Talk:New World Translation/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about New World Translation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Criticism

I propose deleting the text regarding the listed translators of the NWT. The reason is that the list itself is not verifiable. Raymond Franz's memoirs (or exposé, if you prefer) should be heavily discounted according to Reliable Sources guidelines: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution." The same would apply to the comments William Cetnar. Given that these two lists differ somewhat, and that there motives for giving the list are clearly impure (they knew the translators wished to be kept anonymous to keep critical focus on the accuracy of their work, and not on their own persons) -- a wish that certainly R. Franz (not sure about W. Cetnar, but likely) pledged to support -- shows that the characters of these two are somewhat questionable. Moreover, the lists that these two published are not identical casting some doubt since Henschel was no minor figure. Furthermore it is not known if R Franz/W Cetnar used names that would be easily attacked, or if their lists were exhaustive, or if the disputed versus were the actual work of these men (of which there are truly very, very few -- apart from the use of "Jehovah" as a NT translation principle, probably less than two dozen in the entire work).

If it were the case that Franz provided a list of translators merely because they wanted to remain anonymous, it would not be worth providing a list. But the list was provided because the credentials of the translators were called into question. Also, there is a distinction regarding whether Raymond Franz's recollections were merely vague memoirs of incidental events, or accounts of events and people he was clearly familiar with. Additionally one list having an extra name, but that still includes all of the other names, does not invalidate the possible accuracy of either list, as would two completely disparate lists of names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This Article discusses the New World Translation, and criticisms about its alleged inaccuracies are well presented. The dozen or so verses that are in dispute have been extensively examined and written about, and on both sides. The translators were completely open and candid about the issues raised by critics in their explanations to Readers, by the NWTTC in advance and later by the WTB&TS in various responses, so hearing from them as individuals on these issues is of no practical value, mudslinging notwithstanding. And the NWT translators aren't the only one writing in support of their work, nor are they the only group rendering these questioned verses as they generally did (there are a dozen or more other translations that render John 1:1c as something different than "the Word is God"). If, say, Readers prefer the argument of Dr W Barclay that translating John 1:1c as "a god" is "grammatically impossible" then the Readers can investigate whether this is really grammatically impossible or not. This Article alerts and informs the Reader to that very extent. And that's the point: The Reader has been duly alerted and thus can research the matter further starting with the references given. If putting in the Divine Name 237 times is a case of special pleading, then what is intentionally deleting it 6,828 times? The Reader of the NWT is clearly informed as the the translation principles, and the counterpoints are well presented herein and in the references criticizing the NWT -- knowing who did it is an aside. All translations carry the bias of their translators, and not even all the detractors of the NWT agree amongst themselves. The list itself is not verifiable nor does it add any insight into the real matter at hand: The accuracy of the translation. The translator list is specious. -- cfrito (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Of the list of NWT translators you write, “The list itself is not verifiable”. At this point should the Watchtower organization itself or any other entity publish a list of NWT translators we would have no means to authenticate the names beyond taking the entity’s word for it. So what precisely are you looking for in the way of verification? The text you keep disputing contains referenced source material published by two different individuals with firsthand knowledge. When a criticism of the NWT is one of translator qualifications then having knowledge of translators is germane. Please explain yourself.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: R Franz was not a member of the Governing Body during the time the translation was done so he did not have "first hand knowledge." Not even close -- years had passed. He wasn't even at the World Headquarters until years after the release in printed form to the public at large. You have published a complete and utter falsehood. And he was long gone before the 1984 Edition was prepared. As to the other "source", his list is different -- if they both had "firsthand knowledge", why wouldn't the lists be identical? The fact is they named the names they knew were in lead administrative roles. You yourself have written extensively about discounting sources with a known bias (e.g., Carolyn Wah). And when you personally took issue with her phrasing, you used it as prima facie evidence that she is not to be considered at all. Here we have two people with a clear axe to grind perpetuating "first hand knowledge" that they did not have as "fact", and their stories don't even match. It was just five high profile names: How hard is that to get right?

Cfrito: I have not said Ray Franz was a governing body member during the time the NWT was produced. I have said that Ray Franz had firsthand knowledge of the translation committee. Please get your allegations correct before attempting a rebuttal.

Firsthand knowledge means a person has immediate access to information rather than having obtained it second hand. As a member of the highest rank in the Watchtower organization Ray Franz certainly had firsthand access to all the affairs impinging authorship of Watchtower publications, and the NWT is a Watchtower publication in case you have not noticed. Firsthand information does not require concurrency. It only requires immediate access. Ray Franz had immediate access by virtue of his high position in the organization, not to mention his many years in the organization’s editorial department. If a governing body member cannot be said to have immediate access to this sort of information then no one in the Watchtower hierarchy can claim firsthand knowledge of this information.

As for the names provided by Cetnar compared to those provided by Franz, it is not an inconsistency that Cetnar names an additional person as a member of the NWT translation committee because neither man has insisted that they have given the names of all the members of that committee. Franz, for example, writes only “The New World Translation bears no translator’s name and is presented as the anonymous work of the ‘New World Translation Committee.’ Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind.” (Crisis of Conscience, p. 54) For a discrepancy of this information to create a disagreement it would have to pose a contradiction, but the list of names by Cetnar and Franz do not contradict one another.

You are quite correct to point out the problem of bias. But neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar have anything to gain by inventing names as translators of the NWT, and the names provided by these two men are complementary. Furthermore, the names published from Cetnar occurred in 1974, which was 6 years prior to Ray Franz’s resignation from the governing body. Given the admittedly guarded nature of NWT translators, the publication of this information undoubtedly spawned discussion of this very piece of information within higher Watchtower circles of information control, which would place Ray Franz right in the middle of the conversation. (We know Watchtower officials read and consider information like this. See Wah, Review of Religious Research, 2001, Vol., 43:2, pp. 161-174) Additionally, given Cetnar’s list was published several years ahead of Franz’s, had Franz been presenting anything other than firsthand knowledge he would have mirrored Cetner’s list of names precisely. But he did not do that, did he. Franz published names consistent with Cetnar’s but not in contradiction to Cetnar’s. Neither man had anything to protect or gain by publishing anything other than their actual firsthand knowledge of individuals they knew to be part of the NWT translation committee.

By the way, I have not remotely suggested that author Wah should “not be considered at all”. I have said that in instances where she writes on behalf of the Watchtower organization as a representative of that organization what she writes in the way of defending that organization should be discounted. Please note that discount does not mean dispose of (i.e., not consider at all). Again, please get your facts straight.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of the Wikipedia standard, especially in the absence of any official statement regarding the actual translators from official documentation, I support the removal of the passage:

"Although the members of the committee that translated the NWT wish to remain anonymous, Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body[48], has claimed that the translation committee consisted of 6 members:[49]

William Cetnar, a former Witness who resigned from the international headquarters in 1958 and was disfellowshipped from the religion for apostasy in 1962[50], also included Milton Henschel as a member of the translation committee.[51]

It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz having formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations.[52] These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators.[53]"

These citations are more appropriately placed on a page called "Testimony from Disgruntled Former Jehovah's Witnesses".

