This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Stale. No response by one primary disputant. May be refiled if dispute resumes. But let me note to the filing IP editor that your mass removal of material which has been in the article for a long time has been challenged by multiple editors. Under the Consensus Policy, the burden is now on you to obtain a consensus before removing that material again. Try to get discussion started on the article talk page; if you cannot, either do not make the changes to the article or file a request for comments to attract other editors to the discussion. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Sending back to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because no volunteer at that board has yet addressed the sourcing issues which seem to be extremely important to this case and because this noticeboard is, per its guidelines, not the place for disputes which are being discussed in other forums. If there are non-sourcing issues which remain after that discussion is complete, and those issues cannot be resolved by discussion on the article talk page, then a new filing may be made here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute resolved by parties involved. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 11:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Application failed; not all major disputants agreed to participate. Consider either continuing discussion on talk page or utilizing a request for comments. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 00:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Procedural close. Dispute resolved on article talk page by involved editors. No need for further DR Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Procedural close. It appears that that there a number of other editors who have been involved in this dispute who ought to also be made parties. Doing so manually and manually notifying them will be overly cumbersome, so MoFreedom should feel free to relist this with those other editors included. Acroterion has listed some or all of them below. However, be aware that this noticeboard will not be able to, "Allow me to post my proposed post my material." This isn't a content court that can decide whether or not to include material; Wikipedia has no such forum and all inclusion decisions are made by consensus in keeping with policy and guidelines. All we can do here is to try to help you and the other editors come to an agreement about the material in question. That discussion will likely begin with a request that MoFreedom specifically respond to the issues raised by Acroterion below. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
No recent talkpage discussion. Two of the other editors have not edited or discussed this point in months and the third one has been indefinitely blocked since 2009. Propose the edits again on the talk page (at the bottom or no one may see them). For general advice on the subject, consider Editor assistance. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
It is two connected issues I hope could be resolved here: Does the phrase "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" reflects the article's main text state: "Witnesses are taught that association with 'worldly' people presents a 'danger' to their faith, and are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality." I've suggested to change the main text into "While the Witnesses internally are advised to minimize social contact with non-members, independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, where Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination" (check the article's revision history for the complete change). I've added sources and quotes confirming the statement, but the statement was reverted by Jeffro, followed by the comment from BlackCab including the reason "the selective quoting from the Norwegian authors does not provide the context of their comment, and nor am I convinced you have provided their complete viewpoint". BlackCab is using one of the same sources I use, but draws the opposite conclusion. My opinion is that the source does support the statement I inserted, as my edit does not exclude the fact that some, may even most, of Jehovah's Witnesses in fact do not minimize social contact with non-members, but I find both the Holden's and Ringnes source supportive to my edit. I do also find both sources being more independent and of higher quality than some of the current present sources. Jeffro's objections seems to be of quantitative character. The sources does not support the statement with numbers, but both sources spends several pages about the detail. I am not sure wheater Jeffro still object to the change. He did though do some minor changes into the main text.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The case have been discussed at the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I got a feeling of being edited when editing this specific article. A third part look into the page could open up for a more accurate article, including presenting notable views from independent scholars.
Grrahnbahr’s objection to the wording seems to be confined to the second part of the sentence rather than the first; this is what I’ll address. The existing wording is correct as a general and succinct statement in the article’s lede of the religion’s official teaching, with which all members are required to comply. The religion’s official publications (cited in the article and quoted on the talk page) explicitly state that members must limit or avoid social interaction with non-JWs because of the “danger” of being weakened spiritually. Sociologist Andrew Holden (cited in the article) also states his own observation that members do just this. On the talk page I quote Holden’s observation based on extensive interviews that "when Witnesses engage in (leisure activities) it is nearly always in the company of other members of their congregation."
