Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Use of other translations

An editor has wrongly stated that WTS publications "frequently" quote and cite Bible translations other than their own.[1] For a discussion on this issue see this archived discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 00:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose at debate here is the interpretation of the word "frequently". I used it as it is commonly used in ENGLISH, however some seem to insist on using it as a mathematical equation to determine the "number of times" which has little to do with frequency. Frequency is determined by how often, in terms of "frequency" not how many times, in terms of volume, something is done. Watchtower literature does frequently quote from other bible translations. it simply does not use them as the primary bible quoted from, therefore the overall volume of those quotations is not overwhelming in comparison to quotations from the NWT . I hope this clears up your confusion. Willietell (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no confusion. The use of other translations in Watchtower publications is actually infrequent as the discussion to which I referred quite clearly shows. BlackCab (TALK) 04:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Willitell was also involved in an esrlier discussion here in which he had claimed that "public issue of the Watchtower is heavily dependent on bible translations other than the NWT. Also, the Awake often uses scriptural references from bible translations other than the NWT." The statement is no more true today than it was in 2012 when he made this baseless comment. BlackCab (TALK) 07:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I claimed the Watchtower was heavily dependent on other bible translations in addition to the NWT. Citations from other translations regularly (aka FREQUENTLY) appear in the public addition of the Watchtower AND Awake and on a regular (aka FREQUENT) basis. Also, please stop vandalizing the page by reverting all my edits using your feigned dispute on a single point as an excuse to do so. You are damaging the page and that constitutes vandalism. If you continue to vandalize the page, you will be reported. Willietell (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I quoted your earlier false "heavily dependent" claim verbatim. Why would you lie about that when it's so easily verifiable? Just click on the link. BlackCab (TALK)

The lead of this article is not concerned with how often different issues of a particular JW periodical refer to at least one Bible translation other than NWT, so trying to use the word frequently in that fashion is essentially pointless. This article is not about JW public relations, so the attempted distinction about whether The Watchtower—Public Edition or Awake! use other translations 'frequently' is immaterial, not only because even those journals primarily use the NWT, but also because those journals constitute a minority of JW literature, now collectively only 16 pages per month. At best, the requested change to the article would give a false impression about how much JWs and JW literature actually rely on the use of other Bible translations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured I'd throw my two cents in here.

First off, I agree with the "through Christ by God's power" change. It more precisely and more clearly represents what JW's believe than the previous wording.

Secondly, Willietell, "regularly" does NOT equal "frequently". Something can happen regularly that does not happen frequently. For example, Halley's Comet happens to regularly pass by the earth, but it does not happen frequently (on a human time scale). I have changed back the original wording to "occasionally" and have added a RS to back that up. If you change it again without further discussion and consensus you will probably be very close to being in violation of 3RR.

Thirdly, I have changed your edit back to "their own translation", as "modern language translation" is JW speak. "Modern language translation" implies that the NWT is more widely accepted and used outside of JW circles than it is. While JW's may describe it as a "modern language translation", any academic will describe it as "their own/preferred" as is also seen in the RS I provided for the above. Vyselink (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The term "modern language translation" is hardly something Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively use as there are numerous bibles billed as being modern language editions, and the use of "there own translation" is indicative of bias against the NWT and violates WP:NPOV and needs to be re-expressed in a neutral fashion. your preference of "regularly" over "frequently" or "occasionally" is fine with me and I will make the change. The edit inserting "through Christ by God's power" was from an IP editor and reverted senselessly by a POV editor. I think making the change you've suggested more accurately represents Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on the matter. Which is why I re-instated the IP editors edit originally. Willietell (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

On second thought I will hold off in making the change from "occasionally" to "regularly" until we here from the other editor, but my argument here is that "occasionally" implies a very limited use over time, which would indicate a citation from other translations only periodically over the span of many months or even years, which is simply inaccurate as most literature that is intended for public use tends to have at least some reference citations from other translations. Obviously, the NWT is the preferred translation and is thus much more widely referenced. But the use of the term "occasionally" here is misleading. Willietell (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

JW literature makes references to scriptures very frequently, and by far the majority of those are the NWT. The proportion of non-NWT translations cited is quite definitely best described as occasional. The notion that it implies usage that is "many months or even years" apart is unsubstantiated (the time period you are claiming it implies would more accurately be described as rarely).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