Comments? -- cfrito (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

cfrito: "Disgruntled"? Have you ever heard the expression, point of view (POV)?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Yes "disgruntled" is a basis for a POV. You said it yourself. Franz's list is a POV and adds no insight and should be removed.

Cfrito: The point of my question was to express it inappropriate for an editor HERE to label an “ex” as “disgruntled” because to do so is to assert a POV on the part of the Wiki editor. This is the POV prohibited by Wiki policy. Of course author’s cited and quoted by Wiki editors are frequently asserting their POV. This is precisely why Wiki policy directs that all published POVs have a place within Wikipedia without attributing undue weight to one POV over another POV. You should read up on this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the above referenced section for the reasons given, and as there have been no objections or comments, consensus is assumed.. -- cfrito (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) f

cfrito: Your edit is undone. The material meets Wiki standards for inclusion. Furthermore, the presentation of this material is neutral in that it correctly attributes the source and the form of information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Would you please explain yourself? You have deleted criticism from the Criticism Section! If the Criticism Section is not the place to put criticism then there should be no Criticism Section!

Marvin Shilmer: I deleted innuendo and unsupportable rumor from the Criticism Section. R Franz was not present during the period when the NWT work was done, and he was not in a position to know such details -- he was a rank-and-file member at that time with no special inside track. R Franz was appointed to the Governing Body more than two decades after the NT work was complete (where most of the criticism is aimed) and wasn't even present at JW HQ until 5 years after the final parts of the OT were completed. What R Franz wrote in his book was from memory, without consulting any documentation (and that makes an assumption that there is documentation). Therefore, i repeat: The reason is that the list itself is not verifiable. Raymond Franz's memoirs (or exposé, if you prefer) should be heavily discounted according to Reliable Sources guidelines: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution." R Franz simply could not have had "firsthand knowledge". That's a pure fabrication. Creating an 'air of dishonor' around the NWTTC's noble goal of permitting Bible translation to stand on its own legs rather than bask in self-glorification, is a POV. -- cfrito (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have not suggested Ray Franz was present at Watchtower headquarters during development and publication of the NWT. I have suggested that by virtue of his position later on as a governing body member (not to mention years working in the editorial department!) that he was placed him in a position to have firsthand knowledge of who made up the NWT committee. Tell me, if governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does?

After accusing me of “innuendo and unsupportable rumor” (said of my edits you deleted) you write, “R Franz wrote in his book was from memory, without consulting any documentation”. I know Ray Franz. Years and years ago I worked with Ray Franz to know him personally. I also happen to know Ray Franz has plenty of documents at his disposal so that issues such as this are not strictly a matter of his personal recollection years after the fact. Particularly Ray has a lot of personal notes taken during governing body sessions and from his work in Watchtower’s editorial (writing) department. I know this because I have seen it with my own eyes. But I am unable to cite these as sources because to date Ray has not seen fit to publish this mass of material. But I doubt you know Ray Franz. I doubt you’ve ever worked with Ray Franz. And, I know for a fact you are absolutely unable to prove your statement that Ray wrote what he wrote about the NWT committee “without consulting any documentation” with a result that he wrote from memory. Talk about “innuendo and unsupportable rumor”!!!

I have edited the material in the article. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: It's clear you sympathize with R Franz. If he has the copies of his documents or his contemporaneous notes that answer this question with finality, let him produce them. Then you won't need the WTB&TS copies and you can publish your "translator list" without fear of having it deleted. In the end it won't mean that the NWTTC mistranslated the NWT. The fact that you have to go to such extremes with personal defenses of R Franz and elaborate time lines and exotic sleuthing shows that your arguments are weak and that you are simply pushing your own personal agenda, your own POV. Tell your pal R Franz to produce the document and all this goes away. Until he does, or the WTB&TS produces them, keep it out of this Article. Funny though, how you say "happen to know" of all this documentation of his, but will not testify that you personally saw the copy of the list. But, funny, you do say that it's not a complete list. The whole thing is just plain fishy. And you say the whole Organization was to keep the list secret, but R Franz as a GB member was not so bound? That he has no ethical requirements to keep his word? Preposterous. -- cfrito (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I see you are unable to prove your assertion that Ray Franz list of names is “based on recollection”. No surprise here.

Marvin Shilmer: The burden of proof is on you. It's clear there is no document and R Franz is relying on recollections in his memoirs. If you had anything substantive you would have produced already. -- cfrito (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Again you fail to prove your assertion that Ray Franz list of names is “based on recollection”. This is your assertion; not mine. Hence it is yours to prove. As for the names Ray provides, Wiki policy stipulates criteria for use here. The key element is source reliability. The names Ray provides are consistent with and complimented by another source, namely William Cetnar. By reason of position and/or proximity we have reason to accept these firsthand testimonies as corroborative and no reason to dismiss the information. When I have detailed these issues on this talk page you have routinely avoided any and all rebuttals of your complaints otherwise. I do not know if this is on purpose or if you fail to grasp the import of what is said in reply to what you raise.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “And you say the whole Organization was to keep the list secret, but R Franz as a GB member was not so bound?” I have not said the “whole Organization was to keep the list secret”. I have said no more than I can evidence, that the agreement not to publish names of the translators was between the Watchtower Pennsylvania Corporation Board of Directors and the NWT Committee. Nothing suggests that this agreement precluded insiders at Watchtower from knowing this information, or that it precluded members of the NWT Committee from disclosing their identity to whomever they wanted to disclose it. You have offered no evidence to show Ray Franz was under an obligation to maintain silence of any knowledge he had of the NWT Committee members. What you have offered is one red herring on top of another, and you never seem to get around to offering straightforward answers to straightforward questions, either. No surprise here.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Play word games all you want, keep secret, not publish, whatever. R Franz broke a confidence or lied or both. And he did it after he left the JW organization in a huff and wrote a book about his "conscience" bothering him (how ironic). What could be more POV and more "memoir" than that? ***yawn***. Wikipedia's standard is still the same regarding recollections from memoirs. Call your pal Ray-Ray and have him send you a copy of the list on WTB&TS letterhead. Then publish it in a book. Or get the WTB&TS to heed your mighty command and send it to you right now or have them run it in the next issue of the Watchtower. Then send me a reference and I'll add it to the Article. But short of that, knock it off already. You're just incensed that someone has identified your extreme bias, and your POV-bullying. -- cfrito (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is merely an assumption that 'the agreement' "precluded members of the NWT Committee from disclosing their identity to whomever they wanted to disclose it". It is also merely an assumption that "R Franz broke a confidence or lied or both". What is known is that Franz was nephew of the org's president and in no minor role himself as a member of the 'governing body', and therefore in a position to know such details, and to have documentation of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your allegations of Ray are pure speculative opinion (i.e., POV). Your allegations of me are unworthy of response.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: My statements about you are accurate, based on an analysis of your own self-contradictions and patently false statements. You said R Franz had firsthand knowledge of who the translators were, when as a matter of actual fact he wasn't anywhere near the place or the information for another 21 years. You lied plain and simple. Reading a document no sooner than 21 years after the fact, if R Franz ever actually read any such thing, is not firsthand knowledge and you make a fool of yourself asserting it. You said he has "documents", so you're sure it's not recollection? I guess academic standards don't apply when it's you. When you can truly substantiate it, then post it, but not before. Burden of proof is on you and R Franz to substantiate the allegations the two of you are making. You have claimed infallibility, and I think you know better than that, so that was a lie. You have said I haven't addressed your questions, but I have over and over. So that's a lie. Youi claimed that there was no known reason for R Franz or W Cetnar to misrepresent matters, when they are known avid haters of the JW organization and devote all their time to tearing at JW's -- and you know R Franz, so that's a lie that you were unaware of any such bias. And there's more. You continue to post criticisms based on material that has not been peer reviewed when it suits you but castigate anyone who tries when it hurts you position, making you a pretty big hypocrite. BeDuhn is a peer reviewed expert, but then again, he is a clear supporter of the NWT so I'm sure that's why you limit his references and add misleading qualifiers. R Franz's book is a memoir and pure POV and has no place in a serious critique of the NWT. You have demonstrated a clear bias and you are in no way neutral. Why don't you harness all that academic prowess you are so proud of and list the exact number of verses in dispute? Then explain why there are so many translations besides the NWT. And why not all their verses agree. And why many of them actually translate the disputed verses quite similarly to the NWT. -- cfrito (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I do not care what you think of my person, and I doubt anyone else cares either. What counts here is what editors can verify for encyclopedic entry.

