Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses talk page (Discussion page). (January 2011 - December 2011) - Please Do not edit!

Clarification needed on this statement - contracicts Wikipedia statements

This is not a point of contention (peace) but of clarification. The main Wikipedia page states that Fred Franz was the main theologian. This page states that until 1976 the president, who would be Nathan Knorr exercised complete control of doctrines. That wouldn't be an accurate statement (even if Penton and Franz actually stated it). Knorr was an administrator rather than the doctrine-maker.

How could this point be clarified?

Raymond Franz and James Penton claim that until January 1976, the president exercised complete control of doctrines, publications and activity of the Watch Tower Society and the religious denominations with which it was connected—the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Doctrine was generally elucidated in writing, which Knorr did little of. His work was largely in expanding the missionary activity.

Thus, he once visited a member of the Writing Department in his office and stated: “Here is where the most important as well as the most difficult work takes place. That’s why I do so little of it.” Wa. Dec 1, 1993 p. 18 Examples of Humility to Imititate.Natural (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

It does need to be clarified, though it would not be contradictory for Knorr to have control of whether Franz's decisions would become official doctrine. I don't have the source, but it would seem that it would say something to the effect that Knorr appointed Franz to come up with theology though Knorr still had control of approving doctrines. Perhaps a quote from the source would help...?--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true, from what I read, Knorr had final say, but it seems as if that was used by him more like an official pass, and not in an authoritative way, more like a figure-head, rather than a true control of authority. Like the prime-minister who is really calling the shots, and the president who has the official stamp, but who really isn't the one who is creating the policy.Natural (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

A figure head... like a prime minister or president. So... a leader.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

however you want to phrase it, this type of thing is need in the main text if Ray Franz's and Penton's accusations (supposed), are to be included in the main text of this article.

However, it is noted that the there were other members of the Governing Body who were more heavily involved in writing and doctrine than Nathan Knorr, the president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society from 1944 until 1977. Knorr, the then existing president, wasn't heavily involved in development of doctrine or writing, even though he did give formal approval to what was published.

I put it in, if there is a better way to phrase it, that is no problem, but if the comment about the cricitism and complaint about the president having control, then it needs to be clarified as to the actual facts. This is about the Governing Body, this is not a Criticism of the Governing Body page. Any comments need to be based on fact. Clearly, this might apply more to Rutherford than to Knorr, but if Ray Franz's criticism of Knorr is to be included, then it has to be balanced with the actual facts. Knorr signed off on it, but wasn't the originator of most writing or doctrine. He didn't have complete control in that fullest sense, any more than the President of the United States has complete control over laws that are passed. He might sign off on the law, but only after it passes the Congress, who designed and approved of the law. Natural (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

There is no "criticism or complaint about the president having control". In documenting the history of the Governing Body, the article simply states that until the 1976 reorganization, no such body controlled doctrines or policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. After 1976, the president ceded that responsibility to the governing body, which is why today the GB sets doctrines, not the current president. Therefore there is no need to add your own interpretation of a statement in the 1993 WT which quotes Knorr, in an obviously self-effacing manner, saying he left the writing to other people. Since the date of his comment is unknown, it is quite possible he made the comment after the Governing Body gradually began to take control of doctrines. --BlackCab (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail

Don't think it's necessary to air every detail of Ray Franz's complaints on this page. complaining about 7-minute Governing Body meeting. Not nec. detail to include here. If anyone wants to read his book, they can read the details.Natural (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

Don't think it's necessary to air every detail of your complaints on this page. Franz's statement was simply a matter of record about the nature of the meetings at that stage. Your nitpicking complaints are becoming tedious. BlackCab (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr BlackCab, here's the deal, there's a lot of lot of info on the Governing Body Jehovah's Witness page from Ray Franz, a lot of it, in the main text, isn't identified as Ray Franz being the originator of the complaints. That isn't ethical, really. So, this page isn't the Ray Franz page. This is the Governing Body of JW. Ray Franz has some complaints, and they can be on this page, but the details of his complaints would probably be best left to another page rather than this one. Also, Ray Franz's comments, needn't dominate this page. His is one very strong point of view against the Governing Body. One view of Ray Franz is that his books were a way of 1. Self Defense and saving face. 2. A way of "getting back" at the Governing Body members with whom he personally had issues with. So, that may or may not be true, but...

