Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 6 September 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Persecution and Legal Challenges

The following statements:

"Consequently, Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted and their activities are banned or restricted in some countries. Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries."

sound heavily influenced (and probably written by) a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and slightly slanted. "Persecution" is a JW buzz word and essential to their doctrines, primarily in regards to identifying themselves as 'Jehovah's organization' since Jesus said that his followers would be 'tortured and killed for the sake of his name.' Furthermore, Jehvoah's Witnesses believe that their court battles have advanced the interests of others when it comes to Civil Rights. While this is somewhat true, it is greatly exaggerated by the JW leadership. Another point that should be mentioned is that most of these court battles have taken place in the United States. It would be hard to say exactly what percentage without adequate data, but notwithstanding, this fact is well known within the movement. To say that their legal battles have "influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries" sounds like a big self-pat on the back. The movement was fighting for their individual rights and whatever "influence" Jehovah's Witnesses have had on civil rights is an afterthought. I would like to see this worded differently.

I would like to see some references or citations to backup the claims of the statement. I'm not saying that it is totally false, but the wording is slightly slanted. There are rumors that a committee has been established at the Watchtower headquarters to oversee, edit, and otherwise administer these Misplaced Pages articles and similar sights. Therefore the neutrality of the articles should be regularly monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.69.251.49 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement would seem to be a fair summary of the spinout article, Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country, where legal victories are listed for several countries. The sentence cites Shawn Francis Peters' book, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, which I have. That book focuses on Watch Tower Society court challenges regarding US law only, and Peters does emphasise the benefits to civil liberties rights that resulted from those challenges. (Those wider benefits, it has to be said, were unintended, since, as Peters notes on page 14, the Witnesses were entirely interested only in their own welfare. Peters, as do several other authors, also notes the irony of the religion being credited with expanding civil liberties for religious minorities, while acting in a manner that crushes individual liberties and freedom of conscience within their ranks.) I will rewrite the sentence to clarify that Peters refers only to US challenges.

You may not be aware, but JW-related articles are the result of often heated disputes between JW sympathisers and JW critics about the issue of neutrality, so although it is possible the Watch Tower Society has delegated someone to edit here to defend and promote their religion, the articles (at least the main ones) certainly are not WTS vanity pieces. Thanks for your interest and please feel free to contribute to articles if you have something to contribute in line with Misplaced Pages policies on neutrality and verifiability. BlackCab (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am currently an "active" JW in "good standing", raised in the religion since birth and baptized in my preteens. In the past few years I and my family have become disillusioned with the movement and currently study the bible independently, now holding only a few minor beliefs in common with the religion with whom our family has been affiliated since the late 40's. The only reason we haven't disassociated ourselves is because of our many friends whom we care deeply about, the movements issues are not their fault. Personally, I know what it's like to read certain statements and feel a sense of pride and boastfulness as a JW, and just hope to see data that portray's the leadership in an accurate light. Not to portray them in a totally negative light, no one is 100% bad or 100% good. My father was (technically still is) an elder since the elder arrangement of the early 70's, knowing from his personal experiences and my own interactions as "an elder's son", the child abuse thing has been blown out of proportion. The WT Society certainly seeks their own fanatical interests, but they don't exactly "harbor" child perverts. I just like to check in once-in-awhile to make sure this supposed "secret committee" isn't routinely going back and slanting little statements in their favor. Didn't mean to sound overly critical. Thanks. Anonymous for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.69.249.47 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous, yes, but please be aware that Misplaced Pages provides tools that allow anyone to trace you to your general locality. Misplaced Pages article talk pages are not a forum, but again, be assured that any attempt by the Watch Tower Society to slant pages would be quickly challenged. BlackCab (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Separations

In the separations tab in infobox its given See Splinter groups. I think its inappropriate and undue to place that very minor detail to the main info-box. Given the number of members, there has never been any divisions among Jehovah's witnesses to fit the definition of "Separations". Those groups started by certain individuals(most being rank and file members) never made any impact on the religion. I think the mentioning of it inside the Jehovah's Witnesses template is more than sufficient. Any objection on removing that thing?--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It also appears that certain individuals started some new movements, and that article do not state any reliable sources to say the number of members that left with them to at-least call it as a "separation". Also given the way the JWs are organized its really hard to leave the religion together and start a new one--Fazilfazil (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC);