For the umpteenth time: Ray Franz had firsthand access to knowledge of the translators by virtue of his position, not his proximity in time to the translation. You avoid this at every turn. Again I ask: if governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does? Repeatedly you fail to answer this question.

Yes, I said Ray has documents at his disposal which he consults for purposes of writing and publication. Some of these documents are published in his books, hence we know he has such a personal library of documents. However I have not said Ray consulted such documentation regarding his naming of the NWT Committee, because I do not know if this is an item within his library of documents or not, and neither do you. Hence I have not made an assertion on this point whereas you have. I doubt you grasp this, but readers can examine the discussion of record on this point. So, where is the proof of your assertion that Ray Franz list of names is “based on recollection”? Where is it?

As for substantiation of the names Ray listed, Bill Cetnar’s complimentary list of names provides this.

Regarding peer review, though this sort of source is advantageous it is not essential under Wikipedia policy, and in this case the peer reviewed literature only makes oblique references to names provided by Ray Franz and Bill Cetnar. But these sources do not dismiss these names as you do. In fact, these sources suggest there is reason to acknowledge the names provided, if not accept them. I doubt you are aware of any of this, considering that you have yet to cite sources for your editing and complaining on this matter. Your analysis of my view and use of vetted sources compared to non-vetted sources is amusing. It discloses a fundamental lack of analytical ability, for you do not at all represent my position on that discussion.

Regarding BeDuhn, I have not edited his statements found in this article. I believe Duffer is responsible for that because he has the referenced source and I do not. I do not edit what I do not have in hand to read myself. Do you?

I have removed unverified material from the article. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: It matters a lot about your lack of personal integrity, which you have precious little of, your claim of infallibility aside. Your personal adversarial position against the JW organization makes you even less credible than R Franz, for at least they say what they are. You hide and pretend to be neutral, when you couldn't be farther from it. What you think R Franz saw when he went through a file cabinet (or what he claims to recall having have seen in his memoir) about a given matter two or three decades after-the-fact is in no way firsthand knowledge. And there is no verifiable way to know if it's even true of not. R Franz will write what is on the list but not produce it? And you say the WTS is suspect because they kept their word to the translation committee? Franz is an apostate JW and motives are so nefarious toward JW's that his recollections are not reliable. Besides, his list differs from Cetnar's, and both war against the JW organization as apostates but both claim "firsthand" knowledge. Was it five or six? Who really were the translators? You can hand-wave all you want, but they claim personal firsthand knowledge (even though one of them did not and is evidenced by the verified time line) of the NWTTC but don't remember identically? It's not as if there are a hundred names or even twenty. This group would fit in a single full size sedan. Prominent men, supposedly. And even you yourself said that there were probably more. And your criticism rants are pure POV, and the critics you cite don't even agree amongst themselves. Would JW's consider you an "apostate"? Your pure POV rant in the criticism section gives undue weight to just about any evangelist who objects to the NWT on theological grounds, not linguistic grounds. If it were so straightforward, there would be two translations in the world: the NWT and the one that the critics universally agree to and fawn over each other over. But of course, there is no such thing, and people like Luther and Moffatt and Goodspeed and Tyndale and on and on faced the same cheap tactics as you have presented in this section. -- cfrito (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The verification is found in the complimentary names provided by Bill Cetnar. Cetnar’s know is by virtue of proximity. Ray Franz’s knowledge is by virtue of position. You have yet to refute either.

I have not suggested the Watchtower organization is “suspect because they kept their word to the translation committee”. Frankly, on this point I have no idea what you are alluding to.

I agree Franz is anti-Watchtower. This is the reason I added the conflict of interest statement that I did, and for Cetnar too. This is the way to use information honestly.

You have failed to answer every single problematic question posed to your POV above. Why am I not surprised?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, more on Ray Franz: Today it occurred to me that Ray Franz was not privy to the NWT translators solely because of his position as a governing body member.

The NWT committee did not disband in 1960 with the release of Volume V. During the period Ray Franz was on the governing body the NWT committee was actively working on a revision of the NWT, which revision was published in 1981. Additionally, the very department charged with reviewing the accuracy of the NWT was the writing (editing) department, and this is the very department Ray Franz worked in and was on the committee for (writing committee). Hence, in addition to his governing body position, by virtue of proximity in time and work assignment (writing department) Ray Franz was also positioned to know members of the NWT committee.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the information about NWT translators you say cannot be verified, the verification is found in two separate accounts published by different individuals, and this is noted within the text you keep deleting. Because the Watchtower organization has not explicitly authenticated this information as correct does not mean the information is unreliable. For that matter, were the Watchtower organization to assert who these translators are, we would have no way of verifying this either, beyond taking its word for it. As it stands the text you keep deleting contains multiple sources from firsthand accounts. Please explain why these multiple sources are less reliable than the Watchtower organization itself when all these sources offer a POV.