Grrahnbahr has introduced a self-translation of a selectively edited comment by two Norwegians whom he describes as independent scholars. That excerpt says there is a range of acceptance of this edict by (Norwegian?) JWs and their children, but that the “ideal” is that JWs socialise only with other JWs. The Norwegian couple, too, clearly find the very issue sufficiently notable and distinctive to discuss it.
The structure of Grrahnbahr’s suggested edit is neither editorially neutral nor true.
(a) Stating that “While the Witnesses internally are advised x, independent scholars say y” injects editorial comment that is designed to minimise the official, accepted teaching and present a contrary interpretation.
(b) JW publications rarely “advise”; the quotes from publications show they are explicit instructions to members on acceptable conduct. Those who disobey instructions are liable for disciplinary action.
(c) The Watchtower is not just “internal” instruction; 45 million copies of the magazine are distributed monthly, but there are fewer than 8 million JWs.
(d) The use of the term “independent scholars” is misleading. Holden’s study in fact showed general compliance. The two Norwegian scholars did find some variance, but to what degree and among whom, we do not know.
BlackCab (
talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Refer to my response at the article's Talk page, including references to Watch Tower Society publications indicating the official view of the organisation regarding friendships with 'worldly' people.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Carrie; I volunteer here at the DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority, but I will act as a mediator and try to give an outside view.
I've looked at the article and talk page, and read everyone's comments. As far as I can see there's no disagreement about the fact that JWs are instructed to limit interaction with people outside the religion, but the dispute is about whether they actually do. We have two separate questions:
Since the second question only becomes relevant if we agree on the second interpretation for the first, I suggest we concentrate on the first one for now. CarrieVS ( talk) 10:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Given any rule or instruction in any organisation, there are bound to be some people who break it. That's just common sense, and we don't need to include mention of it, especially in the lead, per WP:UNDUE. If it's ignored by a substantial proportion, it would probably be worth mentioning that in the article, but as long as it's generally followed, I would say that it's still true that the group as a whole follow it. Almost any collective statement about the members of a large group is bound to be a generalisation. On the other hand, if a rule is generally ignored and/or considered acceptable to ignore (e.g. the 70mph speed limit on motorways in Britain), the statement would be untrue.
So, do these sources say that it's generally considered ok for JWs to ignore the requirement to limit social interaction with non-JWs or that most don't follow it, or just that a minority choose to break this rule? CarrieVS ( talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I rolled back BlackCabs' edit at Jehovah's Witnesses, as I suggest to get a consensus before making any changes. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We should not quote the watchtower saying "true Christians" as it give undue weight to the perception that the watchtower publishers are true Christians. We need to point out that the borg only speak to other to proselyte and do not have any true friendships inside or outside of the organization. Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds ok to me. Can we live with BlackCab's suggestion above? CarrieVS ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The current proposal:
I'm a little confused by some of the recent discussion. Reading it all, it looks to me like everyone is more-or-less happy with this, but you speak as if you were still at odds. I would like you all to state simply, with no more than one sentence of explanation, whether or not you agree in principle. The exact wording in the body of the article can be discussed afterwards. CarrieVS ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Jeffro 77: agree. See previous comments regarding balance of wording in the lead and body; also, Grrahnbahr's 'disagreement' below does not address the lead.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
BlackCab: agree - lead section per proposal, body section can cite Ringnes without substantially altering present statement. BlackCab ( talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Exactly, the advise comes from an allegedly theocratic (and certainly totalitarian) source and so can be considered something not to be disagreed with Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 10:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Grrahnbahr: disagree - I agree to the suggestion for lead section, but I disagree to the use of told to and instruction, as it could/should be regarded as advises rather than instructions. - Grrahnbahr ( talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It needs to be noted these people are cyborgs who will only pretend to be your friend to preach to you Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 22:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Failure to participate by key disputant Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