I agree that the number and significance of splinter groups since 1931 is quite minor. I support removing it from the infobox. BlackCab (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So long as the link is retained in the JW series template, it can be removed from the other infobox. The target article is adequately sourced, and there is no good reason to orphan the target article altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I just read the WP:IBX article. It states that "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears...however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content..Consider the following question when designing infobox..How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox?" In accordance with its guidance and the consensus I am removing it from the infobox. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline about designing infoboxes is not directly relevant. Whether a particular parameter is used in an infobox in a particular article has no direct bearing on whether that parameter should be included in the infobox at all. There certainly has not been any demonstration that separations from religious groups are never notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that my second statement from WP:IBX is about guidelines on designing infobox parameters. But the purpose of infobox is the same regardless and we need to exclude unnecessary content. This article never talks about any information on "separations" of Jehovah's Witnesses since its insignificant, and therefore cannot be considered as a summary of Key facts in the article--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Further I don't object keeping it in the template--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Splitting: "child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central". I don't believe anyone is suggesting deleting the article at 'Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups' (which perhaps lacks obvious independent notability), but that article can survive per one of Misplaced Pages's 'Acceptable types of forking': a WP:SPINOFF. Per WP:DETAIL, we sometimes offload a clearly-defined chunk of a subject to create a separate "child" article; this JWs article or perhaps History of JWs is the "parent", so one or both should link to that (if that is a child WP:SPINOUT article). --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 19:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Holden and "defectors"

We should remove "defectors" if Holden did not use or imply such a designation. Elders have wide latitude who they may decide to subject to a disfellowshipping announcement. I used my own example of open celebration of Christmas after having left for 2.5 years. Blackcab mentioned lottery tickets, donating blood and voting. The word “defectors” (renegade, rebel or one who revolts) implies more active opposition to the faith than just the normal stuff of life ex-members may be involved with.

I have written the US branch in response to my own circumstance to ask:

If I am wrong in my views, please explain how anyone can leave the faith without being labeled “wicked” (1 Corinthians 5:13), short of continuing year-after-year to live by some undefined subset of the rules that govern active members.

No answer has been given so far. I would like to suggest this wording:

Sociologist Andrew Holden describes choosing to leave the religion as an eventual breaking free. He says those who do "are seldom allowed a dignified exit. Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyg271 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Refer to my existing comments under the Shunning topic above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Holden does in fact repeatedly use the term "defectors". He refers to those who "withdraw", "leave", "exit", "abandon" the society and "break free". My dictionary defines defection as "ceasing in allegiance to a leader, party, religion or duty". It does come from a Latin root meaning "to fail" or "to desert", but it is not inherently pejorative. BlackCab (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment of 16:46, 9 August suggested juxtaposing Holden's quote with the term Holden himself repeatedly uses: defectors. The term is not pejorative, as Holden consistently cheers those who leave the religion. Regarding the article wording... No doubt there are honest differences, but my suggested sentence syntax would have put Holden's term in brackets inside the quote from Holden (and another editor might have even put that bracketed term in quotes) to more clearly identify the exact term with the exact source of the term. That is: "Holden says " are seldom allowed a dignified exit."..." I still prefer my suggestion, but I'm not the type of editor who insists on "correcting" every detail differing from my personal preference...
Incidentally, Holden's work is hardly an example of good scholarship; for one embarrassing example, he repeatedly refers to rank-and-file adherents as "Watch Tower members" even though they are not (there are only a few hundred "Watch Tower members"; see 1944 'Watch Tower Society#Amendments to Charter'). Further, Holden repeatedly chimes in with outrageous and unverified nonsense; note page 164, "In a much more sinister account, Tom told me: "I started drinking to deaden the pain. Most Witnesses I knew drank very heavily."" Between that and the end of his work, Holden leaves intact and unrefuted the shameful accusation that most JWs are sots. Relying on Holden is certainly problematic. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 19:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unclear on what basis you claim that your example of Holden's statements demonstrates "outrageous and unverified nonsense". Regardless of whether such is typical of JWs, there is nothing especially surprising that a particular individual drinks heavily, or that persons known to that individual also drink heavily. You haven't supplied any context of why Holden reports that 'Tom' started drinking heavily, but it is entirely plausible, for a variety of possible reasons, including perhaps, disagreeing with a religion's teachings but not saying so for fear of being shunned by family members. I also know of JWs who drink heavily (and, yes, even "very heavily"), and I'm sure others do as well. The implication that Holden 'must' be lying is a no true Scotsman fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your experience with Witnesses is quite odd, Jeffro. I met several congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, but all of those people are not drinking alcohol at all. Most of them even after little mention about alcoholic drink say something about insobriety and you feel such contempt from that in their face. Words like pub and beer are not viewed positively and you can be viewed immediately like alcohol addicted one. Excluding of Christ's Memorial commemoration, I ever seen drink glass of wine only about one or two persons - not sure if they were Witnesses or not. For example me, I drink alcohol extremely rarely - just about 1-5 times a year. Some years I didn't drink at all. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not surprising in social settings (and congregations) for people to want to maintain a good public image (including reiterating rules the group attempts to hold to others), but to act differently with one, or a few, closer friends. Personally I have known some alcoholic JWs, although they were not drunkards. People who have weaknesses which are known to be frowned upon by the group are even less likely to let their fellows know about these (and might even not yet aknowledge these fully themselves). There is no reason to doubt the faithfulness of Holden's accounts. As you know, the WT publications themselves frequently warn about leading a "double-life", for a reason... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But, of course, I cannot be typical pattern for JWs, especially when Mormons, Mohammedans, Moonies, etc. can drink alcohol under no circumstances. In the Name of Allah , the Merciful, the Compassionate I said this silly remark. :)) --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the value of FakTNeviM's last comment. In Australia Witnesses drink, and some drink very heavily. I know of Bethelites who have told of habitual heavy drinking in the rooms at Bethel. But so what? Holden, as a sociologist, included the comments of one of his interview subjects but so far as I know made no attempt to make any generalisation from that comment. BlackCab (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only Australian Witnesses drink heavily. :)) --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

FakTNeviM, you may be correct that I have had some odd experiences with JWs. But that has nothing to do with the amount of alcohol they drink.

JWs have no prohibition on drinking alcohol, so your suggestion that entire congregations "are not drinking alcohol at all" is not typical. However, as BlackCab has stated, Holden apparently did not claim that heavy drinking is typical of JWs, but just recorded what his interviewee said about people he knew. It would be quite dishonest to try to 'whitewash' JWs by simply denying that any JW would ever do something against 'the rules'.

