Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Appropriate content of 'Sex abuse cases' section

I'll return to an issue I raised earlier of what should actually be in the "Handling of sexual abuse cases" section of the Criticism section. That section in the "parent" (Jehovah's Witnesses) article should read as a summary of the "child" or spinoff article, (Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse), which is an extensive and well-sourced article. WP:SYNC emphasizes the importance of synchronising the child article and the summary section, instructing "editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section." The summary in this case does a poor job of summarizing the child article. It is dominated by material that is not so much criticism as a statement (and justification) of certain JW policies that some might find objectionable but for which there is no explicit criticism.

The spinout article in fact contains just two areas of criticism: (a) the "two witness rule" and (b) allegations of cover-ups by the Watch Tower Society by means of discouragement of reporting to authorities, and the associated observation that the WTS kept detailed notes on cases of abuse but did not alert police or child protection authorities. Salient to this is the New York Times observation that the issue in the JWs is not children being abused by clergy, but children being assaulted by congregation members (and often family members, which would lessen the likelihood of a male perpetrator/family breadwinner/patriarch being reported to police).

At the moment then the "Criticism" section of the JW article should limit its coverage to those two points. It currently lacks any mention of the "two witness" rule and instead opens with the entirely irrelevant issue of whether known abusers can hold positions of responsibility. I'd suggest deleting that sentence and removing the related reference to the Daily Telegraph story. The summary can then focus on a succinct criticism of the "two witness" rule and the JW response (already linked in the article). It can then provide brief coverage of the cover-up allegations encompassing alleged discouragement of reporting to authorities and evidence of the JW policy of not reporting to authorities (the JW statement on its policy and evidence from the Australian royal commission).

The aspect of promotion of abusers as contained in the Daily Telegraph article should be reintroduced only when it is properly covered in the spinout article. BlackCab (TALK) 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'two witness rule' is briefly mentioned in the summary. I have moved the existing Daily Telegraph source to the statement about the 'two witness rule' as that point is also addressed by the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. There is mention of it but no criticism per se. BlackCab (TALK) 01:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that the statement cites a source that is critical of the 'two witness' policy, I'm not sure whether it's necessary to expand the sentence in the summary, since the criticism of the policy is basically the same as the official policy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the statement and attributed the criticism. It's not worth re-stating the policy separately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct to state that "the Royal Commission has criticised the organisation's policy" regarding the two-witness rule. Angus Stewart was at that point outlining the WTS policy. Until the royal commission releases a report on the WTS case study the Wikipedia article should not claim that it has expressed any opinion. BlackCab (TALK) 01:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-word as you see fit. I had to go out, but since no change has been made since, I have reworded slightly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Those changes still don't address the main issue of harmonising the summary article with the spinff one. I have rewritten that section in line with my comments above, but haven't uploaded it yet and prefer to wait until editors in other timezones have the opportunity to comment. It might be better if I posted it on a sandbox page to begin with and got some comments there rather than ruffle too many feathers with a wholesale change. BlackCab (TALK) 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded my proposed rewording of that part of the "Criticisms" section here and I invite comment before I proceed further. BlackCab (TALK) 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentences of the first and second paragraphs of your proposed wording are weaselish, and the latter is further complicated by your own statement that the Royal Commission's statements cannot be regarded as "criticism". The assessment of the 'two witness rule' as "a key policy" is also unqualified. (There are also some minor grammatical issues.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree in part with Jeffro. The first two sentences are a bit too weasely for my taste. I don't have his hangup about the "two witness rule", but I can see where he's coming from. Vyselink (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence paraphrases Barbara Anderson, who is cited. I have used Applewhite's criticism, which was presented at the royal commission. Unlike the previous wording in the existing article, it is not presented as the criticism of the commission, which is yet to make its report. BlackCab (TALK) 20:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first paragraph is not clearly attributed to Anderson. The first sentence of the second paragraph (not Applewhite's statement in the first paragraph) refers to criticism but the only secondary source cited in the paragraph is the Royal Commission. Also, the statement by Applewhite (a paid representative of the Watch Tower Society) was a concession, not a criticism.

Whilst the 'two witness rule' is one of several controversial elements of the JW policies for handling cases of abuse, the provided sources do not establish it is a key policy, and it is not clear whether the intention is to say it is a key JW policy or a key element of controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked the opening sentence and removed the reference to the "two witness" rule being a key policy, although logic says it must be: if an accused sex abuser denies an accusation, any further action depends on the existence of two witnesses. But given that it's been taken as a subjective judgment, I won't press the point; the description is not critical. On the other point, I agree there is not a strong connection in my proposed wording between the statement of the JW reporting policy (sourced to a JW website and the opening statement of evidence at the royal commission) and the criticism of its flaws. I'll spend a bit more time on improving that. BlackCab (TALK) 08:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your use of words such as "ranks" giving a connotation to a military structure is weaselish. Further you fail to mention that the "Two witness rule" is only for internal discipline. I am not sure that the statement "victim can be traumatized" is a noteworthy point, can't that be the case if a court fail to convict due to lack of evidence? Further victim is free to go to police and report if he/she feels traumatized. The major issue claimed by critics is the danger caused by abuse accused individuals (who deny) to other congregation members (who are not aware of it). However in United States its legal to not disclose that information to other members, backed by confidentiality privilege for ministers. In UK it may be not as per recent case which is on appeal. Roller958 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The word ranks is not restricted to military contexts, and it typically appears in JW literature in reference to their members (and JWs and other christian soldiers use the military connotation as a metaphor anyway). Also, 'weasel words' refers to vague or unattributed claims. You are actually claiming it is a contentious label (but it's not).

It's implicit that their 'two-witness' policy relates to their internal procedures. The statement in the suggested text that victims can be traumatised is sourced (but not properly sourced to a critic). Your suggestion that a traumatised victim 'can' report to authorities has no direct bearing on the elder's obligations to report knowledge of crimes. Also, (as raised by the Royal Commission) the religion's doctrines engender a general mistrust of 'worldly' authorities, reducing the likelihood of victims reporting to secular authorities. This is exacerbated by the JW policy of not encouraging victims to report abuse to authorities (rather than passively 'not discouraging').

There are several points of contention with the JW policies, and your assessment of which you think is the 'major' one isn't relevant to the suggested text. Unless you have a particular source in mind that indicates the 'major' criticism?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked my proposed rewrite of the "Handling of sexual abuse cases" subsection. It is on my sandbox page. I have removed Monica Applewhite and removed any judgment on the relative importance of the two witness rule. Criticism of the JW policies on sex abuse has been most vocal by Barbara Anderson and Bill Bowen, so I have named and quoted both, and also referred to (and in the footnotes quoted) related criticism from a US cult researcher. The final two sentences pertaining to court cases relates directly to the opening sentence on WTS knowledge of, but inaction over, offending inside the organization. The rewrite clearly identifies the criticisms expressed in the media and removes the irrelevant material that is in the current article wording. BlackCab (TALK) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the overall substance of your rewrite. I would recommend the following, but this is just my personal opinion.