Should your deletion edits not have substantive reason beyond your personal POV, then the edits will be reverted. Please explain yourself.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: I posted the reasons above, several times, and well in advance of the actual edit. And the list of alleged translators does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, and I've made the case clearly. Are you the Editor-in-Chief of this article? Your bloviating 'explain yourself and if I agree I'll revert your edits' line needs clarification as to your implied authority.

The citations are from memoirs of people that have a bone to pick are simply not reliable. The list of names does nothing to address the reliability or veracity of the translation work itself; it is completely superfluous. It serves only to go against the wishes of the NWT Translation Committee. If you want to address the translation accuracy with citations, then fine, it's already been done in spades and the Reader is surely well informed. If you want to say that the NWT is not reliable because Ray Franz says that the authors were Tom, Dick and Harry, well then I'm not sure how this makes Wikipedia a more informative reference than any two-bit tabloid. I understand that you, based on my research on you, have some bone to pick, but this isn't the forum. And apparently others corresponding on your talk page have the same feeling. If you want to feature R Franz's memoirs, then feature them on his page a few more times. The Reader has been informed as to the issues regarding the work itself, so allow each Reader the dignity to research the information about the translative work on his/her own. You can wrap this whole issue in "personal POV" terms so the weak-minded think you have a point, but I am not that person. Knowing or or not knowing that Henschel or Franz or Joe Blow had a hand in the translating work has absolutely no bearing on whether I am persuaded to believe that Colwell's Rule applies to John 1:1c theos or not. And that's the point -- the alleged "translator list" only goes to further R. Franz's hope to frustrate the wish of the Translation Committee's anonymity (made so that the work remains the focus), with no added benefit or insight to the matter at hand. This forum should not advance R Franz's personal ambitions under the guise that it helps the Reader know whether 2 Thes 2:3 is better rendered in Translation A or Translation B. And that R Franz would betray an oath to "get even" with those he no longer likes very much shows that he cannot be trusted. He is simply not a reliable source.

Perhaps you could provide some insight into how it helps he Reader understand the translation accuracy issue besides aiding in making it a personal attack.

As for the WTB&TS publishing a rebuttal list to answer unfounded accusations, it is neither a reasonable nor a realistic hope. They will honor their oath to the NWT Translation Committee (unlike R Franz). There is nothing that compels them to publish a true list just simply because someone publishes some random list and says, "If it's false then give me the true one, or we'll keep perpetuating the false one." How sophomoric. If you don't think the translation is accurate, make your case. If you need to make it about the translators then your argument is immediately cheapened and not very worthy of consideration.

Furthermore, I published my position well in advance of my intended actions. You remained in the shadows until the change was made, then reverted twice within an hour each, so clearly you are watching the page closely. You are simply advancing your own personal agenda. If you have something that gives insight to the NWT translation's accuracy or reliability then assert it. Stop making it about the people. Make it about the work. -- cfrito (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Apparently it has escaped your notice that it is the Watchtower organization that made an issue of who translated the NWT. Not Ray Franz. Not William Cetnar. And, lastly, not me. And, frankly, unless you can prove otherwise, there is no known advantage for either Franz or Cetnar to name individuals who were anything other than members of the NWT translation committee. Of what advantage would it be for either of these men to offer bogus names? When a publisher makes an issue of something associated with its publication then it is a legitimate subject of research and disclosure. The Watchtower organization raised this particular issue by, apparently agreeing not only to not publish the names of NWT translators but also not to disclose their names on separate letterhead.

Furthermore, apparently it has not entered your mind the gross inadequacy by the Watchtower organization in response to inquires about the NWT translators. Critics want to know the academic credentials of these translators to translate ancient biblical languages. In response the Watchtower organization has denied offering these credentials by expressing a promise not to reveal names of translators. Well, guess what? A promise not to give names is not a promise not to go on record with credentials of translators, which makes the Watchtower’s response a complete dodge of the inquiry, which only intensifies suspicion of the NWT's production and publication. To this day the Watchtower organization has never offered a legitimate reason for not offering a comprehensive statement of qualifications of NWT translators to translate ancient biblical languages into modern English. Again, this only raises the issue to a yet higher level, and it is the Watchtower organization that has done this and not Ray Franz or William Cetnar.

The reason this for my recent editing of this page is because of your recent edits, and your attempt to explain those edits. So far your explanations have fallen far short of substantiation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: R Franz was not anywhere around when the translating was done so he could not have firsthand knowledge, period. What you suppose happened later on is irrelevant. You yourself said that there could be others that worked on the translation that are not known or revealed so you cannot say with any degree of intellectual honesty that 'F Franz was the only one with sufficient knowledge'. And any author's wish to remain anonymous is their right. You can create some conspiracy theory or attach shame to that wish of theirs, but that is pure bias and misdirection. As to what is a legitimate reason for the NWTTC's position, you really must think a lot of yourself. They are not answerable to you. If you think the NWT work is in error, then defend your point. But to argue someone doesn't have the right to call a "fish" a "fish" because you can't certify that they graduated with a degree in Zoology is just ridiculous. The alleged list is not reliable, and you yourself said it. So it should be removed and so I removed it. I support leaving F Franz listed as the editor because it is independently verifiable from unbiased sources, but until the others can be so identified, they should be left off.

As to the possible nefarious motives of Cetnar and R Franz, their whole reason for writing what they wrote is to cast reproach to vindicate themselves. They separated from the WTB&TS organization on bad terms and they need others to see that they were justified. R Franz's book is his personal self justification. So would a man who is bent on self justification 'chop the heads off his enemies to appear taller'? History is clear -- people would, people have, people do, and they will continue to do this. R Franz's motives cannot be determined simply by reading his self-justifying book -- even the title says it is pure personal POV, a purely personal matter: "A Crisis of Conscience". Just because someone has such a crisis doesn't mean that they are automatically right, especially with regard to theology. Who really cares about R Franz's personal crisis unless it supports their own POV?

Cetnar's list is different than R Franz's, plain and simple. The lists are not in complete agreement. Who's list is right? Are they both wrong? Who knows. Are you willing to stake your reputation that Cetnar's list is 100% correct? That R Franz's is? Do you think Henschel did or did not do any work on it? Who else do you think should be on the list who is presently not accounted for? And that's one point. Another is that these two people have come to absolutely dislike the WTB&TS organization and its theology, and so do they have a reason to attack the Bible translation the WTB&TS principally -- but not exclusively -- uses in their work? An unbiased observer would certainly conclude they would. Are they trustworthy individuals? The jury is in: If they ever knew, they would have pledged to keep it confidential, and if so, they broke that confidence to suit personal ambitions. Was this a matter of life and death? No. Was there a crime committed? No. If you don't like the translation, pick up a different one that you do like. Does the Article present the reader with the entire picture? Sure does. Is a disputed and unconfirmed list of alleged translators make any difference? No, except that publishing it may perpetuate a falsehood and may mislead the Reader. So was there a compelling reason for them to break their oath? No. Thus they cannot be relied upon. They have shown that they will modify their morals to fit their own agenda. They are simply not credible. The list is not verifiable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The critics have already taken the WTB&TS to task for not publishing the list, and the record reflects that criticism.