You've further made a sweeping generalisation about Mohammedans (better known as Muslims), claiming they "can drink alcohol under no circumstances". However, Turkey is an Islamic nation, and many Muslims in Turkey drink alcohol. (This does not mean that no Muslims in other countries drink alcohol, but that even in some Islamic countries, it is typical for Muslims to do so.) Further, in non-Islamic countries, such as Australia, it is quite common for Muslims to drink alcohol.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some Witnesses were used to be alcohol addicted before they starting to study the Bible with JWs and publications of WTBTS. So those who were previously addicted are very aware of alcohol danger and don't drink at all. That means neither one glass of any sort of alcoholic beverages. And most of them are taught against using alcohol so heavily that average person in congregation is very negative even on mention to drink alcohol. They are just extremely strict inside their minds. Drink slightly and proportionately in their brains means often shun it completely. Of course that some members think it more liberally and balanced and thus they drink slightly. But certainly 'no active Witness in good standing' drinks regularly and more than other people in the world. Generally they drink much less than other people in the world. --FakTNeviM (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So called "Cultural Muslims" or "Secular Muslims" (and "Progressive", "Modern" Muslims) drink alcohol. But it is the same like some so called Muslims keep Ramadan because of dietary and health advantages for human body (e.g. loose weight, test your stamina, someone even openly say: I don't believe in Allah ...). It is said that keeping Ramadan (in secular freedom and money wealthy countries) is "voluntary act". However, keeping a Ramadan is in TOP 5 basic faith rules in Islam. Five Pillars of Islam. So that means, these people are, in fact, not Muslims already. And don't post me "True Scotsman fallacy" article. It is clear that they are not Muslims already. So drinking alcohol is the same situation. (even if state laws allow to drink alcohol freely). That's it. --FakTNeviM (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed promoting a no true Scotsman fallacy, regarding Muslims and JWs who drink alcohol.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Fallacy is thinking that national tradition which has extremely high diversity, is comparable with strict rules of one's religion. Logical difference between Scotsman and Muslim/or JWs is huge. To be a Scotsman is enough to be born in northern part of United Kingdom called Scotland. Or you must marry some Scottish girl (or Scottish boy if you prefer otherwise). But to be a part of some religion (not only formally, but really by deeds, minds, heart, teaching based on your religion's holly book, etc....) is completely different. If someone doesn't (both from conscience reasons) believe in Allah or not fasting during Ramadan what is one of most important Muslim duties, by the Islam faith itself is no longer consider to be a Muslim. You cannot hold 3 rules from 5, if all of them are basic assumptions for that religion. It is similar like someone who claim to believe in Jesus Christ, but at the same time, he doesn't believe in existence of God. Of course, such person cannot be considered to be a Christian (irrespectively if you support or not terms like "True Christian" and "false Christian"). And for your information, to learn more, "fasting" which Muslims are supposed to keep is very easy and from my point of view it is not fasting at all. They cannot eat and drink during the day for 1 month, but it is allowed to feed yourself arbitrarily as much as you would like before sun-rise and after sun-set. At least 2 (you can eat 5 times or more during night) meals a 24hours-day is, in fact, normal condition for poor people in least developed countries and for busy people in high developed countries who haven't time for break during the day. Thus, so called fasting during Ramadan, in Islam, it is not monthly starvation, but it is easy thing to pass. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand. A "no true Scotsman fallacy" is the name of a type of logical fallacy. It it not restricted to describing literal Scottish people. The rest of your argument, apart from your irrelevant foray into more specific details of Islamic fasting, is a textbook no true Scotsman fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No_true_Scotsman#Misattributing_the_fallacy. This fallacy is often misattributed. Including on the religion. No True Christian/Muslim is not necessarily No True Scotsman fallacy. It depends of definition. (Look, Islam itself and JW religion itself define rules clearly enough). Fallacy is thinking that national tradition, (of course ---Scottish is just an example there) or whatever else what is not strictly clear and defined, and has high diversity, is comparable with strict rules of certain religious group. It is sad that you seem to misinterpret this article very often here. End of off-topic. --FakTNeviM (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed employing the fallacy. Indeed, a JW can do any number of things they consider 'bad', and then say they're 'repentant' ('sin', rinse, repeat), and all the while not only call himself a JW, but be officially considered a JW, and back to the pertinent example, this could certainly include heavy drinking especially if done in secret. And then there's any number of other things that 'a JW in good standing' might not do, but might still be done by other 'active JWs' without any official 'reproof'. So please stop employing fallacious arguments in an attempt to 'whitewash' JW behaviour.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not listening to my argumentation that I think that your using of that article is not correct in this case. And your last sentence seems to be personal attack on my motives (what you cannot know anyway). Stop with it. WP:NPA. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I heard your argument. I don't consider your argument to be valid. There was no 'personal attack' at all. You objected, based only on your own general opinion of JWs, that an account about a JW who drinks and knows other JWs who drink 'must' be dishonest in some way. Then you provided further generalisations presenting your view that 'real' JWs 'don't drink heavily'. I don't really care what your motives are. No one said that it is typical for JWs to drink heavily; if you have a source that says JWs never drink heavily, provide it—otherwise there was no basis for impugning Holden's account in the first place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeffro77 and BlackCab. I don't have access to Holden's book so I am limited to Google book search. For my suggested wording I was relying on the quote provided by AuthorityTam, which seems to suggest “break free” was used in the immediate context.