"The religion has been criticized for its "two witness rule", which requires an allegation of sexual abuse to be substantiated by at least two witnesses if the accused person denies any wrongdoing. Based on their application of scriptures at Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, Jehovah’s Witness policy is that without a confession by the accused, no action can be taken unless there is testimony from two witnesses."

This seems very repetitive, and like one sentence split in two with some filler added. I'd maybe rewrite it to say something like "The religion has been criticized for it's "two witness rule", based on their application of Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, which requires sexual abuse to be substantiated by two witnesses if the accused person denies any wrongdoing." Reduces it from 67 to 37 words and sounds (to me) clearer.

"In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children when elders have known of past sex offences by congregation members, while the Society has agreed to pay to settle other lawsuits involving abuse by men the organization allegedly knew had previously abused children. In those cases the Society reached confidential settlements—paying as much as $780,000 to the plaintiffs—without admitting wrongdoing."

Again, feels like it would be better and clearer if condensed. Maybe "In court cases in the United States and the United Kingdom, the Watch Tower Society has been found negligent in its failure to protect children from known sexual offenders within the congregation. The Society has settled other child abuse cases through confidential settlements-paying as much as $780,000 to the plaintiffs-while not admitting wrongdoing". Reduces it from 81 to 53 words and loses (I think) none of what you were going for.

Just some thoughts. Otherwise I like it. Vyselink (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The length was bothering me. I was probably overstating it a bit in anticipation of objections of what was not being said. BlackCab (TALK) 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove "conspire to". It implies an intent that can't easily be verified. Its removal does not impact the basic meaning of the statement, and it will almost certainly be challenged by other editors.

Change found that policy was closely followed: to heard that. Whilst the policy is to report when required by law to do so, in practice (in Australia at least), it has not been followed correctly. The Society's lawyer Vincent O'Toole did not understand that mandatory reporting of allegations is not the same thing as the broader obligation to report knowledge of crimes. Of the 1006 cases, it is not clear how many represented situations where elders were convinced that a crime had been committed, but it is highly unlikely that none did.

Change loath to reluctant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

one victim reportedly got paid 7,80,000 USD. "ranks" is contradictory to the fact that most the victims are layman, abused by their family or friends not by ranks. Use members instead, which would cover all. Further second witness can be a second allegation by another victim, or a circumstantial evidence. I found that in royal commission website appendix, couldn't pull the source immediately. Further the second para is entirely one sided, according an official spokesperson victims are free to call police before calling elders. That should be added to keep it neutral. Roller958 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted "ranks" and added "reportedly". I see no problem with the second paragraph: it accurately describes the policy then explains the criticism. It clearly shows that victims have the option of calling authorities. It needs no further elaboration. BlackCab (TALK) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most of the abusers are said to be ordained ministers of the religion, and are not considered laymen by the organisation. The statement that victims "can call police" could be stated, but would need to be balanced by the cultural element of JWs to be mistrustful of 'worldly' authorities, which was raised during the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored your removal of my addition "church discipline" without providing any reason. Wikipedia guidelines is that state all facts clearly before criticism. "Two Witness" rule does not prevent/sanction members from approaching secular authorities without a second witness, it is purely for church discipline. Period. Roller958 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your addition about church discipline is redundant. Since the 'two-witness rule' is the organisation's policy, it obviously only relates to church discipline, and has nothing to do with individual members reporting to authorities. The next sentence makes it clear that in the absence of a second witness, elders take no further action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on checking the source, it does say that unsubstantiated cases are still reported to the branch office (even though it's a breach of clergy-penitent privilege)—and theoretically, but apparently not in practice, to secular authorities where required by law—even without two witnesses. But your reasoning that ""Two Witness" rule does not prevent/sanction members from approaching secular authorities without a second witness" has nothing to do with that, and wasn't particularly helpful. Reporting to authorities independently from church discipline is dealt with in the second paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding two words is not redundant, if anything is redundant in the section it is the repetition of same thoughts by Barbara Anderson and Bowen. Organizations policy is a broad statement, some of the organizations policy prevents individuals from taking a brother to court. So that distinction need to made clear. I restored that again. Please read WP:PUSH Roller958 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The two words are not a major issue, and it would have been good if your reasoning for including them were actually relevant, rather than an irrelevant statement about members reporting to authorities.

It's not clear how the criticism made by Anderson and Bowen are redundant. They're addressing entirely separate matters—Anderson's criticism addresses internal inaction due to the 'two-witness rule', whereas Bowen's addresses reporting to authorities.

Yes, WP:PUSH does apply to many of your edits, though you're not always civil.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yours and BlackCabs edits are ripe for a topic ban, good in being civil. But strong pushing of POV, wearing out other editors with repeated reversal of minor edits. Roller958 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of your 'minor edits' are heavily biased in favour of JWs. In this case your minor edit was reverted chiefly because the reason you provided for retaining it had nothing to do with it. Additionally, the Royal Commission has brought out that cases to which there were not two witnesses also were not reported to authorities, so it isn't only about "church discipline".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never been adamant in reverting yours or BlackCab's edits. It doesn't need much pain to dig out the history of both you editors to show a pattern edits, mostly wording sentences to support mind control theory (ie. WTS is forcing JWs to practice their beliefs). This is mostly a content dispute, most articles related to JWs is written with a negative tone, and most contains 30-40% criticism of JW leadership. This should go to arbitration committee. I never removed any of the criticism, but I add obvious omission of facts in criticism mostly having a POV push. For that I have to fight tooth and nail to add one or two words which are sourced and accurate to keep NPOV. Everybody have their own bias, but yours and BlackCab's problem as one IP brought out recently,anyone having a contrary material is shot down and so those editors give up eventually. I am the only few surviving Roller958 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The addition of "church discipline" isn't a problem. It doesn't serve the purpose Roller seems to think it's for—Jeffro is correct that that wording has nothing to do with reporting to authorities—but it does explain that the two witness rule is part of JW judicial procedures. A casual reader might not grasp that point. BlackCab (TALK) 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "corroboration" is sufficient at this summary section to explain why judicial action might not proceed. The phrase "no secondary circumstantial or scientific evidence exist" raises more questions than it answers (what is "secondary circumstantial evidence? What degree of scientific evidence is sought? Are DNA tests taken?) A more detailed explanation is provided at the child article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#'Two witness rule', which is the appropriate place. BlackCab (TALK) 05:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller claims that "Most articles related to JWs is written with a negative tone, and most contains 30-40% criticism of JW leadership." Most of the main Jehovah's Witness article in fact details the history, beliefs and practices of the religion, and does so with fairness, accuracy and balance. In cataloging those primary doctrines and practices, this article achieves what the Watch Tower Society itself has never done in its long publishing career, so it provides a commendable public service. The religion is a controversial one, so the article includes coverage of those controversies; when it does so it relies on reliable sources and maintains balance. It would be fascinating to see how it would end up if left in the hands of JW editors with an outlook like his. BlackCab (TALK) 08:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim about '30-40% criticism' is entirely made up. Roller958 is simply recycling the earlier unsubstantiated claim of an IP editor.[1] The Criticism section actually makes up about 15% of the article, and is based on criticisms found in reliable sources. No doubt, Roller958 is blissfully unaware of the more outlandish criticisms I have removed from the article over the years. No doubt, Roller958 will be along shortly to substantiate his claims of widespread negative tone that purportedly afflicts the various JW-related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