The book that the alleged translator list is taken from is a memoir and is based on recollection. Wikipedia's standard is to use such with extreme caution. R Franz is profoundly biased and has broken confidences and has demonstrated that his morals are malleable and colored by personal gain. Cetnar likewise. The list is not reliable and in keeping with Wikipedia standards must be deleted until an authoratitive list is published from an unbiased source. -- cfrito (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your persistent carp that Ray Franz was not at Watchtower headquarters when the NWT was published is a strawman. It is addressed above in more than one instance.

Cetnar and Ray Franz’s disposition in relation to the Watchtower organization is disclosed for readers to make of it what they will. So this complaint is squelched. I agree readers and researchers should discount these sources, but not dismiss them. To delete is to dismiss.

The difference between names provided by Cetnar and those provided by Ray Franz does not demonstrate a consequence to the integrity/veracity of the information because neither source expressed the names they offer as comprehensive. Apparently you fail to grasp this. Let’s say that the NWT Committee was actually comprised of persons A, B, C, D, E and F. I name A, B, and C and you name A, B, C and D, but neither of us claims our list of names is complete. In this case BOTH of us would be correct as far as what we asserted. The consequence you propose based on Franz’s names and Cetnar’s names is unproven. It is your POV.

Ray Franz was not and never has been a member of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc’s. Board of Directors. It was this BOD that obligated itself to maintain confidential the names of the NWT Committee. (See Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Fredrick Franz) Hence, on these bases Ray was never a party to this agreement; though I am sure everyone at Bethel understood this information should not be disclosed. The same is true for Cetner. Your complaint on this point is then, accordingly, mooted. That is, unless you can prove either man was under an ethical duty to maintain this information confidential. Can you meet this burden of proof?

Your assertion that Ray Franz’s list of names is purely a product of his memory is nothing more than an unproven assertion. How would you know what documents and personal notes Ray obtained or produced during his tenure with the Watchtower organization that would enable him to produce this information by means of something other than his memory? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Can I meet the burden of proof? The list itself must meet the burden of proof, which means you because you are its chief sponsor. I have shown over and over that this alleged translator list simply doesn't meet any Wikipedia criteria, which is why you persist in the personal attacks and the specious arguments. The real question is: Can R Franz meet the burden of proof? Can you? If the the WTS BOD voted to keep it secret and R Franz was not on the Board, how did he get the list? It was kept secret and you have absolutely no proof yourself that R Franz had access to it. As for "carping" about poor poor misunderstood and beleaguered R Franz, the NT NWT was commissioned in 1946 and first released in 1950 (the NT is what most of the criticism is about since most of the criticism focuses on the trinity issues). R Franz didn't get to JW WHQ until 1965, some 19 years after the NWT was commissioned and 15 years after its NT component was completed. R Franz was not a GB member until 21 years after its completion: R Franz wasn't appointed to the Governing Body until 1971. He was off the Body by 1979. By 1980 he was disfellowshipped. He simply wasn't there. I'm sorry this doesn't fit with your agenda but he absolutely wasn't there and so could not have firsthand knowledge. R Franz is just not credible. And it appears by your own testimony that he wouldn't have had access to the documents because the BOD voted to keep them secret. Now you're suggesting that BOD voted to keep secret the list and somehow this was a hot topic at the Governing Body level some 21 years on? And it is extremely significant that Cetnar's list doesn't match R Franz's: It means that they either never saw the documents and are just making it up naming the most likely people to have been involved, or they just named the people that they thought would be easiest to attack (remember, they are engaged in doing things specifically against what they perceive to be the interests of WTB&TS), or they are relying on faulty memory, or they thought publishing a bogus list would force the WTB&TS's hand and they'd be compelled to release the true list, or may they're just craving attention and know that there are people who will pay cash to read bad things about people they don't like. Maybe R Franz is in it for the "Crisis of Wallet". You need something more than circumstantial evidence, a stitched-up time line, and the testimony of two guys who can't even agree between them over five names, and who have demonstrated that they have precious little personal integrity. The information is faulty and amounts to nothing more than recollections at best, made up nonsense at worst, extracted from personal memoirs of men who are known to hate the JW organization and who can have no good motive in publishing such a list. There is absolutely no independent corroboration, no document copies, nothing. You have nothing, not even a decent time line. The data is highly suspect, does not meet the Wikipedia standards and should not be used at all. Unless of course you can produce the document from the WTB&TS that lists the names or otherwise get those men finally to show you the respect you seem to believe you deserve and surrender the document forthwith so you can get over your temper tantrum. Interested readers can visit R Franz's Wikipedia page for a copy of the list or buy his book, which I'm sure is what he would prefer anyway. -- cfrito (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have already met the Wikipedia burden of proof for why the statements of Ray Franz and William Cetner have a place in this article. You have not even bothered to respond to this.

As for Ray Franz getting the information, the NWT Committee requested anonymity by having the Watchtower organization agree to never publish the names of its members. This agreement does not preclude internal Watchtower knowledge of its members in total or in part, and it certainly does not preclude members of the NWT Committee from making themselves known to whomever they want. Hence, there is no reason to think the information itself was sealed away in a vault or otherwise unknown to and by insiders, and to this day by any governing body member who wanted to know. What do you think the Watchtower Board of Directors did, chew up a napkin with the names and swallow it?

I see you do not want to answer the question: If governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does? You talk circles around this, but you never answer it.

The difference between names provided by Cetner and Ray Franz has not been demonstrated as consequential because the lists do not conflict or in any way present a contradiction. This is something you do not seem to grasp, and I see no reason to continue trying to educate you on this point.