His POV, isn't necessarily neutral, so we have to be balanced about presenting Ray Franz's viewpoints on wikipedia articles on JW. I'm sure you agree with that. If he presents arguments, and they are included, he needs to be clearly identified as the source of those arguments or criticisms. Also, the level of detail given to his viewpoints isn't called for here on Wikipedia.

The only way I've been able to work on the editing with Wikipedia is the same way the points got onto the page, point by point. Maybe there are 50 individual points on this page that need to be addressed. So, even though it might be tedious, it is a necessary process to develop a fair and accurate article with an unbiased point of view.

If you would prefer, I can make a list of points and number them, as they relate to the whole article, or as they relate to Ray Franz, or both. Thoughts or comments on that idea? Thanks. Natural (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

I'd like please to see the actual quote and context of this refernce, because saying that the GB met only briefly after 1971, seems very unlikely, it might have happened once, but there should be an accurate rendering of this.

Commentary Press| date = 2007| pages = 45 Thanks, please provide quote.

AdditionalNatural (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

You request a reference and then delete the statement anyway, leaving an incomplete sentence in your usual blundering fashion. On Page 45 of Crisis of Conscience Franz writes: "At times, the entire meeting lasted but a few minutes; one that I recall lasted only seven minutes including the opening prayer." Franz's comments are relevant because of his memoir about his experience as a member of the Governing Body. Can you please keep your comments on this page brief and to the point? You do go on and on. BlackCab (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Governing Body meetings in 1971-1976

Additional, these are the only things that the Governing Body discussed in 1971 until 1976? to make decisions about branch appointments and conduct that should be considered disfellowshipping offenses

That doesn't make sense, what was the actual quote and it seems unlikely that those were the only two things that the Governing Body discussed in that time period. Natural (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

The statement is drawn accurately from page 45 of the book. Given that on the same page Franz writes that some meetings were just minutes long, it is entirely feasible. It is unreasonable of you to continually demand quotes from the book because it "doesn't make sense". I am not going to sit here typing out endless paragraphs of the book to satisfy your urge to prove that the article is biased. Wikipedia requires articles to cite their sources. This one does. Franz's book is freely available. Feel free to buy it. If you then believe any statements are an inaccurate representation of what is in the book, challenge them. BlackCab (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This page isn't a reiteration of Ray Franz's personal ideas. I have no desire to buy his book. If you want to support your statements, then you have to back them up and show the context. It is unnecessary detail to reiterate every undocumented criticism of a disfellowshipped former Governing Body member. Create criticisms of the Governing Body page, if you want to go into so much detail. Natural (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

Franz is, however, as noted by other authors, a valuable source of information on the internal workings of the Governing Body. I have yet to see any book, incuding any WTS publication, contradict anything he wrote. Because the religion forbids members to go public about such detail, it is unlikely that an alternative source will be available. BlackCab (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in their literature ignore Ray Franz. They don't respond to his arguments and don't even consider them. They do like Jesus, "Let them be, blind guides is what they are, if then the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit." That's the attitude JW take with Ray Franz's speculations, they have more important things to do.Natural (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Natural

They might have other things to do. 'More important' is subjective and questionable. The rest of your point is irrelevant, as Franz is a widely cited source, and the article clearly states that he is a former member.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

JW's ignore Franz? An odd comment coming from a JW who is patently obsessed with him. --BlackCab (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That other sheep write the articles

This is making it sound like Franz is exposing or revealing something new that the Governing Body is hiding. jehovah's witness publications indicate this, and it is widely know that members of the other sheep write most of the publications, most times at the direction of the anointed at Bethel.

Franz indicates that "other sheep" (non-anointed Witnesses) write most Witness publications.