BlackCab's removal of my sourced content claiming that its already covered in child article is a classic example of POV pushing. Wiki guidelines state we need to have both positive and negative information if available, and make the facts right before criticism. The present statement that "2 witnesses" are required is a blatant omission of the fact that its not a literal guideline, but just a principle. "Two Witnesses" are not necessarily two human beings, it is about two evidences (one being the allegation from a child). Second can be circumstantial or scientific evidences used in a secular court. BlackCab knows that if that crucial fact is present it would water-down Barbara Anderson's false claim that it would essentially required a "second witness" (second human being) for abuse to be substantiated. You guys try to reduce the factual accuracy of my statement by claiming "redundant", "unimportant", "already mentioned somewhere else" etc. This behavior need to be changed. And editors give up to continue substantiating your POV pushing, because you two are so persistent and outlast competitors by investing more time in Wiki and your point of view. Same with Jeffro77. See recent example. I used the example from past for the pain I have to go through to add one simple fact, that secular sources agree on 537/538 BC. Regarding my statement about % of criticism, I am talking about giving due weight. The section is sociological analysis added by BlackCab and Jeffro77 contains a lot of criticism, while you may interpret it as a "fact", many statements there are not just plain facts. Everyone have their own POV, but the difference between my edits and yours is that you guys push it hard. Some of these characteristics fall under editors described in WP:PUSH Roller958 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Secondary evidence" is fine by me. BlackCab (TALK) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm keen to ensure the spinoff article on JW handling of sex abuse—where we can go into a bit more detail—is accurate. In this edit Roller added the edit comment, "second witness can be circumstantial or scientific evidence." He cites transcripts from the royal commission, day 152 (pgs 67, 72) and day 155 (pg 54). Neither is very clear just what scientific evidence would be acceptable: Jackson is quite noncommittal and unsure of himself and Spinks, although replying to a direct question on "external forensic scientific or direct evidence", responds "Certainly" but doesn't specifically address that point. The Shepherd the Flock book (p.71-72) does allow guilt to be established if there are two or three "witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each is witness to a separate incident," but says "It is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing." I see nothing in that book, or the Watchtower letter dated October 1, 2012, that refers to scientific or other evidence. Is there a written policy on this or are we relying on an offhand, unsubstantiated comment from Spinks? BlackCab (TALK) 22:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller makes a similar, but more explicit claim immediately above, when he says that secondary corroboration of a sole witness can come from "circumstantial or scientific evidences used in a secular court". I need to know where this is stated. And out of interest, which point of view is he suggesting I am pushing by using the phrase "corroboration"[2]? This sounds rather paranoid. BlackCab (TALK) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's emphatic claim that the 'two witness rule' is "not a literal guideline" is a little overstated. It's only more recently that it has been less literal, and the policy previously required two actual witnesses to the same incident before any action would be taken. However, the current policy does indeed have more latitude in its interpretation of what may constitute a 'witness'.

Roller958's further attempt to malign me with his cited 'example' continues to ignore the fact that I removed material because the reason Roller958 provided for retaining it ('reporting to authorities') was not directly related to the content in question. In a more desperate attempt to malign me (but actually further illustrating his own efforts to assert JW beliefs as if they are established facts), he then cites a discussion from nearly four years ago. The claim that I added (or even 'co-added') the Sociological analysis section (originally entitled Religious typification and added in November 2010) is a lie. On the contrary, I actually substantially trimmed the section.[3]. The claim about "30-40% criticism" is also a lie. As already stated earlier, the combined Sociological analysis, Opposition and Criticism sections make up only a quarter of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Opposition" section is not criticism in any case. The JWs treasure their status as "the most persecuted group of Christians of the twentieth century" and that section includes coverage of the benefits for the wider community of their past court cases. Those very courts that favoured them, of course, are part of "Satan's world" their literature continues to vilify, and which they believe are part of a satanic conspiracy against them. All a bit head-scratching, really. BlackCab (TALK) 08:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I granted quite a bit of latitude in counting the Opposition section as 'criticism', simply to demonstrate that even with that section, the three combined sections amount to only a quarter of the article, showing the claim about "30-40% criticism" to be a lie.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found a letter from WTS dating back to 1997 on royal commission website which talks about circumstantial evidence.

If the allegations can now be established by two or three witnesses, by confession, or by sufficient circumstantial evidence, one of the elders, preferably the Presiding Overseer will contact the Society’s Legal Department (or Service in some cases) to see if there are any reporting laws applicable. -- Source

Regarding scientific evidence I can't find any specific letters in royal commission website, however Spinks and GB member's testimony is credible. Spinks directly answered that question. Otherwise I would expect someone to question them for lying under oath, and face sentence in near future. Regarding Jeffro77s claim that he never inserted anything to sociological section and his hands are clean is false. For example looking at edit history I found BlackCab added that section and he added Bryan R Wilson's comment as a reference, and then Jeffro77 moved that negative comment in to the article which later became the second para.

Having said that I am not here to prove which editor is better. This article is written with a lot of negativity against JWs. This is clearly evident by the fact that there is hardly any complementary statements. Further the word Watchtower society appears at least 25 times in total inside organization, beliefs and practices section. This is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS. The guideline is to use WTS only when describing evangelical functions, publications or administrative statements. One example in source of doctrine section, It says The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", instead it should be the church or the governing body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith".

The typical style for most section in the article as of now is

• Neutral statement (sometime setting up a stage for criticism)
• Criticism or occasionally a rebuttal

What is rare is anything positive. What about circulation of WT/Awake magazine, 200 million Bibles printed etc. That should have been mentioned in funding section to state where the money goes. 1 billion dollars revenue and only 70 million spent. Roller958 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is becoming split into several discussions. I'll break out the bias complaint below. BlackCab (TALK) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller958 is continuing to attempt to lie about me. He claims I "moved" Bryan Wilson's comment "into the article". Actually, the diff I already provided[4] clearly shows that I simply re-ordered the existing material sourced to Bryan Wilson, but more clearly attributed the statement to that author (introducing the existing quote with the words "Bryan R. Wilson, in his consideration of five religions including Jehovah's Witnesses" and changing "particulars" to "factors"). Claiming that I "moved" something "into the article" that was already in the article is an entirely dishonest misrepresentation of what was actually just a routine copyedit of existing material. Rather than acknowledge that I substantially trimmed the section and removed a fair amount of material that was negative about JWs, Roller958 instead clutches at straws about me moving a sourced statement to a different paragraph. Roller958 should really stop lying about me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving something provided in the citation, in to a notable paragraph is not just a copy edit. --Roller958 (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes some paragraphs more "notable" than others. If you really think that the edit in question[5] is a demonstration of 'anti-JW bias', please feel free to raise an ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Two witness rule

In the discussion above I have sought verification for Roller's claim that bodies of elders may rely on scientific evidence when determining proof of wrongdoing in cases where a individual has alleged sexual abuse, but the alleged offender has not confessed. He is relying on two sources: (a) a 1997 document "Comment on flow chart" that refers to an allegation being established by "sufficient circumstantial evidence" and (b) a reply by Spinks to two questions by Angus Stewart at the royal commission (day 152 transcript, page 72, lines 20, 26) regarding the use of "scientific evidence".

