mistranslated the NWT. The fact that you have to go to such extremes with personal defenses of R Franz and elaborate time lines and exotic sleuthing shows that your arguments are weak and that you are simply pushing your own personal agenda, your own POV. Tell your pal R Franz to produce the document and all this goes away. Until he does, or the WTB&TS produces them, keep it out of this Article. Funny though, how you say "happen to know" of all this documentation of his, but will not testify that you personally saw the copy of the list. But, funny, you do say that it's not a complete list. The whole thing is just plain fishy. And you say the whole Organization was to keep the list secret, but R Franz as a GB member was not so bound? That he has no ethical requirements to keep his word? Preposterous. -- cfrito (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I see you are unable to prove your assertion that Ray Franz list of names is “based on recollection”. No surprise here.

Marvin Shilmer: The burden of proof is on you. It's clear there is no document and R Franz is relying on recollections in his memoirs. If you had anything substantive you would have produced already. -- cfrito (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Again you fail to prove your assertion that Ray Franz list of names is “based on recollection”. This is your assertion; not mine. Hence it is yours to prove. As for the names Ray provides, Wiki policy stipulates criteria for use here. The key element is source reliability. The names Ray provides are consistent with and complimented by another source, namely William Cetnar. By reason of position and/or proximity we have reason to accept these firsthand testimonies as corroborative and no reason to dismiss the information. When I have detailed these issues on this talk page you have routinely avoided any and all rebuttals of your complaints otherwise. I do not know if this is on purpose or if you fail to grasp the import of what is said in reply to what you raise.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “And you say the whole Organization was to keep the list secret, but R Franz as a GB member was not so bound?” I have not said the “whole Organization was to keep the list secret”. I have said no more than I can evidence, that the agreement not to publish names of the translators was between the Watchtower Pennsylvania Corporation Board of Directors and the NWT Committee. Nothing suggests that this agreement precluded insiders at Watchtower from knowing this information, or that it precluded members of the NWT Committee from disclosing their identity to whomever they wanted to disclose it. You have offered no evidence to show Ray Franz was under an obligation to maintain silence of any knowledge he had of the NWT Committee members. What you have offered is one red herring on top of another, and you never seem to get around to offering straightforward answers to straightforward questions, either. No surprise here.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Play word games all you want, keep secret, not publish, whatever. R Franz broke a confidence or lied or both. And he did it after he left the JW organization in a huff and wrote a book about his "conscience" bothering him (how ironic). What could be more POV and more "memoir" than that? ***yawn***. Wikipedia's standard is still the same regarding recollections from memoirs. Call your pal Ray-Ray and have him send you a copy of the list on WTB&TS letterhead. Then publish it in a book. Or get the WTB&TS to heed your mighty command and send it to you right now or have them run it in the next issue of the Watchtower. Then send me a reference and I'll add it to the Article. But short of that, knock it off already. You're just incensed that someone has identified your extreme bias, and your POV-bullying. -- cfrito (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is merely an assumption that 'the agreement' "precluded members of the NWT Committee from disclosing their identity to whomever they wanted to disclose it". It is also merely an assumption that "R Franz broke a confidence or lied or both". What is known is that Franz was nephew of the org's president and in no minor role himself as a member of the 'governing body', and therefore in a position to know such details, and to have documentation of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your allegations of Ray are pure speculative opinion (i.e., POV). Your allegations of me are unworthy of response.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: My statements about you are accurate, based on an analysis of your own self-contradictions and patently false statements. You said R Franz had firsthand knowledge of who the translators were, when as a matter of actual fact he wasn't anywhere near the place or the information for another 21 years. You lied plain and simple. Reading a document no sooner than 21 years after the fact, if R Franz ever actually read any such thing, is not firsthand knowledge and you make a fool of yourself asserting it. You said he has "documents", so you're sure it's not recollection? I guess academic standards don't apply when it's you. When you can truly substantiate it, then post it, but not before. Burden of proof is on you and R Franz to substantiate the allegations the two of you are making. You have claimed infallibility, and I think you know better than that, so that was a lie. You have said I haven't addressed your questions, but I have over and over. So that's a lie. Youi claimed that there was no known reason for R Franz or W Cetnar to misrepresent matters, when they are known avid haters of the JW organization and devote all their time to tearing at JW's -- and you know R Franz, so that's a lie that you were unaware of any such bias. And there's more. You continue to post criticisms based on material that has not been peer reviewed when it suits you but castigate anyone who tries when it hurts you position, making you a pretty big hypocrite. BeDuhn is a peer reviewed expert, but then again, he is a clear supporter of the NWT so I'm sure that's why you limit his references and add misleading qualifiers. R Franz's book is a memoir and pure POV and has no place in a serious critique of the NWT. You have demonstrated a clear bias and you are in no way neutral. Why don't you harness all that academic prowess you are so proud of and list the exact number of verses in dispute? Then explain why there are so many translations besides the NWT. And why not all their verses agree. And why many of them actually translate the disputed verses quite similarly to the NWT. -- cfrito (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I do not care what you think of my person, and I doubt anyone else cares either. What counts here is what editors can verify for encyclopedic entry.

For the umpteenth time: Ray Franz had firsthand access to knowledge of the translators by virtue of his position, not his proximity in time to the translation. You avoid this at every turn. Again I ask: if governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does? Repeatedly you fail to answer this question.

Yes, I said Ray has documents at his disposal which he consults for purposes of writing and publication. Some of these documents are published in his books, hence we know he has such a personal library of documents. However I have not said Ray consulted such documentation regarding his naming of the NWT Committee, because I do not know if this is an item within his library of documents or not, and neither do you. Hence I have not made an assertion on this point whereas you have. I doubt you grasp this, but readers can examine the discussion of record on this point. So, where is the proof of your assertion that Ray Franz list of names is “based on recollection”? Where is it?

As for substantiation of the names Ray listed, Bill Cetnar’s complimentary list of names provides this.

Regarding peer review, though this sort of source is advantageous it is not essential under Wikipedia policy, and in this case the peer reviewed literature only makes oblique references to names provided by Ray Franz and Bill Cetnar. But these sources do not dismiss these names as you do. In fact, these sources suggest there is reason to acknowledge the names provided, if not accept them. I doubt you are aware of any of this, considering that you have yet to cite sources for your editing and complaining on this matter. Your analysis of my view and use of vetted sources compared to non-vetted sources is amusing. It discloses a fundamental lack of analytical ability, for you do not at all represent my position on that discussion.

Regarding BeDuhn, I have not edited his statements found in this article. I believe Duffer is responsible for that because he has the referenced source and I do not. I do not edit what I do not have in hand to read myself. Do you?

I have removed unverified material from the article. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: It matters a lot about your lack of personal integrity, which you have precious little of, your claim of infallibility aside. Your personal adversarial position against the JW organization makes you even less credible than R Franz, for at least they say what they are. You hide and pretend to be neutral, when you couldn't be farther from it. What you think R Franz saw when he went through a file cabinet (or what he claims to recall having have seen in his memoir) about a given matter two or three decades after-the-fact is in no way firsthand knowledge. And there is no verifiable way to know if it's even true of not. R Franz will write what is on the list but not produce it? And you say the WTS is suspect because they kept their word to the translation committee? Franz is an apostate JW and motives are so nefarious toward JW's that his recollections are not reliable. Besides, his list differs from Cetnar's, and both war against the JW organization as apostates but both claim "firsthand" knowledge. Was it five or six? Who really were the translators? You can hand-wave all you want, but they claim personal firsthand knowledge (even though one of them did not and is evidenced by the verified time line) of the NWTTC but don't remember identically? It's not as if there are a hundred names or even twenty. This group would fit in a single full size sedan. Prominent men, supposedly. And even you yourself said that there were probably more. And your criticism rants are pure POV, and the critics you cite don't even agree amongst themselves. Would JW's consider you an "apostate"? Your pure POV rant in the criticism section gives undue weight to just about any evangelist who objects to the NWT on theological grounds, not linguistic grounds. If it were so straightforward, there would be two translations in the world: the NWT and the one that the critics universally agree to and fawn over each other over. But of course, there is no such thing, and people like Luther and Moffatt and Goodspeed and Tyndale and on and on faced the same cheap tactics as you have presented in this section. -- cfrito (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The verification is found in the complimentary names provided by Bill Cetnar. Cetnar’s know is by virtue of proximity. Ray Franz’s knowledge is by virtue of position. You have yet to refute either.

I have not suggested the Watchtower organization is “suspect because they kept their word to the translation committee”. Frankly, on this point I have no idea what you are alluding to.

I agree Franz is anti-Watchtower. This is the reason I added the conflict of interest statement that I did, and for Cetnar too. This is the way to use information honestly.

You have failed to answer every single problematic question posed to your POV above. Why am I not surprised?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, more on Ray Franz: Today it occurred to me that Ray Franz was not privy to the NWT translators solely because of his position as a governing body member.

The NWT committee did not disband in 1960 with the release of Volume V. During the period Ray Franz was on the governing body the NWT committee was actively working on a revision of the NWT, which revision was published in 1981. Additionally, the very department charged with reviewing the accuracy of the NWT was the writing (editing) department, and this is the very department Ray Franz worked in and was on the committee for (writing committee). Hence, in addition to his governing body position, by virtue of proximity in time and work assignment (writing department) Ray Franz was also positioned to know members of the NWT committee.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the information about NWT translators you say cannot be verified, the verification is found in two separate accounts published by different individuals, and this is noted within the text you keep deleting. Because the Watchtower organization has not explicitly authenticated this information as correct does not mean the information is unreliable. For that matter, were the Watchtower organization to assert who these translators are, we would have no way of verifying this either, beyond taking its word for it. As it stands the text you keep deleting contains multiple sources from firsthand accounts. Please explain why these multiple sources are less reliable than the Watchtower organization itself when all these sources offer a POV.

Should your deletion edits not have substantive reason beyond your personal POV, then the edits will be reverted. Please explain yourself.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: I posted the reasons above, several times, and well in advance of the actual edit. And the list of alleged translators does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, and I've made the case clearly. Are you the Editor-in-Chief of this article? Your bloviating 'explain yourself and if I agree I'll revert your edits' line needs clarification as to your implied authority.

The citations are from memoirs of people that have a bone to pick are simply not reliable. The list of names does nothing to address the reliability or veracity of the translation work itself; it is completely superfluous. It serves only to go against the wishes of the NWT Translation Committee. If you want to address the translation accuracy with citations, then fine, it's already been done in spades and the Reader is surely well informed. If you want to say that the NWT is not reliable because Ray Franz says that the authors were Tom, Dick and Harry, well then I'm not sure how this makes Wikipedia a more informative reference than any two-bit tabloid. I understand that you, based on my research on you, have some bone to pick, but this isn't the forum. And apparently others corresponding on your talk page have the same feeling. If you want to feature R Franz's memoirs, then feature them on his page a few more times. The Reader has been informed as to the issues regarding the work itself, so allow each Reader the dignity to research the information about the translative work on his/her own. You can wrap this whole issue in "personal POV" terms so the weak-minded think you have a point, but I am not that person. Knowing or or not knowing that Henschel or Franz or Joe Blow had a hand in the translating work has absolutely no bearing on whether I am persuaded to believe that Colwell's Rule applies to John 1:1c theos or not. And that's the point -- the alleged "translator list" only goes to further R. Franz's hope to frustrate the wish of the Translation Committee's anonymity (made so that the work remains the focus), with no added benefit or insight to the matter at hand. This forum should not advance R Franz's personal ambitions under the guise that it helps the Reader know whether 2 Thes 2:3 is better rendered in Translation A or Translation B. And that R Franz would betray an oath to "get even" with those he no longer likes very much shows that he cannot be trusted. He is simply not a reliable source.

Perhaps you could provide some insight into how it helps he Reader understand the translation accuracy issue besides aiding in making it a personal attack.