I have made further edits. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: I have answered many times. I've shown you to lie when it suits you. You routinely remove article text that adds balance and neutralizes bias. You treat the Wikipedia JW Articles as if they are your personal weapons in your personal war to discredit them. You never directly address questions, you only accuse and demand answers. You intentionally irritate other editors to exhaust and frustrate them, and it has been noted by others several times. Your research shows clear selection bias. You have claimed infallibility. You feign neutrality but anyone who has followed your edits on this page over the last 48 hours will be able to detect your clear bias against JW's. You have an agenda and you are extremely biased and your research is slanted. Other editors should beware. -- cfrito (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that some people have taken Wikipedia as a cafeteria, a forum or even a psychiatric clinic, so that they may communicate their thoughts and nightmares...--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read and thought about the above, there is little value including the alleged names of the translators, apart from a) lending to bias and b) trivia. While it is unlikely that the list of names is wrong - because there is little reason in providing an incorrect list - it doesn't really provide helpful information. Obviously the translators were able to produce a translation, so some level of ability must have existed. To what degree they were trained (or even if they had no formal training) does nothing to establish veracity of the translation of any disputed passages, as even very highly trained translators could still allow theological bias to affect their work. Therefore, the translation should be critiqued on its own merits. It is appropriate to state the 'controversy' of the translators' anonymity, and of the WTS's failure/objection to provide credentials. There just isn't enough value in providing a list of names alleged by biased sources without stronger verifiability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I agree wholeheartedly with Jeffro77 a point that I tried to make over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrito (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, retaliatory edits in the article, such as: "Critics agree that not only does God's name not belong in the NT passages even when they are quotes from OT passages containing the Divine Name, these critics have further helped God out by completely removing His name everywhere it legitimately appeared. [blah blah blah]..." will not help your case, and won't be tolerated. Cfrito and Marvin, both of you are pushing points of view in the article that are unnecessary in explaining the nature of the controversy. Wikipedia articles are not the proper forum for debating.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: If I am pushing a particular POV please tell me precisely is that POV I am pushing and be specific enough so a man has something to defend himself against other than a mercurial sweeping remark as you have made. Without this specificity your allegation of me is lame. I am not the critic of the NWT. Rather, I have provided sources that show the critical remarks made by NWT critics. Were I out to push some negative assault on the NWT then I would have included the more severe remarks from the same critics. But I have refrained from this. For example, I could have used Rowley’s remark in respect to the NWT that “the jargon which they use is often scarcely English at all, and it reminds one of nothing so mush as a schoolboy’s first painful beginnings in translating Latin into English” (Rowley, H.H., How Not To Translate the Bible, The Expository Times, 1953; 65; 41) But I refrained from using this quote from Rowley despite his world renown in the field of biblical language and translation.

We are dealing with the criticism Section, are we not? If putting published criticism of the NWT into the Criticism Section an article on the NWT is not the appropriate place to put these criticisms then please tell me where is the appropriate place.

Editors: Criticism section should list the criticisms of the linguistics and translation principles and reference who said them in a representative way and steer far away from matters of theology. List F Franz as the editor? Sure. Write that there has been much said against respecting the publisher respecting the translators' wishes to remain anonymous. Write that critics don't like using the Divine Name and claim that the NWT has used it 7210 times (or whatever) where the original language texts only include it 6827 times. Say that there are some generally agreed number of verses in dispute out of the 31,000 or so verses in the Bible. The Criticism section is not a soapbox for theologians or a place to pretend that the so-called scholars/critics weren't almost exclusively trained at theological seminaries and all have hardened theological POV's and belief system biases. The critics, though impressively lettered, often find themselves so biased as to say as W Barclay did, that it was "grammatically impossible" to translate John 1:1c as "a god". How humiliating, and his own peers, fellow critics, have debunked that shameful claim. I don't see why John 1:1 is used in the Criticism section since this is one that is clearly a theological debate. A more apt example might be "parousia". -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Above you repeat several assertions you have made in the past. If you can verify these claims with sources why don’t you?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the names of translators provided by Cetnar and Franz, it is absurd to say this information lends little value to a section on NWT criticism when the translators are part of the criticism. In the Westminster Theological Journal of Fall 2004, Barry Hofstetter wrote, Edmond C. Gruss, in We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976, 73-76), presented eyewitness and documentary evidence that the alleged translation committee of the NWT had very little in the way of the qualifications for translation work which Dr. BeDuhn has helpfully outlined earlier in his work. While these remarks could conceivably be disputed, they should not be ignored.” Information of who has performed a given work goes a long way toward understanding why that work was carried out as it was and why it ended up as it ended up, and the result of the NWT is at the heart of all criticisms leveled at the NWT. In his work The Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin quotes the Watchtower organization as making the stupendous claims that the NWT is ‘the work of competent scholars’ that ‘give clarity to the scriptures that other translations have somehow failed to supply’”. (p. 63) When a publisher says of a books translators that they are “competent scholars” then credentials of those scholars is unavoidably a legitimate subject of criticism. In Martin’s case, he wrote his book prior to Cetnar or Ray Franz expressing names of NWT translators.

Editors: Once again Shilmer begs that memoirs and personal recollections be included from biased people simply because they were remarked on by a theologian of opposing theology to JW's. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to commend you for editing out all that oratory that Cfrito had added to the article. When I edited it out he cried foul and accused me of POV editing. Hence this last time I earmarked the language hoping another editor would finally step in.

Editors: The language edited out was the only one of a dozen or so edits I made. While dramatic, they were accurate -- the critics supporting the wholesale deletion of the Divine Name have themselves tinkered with the texts some 7,000 times in a case that can only be described as 'a special pleading'. I merely highlighted it (in fact it was already properly referenced as [9]). Shilmer's personal ambition of publishing names does not meet Wikipedia standards of reliability, neutrality,and documentation (which specifically and strongly advises against using memoirs and recollections). The alleged translator list is not being sequestered or withheld from the public. Indeed, it's on R Franz's page, in his book, and on scores of anti-JW websites. But the list itself is not a criticism of the NWT: It is a defiance of the wishes of the translators themselves and has no place in this Article for that reason alone, never mind that it is hearsay/recollections from a memoir. A careful review of my edits shows that either outright reversals or a rewording with a step-up in Shilmer's own rhetoric is what followed every time. I allowed ample time for anyone including Shilmer to present a case for or against but Shilmer stayed in the shadows and brazenly twice reversed my edits inside of an hour before deciding that he should perhaps even remotely consider that other editors might have a point. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Please note that I am not the one who placed into the article the names Franz and Cetnar allege as members of the NWT committee. Someone else is responsible for that. My editing on this point is in reply to you editing this information out. The rest of your complaints above are already addressed in spades above.—Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to build a case with POV speech in the article (not that you have suggested this). Rather, I have carefully placed into the article published criticisms from reputable sources. When those sources hold a known conflict of interest I also include this. Let me ask you this question: Is criticism coming from Cetnar and Franz any less than criticism simply because they were disfellowshipped by the Watchtower organization? If so, then the ultimate act of pushing a POV is left to the Watchtower organization to decide because that is the organization that disfellowshipped these men.