As the royal commission has highlighted, the WTS issues highly detailed instructions on its processes for dealing with such matters and the actual flow chart is an example of this. It's a rigid framework for action. Yet that flow chart makes no reference to the consideration of scientific evidence, and so far no letter or written instruction has emerged that describes what scientific evidence could be considered or how it would be useful in establishing the wrongdoing.

Spinks' reply can in no way be used as the basis for the claim in an encyclopedia that scientific evidence is considered for that purpose. He answers "Certainly" when asked whether scientific evidence would satisfy the need for a second witness but does not eleborate; in the more detailed follow-up question he is asked about the acceptability of two things: "external forensic scientific ... evidence" and the evidence of a person who observes some corroborative aspect to the incident. Spinks replies, "We go much further than that," but then addresses only the second part of that question, ie an observer who provides some corroborative assistance. He makes (and is not directly asked to) no further mention of scientific or forensic evidence. What was he referring to? Where is the policy instruction? It's a shame Angus Stewart didn't ask him for that, but without any further evidence of such a policy, it would be wrong for an encyclopedia to state as verifiable fact that such a policy exists. Roller's suggestion that Spinks would be liable for prosecution if his one-word agreement was wrong is rather fanciful. My guess is he gave an answer off the top of his head to be helpful, but that answer was incorrect.

The bottom line in considering expanded coverage in the spinoff article is that a description of the "two witness rule" could include reference to acceptance of corroboration from an observer of a related aspect (the term "secondary evidence" is sufficient in the summary section of the JW article), but not to acceptance of scientific or forensic evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are skeptical about everything, and asking extra reference to statements made in court by a policy maker of the organization. And you want to see a policy written down? I personally know evidence from secular sources is acceptable, since I have involved with such a case (not child abuse). Since that would be an OR, according to Wiki guidelines you should include it attributing to Spinks. Just like you included Barbara Anderson's claim here. But don't push POV by entirely removing his statement. Roller958 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinks is not a policy maker, he is the head of the service desk at the Australian branch. And he does not cite any policy on scientific evidence, probably because it does not exist. BlackCab (TALK) 04:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how "skeptical" editors might be. Just provide a source supporting the claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinks is one of the policy makers for Australia. Just like I said before, This is what we call pushing POV. Just provide the source? Its what I added from royal commissions website. Spinks said so. Just like Barbara Anderson said so. Period. --Roller958 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. BlackCab (TALK) 12:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference is fairly clear, Roller: Anderson's comment is presented here as a viewpoint, a valid and pertinent criticism of a policy she describes as badly flawed. She is well established in the mainstream media as a critic of certain aspects of the religion with which she is well acquainted. You want Spinks' very brief, incomplete and rather offhand comment to be used as the source of a claim that a specific policy or process exists, when there is not a skerrick of external evidence to suggest it does. We would need something far more substantial than the word "Certainly". BlackCab (TALK) 21:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this article have a negative bias?

Roller958 has claimed above that this article displays an anti-JW bias. His latest statement is as follows:

“ This article is written with a lot of negativity against JWs. This is clearly evident by the fact that there is hardly any complementary statements. Further the word Watchtower society appears at least 25 times in total inside organization, beliefs and practices section. This is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS. The guideline is to use WTS only when describing evangelical functions, publications or administrative statements. One example in source of doctrine section, It says The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", instead it should be the church or the governing body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith".

The typical style for most section in the article as of now is

• Neutral statement (sometime setting up a stage for criticism)
• Criticism or occasionally a rebuttal

What is rare is anything positive. What about circulation of WT/Awake magazine, 200 million Bibles printed etc. That should have been mentioned in funding section to state where the money goes. 1 billion dollars revenue and only 70 million spent.

”

I would argue that his interpretation of the article's tone is wrong and that it is overall neutral. Repeated reference to the Watch Tower Society is necessary because, as cited sources show, that is the source of JW teachings and practices. It is certainly notable that JWs distribute so many bibles, and that so many books and magazines have been published -- but it is the WTS that has published them. Wikipedia should include this somewhere, but if here, doesn't this compound the problem Roller raises? BlackCab (TALK) 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania & New York (aka WTS) is a non-profit corporation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. WTS also exists in other countries with no connection to those corporations in Pennsylvania & New York. WTS is not church's leadership. Its the common name given to its legal entity used by religions leadership and their associates across the globe to distribute Bible, publish literature and legally defend Jehovah's Witnesses. Simply put members are not looking to a legal corporation called WTS for direction, they look to the Governing Body which give directions using its printed publications through a legal arm called WTS. The Governing Body's power is limited to interpretation of doctrines and policies, without violating religions fundamental teachings. If the Governing Body tomorrow teaches that "Trinity" would be the new interpretation for God then nobody is going to accept it. That was emphasized by a GB member recently, your first loyalty is to Jehovah, then to Governing body, then to branch committee and then to elders in congregation (collectively called earthly organization). Further more its confusing for readers to understand what WTS is, especially if they are directly going to a particular section of this article. They would better understand things if we used words such as "church", "church's leadership", "religion", "religion's leadership" when it comes to controversial doctrines and practices that are directed by its leadership through its legal arm called WTS. (eg. Religions leadership teaches that blood transfusion is a sin against God). For plain facts use Jehovah's Witnesses believe. (for example JWs believe we are living in last days, not WTS teach we are living in last days) Roller958 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Books are published by the WTS, assemblies are organised by the WTS and all letters to congregations and elders come from the WTS. It is a convenient and unambiguous way to describe the source of JW doctrines. The teaching organisation is widely known as "Watchtower" and I remain surprised that you see that description as a negative thing. I also disagree with your conjecture about what would happen if the Governing Body decided God was part of a trinity. As with every other "adjustment" (teachings on dates, "this generation", "superior authorities", blood components, and the identity of faithful and discreet slave to name a few) new doctrines are accepted, indeed must be accepted, without question. What was heresy yesterday becomes "current truth" today. The GB would find a way to explain the trinity and it would be accepted. For proof of that I need only cite the way the sheer lack of logic on the new "overlapping generation" teaching has been willingly ignored by the faithful. BlackCab (TALK) 04:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Which legal corporation are you talking about? The one in New York or the one in Pennsylvania? Or in Australia? One in Britain? If you insist on using that Jargon to equate a legal corporation with JWs leadership, go ahead. Tomorrow they may change the name to "Christian Association of Jehovah's Witnesses", New York & Pennsylvania. Just like I mentioned before, I am not here to entirely remove bias. There were two major ones, one false accusation against Rutherford, second about "second witness". Both the cases you were forced to make changes. I am happy with the result. Remaining it would take an independent editor to do anything. --Roller958 (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are becoming incoherent and I have no idea what changes I was "forced" to make. BlackCab (TALK) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that JWs are expected to follow everything GB says, virtually even if they asked all to jump off a cliff. Apart from that we don't need to discuss over and over again an established consensus, just follow what the guidelines say. Roller958 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Watchtower, 15 November 2011, page 20: "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are taking this quote out of context. As long as no conflict is involved with Bible principles such as to not commit murder, fornication etc, we ought to follow instructions, which may not be sound from a human standpoint. That's how its understood by members. -- Roller958 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Governing Body maintains the doctrine established by a previous president that blood transfusions, a lifesaving and routine medical procedure, are forbidden because of a certain interpretation of several biblical verses. Among all religions the JWs are unique in holding that belief. To my knowledge, no other theologian agrees with their interpretation of those scriptures and arrives at such a doctrinal view. Thus the Governing Body's interpretation has resulted, (as they themselves have often acknowledged) in the deaths of many members including unbaptised children. Yet JWs are required to accept that doctrine; to act contrary to it would result in their automatic "disassociation" and shunning. There is not a huge gulf between that situation and your hypothetical suggestion of the GB directing members to jump off cliffs. Obedience is obligatory.