As for the WTB&TS publishing a rebuttal list to answer unfounded accusations, it is neither a reasonable nor a realistic hope. They will honor their oath to the NWT Translation Committee (unlike R Franz). There is nothing that compels them to publish a true list just simply because someone publishes some random list and says, "If it's false then give me the true one, or we'll keep perpetuating the false one." How sophomoric. If you don't think the translation is accurate, make your case. If you need to make it about the translators then your argument is immediately cheapened and not very worthy of consideration.

Furthermore, I published my position well in advance of my intended actions. You remained in the shadows until the change was made, then reverted twice within an hour each, so clearly you are watching the page closely. You are simply advancing your own personal agenda. If you have something that gives insight to the NWT translation's accuracy or reliability then assert it. Stop making it about the people. Make it about the work. -- cfrito (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Apparently it has escaped your notice that it is the Watchtower organization that made an issue of who translated the NWT. Not Ray Franz. Not William Cetnar. And, lastly, not me. And, frankly, unless you can prove otherwise, there is no known advantage for either Franz or Cetnar to name individuals who were anything other than members of the NWT translation committee. Of what advantage would it be for either of these men to offer bogus names? When a publisher makes an issue of something associated with its publication then it is a legitimate subject of research and disclosure. The Watchtower organization raised this particular issue by, apparently agreeing not only to not publish the names of NWT translators but also not to disclose their names on separate letterhead.

Furthermore, apparently it has not entered your mind the gross inadequacy by the Watchtower organization in response to inquires about the NWT translators. Critics want to know the academic credentials of these translators to translate ancient biblical languages. In response the Watchtower organization has denied offering these credentials by expressing a promise not to reveal names of translators. Well, guess what? A promise not to give names is not a promise not to go on record with credentials of translators, which makes the Watchtower’s response a complete dodge of the inquiry, which only intensifies suspicion of the NWT's production and publication. To this day the Watchtower organization has never offered a legitimate reason for not offering a comprehensive statement of qualifications of NWT translators to translate ancient biblical languages into modern English. Again, this only raises the issue to a yet higher level, and it is the Watchtower organization that has done this and not Ray Franz or William Cetnar.

The reason this for my recent editing of this page is because of your recent edits, and your attempt to explain those edits. So far your explanations have fallen far short of substantiation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: R Franz was not anywhere around when the translating was done so he could not have firsthand knowledge, period. What you suppose happened later on is irrelevant. You yourself said that there could be others that worked on the translation that are not known or revealed so you cannot say with any degree of intellectual honesty that 'F Franz was the only one with sufficient knowledge'. And any author's wish to remain anonymous is their right. You can create some conspiracy theory or attach shame to that wish of theirs, but that is pure bias and misdirection. As to what is a legitimate reason for the NWTTC's position, you really must think a lot of yourself. They are not answerable to you. If you think the NWT work is in error, then defend your point. But to argue someone doesn't have the right to call a "fish" a "fish" because you can't certify that they graduated with a degree in Zoology is just ridiculous. The alleged list is not reliable, and you yourself said it. So it should be removed and so I removed it. I support leaving F Franz listed as the editor because it is independently verifiable from unbiased sources, but until the others can be so identified, they should be left off.

As to the possible nefarious motives of Cetnar and R Franz, their whole reason for writing what they wrote is to cast reproach to vindicate themselves. They separated from the WTB&TS organization on bad terms and they need others to see that they were justified. R Franz's book is his personal self justification. So would a man who is bent on self justification 'chop the heads off his enemies to appear taller'? History is clear -- people would, people have, people do, and they will continue to do this. R Franz's motives cannot be determined simply by reading his self-justifying book -- even the title says it is pure personal POV, a purely personal matter: "A Crisis of Conscience". Just because someone has such a crisis doesn't mean that they are automatically right, especially with regard to theology. Who really cares about R Franz's personal crisis unless it supports their own POV?

Cetnar's list is different than R Franz's, plain and simple. The lists are not in complete agreement. Who's list is right? Are they both wrong? Who knows. Are you willing to stake your reputation that Cetnar's list is 100% correct? That R Franz's is? Do you think Henschel did or did not do any work on it? Who else do you think should be on the list who is presently not accounted for? And that's one point. Another is that these two people have come to absolutely dislike the WTB&TS organization and its theology, and so do they have a reason to attack the Bible translation the WTB&TS principally -- but not exclusively -- uses in their work? An unbiased observer would certainly conclude they would. Are they trustworthy individuals? The jury is in: If they ever knew, they would have pledged to keep it confidential, and if so, they broke that confidence to suit personal ambitions. Was this a matter of life and death? No. Was there a crime committed? No. If you don't like the translation, pick up a different one that you do like. Does the Article present the reader with the entire picture? Sure does. Is a disputed and unconfirmed list of alleged translators make any difference? No, except that publishing it may perpetuate a falsehood and may mislead the Reader. So was there a compelling reason for them to break their oath? No. Thus they cannot be relied upon. They have shown that they will modify their morals to fit their own agenda. They are simply not credible. The list is not verifiable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The critics have already taken the WTB&TS to task for not publishing the list, and the record reflects that criticism.

The book that the alleged translator list is taken from is a memoir and is based on recollection. Wikipedia's standard is to use such with extreme caution. R Franz is profoundly biased and has broken confidences and has demonstrated that his morals are malleable and colored by personal gain. Cetnar likewise. The list is not reliable and in keeping with Wikipedia standards must be deleted until an authoratitive list is published from an unbiased source. -- cfrito (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your persistent carp that Ray Franz was not at Watchtower headquarters when the NWT was published is a strawman. It is addressed above in more than one instance.

Cetnar and Ray Franz’s disposition in relation to the Watchtower organization is disclosed for readers to make of it what they will. So this complaint is squelched. I agree readers and researchers should discount these sources, but not dismiss them. To delete is to dismiss.

The difference between names provided by Cetnar and those provided by Ray Franz does not demonstrate a consequence to the integrity/veracity of the information because neither source expressed the names they offer as comprehensive. Apparently you fail to grasp this. Let’s say that the NWT Committee was actually comprised of persons A, B, C, D, E and F. I name A, B, and C and you name A, B, C and D, but neither of us claims our list of names is complete. In this case BOTH of us would be correct as far as what we asserted. The consequence you propose based on Franz’s names and Cetnar’s names is unproven. It is your POV.

Ray Franz was not and never has been a member of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc’s. Board of Directors. It was this BOD that obligated itself to maintain confidential the names of the NWT Committee. (See Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Fredrick Franz) Hence, on these bases Ray was never a party to this agreement; though I am sure everyone at Bethel understood this information should not be disclosed. The same is true for Cetner. Your complaint on this point is then, accordingly, mooted. That is, unless you can prove either man was under an ethical duty to maintain this information confidential. Can you meet this burden of proof?

Your assertion that Ray Franz’s list of names is purely a product of his memory is nothing more than an unproven assertion. How would you know what documents and personal notes Ray obtained or produced during his tenure with the Watchtower organization that would enable him to produce this information by means of something other than his memory? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Can I meet the burden of proof? The list itself must meet the burden of proof, which means you because you are its chief sponsor. I have shown over and over that this alleged translator list simply doesn't meet any Wikipedia criteria, which is why you persist in the personal attacks and the specious arguments. The real question is: Can R Franz meet the burden of proof? Can you? If the the WTS BOD voted to keep it secret and R Franz was not on the Board, how did he get the list? It was kept secret and you have absolutely no proof yourself that R Franz had access to it. As for "carping" about poor poor misunderstood and beleaguered R Franz, the NT NWT was commissioned in 1946 and first released in 1950 (the NT is what most of the criticism is about since most of the criticism focuses on the trinity issues). R Franz didn't get to JW WHQ until 1965, some 19 years after the NWT was commissioned and 15 years after its NT component was completed. R Franz was not a GB member until 21 years after its completion: R Franz wasn't appointed to the Governing Body until 1971. He was off the Body by 1979. By 1980 he was disfellowshipped. He simply wasn't there. I'm sorry this doesn't fit with your agenda but he absolutely wasn't there and so could not have firsthand knowledge. R Franz is just not credible. And it appears by your own testimony that he wouldn't have had access to the documents because the BOD voted to keep them secret. Now you're suggesting that BOD voted to keep secret the list and somehow this was a hot topic at the Governing Body level some 21 years on? And it is extremely significant that Cetnar's list doesn't match R Franz's: It means that they either never saw the documents and are just making it up naming the most likely people to have been involved, or they just named the people that they thought would be easiest to attack (remember, they are engaged in doing things specifically against what they perceive to be the interests of WTB&TS), or they are relying on faulty memory, or they thought publishing a bogus list would force the WTB&TS's hand and they'd be compelled to release the true list, or may they're just craving attention and know that there are people who will pay cash to read bad things about people they don't like. Maybe R Franz is in it for the "Crisis of Wallet". You need something more than circumstantial evidence, a stitched-up time line, and the testimony of two guys who can't even agree between them over five names, and who have demonstrated that they have precious little personal integrity. The information is faulty and amounts to nothing more than recollections at best, made up nonsense at worst, extracted from personal memoirs of men who are known to hate the JW organization and who can have no good motive in publishing such a list. There is absolutely no independent corroboration, no document copies, nothing. You have nothing, not even a decent time line. The data is highly suspect, does not meet the Wikipedia standards and should not be used at all. Unless of course you can produce the document from the WTB&TS that lists the names or otherwise get those men finally to show you the respect you seem to believe you deserve and surrender the document forthwith so you can get over your temper tantrum. Interested readers can visit R Franz's Wikipedia page for a copy of the list or buy his book, which I'm sure is what he would prefer anyway. -- cfrito (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have already met the Wikipedia burden of proof for why the statements of Ray Franz and William Cetner have a place in this article. You have not even bothered to respond to this.

As for Ray Franz getting the information, the NWT Committee requested anonymity by having the Watchtower organization agree to never publish the names of its members. This agreement does not preclude internal Watchtower knowledge of its members in total or in part, and it certainly does not preclude members of the NWT Committee from making themselves known to whomever they want. Hence, there is no reason to think the information itself was sealed away in a vault or otherwise unknown to and by insiders, and to this day by any governing body member who wanted to know. What do you think the Watchtower Board of Directors did, chew up a napkin with the names and swallow it?

I see you do not want to answer the question: If governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does? You talk circles around this, but you never answer it.

The difference between names provided by Cetner and Ray Franz has not been demonstrated as consequential because the lists do not conflict or in any way present a contradiction. This is something you do not seem to grasp, and I see no reason to continue trying to educate you on this point.

I have made further edits. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: I have answered many times. I've shown you to lie when it suits you. You routinely remove article text that adds balance and neutralizes bias. You treat the Wikipedia JW Articles as if they are your personal weapons in your personal war to discredit them. You never directly address questions, you only accuse and demand answers. You intentionally irritate other editors to exhaust and frustrate them, and it has been noted by others several times. Your research shows clear selection bias. You have claimed infallibility. You feign neutrality but anyone who has followed your edits on this page over the last 48 hours will be able to detect your clear bias against JW's. You have an agenda and you are extremely biased and your research is slanted. Other editors should beware. -- cfrito (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that some people have taken Wikipedia as a cafeteria, a forum or even a psychiatric clinic, so that they may communicate their thoughts and nightmares...--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read and thought about the above, there is little value including the alleged names of the translators, apart from a) lending to bias and b) trivia. While it is unlikely that the list of names is wrong - because there is little reason in providing an incorrect list - it doesn't really provide helpful information. Obviously the translators were able to produce a translation, so some level of ability must have existed. To what degree they were trained (or even if they had no formal training) does nothing to establish veracity of the translation of any disputed passages, as even very highly trained translators could still allow theological bias to affect their work. Therefore, the translation should be critiqued on its own merits. It is appropriate to state the 'controversy' of the translators' anonymity, and of the WTS's failure/objection to provide credentials. There just isn't enough value in providing a list of names alleged by biased sources without stronger verifiability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I agree wholeheartedly with Jeffro77 a point that I tried to make over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrito (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, retaliatory edits in the article, such as: "Critics agree that not only does God's name not belong in the NT passages even when they are quotes from OT passages containing the Divine Name, these critics have further helped God out by completely removing His name everywhere it legitimately appeared. [blah blah blah]..." will not help your case, and won't be tolerated. Cfrito and Marvin, both of you are pushing points of view in the article that are unnecessary in explaining the nature of the controversy. Wikipedia articles are not the proper forum for debating.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: If I am pushing a particular POV please tell me precisely is that POV I am pushing and be specific enough so a man has something to defend himself against other than a mercurial sweeping remark as you have made. Without this specificity your allegation of me is lame. I am not the critic of the NWT. Rather, I have provided sources that show the critical remarks made by NWT critics. Were I out to push some negative assault on the NWT then I would have included the more severe remarks from the same critics. But I have refrained from this. For example, I could have used Rowley’s remark in respect to the NWT that “the jargon which they use is often scarcely English at all, and it reminds one of nothing so mush as a schoolboy’s first painful beginnings in translating Latin into English” (Rowley, H.H., How Not To Translate the Bible, The Expository Times, 1953; 65; 41) But I refrained from using this quote from Rowley despite his world renown in the field of biblical language and translation.