For a Bible translation printed in the 20th century and updated in the 21st century, it is the default expectation that it would employ modern language. Unless specifically comparing with a translation such as the King James Version, it's an unnecessary qualifier. The description of the NWT as "their own translation" in the lead is not only a simple fact, but is also an accurate summary of the concerns of third-party commentators about doctrinal bias, which is addressed in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Willietell's claim that referring to the NWT as "their own Bible" is biased and expresses a POV is laughable and barely worth a response. The phrase is perfectly accurate and used by Linda Edwards in the reference book cited at that point. I think there's a bit of attention seeking going on here. BlackCab (TALK) 09:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is a plain statement of fact that the NWT is "their own translation", and isn't really an indication of 'bias' as claimed; but even if a reader were to infer the phrase suggests bias, that would still be supported by sourced content in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Addition: Now that I look at your comment in full, accusing BlackCab of vandalizing a page (as you also did in your edit summary), when what he did was return it to the original wording (which is currently disputed only by you), and threatening to "report" him, is WP:ACCUSE and WP:THREATEN, as even if you did bring up a possible report, it would be shut down immediately as being unsubstantiated, so I recommend that you do not use such wording. Vyselink (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular topic is out of context here for further discussion, if you really wish to understand why I feel the particular editor is engaging on activities which violate WP:vandal ask on either my or your talk page. Willietell (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You 'feel' that editors who disagree with your religious positions are necessarily pushing some 'agenda'. The fact remains that neither POV editing nor edit warring (nor even all distruptive editing) constitutes vandalism, regardless of your 'feelings' on the matter. This would remain the case even if your feelings were justified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

After checking the article history, I also fail to see how the reverts were "mass reverts" or vandalism. I click on the diff for a purported "mass revert" and there actually only are minor changes. Those log comments appear to me as dishonest misrepresentation. Proper explanations and sources have been discussed at length on this page to justify the current wording. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you do, I would have expected no other conclusion from you after examining your edit history (sigh). Such is usually the case with a mysterious, antonymous IP editor who "just happens" to appear at convenient times in support of the anti-JW's editors with their anti-JW's agenda. However, if you wish to be taken seriously, start another an account, after all, its free. Willietell (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Willietell: are you returning to your accusations of sockpuppetry by either Jeffro77, Vyselink or myself? You have made this accusation in the past when you found no other editor agreeing with you. If you want to accuse any editors of sockpuppetry, do so in the appropriate forum, where it will be investigated. These sort of grubby implications are a very cowardly form of conduct. BlackCab (TALK) 23:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Canada, so unless Willietell imagines some elaborate conspiracy, that's pretty much the end of any accusation of sockpuppetry.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit history goes back far enough that it should be clear that I have no relation to these other editors, which I do not personally know; our discussions have been limited to Wikipedia public article talk pages, and we don't always necessarily agree. One thing which we however most probably share would be an interest in knowledge development and sharing (the purported agenda?), and this naturally conflicts with censorship or obscurantism. I have simply resisted creating a Wikipedia account so far, and have never used one. This should also be clear from the history. My interests should also be visible: computer science, information technology, biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, archeology, anthropology and religion; I'm not here to edit on a single topic. Instead of dismissing anyone who contradicts you, I can only recommend to re-read and to try to understand the arguments with a honest attitude. There seems to be a tendency to aggrandize or exagerrate. When I said "dishonest misrepresentation" it was not to debate, I have actually perceived that. Do you understand the meaning of "vandalism" or "mass revert" in the context of Wikipedia? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for adding my opinion but this seems to be very petty and an attempt to bias people against a minority religious group than it is to simply express facts. Anything that could be taken positively must be cautioned because we don't want anything to be taken that way. When JWs use other translations frequently, does that only include published works? Does it include talks or public discourses, conversations, etc? Also some publications use other translations more than others. I can't believe we are having a conversation over this. Consider this: if another religious organization has a primary Biblical text as it preferred Bible version, does the WT use other translations less than these? Could words like "occasionally" be seen as a slight? Indeed, i believe that is the intention! It is not enough to say that WT literature also make use of other Bible translations as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobpressures (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