Irrespective, replacing every doctrinal reference to the Watch Tower Society with "Governing Body" would not address your (erroneous) view that readers would draw the conclusion that JWs are ignorant people controlled by an elite group. The article fairly and accurately explains what JWs are taught. BlackCab (TALK) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Bible clearly asks to abstain from Blood, nothing to do with being obedient to GB. Scriptural interpretation on Blood transfusion were established when JWs where at least 1/10th of their current strength. So there is no point in correlating with theologians, members who joined know theologians have different view.

Using Governing Body as mentioned in the guidelines not only that it makes statements accurate, it improves the quality of the article and its readability. Roller958 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since, as a JW you will argue in favour of the Governing Body's current doctrinal position whatever they say, further doctrinal discussion is clearly pointless. Substituting "Watch Tower Society" with "Governing Body" would improve neither accuracy, quality or readability. BlackCab (TALK) 02:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, using "Watch Tower Society" is inaccurate and ambiguous. A corporation in New York or in Australia does not constitute a religions leadership. Though using "Governing body" can greatly improve the readability when compared to "Watch Tower Society" (since governing body is a meaningful term), "Governing Body" is not the only word we can substitute to improve readability. We can also substitute it with "religion","religions leadership", "denomination" based on the context. We just follow what the guidelines say. Roller958 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have identified several places where "Watch Tower Society" is better replaced with alternative wording. I'll have another look soon if there are more, though many of the descriptions of beliefs and practices refer to what is stated in WTS publications, which remains accurate. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the guideline suggests using "Governing Body" "when referring to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses or those that set policy or doctrine". Most remaining references to the WTS article (in a doctrinal sense) refer to what is written in WTS literature, which is the main teaching aid. I see no problem there. The "Criticism" section contains some references to the WTS that are arguably wrong, including the statement that "critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making, the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience." That disparagement in fact comes from the Governing Body through WTS publications, but the WTS per se does not make those statements. Similarly, the statement that "the Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet" may be incorrect; a check would need to be made of the cited magazine so see how they refer to themselves. On the whole there are relatively few instances where the phrase appears in a context that is arguably wrong. BlackCab (TALK) 07:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that Wiki is not an academic Book, readability is important. Even members don't use WTS anymore. They use "faithful and discreet slave" (aka Governing Body), "Branch Committee", "Branch" etc. News-media often use "religion","Governing Body" etc. What is your specific objection with simply saying "Jehovah's Witness publications" or "religions publication"? When describing official position, its not even necessary to say "Watchtower society Publications say", rather it is as simple as "Governing Body say" or "religion say". Further if we use "Watchtower Society Publications" that raises the next question, which Watchtower society? Publication of Watchtower Society of Australia may be different from that in New-York (Take for example The Kingdom Ministry). This is also true for policy matters, policies are adapted by country. Using "Governing Body" or "religion" is the single coherent wording that avoids ambiguity when referring to official position. Roller958 (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite a nitpicking argument. Since the doctrines of each tentacle of the Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania are identical, it's not an issue. The phrase is widely used in academic articles and clearly understood. BlackCab (TALK) 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly understood only by academicians, ex-JWs and JWs. Ask a reader what is "Watchtower Society"? He may say its a "secret society", or "society in Watchtower." Tell me what is your specific objection in using "Jehovah's Witness publications" or "religions publication" when referring to doctrines. If your objection is about "what Watchtower Society" say as opposed to "what witnesses say", we always have the choice of using what "Governing Body say"--Roller958 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the examples I raised above, I prefer the existing wording. Your objections and suggested alternatives so far seem to have no support. BlackCab (TALK) 20:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Roller958 is suggesting that "a reader" doesn't know what the "Watchtower Society" is. The article quite clearly provides the history and purpose of the Watch Tower Society and its relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it does this before any doctrinal statements are attributed to the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a problem. We can find 3rd party for comments. I put below a table to consolidate my suggestion. Watch Tower society is only required when historical discussions, administration, construction, printing facilities (with the exception of attributing doctrines), legal cases (that are not related collective representation of JWs doctrinal interests). When using Watchtower Society I propose to specify the location as well. (Watchtower Society of New York, Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Bible Student Association of Britain etc).--Roller958 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower society vs Jehovah's Witnesses vs Leadership

	Current wording	User:Roller958 proposal
1	At the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Watch Tower Society, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.	In 2012, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.
2	Watch Tower Society publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"	The religion's publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"
3	The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through publications published by the Watch Tower Society.	The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through its publications.
4	Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible	Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through its publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible
5	Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature	Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of religion's publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature
6	Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature	Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught through its literature
7	Watch Tower Society publications teach that humanity is in a sinful state	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that humanity is in a sinful state
8	Watch Tower Society publications teach that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven
9	Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914	Religion's publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914
10	The meetings are largely devoted to study of Watch Tower Society literature and the Bible	The meetings are largely devoted to study of religion's literature and the Bible
11	Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as wicked and are also shunned	Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in religion's literature as wicked and are also shunned
12	Watch Tower Society publications define the "world" as "the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants"	Jehovah's Witness publications define the "world" as "the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants"
13	Watch Tower Society literature directs Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"	The religion requires Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"
14	The Watch Tower Society provides pre-formatted durable power of attorney documents prohibiting major blood components,	The religion provides pre-formatted durable power of attorney documents prohibiting major blood components,
15	Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the Watch Tower Society provides information about current non-blood medical procedures	Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the religion provides information about current non-blood medical procedures
16	Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest	Jehovah's Witness literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest
17	Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization"	The religion strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the it is to be trusted as "God's organization"
18	Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity, and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination	Jehovah's Witness publications state that consensus of faith aids unity, and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination
19	Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and formerly, the International Bible Students) to declare his will	Jehovah's Witness publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and formerly, the International Bible Students) to declare his will
20	Some failed predictions that the Watch Tower Society had claimed were presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God"	Some failed predictions that the leadership had claimed were presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God"
21	The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet	The Governing Body rejects accusations that it is a false prophet
22	In cases where corroboration is lacking, the Watch Tower Society's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands"	In cases where corroboration is lacking, the religion's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands"
23	Watch Tower Society policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family	Jehovah's Witnesses policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family
24	In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation[372][373] and the Society has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing	In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the religion has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation[372][373] and it has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing

Comment: It would be really nice if the table above had some sort of clear indicator who created it. Secondly, I object with varying degrees of vehemences to many if not most of the changes proposed. Using the phrase "the religion" seems to me to be an attempt to avoid the issue of who issued the statement, and seems to me to rather clearly violate our policy of saying where our material comes from. If the publications of a specific group made a statement, then we should indicate that. If that specific publication is also circulated by others, well and good, but indicating who the original publisher is would still make sense because it properly attributes the sourcing to the source. Further, without having a clear identification of what "the religion" is, specifically whether it includes any splinter groups(?), the statements are to my eyes a rather clear impediment to clarity and ease of understanding, and that is really rather counterproductive. The other changes proposed seem to my eyes to pretty much suffer the same difficulty, in that they seem to be avoiding really clearly identifying the source making the statement. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the table. I don't object in stating the source such as adding "leadership", some printing factory have to publish the material right? (whether it is Watchtower Society or IBSA of London). However I object equating a legal corporation called Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania as the source of Witness doctrines. While the source is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a clear distinction. Roller958 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a widespread acceptance among publications about the JWs that the umbrella terms "Watchtower" and "Watch Tower Society" are acceptable descriptions of the source of doctrines and activities. As I have previously explained, all literature is published by the WTS and all correspondence on JW activities comes from the WTS. It is inextricably linked with the religion and is at its heart. Within Roller's table though, there are several suggested changes to which I'd have no objection. BlackCab (TALK) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The claimed example of distinction between "Watchtower Society" and "IBSA of London" is not only immaterial, but also misleading. The copyright owner of JW literature is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, regardless of which subsidiary does the printing for any particular country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So if Catholic Church prints its doctrine using a factory owned by its corporation called "Watchtower Printing Corporation", does that mean doctrines are of "Watchtower printing Corporation"? That's just doesn't make sense. The mere fact that religions use different legal corporations does not mean its teachings are originating from a corporation, its originating from those who control the corporation. Roller958 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A comment: I disagree to Roller958 when it comes to legal claims, as it is legal entities at both sides in a trial. You can only sue a legal entity. If it is WTBS who are sued, then the legal entity is sued, and the legal entity have to pay damages. It is possible not incorrect to state "Watch Tower Society literature" rather than "Jehovah's Witness publications", as there are not neccessary a conflict of both "Watch Tower Society literature" and Jehovah's Witness believings. The publications are, on the other hand, only a part of Jehovah's Witnesses' way to distribute new teachings. Other ways includes speaches at conventions, where new teachings are presented, without being published by any WTBS-publications at the time presented. Later on, the teaching is further explained in a publication, typical the study-edition of The Watchtower. The publications may teach the JW doctrines, but it is not given it is the origin for the teaching, even not when it is being presented for "common" members, as most members attend to the conventions. Since the article is about JW, and not about WTBS in particular, I can't see why claims like "The Society teaches" should trump what Jehovah's Witnesses believes. When authors not afflicted to the religion, is using "The Society" or simmilar, is it sometimes explained initially, and used with reservations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have the same view as you noted. I don't understand why BlackCab and Jeffro77 have a penchant to use "Watchtower Society". This treatment in Wiki to equate JWs doctrinal source with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania (just because it owns copyright) is unfortunately specific to JWs articles. John Carters opinion that we should always attribute the source is valid if there is dissenting opinion on doctrines. In such cases we can say "Governing Body" or "leadership". I agree that legal claims specifically involved with Watchtower Society of New York, Inc should be attributed as such. However my objection was against cases with collective representation of JWs beliefs. For example cases related to flag salute, military service etc. Roller958 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is as simple as it in almost all countries needs a legal entity both for legally publishing (off topic, but the Norwegian edition of Watchtower have for a long time listed a Norwegian editor, for legal reasons), and for being in position of owing copyrights. JW literature is rendering JW teachings (but may have multiple uses). Wheather it is the origin for "publishing" (like in making public available) new teachings, it is may not always correct, as of the example in my comment above. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The claim that I "have a penchant to use "Watchtower Society"" is not well founded. (Actually, the Pennsylvania corporation that oversees the denomination's worldwide operations is the "Watch Tower" Society.) If there is some specific instance of me changing some other wording in the article to Watch Tower Society to which Roller958 alludes, Roller958 should provide diffs. There are good reasons why the term Watch Tower Society is preferable in certain cases. 1) Use of the term Jehovah's Witnesses for both the organisation and its members can be ambiguous. 2) Production, distribution, and consideration of Watch Tower Society literature is a primary function of the denomination. It is very clearly explained in the History section that the Watch Tower Society is inextricably linked with Jehovah's Witnesses, and has been since the separation of both from the Bible Student movement, and it would actually be quite odd to stop using the term in the article after that section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. However in this whole above discussion you never mentioned that. Two or three comments you had were supportive of including Watchtower Society. So I misread. However, note that the corporation in Pennsylvania do not oversee world wide operation. It owns copyright for most of JWs publications. The one in New York controls most real estate assets, administratively it is the one which have legal oversight. Still in many countries JWs have independent corporations, where US corporations have no authority of. Roller958 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It hadn't seemed necessary initially to mention the self-evident content of the History section.

Your statement about which corporation oversees worldwide operations is incorrect. Our Kingdom Ministry (December 1984) confirms that it is indeed "the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which supervises the worldwide activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses". Your confusion may arise from the fact that it and the New York corporation are both headquartered in New York State, but the one responsible for worldwide operations is incorporated in Pennsylvania. Additionally, the Watchtower Society of New York is responsible for JW real estate in the US, not worldwide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It should not be inferred that I think that every instance of "Watch Tower Society" 'must' remain as they are in the article. It might be suitable to change some, and each would be considered on its merits. However, it is not necessary, as seems to be the intent of the table above, to avoid the term wherever possible (which seems more like 'whitewashing'). Some of the suggested alternatives are worded extremely poorly (e.g. "The meetings are largely devoted to study of religion's literature and the Bible") and others are misleading (e.g. "The Governing Body rejects accusations that it is a false prophet", though the cited source makes no reference to the Governing Body, instead citing statements from previous editions of The Watchtower).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say to whitewash. I said to remove WTS when talking about doctrines. I have agreed to include WTS in history section, legal and administrative statements.Roller958 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, there are some instances where the wording could be changed to the article's benefit. In the table, I'd support Rollers's suggestions for items 2, 13, 18 and 20 (but deleting "claimed were" in that sentence). Most of the others should remain as is. BlackCab (TALK) 09:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts on the points in the table. (In some cases, if a change were made, the suggested grammar would need to be improved.)

1, 10, 24 - not supported - removal of specific relevant information without sufficient reason.

3, 4, 6, 21 - not supported - it is misleading to refer to Watch Tower Society literature (or unattributed statements therein) as the literature (or statements) of the Governing Body or the leadership, as the authors are anonymous and GB does not write all of the material.

2, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23 - possibly change some - some instances could be changed for variety, but no strong reason to avoid referring to Watch Tower Society 'just for the sake of it'. (But strictly speaking, JW is a denomination of Christianity, not a religion)

7, 8 - possible change - concepts that are fundamental core doctrines and not of a controversial nature can be called 'JW beliefs'.

17 - change recommended - second part of sentence does not accurately reflect current view of Watch Tower Society (suggested wording also needs improvement) - perhaps Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning the direction of the "faithful slave", reasoning that it is to be trusted as part of "God's organization"

20 - delete identifier - prior context makes it sufficient to state that Some failed predictions had been presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to see some suggestions. Apart from points 1, 24, I still stand on my suggestions. Witnesses study literature of both Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc and Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Inc. That's correct. But, why does it matter to which corporation the copyright belong too? Its all written by church leadership. Its like attributing thoughts to the publisher of a book, than its writer. On the other hand, everyone know when someone say religion's publication, not all members are involved in writing it. Its going to be written by select few approved by religion's leadership. Its true in the case of any religion. If someone says Catholic Church's literature, I know its not written with the approval of every member of catholic church. Its written by church's leadership or with their approval. I even gave a compromise when I said we can use "Governing Body" or "leadership", as an excuse to some editors contention that Witnesses are controlled by its leadership. But the problem here is your insistence that we should use the corporation name (which owns the copyright), used purely for legal/administrative purpose.Roller958 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It is self-contradictory to suggest that it doesn't matter which corporation owns the copyright, and then to assert that it is otherwise ambiguous which subsidiary produces literature for any particular jurisdiction. And as stated before, there is no such thing as "Watchtower [Bible and Tract] Society of Pennsylvania"; the Pennsylvania corporation is the Watch Tower [Bible and Tract] Society, and all the other corporations are subsidiary.

The comparison with the Catholic Church is flawed, because its members do not identify themselves by saying "I am a Catholic Church".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even with points 1, 24 I recommend to use the full name of respective corporations involved. (WTS of Pennsylvania, WTS of UK). Or simply use religion. Roller958 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide me the source which says its a subsidiary. What is this Watchtower Society mentioned in this article then? There are multiple corporations around the world with the phrase Watchtower Society or similar. Rename all instances of Watchtower society in this article as Watchtower [Bible and Tract] Society of Pennsylvania. (pun intended). You are simply being desperate to keep that wording. "Jehovah's Witnesses publications say" is accurate and clear.Roller958 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Replacing religion's publication with denomination's publication is even a better wording as you suggested.Roller958 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There are publications not copyrighted by Watchtower Society. For example, Our Kingdom Ministry is a Jehovah's Witness publication not from "Watchtower Society" not from "Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania". It is from another corporation called "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.", which is not related legally to Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania.Roller958 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is, as you probably know, a subsidiary of the Watch Tower Society. The terms "Watchtower" and "Watchtower Society" have been used for decades by writers, and are commonly understood, to mean the central, controlling headquarters of the JWs. This encyclopedia follows that practice. BlackCab (TALK) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc is an independent legal corporation. It has nothing to do with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. Kingdom Ministry is published by that corporation, Kingdom Ministry is studied each week in church meeting and it is attributed wrongly to Watchtower Society in this article. All these corporations are answerable to Governing Body ultimately. You won't find any other encyclopedia which use the word "Watchtower Society" when talking about Witness teachings. You will find Watchtower Soceity in books discussing History of Jehovah's Witnesses and those giving in-depth examination (with reservations). As I said, some editors have a taste to keep Watchtower Society to support the accusation that Witnesses are nothing but a bunch of ignorant people who are blindly following a corporation. That's far away from the truth. Members don't even care of existence of corporations. Many don't even know what those corporations are, and what their names are. They care only about what the religion teaches. They care about what the Governing Body (leadership say). It does'nt matter if they publish using Watchtower Soceity or International Bible Students Association or Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. We already have a consensus on this in the guidelines. That guideline is apparently not followed here. Editors are trying to find loop holes in the substance of that guideline, by insisting on "Watchtower Society publications" (instead of Jehovah's Witness publications) --Roller958 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Roller958 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In most cases, the WikiProject guideline has been followed correctly. Apart from the one instance that I specifically recommended to change (item 17 in the table), none of the entries in the table use Watch Tower Society in reference to the leadership or those who set doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The spirit of the guideline was to use Watchtower Society or other corporation names when discussing purely Administrative, legal, teaching schools or publishing facilities. But editors here found a loop hole by using "Watchtower Society publication" when describing doctrines, where it is actually a "Jehovah's Witness publication". Most publication published by Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania have a disclaimer at the beginning similar to "Used or distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses" --Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be just making up what you think the 'spirit' of the guideline is. Actually, the purpose of the guideline has always been simply to avoid referring to the Watch Tower Society "when referring to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses or those that set policy or doctrine" (i.e. the Governing Body). The only instance with that implication (17) is the one I said should be changed. The relationship between Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society and their history is quite clearly explained in the article. The claim that editors 'found a loophole' is ridiculous, since if there were anything so 'insidious' going on, it would have been simpler to just change the guideline, which has been in place for about 10 years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller says "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc is an independent legal corporation. It has nothing to do with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc." Wrong. According to Wikipedia its establishment was announced in a letter by the Watch Tower Society and is a tool of the US branch committee of the JWs, which communicates with elders, congregations and individuals as the Watch Tower Society. Roller continues to nitpick over specific corporate names but ignores that the JWs operate under the umbrella of the Watch Tower Society as an administrative organisation. His claim that members "don't care" about the existence of the corporation is immaterial and his conjecture that editors prefer "Watchtower Society" in order to "support the accusation that Witnesses are nothing but a bunch of ignorant people who are blindly following a corporation" is false, without foundation and his own invention. BlackCab (TALK) 05:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You claim is false. The corporation was established by Jehovah's Witnesses under the guidance of Governing Body. Not by Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc nor by Watchtower Society of New York, Inc. It is under the direct supervision of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are misleading by trying to connect Jehovah's Witnesses Corporations as the source of doctrine, while it is clear that Bible and Jehovah's Witness leadership interpretation of the Bible is the source. Interpretations are published or orally spread. You as an ex-member have contributed in this and other article on alleged mind-control techniques used by Governing body Watchtower Society. So don't argue that your strong stand on this issue have nothing to do with POV, especially when my wording is accurate and does not change the meaning. Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania is not the sole owner of copyrights, other corporations own copyrights and publish materials provided by Governing Body or Branch Committees.--Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the parent corporation of the other subsidiary corporations. And there is still no such thing as the "Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania". Also, your claim that the corporations are under the "direct control of the Governing Body" is inconsistent with the Watch Tower Society's own position that the corporation's directors are not members of the Governing Body. It is very odd indeed that you are saying the corporations are under the direct supervision of the Governing Body, and then immediately claiming that others are "trying to connect Jehovah's Witnesses Corporations as the source of doctrine". Have you lost track of which position you're supposed to be defending? Maybe you need a break.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is not the parent corporation of Watch Tower Society of New York or Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. These three are independent corporations used in United States under the oversight of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Show me a proof otherwise.--Roller958 (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who is good in going off-topic and then using minor points in my argument to talk about something else. I am defending the position of using "Jehovah's Witness publication say". --Roller958 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It may simply be his mistaken view that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is not the corporation that oversees activities of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. That error is shown to be false by the quote I provided from Our Kingdom Ministry above, which explicitly identifies it as the corporation that oversees their activities worldwide.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