We are dealing with the criticism Section, are we not? If putting published criticism of the NWT into the Criticism Section an article on the NWT is not the appropriate place to put these criticisms then please tell me where is the appropriate place.

Editors: Criticism section should list the criticisms of the linguistics and translation principles and reference who said them in a representative way and steer far away from matters of theology. List F Franz as the editor? Sure. Write that there has been much said against respecting the publisher respecting the translators' wishes to remain anonymous. Write that critics don't like using the Divine Name and claim that the NWT has used it 7210 times (or whatever) where the original language texts only include it 6827 times. Say that there are some generally agreed number of verses in dispute out of the 31,000 or so verses in the Bible. The Criticism section is not a soapbox for theologians or a place to pretend that the so-called scholars/critics weren't almost exclusively trained at theological seminaries and all have hardened theological POV's and belief system biases. The critics, though impressively lettered, often find themselves so biased as to say as W Barclay did, that it was "grammatically impossible" to translate John 1:1c as "a god". How humiliating, and his own peers, fellow critics, have debunked that shameful claim. I don't see why John 1:1 is used in the Criticism section since this is one that is clearly a theological debate. A more apt example might be "parousia". -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Above you repeat several assertions you have made in the past. If you can verify these claims with sources why don’t you?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the names of translators provided by Cetnar and Franz, it is absurd to say this information lends little value to a section on NWT criticism when the translators are part of the criticism. In the Westminster Theological Journal of Fall 2004, Barry Hofstetter wrote, Edmond C. Gruss, in We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976, 73-76), presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work. While these remarks could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored.” Information of who has performed a given work goes a long way toward understanding why that work was carried out as it was and why it ended up as it ended up, and the result of the NWT is at the heart of all criticisms leveled at the NWT. In his work The Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin quotes the Watchtower organization as making the stupendous claims that the NWT is ‘the work of competent scholars’ that ‘give clarity to the scriptures that other translations have somehow failed to supply’”. (p. 63) When a publisher says of a books translators that they are “competent scholars” then credentials of those scholars is unavoidably a legitimate subject of criticism. In Martin’s case, he wrote his book prior to Cetnar or Ray Franz expressing names of NWT translators.

Editors: Once again Shilmer begs that memoirs and personal recollections be included from biased people simply because they were remarked on by a theologian of opposing theology to JW's. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to commend you for editing out all that oratory that Cfrito had added to the article. When I edited it out he cried foul and accused me of POV editing. Hence this last time I earmarked the language hoping another editor would finally step in.

Editors: The language edited out was the only one of a dozen or so edits I made. While dramatic, they were accurate -- the critics supporting the wholesale deletion of the Divine Name have themselves tinkered with the texts some 7,000 times in a case that can only be described as 'a special pleading'. I merely highlighted it (in fact it was already properly referenced as [9]). Shilmer's personal ambition of publishing names does not meet Wikipedia standards of reliability, neutrality,and documentation (which specifically and strongly advises against using memoirs and recollections). The alleged translator list is not being sequestered or withheld from the public. Indeed, it's on R Franz's page, in his book, and on scores of anti-JW websites. But the list itself is not a criticism of the NWT: It is a defiance of the wishes of the translators themselves and has no place in this Article for that reason alone, never mind that it is hearsay/recollections from a memoir. A careful review of my edits shows that either outright reversals or a rewording with a step-up in Shilmer's own rhetoric is what followed every time. I allowed ample time for anyone including Shilmer to present a case for or against but Shilmer stayed in the shadows and brazenly twice reversed my edits inside of an hour before deciding that he should perhaps even remotely consider that other editors might have a point. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Please note that I am not the one who placed into the article the names Franz and Cetnar allege as members of the NWT committee. Someone else is responsible for that. My editing on this point is in reply to you editing this information out. The rest of your complaints above are already addressed in spades above.—Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to build a case with POV speech in the article (not that you have suggested this). Rather, I have carefully placed into the article published criticisms from reputable sources. When those sources hold a known conflict of interest I also include this. Let me ask you this question: Is criticism coming from Cetnar and Franz any less than criticism simply because they were disfellowshipped by the Watchtower organization? If so, then the ultimate act of pushing a POV is left to the Watchtower organization to decide because that is the organization that disfellowshipped these men.

Editors: Criticism coming from Cetnar and R Franz is criticism about JW's and includes various lists of names, and is in no way relevant to considering the veracity of the linguistics and translation principles of the NWT. They are pure trivia. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your statement above is your opinion. If critics felt knowledge of the actual translators was inconsequential they would not have inquired to know these, but they have made the request. When this request was routinely denied they asked for the credentials of the translators, something the Watchtower organization was never obliged to keep confidential. Yet this information was refused from the Watchtower’s POV as unimportant, so the request was denied.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, it is not my fault or my POV that the NWT has been widely trashed in scholarly circles. Hence for an editor to write these trashings with verification is not POV by the editor.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The NWT has been trashed by almost exclusively by people with competing theologies. On a purely linguistics basis, very little has ever been challenged. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have yet to see you offer any verification for your first assertion above. Your second assertion is patently false as demonstrated by sources already cited in the article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I am having a difficult time finding more than about three dozen verses that have been challenged, and most of these are challenged on the basis that the renderings disagree with the presupposed 'deity of the Christ'. This is theological. There are others to be sure: The Sheol/Hell/Hade/Gehenna issue, the Restoration/over-restoration of the Divine Name according to Tyndale's establish English spelling, the rendering of parousia, and of stauros. The NWT itself and its publisher, the WTB&TS have presented their cases clearly in the work itself and on many other occasions. These latter criticisms are worthy of mention becuase they are linguistic and grammatical. The sweeping paltitudes of televangelists and other trinitarian theologians on 'what it all means', or 'what it boils down to' is POV. Singelenberg's comments can only apply if the point/counterpoint arguments are presented in comparison so that the reader has the opportunity to give them equal weight. And it is clear that Singelenberg is a virulent anti-writer against JW's and so his comments are no better than theirs. Shilmer too is a virulent anti-writer of JW's disguising himself as an impartial editor. A quick search of the psuedonym "Marvin Silmer" he uses here reveals that fact, and who knows under how many others he publishes. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Various edits of Marvin's over at jehovahs-witness.com do reveal him to have a bias. This is not a problem in itself, as editors are naturally entitled to their own views, and this in itself does not invalidate a person from making edits when those edits are verifiable. However making only unfavourable [true] edits, rather than a balance of edits, is very telling, and quite disappointing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: "Making only unfavorable [true] edits"? What are you talking about? Over and over again I have edited out some of the most ridiculous and insulting language placed in articles impinging the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. On the blood transfusion subject I am the one who added complimentary language about the set up and purpose the Watchtower's Hospital Information Serviced department! These are but a few instances of what readers like you would consider “favorable” edits. From my perspective, any edit that is verifiable is favorable from an encyclopedic perspective! Your statement of me above shows the rancor of selective reading! You should be ashamed!-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: This Article focuses on the New World Translation. Are there critics? Sure there are, and they have been more than adequately disclosed. But what hasn't been disclosed is that these critics often don't agree with one another either, and that the various criticisms nearly always center on differences in theology and that the critics are theologians. Any critique that is based on theology should be left out. Sure as the sun will rise, Shilmer will look at any attempt to balance it or identify it as such will be branded "POV" and summarily edited out and a wearisome debate on the Discussion page will ensue with Shilmer predictably claiming to be the only scholarly researcher, etc., and start a never-ending campaign to exhaust all who try to add balance and remove undue weight and establish an informative, neutral treatment of the critiques. The alleged list of translators is absolutely not firsthand (despite much browbeating and character references by Shilmer for R Franz). It is excerpted from a memoir without any documentation (a recollection). Shilmer is trying his case like a criminal prosecutor would try a criminal case, with the conviction as the overarching goal. He is arguing that a man who alleges he saw a document or overheard a conversation about who did what at the earliest 20 years after the fact be seen as firsthand knowledge, and his list doesn't fully agree with the list of another claiming the same thing, and even Shilmer who claims to have seen the documentation says that the list is 'probably incomplete.' . He just wants a "conviction" at any cost: He will not sleep until all the critics have been given a soapbox, the alleged translators dragged through the mud over their theology, and his personal agenda of publishing any rumored list names. It's identical to Shilmer's insistence to publish my source IP so that I got pounded by machines from all over the world trying to crack my firewall for daring to challenge him. Then he odorously feigned remorse and ignorance that I asked him not to do it over and over and then was incensed when I deleted it over and over even accusing me of altering the contents of his posts. He also claimed that adding my IP for web bots to harvest was somehow of utmost importance to the Discussion and done for the good of all mankind. -- cfrito (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: If you have sources to verify that critics have critiqued the NWT as they have out of theological bias then you should present this information. You have expressed this several times, but I have yet to see a third party source from you saying as much. Right now the quoted critics are John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Bruce Metzger and H. H. Rowley. Do you have sources stating any of these have criticized the NWT solely out of theological bias? When you make assertion within the article itself but fail to provide verification for those assertions then the editing is POV rather than objective sharing of information. I have no problem whatsoever with objective sharing of information.

Editors: Please reference my repeated discussions on Ankerberg/Weldon for but one example of such information. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have yet again asserted that Ray’s list of names is a recollection. Again you fail to prove this assertion. If you can prove this claim why don’t you prove it and be done with it. If you are unable to prove this claim then why do you keep asserting it? Otherwise, your assertions of me on this point are false. I have not claimed to have seen a document held by Ray with names of translators. I have not said Ray’s list of names is probably incomplete. I have said neither Cetnar nor Franz presented their names as though it was complete. Apparently you fail to grasp the difference is these two statements.