Franz did make that point. You have (again) taken that simple statement as an attempt to expose or scandalise the organization, when it simply states a fact. Since for once you acknowledge that he is telling the truth and do not want to challenge him, feel free to find another source that says the same thing. This entire talk page is becoming an endless session of one editor nitpicking about statements, many of them uncontroversial, sourced to one particular author. BlackCab (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Greater neutrality in the introduction and other paragraphs

The introductory paragraphs contain descriptions of the Governing Body based mainly on critics of that body and of Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the main sources in Raymond Franz, who ceased to be a member of that body in 1980. Watchtower publications contain a quotation from another member of the Governing Body who served from 1974 (only 3 years after Franz began to serve) until 2006 (26 years after Franz ceased to serve). Would it not increase the neutrality of this introduction if his impressions of Governing Body meetings were included?

The two-thirds rule for making decisions was also revealed by Franz. Would it not be more accurate to say that the two-thirds rule was in force from "1971 to at least 1980", since Franz was no longer privy to Governing Body decisions after 1980? The accuracy of the statement as to the present state of the majority needed for Governing Body decisions is all the more uncertain since none of the present members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses was on the body in 1980. The Governing Body has changed personnel completely since 1994, when its longest-serving member was appointed. Should a Wikipedia article, in the interests of accuracy and neutrality, present such outdated testimony as Raymond Franz's?

My recent edits were an attempt to present to whole picture on the subjects and were immediately suppressed. If Wikipedia is to be truly neutral, should not all verifiable sources be accepted, including those of the Watchtower Society, so that the impartial reader may get a complete picture of this topic?

Jeffro77 says that the extra edits on the evidence that Governing Body accepts input from its members and that these have influenced changes in policy "have an apologetic tone". Does not the present state of this article, which quotes, by a large majority of its references, published works highly critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, "have an apologetic tone", in the anti-Jehovah's Witness sense? Would it not be fair to say that it even has a polemic tone that is not in harmony with the Wikipedia ideal stated in the Wikipedia:about page:

"Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus—an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time. Eventually for most articles, all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached. In reality, the process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles fluid or changeable for a long time while they find their "neutral approach" that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is occasionally made harder by extreme-viewpoint contributors. Wikipedia operates a full editorial dispute resolution process, one that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth, but one that also permits disagreements to last for months before poor-quality or biased edits are removed. A common conclusion is that Wikipedia is a valuable resource and provides a good reference point on its subjects."

Isn't it time that the views of Jehovah's Witness believers be included, without censorship, on pages dealing with the religion that they love and support? Such views of believers (or supporters, in the case of agnosticism and atheism) are clearly visible and very prominent on the pages describing Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Agnosticism and Atheism. Why is it that the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses feature mainly the views of critics of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Perhaps critics of Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of exactly the kind of censorship and closed-mindedness that they say the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses carries out against dissenting voices among the faithful.

I personally think that the time for an end to such systematic censorship in this article is long overdue.Wandering-teacher (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The only useful element of the quotes is that the closed meetings purportedly involve use of the Bible and include prayers, though that is not unsurprising for a religious body. There is no encyclopaedic value in stating that at some point the GB held meetings on a Wednesday. The second GB quote is little more than a speculative attack on other religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the significance of your claim that the intro contains descriptions of the Governing Body "based mainly on critics of that body and of Jehovah's Witnesses"? The intro is based on statements in WTS publications as well as those of Franz, Penton and the Bottings, but none of the statements are themselves critical. Your claim that the article is subject to "systematic censorship" is baseless. Notable facts about the Governing Body continue to be added. The article now clearly identifies Franz as the source of the statement about the two-thirds majority required for decisions and there has been no subsequent statement by any source that suggests that's not still the case. Your recent edits were deleted not as a result of censorship, but because they were unnecessary and/or unencyclopedic. The statement about JW leaders is an unnecessary elaboration of existing material and the excerpt from the "Bearing Thorough Witness" book quoting Henschel and Schroeder is simply rhetoric and flattery, adding nothing of encylopedic interest. In January 2010 you added a lengthy section written with an apologetic tone about the Governing Body.[1] That too was unencyclopedic and was removed. Do you include its removal in your claim about "systematic censorship"? BlackCab (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of neutrality of this article is obvious to any unbiased observer. I am a believing Jehovah's Witness, who believes that God and Christ are guiding the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to preach God's message to mankind, guiding them to make gradual but continual improvements to our religion to make it closer to the apostolic model of Christianity, and yes, who allowed the Governing Body to publish incorrect predictions of the year for Armageddon, on several occasions, so that members whose attachment to Jehovah as a person was not pure and unselfish (such as Raymond Franz who was on the Governing Body in the 1975 era) could reveal their true motives (as Franz does in his books, to the careful reader) and leave or be expelled from our community, for the good of the true believers whose dedication to Jehovah was truly made out of love for him and admiration of his sovereignty.