No evidence that these two editors have interacted at all on the talk page or edit history. Amadscientist ( talk) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Withdrawn by requesting editor. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Stale. No response by one primary disputant. May be refiled if dispute resumes. But let me note to the filing IP editor that your mass removal of material which has been in the article for a long time has been challenged by multiple editors. Under the Consensus Policy, the burden is now on you to obtain a consensus before removing that material again. Try to get discussion started on the article talk page; if you cannot, either do not make the changes to the article or file a request for comments to attract other editors to the discussion. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Sending back to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard because no volunteer at that board has yet addressed the sourcing issues which seem to be extremely important to this case and because this noticeboard is, per its guidelines, not the place for disputes which are being discussed in other forums. If there are non-sourcing issues which remain after that discussion is complete, and those issues cannot be resolved by discussion on the article talk page, then a new filing may be made here. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute resolved by parties involved. Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 11:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Application failed; not all major disputants agreed to participate. Consider either continuing discussion on talk page or utilizing a request for comments. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 00:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Procedural close. Dispute resolved on article talk page by involved editors. No need for further DR Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 11:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Procedural close. It appears that that there a number of other editors who have been involved in this dispute who ought to also be made parties. Doing so manually and manually notifying them will be overly cumbersome, so MoFreedom should feel free to relist this with those other editors included. Acroterion has listed some or all of them below. However, be aware that this noticeboard will not be able to, "Allow me to post my proposed post my material." This isn't a content court that can decide whether or not to include material; Wikipedia has no such forum and all inclusion decisions are made by consensus in keeping with policy and guidelines. All we can do here is to try to help you and the other editors come to an agreement about the material in question. That discussion will likely begin with a request that MoFreedom specifically respond to the issues raised by Acroterion below. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
No recent talkpage discussion. Two of the other editors have not edited or discussed this point in months and the third one has been indefinitely blocked since 2009. Propose the edits again on the talk page (at the bottom or no one may see them). For general advice on the subject, consider Editor assistance. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
It is two connected issues I hope could be resolved here: Does the phrase "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan, and limit their social interaction with non-Witnesses" reflects the article's main text state: "Witnesses are taught that association with 'worldly' people presents a 'danger' to their faith, and are also advised to minimize social contact with non-members to better maintain their own standards of morality." I've suggested to change the main text into "While the Witnesses internally are advised to minimize social contact with non-members, independent scholars describes an individual practice on this area, where Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals in varying degrees do have social networks outside the denomination" (check the article's revision history for the complete change). I've added sources and quotes confirming the statement, but the statement was reverted by Jeffro, followed by the comment from BlackCab including the reason "the selective quoting from the Norwegian authors does not provide the context of their comment, and nor am I convinced you have provided their complete viewpoint". BlackCab is using one of the same sources I use, but draws the opposite conclusion. My opinion is that the source does support the statement I inserted, as my edit does not exclude the fact that some, may even most, of Jehovah's Witnesses in fact do not minimize social contact with non-members, but I find both the Holden's and Ringnes source supportive to my edit. I do also find both sources being more independent and of higher quality than some of the current present sources. Jeffro's objections seems to be of quantitative character. The sources does not support the statement with numbers, but both sources spends several pages about the detail. I am not sure wheater Jeffro still object to the change. He did though do some minor changes into the main text.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The case have been discussed at the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I got a feeling of being edited when editing this specific article. A third part look into the page could open up for a more accurate article, including presenting notable views from independent scholars.
Grrahnbahr’s objection to the wording seems to be confined to the second part of the sentence rather than the first; this is what I’ll address. The existing wording is correct as a general and succinct statement in the article’s lede of the religion’s official teaching, with which all members are required to comply. The religion’s official publications (cited in the article and quoted on the talk page) explicitly state that members must limit or avoid social interaction with non-JWs because of the “danger” of being weakened spiritually. Sociologist Andrew Holden (cited in the article) also states his own observation that members do just this. On the talk page I quote Holden’s observation based on extensive interviews that "when Witnesses engage in (leisure activities) it is nearly always in the company of other members of their congregation."