Editors: Preposterous suggestion that anyone should prove what these men don't possess -- only R Franz and Cetnar can prove that it is not recollection by providing documented evidence. Writing what they remember seeing or remember hearing is, by definition, a recollection. That these references are from personal memiors (pure personal bias) is self-evident. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I agree it is impossible for you to prove Ray Franz does not possess documents from which he wrote the names of NWT translators. I have already said this, and now you finally admit it yourself!!! So why did you assert that Ray Franz wrote is “based on recollection”? Ray Franz has not said his statement was “based on recollection”. You asserted this. Hence it is for you to prove. But, now you have already admitted you cannot prove this. It is circular for you to say “it is self-evident”. You, in essence, are saying Ray wrote only from memory because I say so. It is absurd.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the “soapbox” is the Criticism Section. If you do not want readers to read NWT criticism then you should be advocating that this Section of the article be deleted. What do you think a Section for criticism is for?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the criticism section is not a soapbox. An encyclopedic 'Criticism' section should explain what criticisms exist, but should not weigh into the controversy. It is a fine line, but the former presents an issue, the latter is POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Did you fail to notice the quotation marks about the term soapbox? Or, is this just another one of your selective reads? Not a single one of my entries in the article weigh in on the criticisms or controversies. My use of the term was/is as expressed in the context of my statement: the Section on criticism is there precisely to share verifiable information regarding criticism of the NWT. If Cfrito does not like this then what on earth does he think the Section is for in the first place? Of course I know that no article in an encyclopedic work is a soapbox in the traditional sense of the word, and I have not said otherwise. You really are starting to apply selectivity to your reading and remarks. It is telling.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The list of alleged translators is not a critique of the NWT, it is a criticism of the translators' wish to remain anonymous. It has no place here for that very reason. If a critique of the NWT is that the translators are unknown, then that is what should be stated, and even referencing why the critics feel that it is important. F Franz should be listed as the Editor in the History section because it is a historical fact of the NWT. Criticisms of the NWT should be limited to linguistic matters. Theological matters should not be considered here, but in other places dealing with the religions themselves.

Here is a case in point. In reference [28] the entire website is dedicated to theology, the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. In the opening paragraph of the referenced article they write the impetus for their review: "The Jehovah’s Witnesses constitute a large and aggressive sect which has opposed the doctrines of biblical Christianity from its inception." Ankerberg and Weldon are doctors of theology and philosophy and this site takes them to task over their "credentials". Just about every article example is about trinity vs. anti-trinity translation, but it is always a restatement of what another scholar has already said or some theological rant. While the references they cite are generally valuable from an encyclopedic perspective, their assessment is POV: they are clearly biased televangelists. They are nothing more than a wrapper around other scholars' words that have already been referenced in the Article. Thus this reference is nothing more than a theologically based summary and not a valid scholarly critique of the NWT. They simply parrot Bowman, Countess, Metzger, etc. And since those references are already present in the Criticism section, adding them again by virtue of this "wrapper website" is redundant and adds undue weight to their quoted platitude. The majority of the Criticism section needs to be revamped to show only legitimate criticism without inadvertant redundancies and theological websites that are bent on debating trinitarian doctrine. -- cfrito (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The names of alleged translators is information. For decades NWT critics claimed poor translation skills of the NWT translators, and for this reason requested either the names and/or credentials of its translators in an effort to determine why these translated as they did. The refusal of Watchtower to provide just the credentials of these translators itself became a subject of criticism of the NWT because no reason was provided for why this simple request was refused. If, as the Watchtower claims, the work was done by competent scholars then providing their credentials does no more than substantiate what it has already asserted.

It is true that Anderberg and Weldon hold strong theological views. But it is false that these views are the sole point of criticism they offer of the NWT. If you read their entire critique of the NWT you will find plenty of criticism constructed around purely academic issues of biblical language and translation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Virtually all the criticisms on the Ankerberg/Weldon website list words to the effect, 'because such a rendering denies the diety of the Christ.' This is purely theological. In support of their case, they cite other critics who have been named in the criticism section already. They are simply parroting others, except when they embark on their own theological diatribe. That makes this source redundant and adds undue weight to already named sources by disguising recursive crticsm references as unique. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding anti-sources:

Regarding complaints of using sources such as Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience, the following statement from a well trained and known sociologist is reason for pause:

Editors: Singelenberg is himself a virulent anti-writer against JW's. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

“For the objective researcher, Awake! should have the same value as its most virulent anti-writing. Therefore it is not surprising that Alfs omits any reference to the generally well-received and moderate criticisms of the Society in Penton's Apocalypse Delayed and Franz's Crisis of Conscience.” (Singelenberg, Richard, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 00218294, Jun92, Vol. 31, Issue 2)

The point made is that a neutral perspective requires attributing equal value to primary source material (in this case, Watchtower publications) as we attribute to anti-primary source material (in this case, Ray Franz). It also deserves note that third-party authors do not treat Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience as a less than authoritative presentation. Rather, these authors treat Ray’s book for what it is, a presentation from a former high ranking official among ranks of the Watchtower organization, and they use it accordingly with that disclaimer. In other words, third-party authorities do not treat Ray’s work as unauthentic, but they are always, and rightly, careful to point out the conflict of interest between the Watchtower and Ray due to his disfellowshipping. Using relevant information from a source such as this is academically sound so long as it is has proper disclosure and it is not given undue weight, such as by presenting something that is a minority presentation as though it represents a majority view.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: R Franz is not an authority on Bible languages (either by education or by virtue of a demonstrated skill in the art) or translation principles. Nor is he being used to address the veracity of the NWT work itself. This sociologist's opinion on who was nicer to whom in the dispute between R Franz and the WTB&TS is irrelevant. -- cfrito (talk)

Cfrito: Well, well! Apparently training and education are deemed by you important when it comes to treating biblical languages! Otherwise your complaint that “R Franz is not an authority on Bible languages (either by education or by virtue of a demonstrated skill in the art) or translation principles” has no merit whatsoever. Thank you. Looking for merit is why NWT critics have asked for credentials of NWT translators, and is also why denial of this request becomes a NWT critique of its own.

Editors: The Criticism section is for verifiable, vetted sources of criticism on the subject of the Article -- the NWT. R Franz's remarks have absolutely nothing to do with the Article nor are they criticisms of the NWT -- they are completely out-of-subject and have no place here for that reason. The translators of the NWT, whoever they might be, have made every assertion they will ever make in the NWT itself and they can be completely tested as-is. A critic must supply his credentials. If one asserts that "2+2=4" it is not relevant from whom they learned it, nor do they need any specific rights or authorizations granted to assert it. However, if someone says, "no that is wrong, 2+2 is not = 4" then the burden of proof is on the accuser and they may be asked to submit why they should be taken seriously.

The NWT is the subject, not the translators. If application Colwell's Rule or Granville-Sharp are at issue, reference comments or a quote of who have verifiable expertise take the stage on the exact point of criticism. To say that the translators didn't learn Colwell's rule from any particular place so as to dismiss something out-of-hand is weak and cowardly. If the translated passages are at issue, take issue with passages. On one website I counted about 15 verses that the publishing theologians had issues with (and not just the NWT, but the KJV and others too), and virtually all aimed at the NWT were because they 'denied the deity of the Christ'. If one includes all the verses -- including those with the NT Divine Name principle -- it amounts to maybe 275 verses. Out of over 31,000. That's under 1% in dispute. But if inserting the Divine Name where there is no direct manuscript support for it is "special pleading", then so is taking it out where there is direct manuscript support: On that basis alone, the critics of the NWT by-and-large support a 6,828 verse methodical mistranslation. That's an error ratio of a single error of 4.4%. Moreover, undue weight qualifiers such as "many verses" and "severe criticism" are out of place. "Two dozen verses" or "275 verses" are more appropriate. Or "Emotionally charged criticism" or just "Criticism" would suffice and removes bias and undue weight.

The point is that this Article is about the veracity NWT. To be balanced and neutral it should include critical comments about the NWT's specific renderings at challenge, but excluding platitudinous ones such as those from Ankerberg and Weldon and Rowley. If Rowley can be quoted as saying 'Verse X misapplies Rule Y for Reason Z,' then fine, include it. But his sweeping remarks as they exist now are pure POV. Someone explain to me how Ankerberg's quote or Rowley's quote evidences in what way the NWT is biased or improperly translated. A neutral presentation of critical comments should not leave the Reader with the impression that only the NWT is alone in its more controversial renderings unless it indeed is. And it should be made clear in an introductory remark that the critics are general competing theologians with their own particular biases and predispositions and much of the criticism is not black-and-white grammatical ones (even those tend to be argumentative), but gray theological issues. -- cfrito (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You say, “Criticism section is for verifiable, vetted sources of criticism on the subject of the Article”. Who says the Criticisms Section is only for peer reviewed criticisms, besides you that is? While I agree vetted sources hold an advantage over unvetted sources, I am unaware of any policy or guideline asserting what you do above. Please explain yourself.

You say, “A critic must supply his credentials”. Who says a critic must supply his or her credentials, besides you that is? While criticism has less impact when done without disclosure of credentials, I am unaware of any policy or guideline asserting what you do above. Please explain yourself.

Given your address of this, perhaps editors should begin an article specifically about the New World Translation Committee, and then link to that article from this one on the NWT. Would that suit you? Should this occur, there is even more information that editors can get into about this committee. Three are sources other than the NWT where this committee has presented itself.

It is laughable that you strain yourself trying to discount the response of Rowley to the NWT. I doubt you’ve even read the article cited containing Rowley et al’s response to the NWT in order to know why they say what they have said. What you apparently fail to grasp is that when a renown academic like Rowley goes on record with the opinion he offered, it is noteworthy as that learned person’s conclusion in relation to their relevant education and training.

By the way, a person who asserts 2+2=4 has a burden to prove it in the face of challenge, which in this case is 4-2=2. If the individual is unable to offer this proof then, understandably, their credentials are challenged just as much as a person who asserts 2+2=3. Now you should go back and prove all your ridiculous assertions above that you have, so far, failed to verify with anything other than your opinion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: A quote from Shilmer himself: Dtbrown: ... When the subject and evidence of an existing consensus within the vetted literature was raised by me you avoided any pursuit of it despite my repeated requests....I am more than happy to consider evidence from whomever brings it forth, and it matters not one iota to me whether it happens to agree or disagree with a view I may hold at the time... -- Marvin Shilmer 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) In this quote Shilmer feigns to consider any legitimate research. But when another editor presented such we find Shilmer taking the opposite approach: Jeffro77: ...When you decide to actually interact with the information provided from third-party vetted sources feel free to chime in. In the meantime, your ad hominem serves no purpose. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Above he accuses me of being the only one who insists on vetted sources. Knowing that he blows in the wind, I admit to teeing this one up. I'm fed up with his demanding answers, then giving them only to have him accuse me of not answering him. It wearies all but him, and it is just cheap theatrics to exhaust everyone with his childish "I know you are, but what am I? first-grader games. Well, here's verifiable proof the guy is as biased as they get, constantly switches positions to suit his chopping away at anyone he sees as an opponent to his agenda. I believe that he should be censured for his bullying and his deceitful and misleading nature. -- cfrito (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As for Singelenberg’s remarks, the point of offering it is to demonstrate that an objective perspective does not put a primary source’s assertions above those of an anti-primary source. You want editors to use one source and deny the other! Such an approach denies NPOV presentation, something Wikipedia policy forbids.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Singelenberg's remarks are misapplied here. The NWT has made no negative assertions about anyone. And they are misinterpreted too: Singelenberg actually said that these things should be given equal weight, not that they are given equal weight in by an average reader. -- cfrito (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: you wrote, “Singelenberg actually said that these things should be given equal weight”. (Emphasis added) Well said!!! So, why are you fighting contrary to what you agree “should be”?Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The list of translators is not a criticism of the NWT. It is out-of-subject, and it is a recollection from a memoir. It should not be included here. I support listing F Franz in the History section as Editor. If the list were verified fact, it should be in the History section too. If it is not, it should not appear anywhere. Furthermore, remaining anonymous is a criticism of the translators and their wish. At best it is a perceived weakness and should be listed in the criticism section as such. Knowing if Tom, Dick or Harry translated Phil 2:6 makes no difference on whether it is correct or not. No one has ever shown that it does, it only makes the debate personal and not linguistic. -- cfrito (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Of course “the list” of translators is not a criticism of the NWT; no one has said otherwise. The criticism is of the lack of credentials of the named translators; translators responsible for the NWT as reported by two independent eyewitnesses.