Editors: Criticism coming from Cetnar and R Franz is criticism about JW's and includes various lists of names, and is in no way relevant to considering the veracity of the linguistics and translation principles of the NWT. They are pure trivia. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Your statement above is your opinion. If critics felt knowledge of the actual translators was inconsequential they would not have inquired to know these, but they have made the request. When this request was routinely denied they asked for the credentials of the translators, something the Watchtower organization was never obliged to keep confidential. Yet this information was refused from the Watchtower’s POV as unimportant, so the request was denied.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, it is not my fault or my POV that the NWT has been widely trashed in scholarly circles. Hence for an editor to write these trashings with verification is not POV by the editor.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The NWT has been trashed by almost exclusively by people with competing theologies. On a purely linguistics basis, very little has ever been challenged. -- cfrito (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have yet to see you offer any verification for your first assertion above. Your second assertion is patently false as demonstrated by sources already cited in the article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I am having a difficult time finding more than about three dozen verses that have been challenged, and most of these are challenged on the basis that the renderings disagree with the presupposed 'deity of the Christ'. This is theological. There are others to be sure: The Sheol/Hell/Hade/Gehenna issue, the Restoration/over-restoration of the Divine Name according to Tyndale's establish English spelling, the rendering of parousia, and of stauros. The NWT itself and its publisher, the WTB&TS have presented their cases clearly in the work itself and on many other occasions. These latter criticisms are worthy of mention becuase they are linguistic and grammatical. The sweeping paltitudes of televangelists and other trinitarian theologians on 'what it all means', or 'what it boils down to' is POV. Singelenberg's comments can only apply if the point/counterpoint arguments are presented in comparison so that the reader has the opportunity to give them equal weight. And it is clear that Singelenberg is a virulent anti-writer against JW's and so his comments are no better than theirs. Shilmer too is a virulent anti-writer of JW's disguising himself as an impartial editor. A quick search of the psuedonym "Marvin Silmer" he uses here reveals that fact, and who knows under how many others he publishes. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Various edits of Marvin's over at jehovahs-witness.com do reveal him to have a bias. This is not a problem in itself, as editors are naturally entitled to their own views, and this in itself does not invalidate a person from making edits when those edits are verifiable. However making only unfavourable [true] edits, rather than a balance of edits, is very telling, and quite disappointing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: "Making only unfavorable [true] edits"? What are you talking about? Over and over again I have edited out some of the most ridiculous and insulting language placed in articles impinging the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. On the blood transfusion subject I am the one who added complimentary language about the set up and purpose the Watchtower's Hospital Information Serviced department! These are but a few instances of what readers like you would consider “favorable” edits. From my perspective, any edit that is verifiable is favorable from an encyclopedic perspective! Your statement of me above shows the rancor of selective reading! You should be ashamed!-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: This Article focuses on the New World Translation. Are there critics? Sure there are, and they have been more than adequately disclosed. But what hasn't been disclosed is that these critics often don't agree with one another either, and that the various criticisms nearly always center on differences in theology and that the critics are theologians. Any critique that is based on theology should be left out. Sure as the sun will rise, Shilmer will look at any attempt to balance it or identify it as such will be branded "POV" and summarily edited out and a wearisome debate on the Discussion page will ensue with Shilmer predictably claiming to be the only scholarly researcher, etc., and start a never-ending campaign to exhaust all who try to add balance and remove undue weight and establish an informative, neutral treatment of the critiques. The alleged list of translators is absolutely not firsthand (despite much browbeating and character references by Shilmer for R Franz). It is excerpted from a memoir without any documentation (a recollection). Shilmer is trying his case like a criminal prosecutor would try a criminal case, with the conviction as the overarching goal. He is arguing that a man who alleges he saw a document or overheard a conversation about who did what at the earliest 20 years after the fact be seen as firsthand knowledge, and his list doesn't fully agree with the list of another claiming the same thing, and even Shilmer who claims to have seen the documentation says that the list is 'probably incomplete.' . He just wants a "conviction" at any cost: He will not sleep until all the critics have been given a soapbox, the alleged translators dragged through the mud over their theology, and his personal agenda of publishing any rumored list names. It's identical to Shilmer's insistence to publish my source IP so that I got pounded by machines from all over the world trying to crack my firewall for daring to challenge him. Then he odorously feigned remorse and ignorance that I asked him not to do it over and over and then was incensed when I deleted it over and over even accusing me of altering the contents of his posts. He also claimed that adding my IP for web bots to harvest was somehow of utmost importance to the Discussion and done for the good of all mankind. -- cfrito (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: If you have sources to verify that critics have critiqued the NWT as they have out of theological bias then you should present this information. You have expressed this several times, but I have yet to see a third party source from you saying as much. Right now the quoted critics are John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Bruce Metzger and H. H. Rowley. Do you have sources stating any of these have criticized the NWT solely out of theological bias? When you make assertion within the article itself but fail to provide verification for those assertions then the editing is POV rather than objective sharing of information. I have no problem whatsoever with objective sharing of information.

Editors: Please reference my repeated discussions on Ankerberg/Weldon for but one example of such information. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have yet again asserted that Ray’s list of names is a recollection. Again you fail to prove this assertion. If you can prove this claim why don’t you prove it and be done with it. If you are unable to prove this claim then why do you keep asserting it? Otherwise, your assertions of me on this point are false. I have not claimed to have seen a document held by Ray with names of translators. I have not said Ray’s list of names is probably incomplete. I have said neither Cetnar nor Franz presented their names as though it was complete. Apparently you fail to grasp the difference is these two statements.

Editors: Preposterous suggestion that anyone should prove what these men don't possess -- only R Franz and Cetnar can prove that it is not recollection by providing documented evidence. Writing what they remember seeing or remember hearing is, by definition, a recollection. That these references are from personal memiors (pure personal bias) is self-evident. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I agree it is impossible for you to prove Ray Franz does not possess documents from which he wrote the names of NWT translators. I have already said this, and now you finally admit it yourself!!! So why did you assert that Ray Franz wrote is “based on recollection”? Ray Franz has not said his statement was “based on recollection”. You asserted this. Hence it is for you to prove. But, now you have already admitted you cannot prove this. It is circular for you to say “it is self-evident”. You, in essence, are saying Ray wrote only from memory because I say so. It is absurd.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the “soapbox” is the Criticism Section. If you do not want readers to read NWT criticism then you should be advocating that this Section of the article be deleted. What do you think a Section for criticism is for?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the criticism section is not a soapbox. An encyclopedic 'Criticism' section should explain what criticisms exist, but should not weigh into the controversy. It is a fine line, but the former presents an issue, the latter is POV.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Did you fail to notice the quotation marks about the term soapbox? Or, is this just another one of your selective reads? Not a single one of my entries in the article weigh in on the criticisms or controversies. My use of the term was/is as expressed in the context of my statement: the Section on criticism is there precisely to share verifiable information regarding criticism of the NWT. If Cfrito does not like this then what on earth does he think the Section is for in the first place? Of course I know that no article in an encyclopedic work is a soapbox in the traditional sense of the word, and I have not said otherwise. You really are starting to apply selectivity to your reading and remarks. It is telling.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The list of alleged translators is not a critique of the NWT, it is a criticism of the translators' wish to remain anonymous. It has no place here for that very reason. If a critique of the NWT is that the translators are unknown, then that is what should be stated, and even referencing why the critics feel that it is important. F Franz should be listed as the Editor in the History section because it is a historical fact of the NWT. Criticisms of the NWT should be limited to linguistic matters. Theological matters should not be considered here, but in other places dealing with the religions themselves.