1970 Yearbook, page 65-66: "All of these corporations have been organized by Jehovah’s witnesses, people dedicated to doing the will of Jehovah God. They all look to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania as the mother organization that supervises the printing and publication of all the literature that has proved so beneficial to Jehovah’s witnesses in their study of the Bible, and in their proclamation of the good news of God’s kingdom." (formatting added)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your quote is outdated. Since 1976 overhaul, Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have doctrinal oversight on matters. Before that Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Incs, President used to be the final authority on doctrines. I simply said legally corporations around the world are independent. They have the choice to reject or accept administrative directions from corporation in Pennsylvania. Your quote exactly tells the purpose of non-profit corporations. They are for administrative purposes. Non-profit corporations are required for the denomination to run. It is needed for copyright. It is needed to organize conventions, build facilities and so on. I am not contenting that fact. Today the mother for all doctrines is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. It doesn't matter if the mother of all publishing and printing facilities is Pennysylvania corporation or not. (which is not true, other independent corporations hold copyright for Kingdom Ministry) Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

See official statement on the purpose and nature of Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Your response is predictable but wrong. The distinction between the GB and the Watch Tower Society has no bearing at all on the corporate structure of the corporations that are subsidiaries of the parent corporation. Absolutely nothing at all to do with 'source of doctrine'. And the quote from the 1984 Our Kingdom Ministry that says the Watch Tower Society "supervises the worldwide activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses" was published after the 1976 change to which you refer, and the other corporations are not independent, they are subsidiary. Please try to get your facts straight. --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Mother organization" to denote the corporation that is primarily used in 1970 to publish literature is different from being a legal "parent corporation". They are not legal subsidiary. Show me the proof.--Roller958 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Concerning the Pennsylvania corporation, Brother Barr added: “Ever since its incorporation in 1884, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has played an important role in our modern-day history. Still, it is merely a legal instrument available for use by ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ when it is necessary.” - WT,January 15, 2001

"Because of the diversity and scope of our work, the Governing Body has approved the formation of additional corporations to care for certain needs of Jehovah’s Witnesses here in the United States. The new corporations are as follows: Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. These will operate along with Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. " - km 1/02 p. 7 -- Roller958 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Even your own quote acknowledges that the other corporations you refer to function in the United States, whereas the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania oversees the corporations worldwide. There has not been any statement from either the Governing Body or any affiliated corporation that has indicated any change to the corporate structure—that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the corporation that oversees the activities of the subsidiary corporations. This, again, has nothing at all to do with claims about who sets doctrine.

And stop saying "Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania". There is no such corporation. Since you seem to have a fundamental understanding of the purpose of the Pennsylvania corporation and its worldwide functions, maybe you should read the article a few times before attempting to comment further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to divert attention of this discussion by picking silly mistakes in my wordings. Stop mixing legal corporations with source of doctrines. Roller958 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And you keep telling Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania is the parent corporation. Stop making false claims. Get YOUR facts straight. You can check with US corporation database. There is no such single corporation that is the parent of all other corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. The three corporations in USA we just discussed are all independent of each other. They work side by side. They serve different purposes. Some corporations own buildings, some owns assembly halls, others own copyrights. Corporations are often separated to reduce legal accountability. They all are supervised by Governing Body and branch committee of USA. In other countries respective corporations are supervised by respective branch committees. If corporations in other countries need changes then the Governing Body have to talk with branch committees. Its not like Pennsylvania corporation commands and all other corporations follow (there is no legal binding). The question is why pushing POV to keep corporation names when attributing doctrines, while it is clear that using Jehovah's Witness publication say or Jehovah's Witness say or Governing Body say is accurate and clear. I summarize my reasons below.

1) There are multiple corporations with the words "Watchtower Society" around the world (Its ambiguous)

2) A corporation is not the source of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It's the Bible and interpretation of governing body.

3) Jehovah's Witness use other independent corporations without the words "Watch Tower" or similar to copyright its publications. (example Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses)

4) Using "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Governing Body say", therefore is accurate when describing official teachings -- Roller958 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower Society

Editors disagree on whether to use "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Watchtower Society publications say" when describing doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. See above discussion. Roller958 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• My comment above is spammed by long comments, but I stick to referring to "Jehovah's Witness believes" or "Jehovah's Witness publications states", since the article is about Jehovah's Witnesses. A reason for doing so, is JW publications is not the the sole source of distribution of JW teachings, neither the new or etablished ones. A middleway is to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings, as axplained in [the particular publication]. When describing legal issues, I think using the actual corporation would be correct. Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Elders do not report

The statement elders do not report is not entirely accurate, "generally" do not is more accurate. Though practically none was reported in Australia, its a conscientious decision as heard in Royal Commission proceedings. That should be corrected in the official policy mentioned here. Roller958 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The policy is actually a bit more subtle, and I have tried to reflect that in my proposed rewording, as linked above. The article currently says that elders "do not report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law"; in fact the policy places such a requirement only when there is a legal obligation; in other words there is actually no policy at all on reporting to authorities other than (a) do it if required by law and (b) do not discourage an individual from doing it. The statement that elders "do not report" or "generally do not report" is a reasonable deduction from that policy, and the findings of the Australian royal commission are valuable in showing what happened in one region, which is probably representative of the global experience. But is a deduction good enough here? BlackCab (TALK) 08:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording was introduced recently by ChercheTrouve[6]. It is not good wording. The issue is complicated by the fact that whilst the policy directs elders to report 'when required by law', the policy apparently (as indicated by the Society's lawyer's testimony to the Royal Commission) only refers to laws regarding mandatory reporting of allegations of abuse, and is not employed where there are laws requiring that any person report knowledge of crimes, which would apply in cases where elders are convinced that sexual abuse has occurred (irrespective of organisational rules about 'two witnesses').--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In this edit I requested quotes for the claim "[t]he elders do not report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law, leaving the decision to report to authorities with the victim and his or her family". In the article it is mentioned a policy ("According to Jehovah's Witnesses' policy"), then refering to the' policy ("The policy directs elders to report abuse allegations to authorities when required by law, in other cases leaving the decision to report to authorities with the victim and his or her family") like it was the one and same thing. The referenced Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, like it is presented in thepapers from the hearing, p. 138, it is about members and applying members with unsettled law issues in general. I can not see any reference to child sex abuse or simmilar at the referenced page. Being an illegal alien is not concidered serious at all in a number of countries, often even not a crime. It would be easier if quotes are given at the talk page, then find out if it adds relevant information, and then find out what to add ("According to Rodney Peter Spinks at the Watchtower help desk, JW practice in Australia have been..." and so on. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The current elders' manual is Shepherd the Flock of God, downloadable at the royal commission website, and the relevant policy is on pages 131-132. BlackCab (TALK) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I amended the most problematic element of ChercheTrouve's wording last night.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)