You write, “If the list were verified fact…” Here are two questions for you: 1) If the Watchtower organization published a document naming the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? 2) If a group of heretofore anonymous individuals independently published a document claiming themselves as the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the questions above? Is it an attempt at some 'slippery slope' argument about what constitutes a verifiable source? Do you actually have access to those hypothetical sources? If so, present them. If not, the questions are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: My questions are to elicit from Cfrito what s/he would accept as a verifiable source for the informaiton in question. Cfrito has complained and complained about verification as though the information presented (names of translators) is somehow unreliable. Well now it's time for Cfrito to put his or her money where his or her mouth is and state what s/he would accept as a source for this information. If Cfrito is unwilling to answer the two questions above and express what would be, to him or her, acceptable sources then all Cfrito's complaints are mere whines.

It is no slippery slope to ask an editor to provide testable information, and this is my request. For Cfrito's complaints to have any merit then his objection of verifiabiliy has to have a solution. My questions ask Cfrito to go on record with a solution to his complaint. Then we will examine his solution for any sense.

The very reason why the sources of which you ask about Cfrito's acceptance don't exist invalidates the purpose of your request.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Please explain this to Cfrito! He is the one that, apparently, does not understand this, and is why his complaints have no validity whatsoever. That is, based on Cfrito's stated parameters to date, there is no way anyone could verify the translators or their credentials. But in the real world of academia eyewitness and firsthand sources are used all the time so long as the testimony carries weight of authority based on position or proximity that is verifiable. Were we to accept Cfrito's self-serving criteria for what amounts to verifiable information we would have to reject publication of any and all insider information, even when the sources publish their accounts and can prove their disposition in relation to the information. I believe the reason Cfrito refuses to answer the questions posed to him or her is because he or she knows that to answer the question would be just on more time he or she refuted their own assertion. So far the editor going by the name Cfrito has not demonstrated one iota of academic prowess or training. All he or she has demonstrated is a playground mentality where POV rules.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again for Cfrito: 1) If the Watchtower organization published a document naming the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? 2) If a group of heretofore anonymous individuals independently published a document claiming themselves as the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer should desist from the game-playing. The desire of the NWT translators to be kept anonymous should be stated in the criticism section as a perceived weakness on the grounds that it disallows any review of personal training or theological bias. But it has been demonstrated time and again that such things have no bearing or are valid predictor on whether a given NWT rendering is supportable linguistically -- it lends itself only to personal assaults on the translators. (As if the statements "I have never given you the right to call an fish a "fish"! Who do you think you are?!?" is anything short of profoundly ridiculous.) It should also be mentioned that the NWTTC are not alone in requesting anonymity: other translators of unaffiliated translations have done likewise. Clearly, the list is purely trivia. If, on the other hand, the actual NWT translators make themselves known of their own free will, then they should be listed in the History section because it could no longer be classified a criticism in and of itself. Any third-party testimony should be considered dubious because it would contravene the wishes of the translators themselves and would by definition be purely accusatory and likely incomplete or misleading. If the NWT publisher reveals them, then so be it, but it should then be removed as a criticism (the sequestering) and self-revealed or publisher-revealed names listed and source-referenced in the History section. As for Shilmer demanding resolution, he should address his own four-day-apart contradictions on whether vetted sources or not should be used (since he argues both for and against, as the provided quotes prove) and then he further should explain why he takes a counter-position with me on this Talk page then he did on another Talk page saying falsely it is only I who ever said that vetted sources are preferred. Only when he answers himself -- beyond the trite, 'I've addressed that already in spades' nonsense -- does he deserve answers in return. His anti-JW bias has been exposed and he is not a credible source himself, in light of his own Singelenberg reference he is a virulent anti-writer and his commentary and writings should be dismissed. -- cfrito (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I am not game-playing. I am asking you serious questions in response to your complaints. You demonstrate ability to hit keys on your keyboard. Now why not try hitting keys in answer to straightforward questions asked of your assertions and positions?

There is no evidence that the NWT translators asked the Watchtower organization to keep their CREDENTIALS anonymous. Credentials is what critics have requested and repeatedly denied. The NWT is UNIQUE in this respect, which is one thing making it a subject of criticism. This latter point is something I doubt you grasp.

Again for Cfrito: 1) If the Watchtower organization published a document naming the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? 2) If a group of heretofore anonymous individuals independently published a document claiming themselves as the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

As someone who really doesn't care either way (NPOV) -- giving both lists and their sources and stating that the Watchtower has not published the names is the correct way to go. For R. Franz, I believe he left and then was disfellowshipped for leaving. NPOV would state that as well.

The intensity of this debate is WAY beyond what is warranted. I don't believe the Watchtower has responded to R. Franz that these specifically named individuals did NOT work on the book. They do not need to list the names of the translators in order to state as a positive counter that the ones he named did not.

As such, R. Franz's list remains unopposed, and any third party observer should give it weight from that fact as well.

In reality, who cares? It gives the JW POV. The NIV gives an Evangelical POV. The NAS remained unnamed for decades, but affirmed that the translators signed a statement of faith -- establishing their POV.

This is what it is: a JW translation, giving the JW POV in contrast to other translations that give their POV. BeDuhn seems to favor their POV. Metzger and others do not.

Saying that Metzger said thus and so does no harm. Saying that R. Franz said thus and so does no harm. Both are factual statements. Both sources are notable. This should be a no brainer.

Excluding them, and fighting so hard to do so -- now THAT is POV.Tim (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim: A NPOV would state that R Franz left the JW organization and was later disfellowshipped (if that is indeed what happened). It would not state it was 'because of X': Any conclusion is purely speculative and R Franz cannot be relied upon to be completely candid and truthful (nor is it relevant as to the veracity of the NWT why he was DF'ed). Metzger is a scholar and commented on the NWT work and so it is material and germane. R Franz is not, and only comments about the JW organization. Include Metzger, R Franz has his own page for saying whatever he wants. Agree completely with your assessment of the translation sources and inherent biases of the translators. In fact, Furuli's book is an excellent review of how the bias mechanism is at work in all translations. And for the record the only thing I have asked to exclude was the alleged translator list and for reasons of reliability, relevance, and that it relied on recollections published in memoirs. The list is an alleged list, and it turns attention away from the NWT to people that may or may not be the translators and turns the matter from linguistic and translative to theological. There are established forums for the controversies surrounding JW's. Put it there instead. -- cfrito (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the question about POV and NPOV, I was wandering, is there any other article for a Bible translation that has a section or even a anti-article about criticism?--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewWorldTranslation blk-hdcovr.png

Image:NewWorldTranslation blk-hdcovr.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Before reforming the whole article...

The editors of the article are kindly requested to show me how Bruce Metzger is connected with this statement and its source:

Severe criticism of the NWT by recognized experts such as Dr. Bruce Metzger has stirred additional criticism by virtue of the Watchtower organization’s promise to keep names of translators anonymous. [48]

The source, under footnote 48, doesn't mention B. Metzger at all.

Please correct me if I am wrong or correct the article.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Good catch. I fixed the problem. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now it is better. By the way, do you have the article of Bruce Metzger available? I would like very much to read it.--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

Allow me to add that we have a really funny case that has little to do with an encyclopaedia: There is no official record of the names of the translators. We take the unofficial scenario of Ray Franz, and then we criticize the credentials of the supposed translators based on this scenario. Are you serious, guys? Is this an encyclopaedia or an anti-sectarian site?--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Agreed. Quite literally my original request for edit review and subsequent edit involved removing an uncorroborated list of alleged translators. Such a list is trivia at best. The entire Criticism section is a bit out of place to be sure, but if it must exist, then it should restrict itself to criticisms of the NWT texts, sans the sweeping platitudes by competing theologians. -- cfrito (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The names of the translators are not the issue. The issue is the qualifications (training credentials and level of experitise) of the translators. Critics have most certainly inquired about the authority for certain translation renderings of the NWT. On this point, an objective analysis of “why” must included questions of training and level of expertise in order to avoid needless assumption of bias in translation. Do you have a reason why Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s independent lists of names should be dismissed in regard to the qualifications and training of NWT translators?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Utter nonsense. The NWT gives all that is necessary to mount a scholarly review of the work. Plenty of scholars have been able to offer their criticisms without knowing. Shilmer is just grinding his axe one more time. Pure POV. -- cfrito (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I am not the one who requested credentials of the NWT translators. Critics are the ones who made this request. Not the names. The credentials. The reason annalists would request this information is already expressed above.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: It is not Wikipedia's charter to be a clearinghouse for the demands of detractors of any particular work. I believe that we can close this matter leaving out the alleged list of translators. -- cfrito (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We must stay on the facts. The fact is that WTBS hasn't published the translators' names and that this policy has been criticized by A, B, C scholars. The rest is science fiction. Of course, you could put in a footnote that the ex-governing body member R.F., though not being himself present during the procedure of the translation, speculates A, B, C, as members of the translation committee and questions their qualifications. That's all folks.

And you have to know something else. If NWT was really such an amateurish work, as it is presented by some conspiracy theorists, then The Anchor Bible Dictionary, The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and the Word Bible Commentary wouldn't have taken it into account at all. My personal conclusion is that even the scholars who have criticized NTW do not criticize usually the project as whole but specific verses, which are rendered, according to their opinion, with bias. It is very different to say that five or ten verses are translated with bias than to reject the whole work as amateurish and full of mistakes.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You write, “Of course, you could put in a footnote that the ex-governing body member R.F., though not being himself present during the procedure of the translation, speculates A, B, C, as members of the translation committee and questions their qualifications.”

In case you have not noticed, the information in dispute is now, and has been for some time, in a footnote. I am the editor who put it there. So what are you complaining about?

You are wrong saying that Ray Franz was not “present during the procedure of the translation”. The NWT Committee did not disband in 1961 when the complete NWT was first published. The NWT Committee continued to operate as a translating committee since that time. Particularly during the years Ray Franz was a governing body member (October 1971 – May 1980) the NWT Committee undertook a revision of the NWT, which was published in 1981. Hence Ray Franz’s tenure on the governing body was concurrent with an operational NWT Committee. Additionally, the Watchtower department responsible for checking the translation of this committee for accuracy was/is the editing (writing) department. Ray Franz not only worked in that department every day but was also on the committee that oversaw the complete goings on of that department. From the get-go you have been wrong by asserting Ray Franz’s tenure at Bethel was not concurrent with the workings of the NWT committee.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The statement: "According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary, the NWT is one of the major Bible translations in English." has been added to the intro. The import of the statement is unclear. It may imply endorsement by Harper's. The statement therefore requires a clearer context. Particularly, in what way is it (or does Harper's view it as) a 'major' translation? The value of including the statement at all is questionable. I will removed it if no one objects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it questionable? Because you don't have the exact text of the citation? Do you want to play a game? I will give you the exact passage of the Harper's Bible Dictionary, and you will bring me the exact texts of all the critics, and if you don't have the texts of the citations, but you and others have just copied and pasted what you read here and there in the internet, we will erase these citations as questionable. Do you agree?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78, your tone is argumentative, and ignores the point of what I wrote. And don't purport to know how I will respond. Re-read what I actually wrote, and respond accordingly. The value of the statement is questionable, because aside from implying endorsement by Harper's, there's not a lot of benefit. It is left unclear to the reader how "major" a translation it is, or how important such a statement is in Harper's. Wikipedia articles on other bible translations do not use Harper's as a reference to determine popularity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The word "major" is exactly the word used by the Harper's Bible Dictionary. The interpretation of the word is left to the readers. It may mean "important," "succesful," something like that I suppose. In addition, the dictionary says nothing about critisism against the NWT. On the contrary, it speaks about critisism against the Revised Standard Version. You raised another issue:

You have answered your own question. The statement refers to a work which superfluously leaves the interpretation of the meaning to the readers. It is therefore of no value to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The value of the statement is questionable, because [...] it is left unclear to the reader how "major" a translation it is, or how important such a statement is in Harper's. Wikipedia articles on other bible translations do not use Harper's as a reference to determine popularity

And I have some questions: Why are you hastening to exlude a positive comment about NWT and, at the same time, you are ready to add whatever negative? Isn't that NPOV?