If one “leaves” merely by becoming inactive, yet continue to follow distinct aspects of the faith (remaining neutral, not celebrating birthdays or Christmas, not openly disagreeing with doctrine, etc) such ones will most likely not face judicial action, but as jw-media.org says elders and other active members will “try to rekindle their spiritual interests.” In contrast certain behaviors (voting, birthdays, Christmas, blood transfusions, etc) are particularly offensive to members of the faith. If a former member openly engages in such public displays of difference with his or her former faith they may face judicial action even if they left months or years earlier and no longer identify themselves as members. To capture the difference between “inactive” and folks like myself, I used the words, “choose to leave”, although I don't know if that aligns well with Holden. If the consensus view is “defectors” is not pejorative and considering Holden uses this word, I am okay with it. Nonetheless I wish we could somehow capture the ultimate truth behind Holden's criticism, that is a dignified exit is not afforded members of this faith.

Please note I prepared my comment above without first reading last two comments. I will post this update and get back to reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.106.109 (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AuthorityTam. Calling Jehovah's Witnesses "Watch Tower members" does indeed sound uninformed and certainly we should be careful about how much weight we give to anecdotal references like Tom. Quoting Holden makes sense if it is his conclusions we are quoting and they are otherwise considered reliable. To me the challenge in how to word the lead-in to the quote to capture both what Holden says and why he says it. There are several obvious triggers for the disfellowshipping announcement and subsequent follow up shunning. But there are also some subtle aspects to this business that doesn't allow for a single named category. The comment from 98.165.106.109 is mine, but I guess I was not logged in. I'm also new to wikipedia editting. Randyg271 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Holden's use of the phrase "Watch Tower members", again, the context has not been provided. In particular, it would probably be best to indicate Holden's statements about the phrase the very first time he uses it (if he uses it more than once). The term Watch Tower is often used synonymously with the term Jehovah's Witnesses, and JWs are indeed "publishers" of the Watch Tower Society's literature; it is therefore not clear whether Holden is uninformed or simply being informal. The anecdote about 'Tom' wouldn't necessarily warrant inclusion in this article, but nor does it support the claim that Holden's statements are "outrageous and unverified nonsense".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will see if I can check out Holden's book from the library. As to drinking my personal experience was most in the faith I knew and associated with did not drink excessively. Of course a few in each congregation were known to have tendency in that direction. Serving as an elder also made one more aware of who had issues in this regard. Randyg271 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I had not intended to initiate an extended discussion of JWs drinking or teetotaling, which seems beyond the scope of this Talk. My point was simply to relate yet another of many examples of Holden's stark lack of good scholarship. An objective sociology study would have followed up interviewee-subject Tom's accusations that "Most Witnesses I knew drank very heavily" with the sociologist's at least half-hearted attempt at objectively comparing alcohol consumption by Jehovah's Witnesses with their contemporaries. But, no, Holden is happy to let this 'heavy drinking' accusation fester all the way through the end of his book, tacitly endorsing the accusation as fact. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 16:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any basis for the interpretation that Holden had any intent to let an 'accusation' 'fester'. It's not clear if drinking was specifically addressed at any appreciable length, or that there was any atempt at comparison with 'contemporaries'. From what has been provided (though it forms no part of this article anyway) it seems that it was just something reported by a single interviewee. It might help if another editor can provide the actual context from the source. Nor has it been demonstrated that it is actually one of many examples. It also doesn't seem to have been established that Holden is broadly considered to be poor source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes in website

1) It seems that website is located somewhere in Ireland (IP address of website). Wow. Firstly not USA.

2) "Publishers" were renamed to "Ministers who teach the Bible".

3) "Publications" were renamed to "Bible-Based Books and Magazines Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses".

4) Whole website now looks BFU-friendly. (means something like "dumb computer user" proof // website resistant against stupidity).