JWs do indeed reference the NWT by far the majority of the time, and that includes printed materials, talks and even conversations. The fact is relevant as various scholars who have reviewed the NWT have noted doctrinal bias in the translation, and this is properly stated in the article. Are you suggesting any specific change to the article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

JESUS

JEHOVAH WITNESS BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD (JEHOVAH), THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS. THAT THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH TO JEHOVAH IS THROUGH THE SON JESUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.8.67 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This talk page should be used to discuss about improvements we can make to the Jehovah's Witnesses article. This is not a forum; please make specific change suggestions or a precise criticism. This article, as well as the one on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs already mention the above. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

James Beckford

Typical of the blatant attempts by JW apologist Willietell to distort clearly sourced facts in this article, he has added the thoroughly misleading information that James Beckford is "a critic of the religion" as if he has some known agenda. Beckford, as his Wikipedia article notes, is a noted and respected sociologist of religion and a prolific author of books on new religious movements. Willietell has also removed the widely reported statement by his religion's leaders that defectors are mentally diseased, claiming in his edit summary that he was removing "POV spin" and "redundant material". Willietell's own agenda is fairly clear and this new string of edits reinforces his past known conduct as a dishonest and sneaky contributor who is here only to subvert and undermine the article. BlackCab (TALK) 07:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. In his/her talk page, User:Willietell has a template which says "This user is a member of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses." So his/her objectivity is compromised. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Willietell's objectivity on this subject is certainly compromised, as demonstrated by his edits. However, membership of a WikiProject is not itself an indication of affiliation with the project's subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It took me a while before deciding to answer, as it's often best to not discuss editors; but this particular editor indeed has a long history of problematic editing. From memory, the early history included sockpuppetting to claim consensus of other fictitious editors, as well as dishonest attempts to delete articles for claimed copyright violations (using references to misdated copies of Wikipedia articles on other sites), editing/deleting talk page content, and some blocks (for suckpuppetting or edit revert wars). Some answers on talk pages were also mimicking those of more experienced editors who were pointing to specific guidelines, as if it was an appeal to authority game. I have also noticed misrepresentation in edit descriptions over the years (and remember once complaining about this here). It is also an account which appears to strictly be used to edit JW-related articles.

We all start somewhere, and I can myself sometimes blush at some of my own previous edits. While I do believe that some of the early misconduct of this account has ceased, regular attempts to whitewash articles have persisted. It also appears that the Wikipedia definition of NPOV and RS will never be understood (or acknowledged). Therefore I do not think that any particular justification or extended explanations are necessary when reverting inappropriate changes from that account.

However, we have occasionally noticed what appears to be decent discussion attempts on talk pages in recent years (albeit with mishaps here and there, which can happen, considering the sensitive nature of the topic). Rarely, these discussions resulted in constructive article changes. If some of those recent edits which get systematically reverted are deemed important or worthy enough, we can probably expect their author to still be able to open a discussion about it...

I understand how frustrating persistent disruptive behavior can be (not only from this account), and I admire the patience of those who must constantly deal with this. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You are back to the personal attacks again? Please refrain from your habitual personal attacks and stick to content discussion on the talk pages. Your opinion of my motivations for editing Wikipedia are irrelevant and Beckford most certainly fits the definition of "critic" when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and his position and opinions.Willietell (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if this was adressed to me. But if so, personal attack was not the intention, and I don't recall making some. The intentions: 1) agreement about the changes revert, 2) answer to Dimadick and denouncement of previous misbehavior, 3) expression of hope that future contributions may be better, 4) invitation to you to discuss issues here to obtain consensus rather than constantly ending up with unconstructive reverted changes. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear why you're rehashing something from a month ago. In any case, Beckford is an established sociologist of religion, and not some 'anti-JW critic' as you would have others believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Self-reported statistics

The article notes in the second paragraph of the lead section that the Watch Tower Society produces its own figures on the number of active members. Two editors have changed the word "claims" (used in the article since mid-2015) to say that the religion "reports" 8.3 million active members and almost 20 million Memorial attendees. [2] The word "reports" implies more reliability and authority than those statistics warrant. Companies "report" earnings and profit to stock exchanges, but those figures have undergone third-party auditing and penalties apply to organisations falsifying them. When the Australian Council of Social Service "reported" the rate of child poverty in Australia it very clearly defined the source of its statistics, almost all of them from either Australian Bureau of Statistics data or confidential departmental records that drill down into specific family profiles.