Because the 'positive' statement is completely subject to the reader's interpretation, and is therefore not at all informative. If you want to include it in a list of testamonials somewhere, Wikipedia is not the place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the value of Harper's Bible Dictionary? It is made by the Society of Biblical Literature and is one most used Bible dictionaries in English.

I did not question the value of the publication, I questioned the value of a specific statement as it relates to the Wikipedia article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand:

1. What is the value of this source: That this was purposefully translated in order to deny the traditional view that Jesus is God. [36] (36: Martin, Kingdom of the Cults (!!!), pages 85-89)?
2. Is this a site we can trust: That the addition of a second smaller "god" (Jesus) to the bigger "Jehovah God" (the Father) in the translation introduces polytheism into the New Testament (Martin and Bruce Metzger)[41] (41: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html)?

None of the comments is with bibliographical data. And not to forget, the matter of "polytheism" has nothing to do with the grammatical documentation but with the religious viewpoint someone has.

1. What is the value of the opinion of the North American Mission as regards Biblical translation? No value actually.
2. What is the value of ex-JWs who did not participate in the NW translation project? If I leave JWs and publish a book and say that I was the translator, would that have any scholarly value?
3. Is it reasonble, finaly, the 1/3 of an article about a Bible translation to be about the criticism?
4. Is it reasonable to examine in an encyclopedic article ONE Biblical verse (John 1:1) in order to criticize to whole translation project?

The above tirade is completely irrelevant to the point being addressed, and I have never endorsed any of the statements you list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards, --Vassilis78 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you just want to attack someone because you imagine them to be 'persecuting' you, or your religion, or whatever, find someone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro,

If you haven't endorsed any of the above statements that decorate the article as documentary elements of encyclopaedic interest, I suppose you won't have any problem if I proceed to a clearing out.

In saying that I haven't endorsed something myself, it doesn't automatically mean that all of the sources are not appropriate (for example, a source having the objectionable title, "Kingdom of the Cults", does not automatically invalidate all of the content of that work), however some of them could probably go, if not for any reason other than brevity. I am not the only editor with whom you should discuss extreme modifications to the Criticism section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the Harper's, this is the exact passage:

Modern Translations: The modern era in Bible translation began with the Twentieth Century nt of 1901-2. The translators—mostly laymen and laywomen—did a remarkable job of producing a scholarly and faithful translation into clear and idiomatic English. One of the consultants of the group was Richard Francis Weymouth, a London classical scholar who in 1866 published an edition of the Greek nt. His translation of this text was published posthumously in 1902. But it was the Scottish scholar James Moffatt whose New Testament: A New Translation (1913) had the greatest impact upon the reading public. His translation of the ot appeared in 1924, and the whole Bible was revised in 1935. Moffatt was at work translating the Apocrypha when he died in 1944. Ernest J. Goodspeed was the American counterpart of Moffatt. His nt was published in 1923; the ot, translated by a panel headed by J. M. Powis Smith, was published with the Goodspeed nt in 1935 as The Bible, an American Translation. In 1938 Goodspeed translated the deuterocanonicals, and The Complete Bible: an American Translation came out in 1939

Many major translations of the Bible into English have appeared in the United States and Great Britain in the last thirty years: Monsignor Ronald Knox’s translation of the Bible from the Vg (1955); the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961); The Jerusalem Bible, the English version of La Bible de Jérusalem (1966), which has the most comprehensive and scholarly readers’ helps of any Bible in English at this time; the New American Bible (1970), the first Catholic Bible in English translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts; The New English Bible (1970), a new translation, rather than a revision of earlier translations, produced by a group of scholars from the British Isles that included experts in both Bible and English literature; the Good News Bible (1976), sponsored by the American Bible Society (edition with deuterocanonicals, 1979); and the New Jewish Version, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures by American Jewish scholars (1982).

The rsv was condemned as unfaithful by the vast majority of American conservatives, and several translations have been made with the purpose of providing conservatives a translation they would accept, such as the Amplified Bible (1965), the Modern Language Bible (1969), and the New American Standard Version (1971). The culmination of this process was reached in 1978 with the publication of the New International Version, produced by an international team of conservative Protestant scholars ‘with a high view of Scripture,’ as they described themselves. Although it is not a translation, Taylor’s The Living Bible, a Paraphrase (1971) may also be mentioned.

So according to Harper's Bible Dictionary, the major English Bible translations are (with chronological order):

1. Knox
2. New World Translation
3. The Jerusalem Bible
4. The New English Bible
5. The Good News Bible
6. The New Jewish Translation

I hope this information be helful.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. The full quote in context indicates the NWT to be a major translation of modern translations of the last thirty years, which neither endorses nor diminishes the work, so inclusion of the reference is still of only incidental value.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of references

Vassilis78 has removed several references in reaction to my removal of an edit made by him, though he acknowledges that the reference he inserted provides no definitive information. To avoid perceived bias of me by Vassilis78, I call upon other editors to establish the suitability of the references Vassilis78 has removed, and reinstate them if necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong and anjust, Jeffro. You removed one of the most scholarly sources because it calls NWT a "major translation" of the English Bibles, and you don't like the removal of unscholarly references with no bibliographical data. The whole article generally, as it happens with many religious articles in the Wikipedia, is very far from the encyclopedic scope and needs further reformation. But I don't see that you are really interested in the quality of the article. Your main focus is to discredit NWT. On the other hand, I will soon give my proposal for the whole article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference in question after you admitted that the context of 'major' translation is unclear, and only leaves the reader to subjective interpretation. That is why I removed the reference, and any other assessment is imagined.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your British English are very good, Jeffro, and I don't see why you see Harper's statement as unclear enough to erase it.

Major (according to Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary):

1. greater in dignity, rank, importance, or interest *one of the major poets*
2. greater in number, quantity, or extent *the major part of his work*
3. having attained majority
4. notable or conspicuous in effect or scope : CONSIDERABLE *a major improvement*

--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted the statement to reflect that Harper simply includes the NWT in a list of major modern translations, rather than the previous potentially misleading statement that could imply that Harper specifically endorsed the NWT. Hopefully this will be satisfactory for you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your adjustment is welcomed. Your comments ("misleading"...) are not. Please, if you have time, make a summary of the criticism mentioning the serious sources and not the paraphernalia. As you said, there is a main article for the NWT controversy. If you don’t have time, I can do the job on the weekend.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was "potentially misleading" becuase the statement was vague and not completely reseprentative of the statement in the source. The intent was subject to readers' interpretation and was therefore "potentially misleading". I will not have time to make any major considerations of the article until at least the weekend.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No speculation???!!! They were not members of the NWT project! At least, bring the passage of R. Franz and of the others so that we may see exactly what they say.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I think you are confusing debated information with speculation. To speculate means to guess. Nothing suggests that Ray Franz or William Cetnar were guessing when these named individuals known to them as members of the NWT committee. In each case the writers asserted sure knowledge. Whether readers want to accept this assertion is, of course, up to each one; hence the debate. But it remains that neither Franz nor Cetnar expressed a speculation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The NWT publishing figures are 100 million as of CY2000. If extrapolated linearly, that means that as of 2007, the figure is more like 115 million. JW's nearly always place these with individuals for the purposes of individual study, as compared with others who seed nightstands and libraries with theirs. Given the number of active readers and studiers of this translation and the impact on the scholarly community it has had, it would be hard to dispute that it is "minor" in significance. The Harper's reference bears that out. -- cfrito (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, have a look also at BeDuhn's comments about the major translations in English in his forward. He says something similar.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: As to R Franz and Cetnar, there cannot be a debate about the truthfulness of the list published about the alleged translators: it either is, or it is not, correct. Since it simply an assertion by two people with known extreme bias and without any documentary evidence (other than the penning of their own recollections in memoirs), is can only be classified at this time as speculative. The debate is between individuals and groups regarding the decision of the translators themselves to remain anonymous, and whether R Franz and Cetnar have a motive to lie, mislead, or even unwittingly publish names erroneously. Without corroboration from the translators themselves or the publisher the list is inarguably speculative. Indeed, The American Heritage Dictionary defines "speculate": To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. A debate most often means a contention of points of view. The list is not challenged from a point of view, but rather that it cannot be independently verified and thus is subject to doubt, particularly given the bias of those asserting them, and that the two asserters are not in 100% agreement despite each one's claim to 'know the truth'. The "list itself" fits the definition of speculative perfectly. It has indeed given rise to a contention but that is not what I understand constitutes a debate. Should Shilmer, for example, argue over my assertion that casting a contention as a debate is substandard, a debate would ensue, but the list would remain a speculation. -- cfrito (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "the two asserters are not in 100% agreement" is flawed. If person A says "A, B & C" are letters of the alphabet, and person B says that "A, B, & D" are letters of the alphabet, both are correct, and there is no disagreement at all. One (or both) source not including all of the names does not invalidate either list. There is no reason to doubt the list, because a) Franz had a position of authority in the organisation and worked closely with the individuals listed, b) the individuals listed are credible candidates, c) the list has never been denied as correct, d) there is no benefit to the author in the provided list being false. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: For an editor here to assert that Franz’s or Cetnar’s statements are speculative is to make an assertion that is unprovable because neither source has stated they were guessing based on inconclusive information, and both assert their knowledge as sure. This does not prove the veracity of the names they offer (that is evidenced by other mechanisms), but it does prove that these men were not speculating in what they wrote. According to Cetnar, who was working as translators on the NWT was common knowledge at Bethel at the time. (Bethel = world headquarters of Watchtower organization).

Regarding the axiom you parrot (p = q or –q), it would be fallacious to assert p = -q because you are unable to prove p = q. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, they were based on inconclusive evidence, since they never had any verbal or written report about the list of the NWTC members, but they just made their own conclusions. Me myself can raise a simple question: How can someone be sure that there were no non-Bethelite collaborators of the NWT project? I personally know that the writing department has collaborators and counselors beyond Bethelites, people who are specialists on their field. And I can assure you that these people are not known by the Bethel staff, they are known only by the those who take the lead in each project. So, the whole matter about the NWTC members is science fiction. And it is science fiction with no scholarly value. There are major scholars who easily write things that would please their sponsors, and anonymous or debated as regards their authorship works, like Illiad and Odyssey, which have worldwide acceptance as literary milestones.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: A premise for you remarks is that “they never had any verbal or written report about the list of the NWTC members”. You make this assertion and then use it as a premise toward a conclusion you prefer. Can you prove your assertion that “they never had any verbal or written report about the list of the NWTC members”? If not, then all you’ve done is argued circularly.

I believe there was at least one non-Bethelite collaborator involved with the NWT, but I am unable to prove it from published sources. On the other hand, neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar has suggested there were no non-Bethelite collaborators, so why do you think this is an issue?

It appears you are under a mistaken notion that Ray Franz and/or William Cetnar has asserted their list of NWT translator names is comprehensive. Neither man has suggested this. Both men have asserted the names of NWT translation committee members known to them. My working knowledge of Watchtower headquarters is that committee makeup changes according to circumstances. I doubt the NWT Committee of today is the same as it was in the late 1940s. Between then and now it has probably undergone many changes in personnel due to deaths, poor health, standing or infinite other reasons.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If they had a report, they would have said that: "The president told me that A, B, C were the members of the committee." Is is very simple. If you have any more enlightening details, we would be pleased to share it with us.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Because this is how you would have presented the information is not proof of anything other than that is how you say you would have presented the information. You are asserting a fallacious argument, and you just confirmed it. Cfrito has made the same mistake, repeatedly.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am positively sure that if they were ever told who the members of the NWTC are, they would have said that to support their claims. Their silence on this proves that what they say is their personal conclusion and nothing more than that. As for the "common knowledge" in Bethel you adduced, this is called in my country "rumour." Personally, I do not find it wise for someone to base his convictions on rumours.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: You have argued that had Ray Franz had a verbal or written report he would have cite that verbal or written report. This argument suggests a dilemma that either Ray Franz had a verbal or written report and he cited it or Ray Franz did not have a verbal or written report to cite. Since Ray Franz did not cite a verbal or written report then you conclude he had no verbal or written report to cite. This is a false dilemma because it ignores alternate events and actions. For example, Ray Franz could have had a verbal or written report but chose not to cite this and instead offer the information as his firsthand experience, which it would be in terms of information known or made know to him.