Grrahnbahr has introduced a self-translation of a selectively edited comment by two Norwegians whom he describes as independent scholars. That excerpt says there is a range of acceptance of this edict by (Norwegian?) JWs and their children, but that the “ideal” is that JWs socialise only with other JWs. The Norwegian couple, too, clearly find the very issue sufficiently notable and distinctive to discuss it.
The structure of Grrahnbahr’s suggested edit is neither editorially neutral nor true.
(a) Stating that “While the Witnesses internally are advised x, independent scholars say y” injects editorial comment that is designed to minimise the official, accepted teaching and present a contrary interpretation.
(b) JW publications rarely “advise”; the quotes from publications show they are explicit instructions to members on acceptable conduct. Those who disobey instructions are liable for disciplinary action.
(c) The Watchtower is not just “internal” instruction; 45 million copies of the magazine are distributed monthly, but there are fewer than 8 million JWs.
(d) The use of the term “independent scholars” is misleading. Holden’s study in fact showed general compliance. The two Norwegian scholars did find some variance, but to what degree and among whom, we do not know.
BlackCab (
talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Refer to my response at the article's Talk page, including references to Watch Tower Society publications indicating the official view of the organisation regarding friendships with 'worldly' people.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Carrie; I volunteer here at the DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority, but I will act as a mediator and try to give an outside view.
I've looked at the article and talk page, and read everyone's comments. As far as I can see there's no disagreement about the fact that JWs are instructed to limit interaction with people outside the religion, but the dispute is about whether they actually do. We have two separate questions:
Since the second question only becomes relevant if we agree on the second interpretation for the first, I suggest we concentrate on the first one for now. CarrieVS ( talk) 10:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Given any rule or instruction in any organisation, there are bound to be some people who break it. That's just common sense, and we don't need to include mention of it, especially in the lead, per WP:UNDUE. If it's ignored by a substantial proportion, it would probably be worth mentioning that in the article, but as long as it's generally followed, I would say that it's still true that the group as a whole follow it. Almost any collective statement about the members of a large group is bound to be a generalisation. On the other hand, if a rule is generally ignored and/or considered acceptable to ignore (e.g. the 70mph speed limit on motorways in Britain), the statement would be untrue.
So, do these sources say that it's generally considered ok for JWs to ignore the requirement to limit social interaction with non-JWs or that most don't follow it, or just that a minority choose to break this rule? CarrieVS ( talk) 21:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I rolled back BlackCabs' edit at Jehovah's Witnesses, as I suggest to get a consensus before making any changes. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
We should not quote the watchtower saying "true Christians" as it give undue weight to the perception that the watchtower publishers are true Christians. We need to point out that the borg only speak to other to proselyte and do not have any true friendships inside or outside of the organization. Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds ok to me. Can we live with BlackCab's suggestion above? CarrieVS ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The current proposal:
I'm a little confused by some of the recent discussion. Reading it all, it looks to me like everyone is more-or-less happy with this, but you speak as if you were still at odds. I would like you all to state simply, with no more than one sentence of explanation, whether or not you agree in principle. The exact wording in the body of the article can be discussed afterwards. CarrieVS ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Jeffro 77: agree. See previous comments regarding balance of wording in the lead and body; also, Grrahnbahr's 'disagreement' below does not address the lead.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
BlackCab: agree - lead section per proposal, body section can cite Ringnes without substantially altering present statement. BlackCab ( talk) 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Exactly, the advise comes from an allegedly theocratic (and certainly totalitarian) source and so can be considered something not to be disagreed with Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 10:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Grrahnbahr: disagree - I agree to the suggestion for lead section, but I disagree to the use of told to and instruction, as it could/should be regarded as advises rather than instructions. - Grrahnbahr ( talk) 22:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It needs to be noted these people are cyborgs who will only pretend to be your friend to preach to you Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 22:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Failure to participate by key disputant Cabe 6403 ( Talk• Sign) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
No evidence that these two editors have interacted at all on the talk page or edit history. Amadscientist ( talk) 08:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Withdrawn by requesting editor. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|