5) Does anyone knows why the Bible is not yet published in Belarusian and Hebrew languages? I observed that already long time ago. Are there problems with copyright or with state laws? Or any other reasons? ((Belarus is dictatorship state regime = the only one in Europe) ... if we don't count Russia as hybrid democracy-totalitarian regime)). And State Israel is secular regime with non-secular religious freedom laws. JWs and other missionary active groups are banned (not for real presence in the country, but banned from availability of proselytism, as part of basic human rights). As expected, from the Yearbook 2012, we can see that JWs don't listen to any ban of preaching, neither in Israel, South Korea, Islamic states, Communist states, etc.

6) Witnesses relocate their headquarters http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/americas/united-states/world-headquarters-relocating/

7) The good thing is http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/world/watchtower-simplified-edition/ still, since July 2011.

8) This looks like new method of preaching http://www.jw.org/en/news/by-region/americas/united-states/special-campaign-manhattan/

9) I think there is a need to request a Bible study https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

10) Can you find anything else what seems different there?

11) --FakTNeviM (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like they wanted to avoid the "Watchtower", "Watchtower society" cry often found online, and wanted to focus people not on the leadership but on what they teach. And Ireland? interesting, many websites like wikileaks use web servers from European countries where freedom for journalism and media is very high and secure. I guess that might be the reason. Translators for Hebrew might be very less, because in Israel only few witnesses are there and most Jews in US no more use Hebrew as their mother-tongue--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

12) The answer to: Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion has been significantly re-worded: http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/

On first read, I noticed a few things

• no reference to disassocation * examples of stealing, drunkeness and adultery have been dropped in favor of breaking the Bible’s moral code * example of disfellowshipped man, with believing wife remains. As before the wording does not hint at the difference between at home family members compared to outside of home. Other than that, I filled in the form for user id on the site, but processing eventually timed-out. Randyg271 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything relevant to the article in this thread.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This wording seems to be changed (more soft than before):

• “What of a man who is disfellowshipped but whose wife and children are still Jehovah’s Witnesses? The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue.”
• “We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin.”
• “If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.”

--FakTNeviM (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Their publicity page has no bearing on official terms or doctrines (by which I mean minor changes in wording do not represent changed views), and it is unsurprising that it contains less jargon where information is intended for non-members. It is not a secondary source, and therefore not a preferred source for Misplaced Pages articles about same subject. The only thing the new site warrants changing in this article is the external web links section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. It could be only non-jargon wording for non-members and for non-associates. Although I am not completely sure of that. We will see later on, -- especially in Yearbook 2013, letters to congregations, articles in The Watchtower Study or within bulletin Our Kingdom Ministry --, if there are any changed views. Until its publication more clearly by primary source, or even by secondary source, we must suppose that nothing relevant changed yet. So far, I agree, it isn't necessary to continue in this talk thread. (not hiding). --FakTNeviM (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Intro - wording clarification on who is "shunned"

The following might be changed to add the word "baptized members". Unbaptized members, unbaptized publishers are included in the numbers of Jehovah's Witnesses, in other words, they are "members," included in the yearbook figure, are not shunned if they leave for any reason.

This is the line: Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant.

Should more accurately read, Baptized members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant. Natural (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Natural

You're right. I changed it. Unbaptised publishers, Students of the 'Bible Study' courses, Associates, irregular public visitors and others cannot be shunned at any way. However, unpaptised publishers and associates can temporarily loose some spiritual 'privileges' in congregation's agenda. For example, they can loose ((after 'private reproof by an elder', and after repeating serious sin without remorseful deeds)) possibility to performing on stage and reading or dissertate during the 'Theocratic Ministry School'. They can also lost possibility/privilege (voluntarily taken deeds) like going with other congregation's members to the Ministry (preaching, evangelizing). That are only possible actions on them. (Only if they already have had these privileges). Someone of members might no longer want to talk with them. (on religious topics). But certainly no official shunning or disassociating on those can be taken. --FakTNeviM (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for concurrence on that.

Similarly, this line,

Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned.

The word "leave" and even "formally leave" can have many connotations. It might imply that anyone who leaves Jehovah's Witnesses and doesn't come back is shunned. Perhaps a clarification in the wording here also would more accurately state the idea the article is trying to convey.