You have a terrible working understanding of the term “rumor”. Firsthand eyewitness testimony is not rumor. Rumor is hearsay; second hand information with no substantive basis. Neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar has asserted NWT translator names as information they were only told about. Rather, both men have presented this information as something they knew firsthand. Because William Cetnar asserts the names of NWT translators was common knowledge at Bethel is not to say William Cetnar’s knowledge of NWT translators was something he did not know firsthand. Again you have argued fallaciously.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Only Shilmer is flogging the dead horse known herein as the "alleged translator list" If R Franz or Cetnar has the documentation, let them provide it. Insistence on its inclusion as a critique of the NWT (laughable on its face) on the basis that "everyone knew", "common knowledge" "firsthand knowledge" when the two guys can't even agree on who should be on the alleged translator list is proof of pure foot-stomping by Shilmer. The alleged translators list's relevance is one of trivia, and so on. It's time to retire this matter and to the more important and productive task of cleaning up the entire Criticism section. Especially so if Vassilis78's work on F Franz's Ph.D is verified. This endless nonsensical argument over a speculation by three JW haters, where Shilmer persists in calling everyone else an idiot to get his way, has about run its course (in my opinion, that is). -- cfrito (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is one thing: verification from sources.

Any information I have included in this article is based on something other than my opinion. Conversely, you persist in pressing your own POV as though it equals what can be verified by source material. All your complaints of names presented by Franz and Cetnar have been thoroughly refuted. I appreciate you do not agree. But rather than you simply continuing to state disagreement why don’t’ you, instead, address the straightforward rebuttals with straightforward replies? You avoid questions and substantive bases left and right, and this in the record here for any reader concerned enough to read it.

It will be interesting to see how Vassilis78 handles the questions asked of his or her claim to having just yesterday visited “the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies.” To be sure, this could be a telling moment for the editor going by the name Vassilis78.

The horse I'm flogging is the one of demanding verification of information presented.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer has persisted in listing recollections from memoirs masquerading as reliable sources even though this is strongly recommended against by Wikipedia standards. Shilmer knows this, and it well covered above. He has aggressively supported the fiction that hearsay and personal character references from himself should suffice over facts and credible evidence and verifiable source material. When it suits him, he insists in an increasingly caustic and enraged way that editors demanding verifiable evidence from him prove that it doesn't exist, a fools errand, rather than simply providing it. Mr Shilmer doth protest too much, methinks.. When he is asked to produce evidence (as it should be for reasonable people) he assaults and abuses those asking, as if they had no right to ask that he comply with standards of excellence. He retreats to a predictable tactic of feigning obtuseness and commencing a battle of wits until those who seek balance become exhausted or frustrated or both. In this particular Article, he insists on placing undue weight on platitudes of detractors of the NWT as he well knows that many references he advocates simply cite each other as their scholarly authority, and the vast majority do so on theological (not linguistic) grounds. For example, he claims that F Franz's credentials (in an erroneous argument) aren't sufficient to qualify F Franz as a translator, but vehemently supports critics of the translation like Weldon and Ankerberg who are not ancient language scholars themselves. And a close examination of such references shows that they are simply paraphrasing the comments of Bowman, Countess, etc., that have already been cited. For example, these same references are largely repeated in the reference [56] from the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, Shilmer has not disclosed his bias as a prolific anti-JW writer even though I specifically asked for clarification in this regard. He is making a mockery of Wikipedia, and is likely principally responsible for this Article's "B" rating, given his undue influence on its contents. He ought to be banned from editing anything related to JW's and probably all Wikipedia Articles. And Shilmer's assault on Vassilis88 for a trumped-up lack of subtleness or for missing fine details of colloquial and idiomatic English are far more impolite and inexcusable than any intentionally misperceived coarse phrasing coming his [Shilmer's] way. -- cfrito (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section needs to be trimmed significantly. Much of the content belongs at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation, with just a summary of issues in this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Jeffro77 has a valid point. It seems that the Criticism sections (or what constitutes them) of the RSV, the KJV, the NASB or even ASV Articles might be good prototypes and guidelines. -- cfrito (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

In criticism it is said:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

Can you please provide bibliographical data for that?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: This data is available to anyone and everyone from archives of the University of Cincinnati. If you are unable to go in person (which is what I did) then, for a fee, you should be able to request Franz’s transcript from the University.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that I went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: What is the full and complete name on the transcript you allege? What are the dates of enrollment and completion of the doctorate you allege? What is the course work indicated on this transcript? What was his doctoral thesis? Specifically at what university would I find the transcript you allege? Truth is I want these details to check your story.

Finally, biblical studies is not training in biblical language translation.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, Marvin and whoever else is interested: Wikipedia is not the mirror of what we read in the Internet. We must base what we say on bibliographical data. "Go to University of Cincinnati" is not an answer. I can assure you that if Franz has taken 20 hours of ancient Greek, I have taken more that 200 hours and I have been studing the original text of the Bible for more than 12 years. Only in my congregation there are two linguists in ancient Greek, and the one, the P.O. of the congregation, is one of the most famous lexicographers in Greece. All of us know very well if NWT is an amateurish work or not, and we can provide much information in the NWT article. But our personal opinion about the NWT has no value for the Wikipedia. In Wikipedia we have to use sources. I think you know what I mean.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I have not offered Wikipedia as a mirror of anything, and frankly on this point I have no idea what you are trying to say. The documentation you question is presented formally and directly from the transcript itself.

Above you have made serious claim. You have said that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”. Now please answer these questions: What is the full and complete name on the transcript you allege? What are the dates of enrollment and completion of the doctorate you allege? What is the course work indicated on this transcript? What was his doctoral thesis? Specifically at what university would I find this transcript you allege?

Your statement conflicts with multiple published sources, and is not at all supported by Fred Franz’s own life story wherein he does express his formal education, and it does not include any PhD in biblical studies. There is every reason to doubt the integrity of what you claim and no reason yet to believe it. You need to answer for yourself.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, you don't seem to me as fool as you pretend. I just gave you a good answer to your "go to univerisity and check for yourself". This is not how we work here. I cannot say "Metgzer said that" and go to the library to check if it is so. If I write something positive of the NWT, your scholarly instict will immediately spur you to say: "Give us the bibliographical data!" I accept that, but do the same. This in not jehovahs-witnesses forum. This is Wikipedia.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: You asked for bibliographical data and I provided it. Whether you have access to a decent library is not my problem. The bibliographical data is the transcript itself! The only way you can know you have an authentic university transcript it to, get this, order it for yourself. Apparently you fail to grasp this fundamental.

Your “answer” was to assert that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”. Not only that, you edited the main article to read, “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.” If what you stated on the talk page and what you wrote in the main article are false, then you have lied, which makes you unfit as an editor! Did you lie? Yes or no?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is without documentation in Wikipedia is false. You should know that.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Yes. I know this perfectly well. This is why I am keen to provide source verification for my edits! Now please answer the question of your editing integrity! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are making progress, Marvin, but the Cincinnati University testimony is still without documentation. Please, find a way to documentate it, otherwise we will continue our discussion tommorow. I wish you all to have a good night.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The university transcript is the documentation. What about this do you fail to grasp?

Now, to your conduct as an editor,

You wrote on this talk page that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”.

You edited the article to read, “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.”

Did you LIE with your statement and edit? Yes or no?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope your agony to take an answer to your intelligent question won't disturb your repose tonight.--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: What’s the matter? Afraid to be honest and, as you say, tell what “The truth is”? (Emphasis added)

Did you LIE with your statement and edit? Yes or no? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will answer you if you answer me something else first. Have you yourself ever been at the university where F. Franz studied? Have you ever seen this specific document? Yes or no?--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The answer to your first question is, yes. The answer to your second questions is, yes.

Now, to your conduct as an editor,

You wrote on this talk page that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”.

You edited the article to read, “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.”

Did you LIE with your statement and edit? Yes or no? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. I just gave a good example of the value of your answer: "Go the university and check for your self." This answer is unacceptable in the Wikipedia. From the beginning of this discussion I am asking the bibliographical data of the file, and you refuse to give it. You want us to display confidence to your personal testimony, which is of no value for Wikipedia articles. So, by refusing to give bibliographical data, you manifestly show that you don't care at all for the rules of Wikipedia, and that your sole concern is to promote your ideas. Endorsement or criticism to NWT is acceptable when it has bibliographical support, mister. Whatever else, such as personal testimonies, is unacceptable. Since you don't seem to understand what I say, or you pretend that you do not understand, I will ask the help of administrators to tell us if your statement could be considered as bibliographical support. On the other hand, I have suspicions that you may be the LIAR, because you said above that you did go to Cincinnati University, but still you are unable to provide the file/archive number of the document. Since you spent the time to travel to the Cincinnati University in order to check Franz's credentials, why didn't you keep the file number and why didn't you take any photo of the document? If I was in your position, I would have done it. You spent so much time only to give your personal testimony? It doesn's sound very logical to me.

P.S. I want to explain something. The value of the translation has to do with the translators' academic credentials ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN POSITION TO APPRECIATE THE TRANSLATION ITSELF DUE TO THEIR IGNORANCE OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES. But the scholars who are in position to appreciate the translation itself do not depend on any credential of the translators. It is the translation that matters. To make it plain, when you give an exam, it is your paper that matters, not your identity. So the whole matter about the credentials has become hilarious indeed. On the other hand, my insistence on the subject has to do with the purposeful degradation of wiki-rules as regards the articles. This degradation brings propagandistic and misleading articles

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78's Dishonest Editing

Vassilis78: You have applied a dishonest edit within this article by knowingly inserting false information. You place an assertions of information into this article knowing perfectly well you had no basis whatsoever for the assertion. You did this despite contrary and verifiable information cited for your benefit. This is rank dishonest editing, and directly contrary to Wikpedia standards and policy.

You complain that you have to go to a library or archive to read for yourself a referenced source. This is what everyone has to do! This is the purpose of providing reference data in the first place. Providing reference data lets researchers/skeptics/critics go read the material first hand if they have reason to doubt it. By providing reference data I provide the means for checking the veracity of what I write. It is absurd for to complain that you have to get off your derriere and make a trip to the library, or actually request a university transcript from the source, to check sources. Editors here have no obligation to do your research for you by taking their own time and resources to provide you with copies of referenced material! Furthermore, the only way you can obtain a known valid university transcript is to request it yourself from the source! Apparently you are ignorant of this!

And, for your information, asking for "bibliographical data" is asking for reference data. The reference data is ALREADY provided in the citation, just like it is for all other cited sources. Your complaint is, essentially, that you do not have the actual referenced documents sitting in front of you, or that editors like me have no obligation to provide this service for you personal convenience.

For the umpteenth time, YES!!!!! I obtained copies of Franz’s university transcript in person!!! I have a copy in my library that I made while I was there!!! I do not provide information into an academic work without having the primary source material in my own possession to read it firsthand.