By contrast the figures on "active" members of JWs are derived from monthly reports turned in by individual members, with the content of those reports then effectively dictating the measure of respect and responsibility they are then given. UK sociologist Andrew Holden noted in a comment on monthly report forms: "Those who fail to devote a satisfactory amount of time to doorstep evangelism soon lose the respect of their co-religionists ... there is no place for anyone wishing to tag along as a free-rider." (p.72) As a consequence, deliberate falsification of report forms is probably widespread. When I was a member of the JWs I regularly turned in a report form claiming I did two hours' "field service" that month even though I had done none at all. Two hours at that stage was the minimum monthly figure to qualify as "active"; anything less than that would have marked me as "inactive" or "irregular," which would then have led to intervention by elders. "Pioneers" or fulltime preachers must also meet a monthly or yearly quota of hours and the incentive to exaggerate their participation is obvious. Discussions on ex-JW forums indicate that what I routinely did in submitting bogus monthly reports is widespread among JWs.

With JW statistics continuing to show a decline in members in some countries, there is even greater reason to regard the official figures with caution at best, or deep suspicion at worst. In the end, the figures produced by the WTS are "claims" in the most accurate use of the word. There is no way to test or confirm them. The word "report" is misleading to readers who are unaware of the source of the figures and the hidden motives of those producing them. BlackCab (TALK) 02:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Initially I was inclined to agree with you, and then I remembered this point from Zoe Knox in the Journal of Religious History (Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011), pg 166

Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly defined, and transparently calculated. These are published in its yearbooks and have appeared in The Watchtower edition of 1 January annually since 1927. The most recent figures are available on its web site. The Society offers a number of membership figures for the countries in which it is active, with the exception of those in which it is forced to operate underground (it does not wish to aid governments who seek to eliminate its presence). Although the definitive membership figure given by the Society is the number of practising members, defined as those involved in public Bible educational work (i.e. house-to-house ministry), a far greater number attend the Memorial of Christ’s Death. In August 2009, the number of practising members was 7,313,173 and the number attending the Memorial was 18,168,323.The latter figure is much larger, but the Society gives the former, more conservative one for membership. Another reason scholars trust these figures is because historically, the Society has acknowledged losses as well as increases in membership. Sociologists have pointed to the correlation between the membership statistics and national censuses in the United States and Canada, concluding that the Society’s own statistics “offer a very conservative estimate” of membership. Finally, one anthropologist reported that fluctuations in membership across the United States were broadly in line with his own observations of a single congregation in New Jersey.

Not 100% definitive, but in my research for my PhD on JW's here in the UK, and in reading everything from Penton and George Chryssides to Zoe Knox and Andrew Holden, none of them take falsification of the JW reported numbers as a serious concern, indeed other than the above I have been unable to find any mention of the subject at all, though I may have missed it. Your quote above from Holden doesn't actually mention any such claims, and your reasoning is WP:OR. Unless you can find some WP:RS that throw the reported JW numbers into question, I personally have no problems with the word "report". Vyselink (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether a 'report' is accurate or reliable has no bearing on the fact that it is still what is reported. The presentation in the article makes it completely clear that the statistics are self-reported. Additionally, the stated decline in JW activity is itself derived from the self-reported statistics. It is contradictory to assert that the figures are unreliable and at the same time cite them as evidence of decline. There is no benefit in using the word claim here, which unnecessarily carries an implication of doubt in this instance. We are not here to assess the 'motives' of what has been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

In response to Vyselink, it is indeed the case that JW membership statistics are somewhat conservative when comparing their method of counting membership as only 'active' members with the typical method of including all adherents (and their children) as most denominations usually do. One result (and possibly the intended one) of this method of counting 'membership' is that whilst it reduces the reported number of members, it inflates the rate of growth, most of which comes from the eventual baptism of children of JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We also have Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses which may be of interest. Without necessarily casting doubt on the reported statistics, we may be able to find a complementary source about perceived growth being an important part of the religion. Many JWs believe that their group is the fastest growing one, and that this is prophetic fulfillment. It may also already be mentionned somewhere but I have failed to quickly find it. Another aspect is that since proselytism is central, growth numbers can be a self-encouraging factor. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)