I will no longer try to repost my recent modifications (including the January 2010 one, which I believe is still necessary, since it was clearly the Watchtower Society's answer to one of Raymond Franz's criticisms) to make it unbiased, because the editors who view these pages are their personal property clearly don't like Jehovah's Witnesses and don't want anything positive to be put here, claiming that anything positive is "unencyclopedic".

The above responses to my questions sting because I have revealed their desire that this page in particular continue to paint the Governing Body as proud and power-hungry, when they are humble servants of God who are trying sincerely to do Jehovah's will, as they see it in their study of the Scriptures, and to help the entire household of faith prove loyal to their dedication to Jehovah.

I find it interesting that all other religions that I have examined on English Wikipedia present a neutral description of their teachings, and so Wikipedia is an invaluable tool for me in my witnessing work to person of those religions, but that at least certain articles, if not all, about Jehovah's Witnesses, are clearly designed to paint my religion and the religion of my family, (on both my father and mother's sides since the 1920s), as harmful and dishonest. This bothered me enough to want to make the articles present the Watchtower Society's answers to its critics, but now I will simply do nothing, since I now realize that such obvious bias in these articles may perhaps be in harmony with Jehovah's will.

Such bias will likely only increase the curiosity of sincere seekers of truth to find out the other side of the story by asking Jehovah's Witnesses they meet to answer these negative reports in these Wikipedia articles. I think I understand better now why the Governing Body has decided not to answer its critics directly, but indirectly, since not answering directly shows faith that Jehovah will never allow any permanent spiritual harm to sincere persons who love truth and that Jehovah, by his spirit, will attract honest-hearted persons to his organization, no matter what is written by critics. In fact, the criticism actually serves to elicit curiosity, while an open debate, with each side getting more and more heated and more and more irrational, might not.

So at least for awhile, I will no longer even try to edit pages about Jehovah's Witnesses, but just other pages that interest me.Wandering-teacher (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You said: The lack of neutrality of this article is obvious to any unbiased observer. I am a believing Jehovah's Witness, who believes that God and Christ are guiding the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to preach God's message to mankind...

That's a fairly humorous juxtaposition. Perhaps you could find an unbiased observer to back you up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have heard the same refrain from several JW editors, Wandering Teacher. It always comes back to the same thing. Wikipedia depends on published reliable sources. This article has them; you simply don't like some of them, so therefore complain the article is biased. I have to say your suggestion that it's God's will that we're all here adding lies about your religion is a novel one. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a humorous juxtaposition. The reason why it is true is that I can imagine myself to be an unbiased observer, a Muslim for example, who has just moved to a new country, met Jehovah's Witnesses and wants to see what Wikipedia says about them. The criticisms written here will probably arouse his curiosity and incite him to talk to Witnesses again to see what they have to say in answer to these criticisms, because he may wonder how such kind people could be directed by a Governing Body who, the critics say here say, are not kind. I meet such unbiased observers regularly when I go to mosques to have discussions with Muslims who have never heard about Jehovah's Witnesses and who ask me for our website so that they can read more about us. I could show them this page on the Governing Body to show what apostates from our faith write about us. That will be interesting, since they know that apostates from Islam who become Christians write very negative things about that religion, and they will be able to compare the two styles of negative criticism.