Editors: Possessing this transcript is not evidence that F Franz had no other formal training or no specifically tutored training in the areas of concern. I am not saying that Franz had more -- I have no idea, frankly -- but it is clear that proving what was completed educationally at one point in history cannot serve evidence one way or the other about what happened afterward. And there are plenty of people who perform at levels far exceeding what could be or was predicted by their formal training. For example Einstein did not learn Relativity from his professors, nor did the ancient Egyptians learn pyramid-building from the Oxford Divinity School. But Einstein produced Relativity and the Egyptians the pyramids notwithstanding. Given how few NWT verses are debated on linguistic grounds (25 perhaps?) it is impossible to argue that the translators lacked skill in the art of translating -- in any reasonable, scholarly way, at least. No translation of the Bible is without critics and no translation is unanimously considered perfect by all scholars. Indeed many of the sweeping platitudes Shilmer embraces have been asserted many, many times, and against many translators, over the centuries. When I added remarks to this effect Shilmer quickly deleted them, along with my references of the many translations that had even fewer translators than the NWT and that had a similar number of verses in contention. He just couldn't abide such balance it seems

Furthermore, Shilmer says he is presenting information based on his own research. He looked into Franz's education, and beyond the factual information it provides, Shilmer presents extrapolated conclusions based the document in combination with his own conjecture on its meaning that was no further training and that F Franz had insufficient skill. This constitutes original research and should be dismissed on that basis. -- cfrito (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I recommend you try reading what you would critique, and that you read it before offering your critique.

Since I have read the article and the referenced material, I’ll share a piece of information you have, apparently, not read. Franz’s university transcript is not the sole source verifying the information you question. Also cited are Franz’s published life story from The Watchtower, and research by author Ron Rhodes. I have read these sources. Have you?

The information you question addresses no more than Franz’s credentials of record in relation to translating biblical languages into English. Regarding English, it is telling that highly trained and esteemed scholars like Rowley have questions the NWT translators’ command of English as much as their command of biblical languages. Apparently you are unaware of this.

To my knowledge I have expressed no personal conclusions within this article, and you have not offered a single example of one, either. All you have done is hurl an accusation. If you believe I have presented a personal conclusion (original research; POV) then please quote the words. Then we have something to discuss.

In any event, editor Vassilis78 has disgraced this whole discussion and article--not to mention himself and Wikipedia--by knowingly and willfully inserting falsehood into the article, and that on top of lying in his interaction with editors on this talk page!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You have edited dishonestly! You disgrace yourself and Wikipedia! On top of this, you have demonstrated extremely poor academic prowess. From now on editors with an ounce of credibility will have no option but to question the integrity of your edits.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put the subject to the administrator's table. I will accept their opinion whatever it is. If you really had a copy of the file, you would have had its serial number of the archive. Your refusal to give any specific information for the file or to publicly present a photo of the file, which is, by the way, with no copyright, proves how invalid your claims are. I will discontinue discussion with you on this matter. I will just wait to see the administrators' opinion. Allow me to apologize for bringing you in this unpleasant situation, but I had no other choice. I wish you to have a nice day.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Your allegations of me are audacious and false. Your accusations are the work of a desperate person. I have never refused to give any specific information of or from the file. Indeed, in the citation I provided specifically offers details directly from the transcript. Only today in one of your many tinkering edits to your remarks above have you asked for additional detail from the transcript itself.

For your information, the registration number showing in the margin of Franz’s transcript appears to be 102-191172. It is written in script and hard to make out with certainty. But I am reasonably sure this is the number. The seven could be a nine. But I believe it is a seven.

It is nearly obscene that after your dishonesty and tasking me on this issue that you further lay a demand on me to “publicly present a photo of the file”. I have already expressed that for purposes of verification a copy like this is worthless. Apparently you are unaware that images can be digitally altered! Which is why verification of a transcript is possible only by means of getting it from the source. Also for your information, there is a copy of Franz’s transcript online that even a cursory Google search would find for you. Though such a copy is not known by you as authentic, it is there for the finding. Apparently you are so keen on having other editors do your research for you that you fail to even apply a basic online search! I have no intention of feeding your laziness. Do your own research!

You have demonstrated a willingness to insert false information into Wikipedia article content and assert it as true. This is disgusting behavior. Dishonest editing is worse than plagiarism! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Now that it appears you have finished tinkering with your latest pleading, it is false for you to say “you had no other choice”. You most certainly had another choice!

The choice you made was to assert a falsehood on the talk page by claiming to have accessed information when you had not. You did not have to assert this falsehood! The second choice you made was to assert a materially false claim into the article itself! You did not have to assert this falsehood, either. You made these choices purely at your own discretion, and both actions were something you had options for. In both instances the options were to tell the truth by refraining from asserting falsehood in the first place. It is ironic that you began this sorry episode of bad behavior with the prefatory remark, “The truth is”. What you asserted and the material edits you made in the article having nothing to do with truth and honesty and everything to do with dishonesty. Other editors should beware of your editing from now on!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Vassilis78's attempt for a reductio ad absurdum was quite successful, particularly taking into consideration his home culture and dialectic tradition. Regardless of your effort to discredit him, the truth is that we (the readers and editors of Wikipedia, that is) have nothing more than your word for the university document. You would have to either scan a copy of that file and present it to us (at which point it can be submitted to the University, in order to have its authenticity certified) or otherwise provide some verifiable bibliographical reference that would testify to your claim.

On the other hand, the fact that the document would essentially be of little value to the article, when one can only surmise that F.F. Franz was a member of the NWT committee, only goes to show that the whole conversation is redundant.

--Hieronymus (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hieronymus: I have not attempted to discredit Vassilis78. Rather, I attempted to learn 1) whether Vassilis78 lied to editors on this talk page and 2) whether Vassilis78 knowingly and willfully added false information into the article. He did both. Vassilis78 discredited himself.

Regarding the verifiability of Frederick Franz’s university transcript, it is false to assert you have ‘nothing more than my word’ for the authenticity of the document. The reason for this is right in front of your eyes. I provided means of testing the information provided by citing the source document. If you (or any editor) doubts the authenticity of the information I cite all you have to do is the same thing you would do were the citation from a published journal or book. You need only acquire the document and read it. To obtain a copy of this document all you have to do is contact the University of Cincinnati and request the transcript of Frederick W. Franz. When I requested this transcript in person all I needed was the name because, apparently, the Frederick W. Franz in question had been the only student at that university enrolled under that particular name. (Note: the actual transcript shows the spelling Frederic, but the archivist found the transcript using the name spelled Frederick)

Fred Franz was named by Cetnar and Ray Franz as a member of the NWT translation committee. But his qualifications for translating biblical languages into English arise for an additional reason, and one that is verified by Fred Franz himself in a statement made under oath and recorded in a judicial trial transcript. Fred Franz was the editor of the NWT, specifically assigned to check the translation for accuracy and correctness. Hence, when it comes to the NWT, Fred Franz’s qualification to translate ancient biblical languages into English is certainly relevant.

Let me as you a question. If an editor cites a journal article as a source of verification, are you of the opinion that it is the responsibility of that editor to supply you a copy of that article? Or, is it your obligation to locate the source material by doing your own research? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical Review

Editors: I have retitled "Criticism" to "Critical Review" to more accurately reflect the point-counterpoint nature of the section contents. Calling it Criticism" seems to make it a magnet for weblog style platitudes of detractors regardless of their academic lettering. This new section title is designed to make the contents more worthy of an academic work. We should all remember that while many of the comments and criticms of modern critics are aimed at the NWT, the NWT is not alone in garnering enemies to their renderings, and we should keep the references relevant to the translative work and not focus on policies of its publishers or work hard to ascribe sinister motives of its translators. We should also refrain from putting material that has been edited out by consensus in footnote references to perpetuate a personal agenda.

I have also moved F Franz as Editor of the NWT to a more appropriate place, the History section. -- cfrito (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Cfrito: Bold editing is one thing. Removal of verified information and persisting in adding unverified content is something else. You have done the latter. You have persisted in this despite warning. This is vandalism.

Regarding POV editing, these examples taken from your editing are for your benefit:

To write, “Criticisms of Bible translations are not new, and most are motivated by theological differences between the translators and their critics” is POV editing without verification. (Emphasis added) You provided no verification.

To write, “The most often cited criticisms are sweeping platitudes based on the emotions of theological scholars defending their theologies rather than criticisms on linguistic grounds” is POV editing without verification. (Emphasis added) You provided no verification.

Editors: Absolutely false charge, Shilmer is grandstanding. Thomas More considered both Tyndale and Luther heretics and condemned their translations ostensibly on linguistic grounds but later these were all seen by all as theological ones. Even More himself characterized them as "heresies". As soon as I can find the exact verifiable reference I will add a commonly attributed quote to Sir Thomas More, 'Finding errors in Tyndale's translation is like searching for water in the very seas.' I added the references for both More's famous heresy dialog and of Tyndale's reply. This evidences that although Tyndale's work is now largely heralded as landmark, at the time, More challenged his translation's accuracy (and he met with a gruesome end over it) but it was proved to be motivated by theological bias and ultimately dismissed the linguistic charges. The relevance here is that the same things are being said by theologically opposed critics of the NWT. The issue is exactly the same and Readers should be informed of this. Shilmer is just having a yet another temper tantrum. -- cfrito (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These two instances exemplify a great deal of your edits. If you need more examples feel free to ask.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer has characterized the two dozen or so texts under serious debate as "most" of the texts. Setting aside the two-dozen number (I have only ever been able to count 15 or so personally, but including that would be original research). In order to qualify for "most texts" the number in dispute would need to reach something like sixteen thousand! Shilmer is perhaps the most guilty of POV editing and undue weighting. He has also persisted in making the translators the central issue in the NWT Article, not the NWT itself largely because so few texts are actually challenged and there are serious supporters of many of the texts at issue. I believe that as long as Shilmer bullies this and the other JW pages they will always be rated a "B" project. -- cfrito (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Criticisms by scholars that do not reflect precisely on the veracity of texts have no place in this article, regardless of who said it, or where it was published. For a "scholar" to say "This is the biggest pile of rubbish I ever read!" or "This is a work of pure genius!" has no place here. Those are platitudes that bear no light on the validity of textual renderings. Furthermore, to recursively include references like Rowley's reference by virtue of a televangelist 's anti-JW/pro-trinitarian diatribe who essentially says 'I agree with Rowley because it agrees with my theology' adds undue influence to Rowley's comments without adding any insight whatsoever as to the translation accuracy. Theological sermons concern JW doctrine, beliefs and practices, and not on the accuracy of the NWT. Such commentary has no place in a critique of the NWT texts. Unless the commentary applies directly to the texts, it should be eliminated. A better home for that kind of ranting would be the JW Controversies Article. My edits have been thoroughly discussed and either silence (no contest) or agreement/consensus had already been reached before I made any such edits (we understand that unless it casts JW's in a bad light, Shilmer will object).

I welcome other Editors -- besides the rabidly anti-JW Shilmer -- to make some comments on my edits before we declare them heretical. I have added only referenced material, and Shilmer is so fast to restore his approved view that I don't think anyone else ever gets a chance to see the work. I suggest Shilmer cease with the edit reversals/wars and desist from the POV characterizations and allow others time to review and comment. We already know Shilmer prefers to say anything bad he can find a reference for and eliminate anything balanced, references or not, and a few days or a week is a reasonable request for a discussion session on the edits. I believe that I will also ask the Administrators and Dispute Resolution groups to have a look at this behavior if Shilmer reverses again or aggressively over-edits in the next 7 days. -- cfrito (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Assertions must be verified

Cfrito: Please provide verification that “most” criticisms of Bible translations “are motivated by theological differences between the translators and their critics.”

Please provide verification that “The most often cited criticisms [of the NWT] are sweeping platitudes based on the emotions of theological scholars defending their theologies rather than criticisms on linguistic grounds.”

Please provide verification that it is “difficult to present criticisms of the New World Translation without inadvertently delving into the underlying theological issues.”

Please provide verification that criticisms of the NWT are based theological POV rather than academic standards.

Please provide verification that, in particular, “Dr. Bruce Metzger has stirred additional controversy over of the Watchtower organization’s promise not to publish the names of its translators.”

Please provide verification that critics have requested credentials of NWT translators based on the veracity of “less than two dozen out of more than thirty-one thousand translated passages” in the NWT.

Your current edits use loaded language without any verification whatsoever. Wikipedia policy provides that such edits be deleted.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)