Something like,

Baptized individuals who formally disassociate themselves from being one of Jehovah's Witnesses are also shunned.

Natural (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Natural

The JW term disassociation refers to not only those who choose to formally resign, but also to a person whom the Watch Tower Society leaders imagine has taken some action they imagine indicates the person to longer be a member, such as accepting a blood transfusion, attending another church, or having a birthday party (oh, the horror). The current wording is only just accurate enough; the suggested wording is less accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I need to agree that meaning of "formally leave" is ambiguous for unknowing readers. In fact, it is a JW jargon. Even neither I do not know precisely what it means, or at least, what shall be suggested meaning by authors. We need to explain there what "formally leave" actually means or we need to change it to something clearly understandable. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Long version here::::: Baptised individuals/members ... “who forsake/forsook fellow believers community and religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, or who runs afoul (=gets into mismatch) with/to (= by means of words or deeds) an order and regulations based on congregation's understanding of the Bible.”... are also shunned. --FakTNeviM (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything similar to 'forsake' or 'afoul' is a POV judgement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only for Aussie. Per Google Translate it is precise language without bias. ... You can suggest different wording. I already wrote in edit summary that this sentence shouldn't be considered as suggested wording. Rather as first try to exposure meaning of the phrase "formally leave". Better to focus on changing current ambiguous wording in article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity. The Jehovah's Witnesses may adopt a legalistic approach to deciding who members are and are not permitted to speak to, but it is sufficient for an encyclopedia to say that a person formally leaves or resigns from the religion. The concept of formally leaving (as opposed to just ceasing association) requires no lengthy description. BlackCab (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "formally" is indeed unclear what it is going on. There is a need for thorough description. --FakTNeviM (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "leave", what is unclear too (leave from what, leave from whom, for how long time, how much seriously, etc.), we can use appropriate synonym (give up, relinquish, forsake, abandon, quit, desert, drop). --FakTNeviM (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that the current wording needs to be changed. Aside from that, most of the alternatives offered have negative connotations—give up, forsake, abandon, desert in particular are certainly too judgemental. If there is broader agreement that there is an issue of clarity, then that might warrant a longer explanation, but would not justify replacing one potentially ambiguous term with a different ambiguous term that has negative implications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you specify any proves about negative connotations of those words? For example, replacing with ... ... Is it negative? No, it isn't. _{I can agree that 'give up' and 'desert' might have some negative connotations. But negative convey is only imagined here. For example, a word 'defector' (a noun) has same meaning like these similar words (verbs): .} I think that word is in fact unnecessary there, because as we already discussed that is not reason for shunning baptised/baptized members. See previous talk threads. --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We must be alert to connotation. Words such as "forsake", "relinquish", and "desert" imply that something/someone of value has been left, which wouldn't be neutral. The article lede's use of "formally" was intended to distinguish from "informally leave" (that is, merely becoming inactive); while "formally leave" is imperfect, the expression seems superior to any of the suggested alternatives. I don't believe it's necessary, but any additional explanation would be better parked in the article body rather than further bloating the lede. I've never felt that the sentence "Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned." improves the lede, and would support its removal. Of course, I don't believe that those who feel differently should be threatened with being "reported". --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Maybe. I don't make a fuss here. So what about this: Baptized individuals who officially resign and leave from its community and from religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, are considered disassociated and are also shunned as part of social exclusion, ostracism, social rejection, commonly practised by most social, and especially religious, groups. Baptized individuals which gets into mismatch with an order and regulations based on congregation's rules are typically disfellowshipped and disassociated, and are also shunned. Individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant. .... repair it for grammar and style, if needed, before placing in the article. --FakTNeviM (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my guess, but I'm guessing that English is a second language for FakTNeviM. The current wording in the article lede is:

• Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning. Baptized individuals who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals may eventually be reinstated if deemed repentant.

That current wording seems superior to recent suggestions. I cannot agree to 'placing in the article' any of what FakTNeviM has just suggested. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 17:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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