I don't think the critical quotations should be removed. I think that they will actually increase the curiosity of the unbiased and so I want them to stay, since it will help more become disciples. I just think that if this article is truly to come up to the standards of impartiality of say, the article on the College of Cardinals, quotations from Witness publications, added by JW editors, should be allowed to stay, and not be removed for reasons other than the ones claimed by the censors of this page. Their dislike of my faith is evident to all. Their inability to imagine what an unbiased reader, such as a Muslim, would think, is also evident to all. I think I will use this page on the Governing Body as a resource to Witness to new disciples, so that they are prepared before baptism and cannot say that they had no idea of the criticisms made by apostates.Wandering-teacher (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion of whether negative comments about your religion will increase interest in it is irrelevant. This is not a forum. Are you suggesting a change to the article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent collaborative effort to take the Jehovah's Witnesses article to GA status resulted, in part, from the replacement of primary sources (Watch Tower Society publications) with reliable third-party sources. Your suggestion that members of the religion add quotes from WTS publications to improve the article is not terribly helpful. Articles must all be based on reliable sources. Those that don't meet Wikipedia standards will always be removed, regardless of who put them there. BlackCab (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanderson 2012-09-05

Since yesterday, editors have repeatedly added 'D. Mark Sanderson' (or some variant of the name) to the list at 'Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Current'. Strictly speaking, the inclusion of Sanderson should await a verifiable source, and that will likely take two months waiting for a Watch Tower publication. However, the appointment does seem consistent with GBJW practices. Firstly, as a branch committeeman, Sanderson was already explicitly a Nethinim with the same status as GBJW "helpers".

• The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, "Mark Sanderson, now a member of the Brooklyn Bethel family, gave a report on the Philippines [as he is a] former member of the Branch Committee there"
• The Watchtower, 15 April 1992, "The Nethinim’s added privileges were linked directly to spiritual activities. ...Included in this provision are many hundreds of mature, experienced brothers who share in ‘shepherding the flocks,’ serving as circuit and district overseers and on Branch Committees at the Watch Tower Society’s 98 branches."

Secondly, editors have consistently cited 'an announcement yesterday at Brooklyn Bethel breakfast', which is precisely how new GBJW members have been announced: at a Wednesday Brooklyn Bethel breakfast about September 1.

• "New Members of the Governing Body", The Watchtower, March 15, 2006, "On Wednesday morning, August 24, 2005, the United States and Canada Bethel families, connected by video, heard an exciting announcement. Effective September 1, 2005, two new members—Geoffrey W. Jackson and Anthony Morris III—would be added to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
  

Wikipedia's guidelines plainly insist upon verifiable sources, and none has yet been cited. Personally, I will not remove the factoid, but it's beyond obvious that the burden remains on the editor posting it, and any editor can remove it until it's properly cited. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 20:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

After a search, this rumour seems to be floating around on ex/JW discussion boards (not endorsed by the JWs). Though the report may indeed be true, there could be any number of people who know the 'procedure' for such announcements. It shouldn't be added here until we have a better source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Soon there should be verification from another source, but here is one of the better pages. The info about Brother Sanderson's appointment in buried just over halfway down. -- Glenn L (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly stupid/already explained

I just noticed that some of the names under the "Deceased" and "Resigned" section of "Governing Body Members" are italicized while others are not. Any particular reason for this? Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NVM. I was right. Being stupid. Didn't see the explanation at the top of the section. Vyselink (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Representatives is outdated

Since september 2014 all elders and ministerial servants are appointed by the circuit overseer in accordance with Titus 1:5-9 and James 3:17, 18 not by the branch office [2]

And by the way (may concern to other places in the article]: The office of District Overseer has been abolish Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There's certainly no need for Wikipedia to include claims that their administrative decisions are 'in accordance with any particular scripture'. I will add the meaningful part to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL Was not trying to claim scriptural basics of anything, was just shortly phrasing why and how this was changed in a way understood by bible scholars (even half educated ones like me) Was eating in front of the computer when asked on my talkpage to do so and didnt have time to write much. All "claims" on Wikipedia must always be a reliable source. I haven't been editing any of these kinds of articles so I don't know if the Watchtower (and other publication on JW.org) is considered Primary or Secondary sources? I guess many information would be difficult to get another source on - I mean who really cares about how Jehovahs Wittnesses appoint there own people. Except for Wikipedians, who cares about everything :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as the 'scriptural support' goes, Titus 1:5 has been available for quite some time, but the introduction of the colon at the end of Titus 1:5 is merely an editorial decision by the translators of the 2013 revision of the New World Translation, and not an absolute basis for the change in procedure. Some translations have a colon at the end of this verse and others have a full-stop or a semi-colon. It is subject to interpretation whether the list of 'qualifications' are the instructions, or whether they are supplementary to separate instructions to appoint specific individuals. The verse could be used to support either method. It is more likely that the change in procedure was made because it is administratively convenient.

Watch Tower Society publications are a primary source for subjects relating to Jehovah's Witnesses, and are suitable as sources for presenting a) what JWs officially believe, and b) their own organisational procedures. (Watch Tower Society literature is not suitable as a primary or secondary source for subjects not directly related to Jehovah's Witnesses.)

When stating what they (or any religion) believes, it should be done in such a way that it is clearly their view rather than Wikipedia asserting it as a fact. Where there is some crossover between JW organisational procedures and their beliefs about those procedures, it is not necessary to discuss the belief in articles/sections that are simply about the procedure.

Where available, secondary sources are preferred for statements about JWs, particularly for anything other than their beliefs about themselves. Where secondary sources are not available, such as in this case, inclusion essentially comes down to consensus among editors about whether the information in the primary source is significant enough to merit attention in the article. In some cases, information that is only found in the primary sources may be deemed of little encyclopedic interest and subsequently removed. In this case, it's my view at least that there is a legitimate interest in how religious groups appoint their personnel.

More generally, if you tag an article with a template, you should start a corresponding section at the article's Talk page, otherwise there is no guarantee that anyone will know why it's there, and it may be removed without notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editor

An IP editor keeps changing the article but is refusing to provide any explanation for their edits. The changes misrepresent various sources, as well as other less serious matters such as wordiness. I will therefore restore the previous stable version.

The IP editor is welcome to discuss their preferred changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please list why you prefer each of your proposed changes. I would be pleased to offer the advice you seek. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like compromise I tried to reach with your initial edits, I'd be happy to restore the previous stable version in its entirety. In either case, since you are the one that changed the stable version, it is contingent on you to explain your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been making personal attacks on my user page. Despite that, I would be pleased to proceed in a positive manner. If you wish to make changes from the present text of the article, please mention them and why you suggest them. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks at all. You did try to lie about who introduced changes to the article, and I told you what would happen if you continued to do so. But hopefully now you will begin to try to edit collaboratively.

The way you've suggested to proceed is not normally the way things are done, and it is contingent on the person who introduced the changes to explain them when those changes are disputed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Role of the Governing Body

It's unclear whether we are dealing here with one or two editors making very similar edits; this person (or persons) is advised to start a Wikipedia account and edit under that name. The edits here and here refer variously to the Governing Body as "the highest guiding council" and the "highest policy-making board". Both continue to cite page 216 of Penton's Apocalypse Delayed, which refers to the Governing Body as the "supreme ruling council" of Jehovah's Witnesses. Changing the wording to a personal view yet continuing to cite an authoritative source is clearly dishonest. BlackCab (TALK) 09:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You would be correct if the term was in quotes. However, we are not using quotation or close paraphrase, but are rather writing the article lede in our own prose based on the articles sources. The term "ruling council" sounded a bit odd, and it seemed good to use a term in the prose that was more straightforward, such as "policy-making board". Just because one source says "ruling council" doesn't mean it is necessary to directly quote at all times - obviously the article is not just a word for word copy of a particular source. Is there anything about the term "board" that you feel is less accurate than "council"? 73.11.72.255 (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on facts derived from reliable sources. Unless you can find a reliable source that describes the Governing Body as a "policy-making board", I'd have to assume it is your invented term. I will also warn you on your user page that you are in breach of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, put in place to prevent precisely the sort of edit-warring you are engaged in. BlackCab (TALK) 11:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are misunderstanding me? Do you agree that Wikipedia articles are not a word-for-word copy and paste? The use of "board", "council", or other synonyms is a matter of editorial choice. In fact, to use the exact wording of a source could be a copyvio as close paraphrase. 2601:7:1980:5B5:35E6:8C6C:3D1E:A148 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The article cites Penton at that point but replaces his wording with yours. You have yet to explain why "ruling council" (a very accurate description of the role of any governing body) is wrong and deserves to be replaced by "policy-making board". What policy? Where does the article ever mention policy?

The IP editor's rewrite also deletes "The body formulates doctrines ..." and replaces it with "The body coordinates and communicates doctrinal decisions and pastoral care ...". This is sloppy and confusing. The primary function of the Governing Body is that it determines and creates doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and this needs to be stated clearly at the outset of the article. Since the responsibility of doctrinal formulation rests with no other body within the JW organisation (and the Governing Body is said to be God's sole channel of communication) it is manifestly inaccurate to say the GB "coordinates" doctrines. It is also nonsensical to say the GB "communicates doctrinal decisions and pastoral care". Pastoral care is never "communicated". The sentence needs to be returned to its earlier, clearer version. BlackCab (TALK) 00:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Watch Tower Society directors in 1917

Among the erroneous edits made by the IP editor in reverts such as this is his/her change of wording referring to JF Rutherford's highly contentious 1917 removal of the majority of the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society. The sentence did say that when Rutherford "encountered opposition from directors in 1917, he dismissed them". This was changed to state that "he dismissed some members who had not been legally confirmed". That statement completely distorts—and attempts to justify—the circumstances of his action. As Penton (pages 50-55), Beckford (page 23), Whalen (pages 50-52) and Rogerson (pages 34-39) all make clear, Rutherford obtained a legal opinion to expel four of the seven directors who opposed his high-handed behaviour and replace them with four directors who were his supporters. Penton's detailed examination of those events makes clear that the Watch Tower Society's version — which continues to be repeated in their publications and is the version the IP editor leans on — is "not accurate". The issue of legal confirmation was a subterfuge, a legal manoeuvre that served Rutherford's purpose in removing those who opposed his growing arrogance and secrecy and seizing full control of the society.

The inclusion of those events in this article supports the opening statement of the "history" section that states that from 1884 to 1971 it was the president who held complete control of the activities of the religion. There is no need to add unnecessary and misleading elaboration based on the biased writings of the Watch Tower Society that are entirely aimed at justifying and excusing the conduct of historical figures such as Rutherford. BlackCab (TALK) 11:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that requires "excuses" or "justifications". Rather, perspective is necessary. Relying extensively on a single source that appears to be highly critical of the group is not advisable. The sources show that it is an uncontested fact that the directors were dismissed as a result of a legal opinion calling into question their appointment. None of this has to do with the modern doctrine of the group, so it is not really biased one way or the other, it is just a matter of being factual. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just referred to four separate sources, each of which makes plain that Rutherford's action to expel and replace the four directors was part of a naked power play. There were two conflicting legal opinions on the question of whether those four directors were "legally confirmed" (see a copy of one such legal opinion) so it is not an "uncontested fact"; your edit adopts a position of bias in favour of the Watch Tower Society's highly coloured version of events. In the context of this article the issue of their legal status as directors is also entirely irrelevant. BlackCab (TALK) 23:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Naked power play" might be a bit of loaded language, however I am sure there is a way to accurately balance all the sources without tilting the issue to any particular perspective. Let's take the matter under consideration. 73.11.72.255 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"... who he claimed had not been legally confirmed" is an accurate summation, though I stand by my belief that that issue is irrelevant and adds no context at all. BlackCab (TALK) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Add links to Governing Body Members

In the list of current Governing Body members, Anthony Morris III and Geoffrey W. Jackson should be linked to their respective Wikipedia pages.

Easily done, though the articles may need work. BlackCab (TALK) 05:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, those two articles lack sufficient third party sourcing to show notability. I can't see that they'll last as stand-alone articles. BlackCab (TALK) 07:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)