Here is a case in point. In reference [28] the entire website is dedicated to theology, the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute. In the opening paragraph of the referenced article they write the impetus for their review: "The Jehovah’s Witnesses constitute a large and aggressive sect which has opposed the doctrines of biblical Christianity from its inception." Ankerberg and Weldon are doctors of theology and philosophy and this site takes them to task over their "credentials". Just about every article example is about trinity vs. anti-trinity translation, but it is always a restatement of what another scholar has already said or some theological rant. While the references they cite are generally valuable from an encyclopedic perspective, their assessment is POV: they are clearly biased televangelists. They are nothing more than a wrapper around other scholars' words that have already been referenced in the Article. Thus this reference is nothing more than a theologically based summary and not a valid scholarly critique of the NWT. They simply parrot Bowman, Countess, Metzger, etc. And since those references are already present in the Criticism section, adding them again by virtue of this "wrapper website" is redundant and adds undue weight to their quoted platitude. The majority of the Criticism section needs to be revamped to show only legitimate criticism without inadvertant redundancies and theological websites that are bent on debating trinitarian doctrine. -- cfrito (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The names of alleged translators is information. For decades NWT critics claimed poor translation skills of the NWT translators, and for this reason requested either the names and/or credentials of its translators in an effort to determine why these translated as they did. The refusal of Watchtower to provide just the credentials of these translators itself became a subject of criticism of the NWT because no reason was provided for why this simple request was refused. If, as the Watchtower claims, the work was done by competent scholars then providing their credentials does no more than substantiate what it has already asserted.

It is true that Anderberg and Weldon hold strong theological views. But it is false that these views are the sole point of criticism they offer of the NWT. If you read their entire critique of the NWT you will find plenty of criticism constructed around purely academic issues of biblical language and translation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Virtually all the criticisms on the Ankerberg/Weldon website list words to the effect, 'because such a rendering denies the diety of the Christ.' This is purely theological. In support of their case, they cite other critics who have been named in the criticism section already. They are simply parroting others, except when they embark on their own theological diatribe. That makes this source redundant and adds undue weight to already named sources by disguising recursive crticsm references as unique. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding anti-sources:

Regarding complaints of using sources such as Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience, the following statement from a well trained and known sociologist is reason for pause:

Editors: Singelenberg is himself a virulent anti-writer against JW's. -- cfrito (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

“For the objective researcher, Awake! should have the same value as its most virulent anti-writing. Therefore it is not surprising that Alfs omits any reference to the generally well-received and moderate criticisms of the Society in Penton's Apocalypse Delayed and Franz's Crisis of Conscience.” (Singelenberg, Richard, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 00218294, Jun92, Vol. 31, Issue 2)

The point made is that a neutral perspective requires attributing equal value to primary source material (in this case, Watchtower publications) as we attribute to anti-primary source material (in this case, Ray Franz). It also deserves note that third-party authors do not treat Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience as a less than authoritative presentation. Rather, these authors treat Ray’s book for what it is, a presentation from a former high ranking official among ranks of the Watchtower organization, and they use it accordingly with that disclaimer. In other words, third-party authorities do not treat Ray’s work as unauthentic, but they are always, and rightly, careful to point out the conflict of interest between the Watchtower and Ray due to his disfellowshipping. Using relevant information from a source such as this is academically sound so long as it is has proper disclosure and it is not given undue weight, such as by presenting something that is a minority presentation as though it represents a majority view.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: R Franz is not an authority on Bible languages (either by education or by virtue of a demonstrated skill in the art) or translation principles. Nor is he being used to address the veracity of the NWT work itself. This sociologist's opinion on who was nicer to whom in the dispute between R Franz and the WTB&TS is irrelevant. -- cfrito (talk)

Cfrito: Well, well! Apparently training and education are deemed by you important when it comes to treating biblical languages! Otherwise your complaint that “R Franz is not an authority on Bible languages (either by education or by virtue of a demonstrated skill in the art) or translation principles” has no merit whatsoever. Thank you. Looking for merit is why NWT critics have asked for credentials of NWT translators, and is also why denial of this request becomes a NWT critique of its own.

Editors: The Criticism section is for verifiable, vetted sources of criticism on the subject of the Article -- the NWT. R Franz's remarks have absolutely nothing to do with the Article nor are they criticisms of the NWT -- they are completely out-of-subject and have no place here for that reason. The translators of the NWT, whoever they might be, have made every assertion they will ever make in the NWT itself and they can be completely tested as-is. A critic must supply his credentials. If one asserts that "2+2=4" it is not relevant from whom they learned it, nor do they need any specific rights or authorizations granted to assert it. However, if someone says, "no that is wrong, 2+2 is not = 4" then the burden of proof is on the accuser and they may be asked to submit why they should be taken seriously.

The NWT is the subject, not the translators. If application Colwell's Rule or Granville-Sharp are at issue, reference comments or a quote of who have verifiable expertise take the stage on the exact point of criticism. To say that the translators didn't learn Colwell's rule from any particular place so as to dismiss something out-of-hand is weak and cowardly. If the translated passages are at issue, take issue with passages. On one website I counted about 15 verses that the publishing theologians had issues with (and not just the NWT, but the KJV and others too), and virtually all aimed at the NWT were because they 'denied the deity of the Christ'. If one includes all the verses -- including those with the NT Divine Name principle -- it amounts to maybe 275 verses. Out of over 31,000. That's under 1% in dispute. But if inserting the Divine Name where there is no direct manuscript support for it is "special pleading", then so is taking it out where there is direct manuscript support: On that basis alone, the critics of the NWT by-and-large support a 6,828 verse methodical mistranslation. That's an error ratio of a single error of 4.4%. Moreover, undue weight qualifiers such as "many verses" and "severe criticism" are out of place. "Two dozen verses" or "275 verses" are more appropriate. Or "Emotionally charged criticism" or just "Criticism" would suffice and removes bias and undue weight.

The point is that this Article is about the veracity NWT. To be balanced and neutral it should include critical comments about the NWT's specific renderings at challenge, but excluding platitudinous ones such as those from Ankerberg and Weldon and Rowley. If Rowley can be quoted as saying 'Verse X misapplies Rule Y for Reason Z,' then fine, include it. But his sweeping remarks as they exist now are pure POV. Someone explain to me how Ankerberg's quote or Rowley's quote evidences in what way the NWT is biased or improperly translated. A neutral presentation of critical comments should not leave the Reader with the impression that only the NWT is alone in its more controversial renderings unless it indeed is. And it should be made clear in an introductory remark that the critics are general competing theologians with their own particular biases and predispositions and much of the criticism is not black-and-white grammatical ones (even those tend to be argumentative), but gray theological issues. -- cfrito (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You say, “Criticism section is for verifiable, vetted sources of criticism on the subject of the Article”. Who says the Criticisms Section is only for peer reviewed criticisms, besides you that is? While I agree vetted sources hold an advantage over unvetted sources, I am unaware of any policy or guideline asserting what you do above. Please explain yourself.

You say, “A critic must supply his credentials”. Who says a critic must supply his or her credentials, besides you that is? While criticism has less impact when done without disclosure of credentials, I am unaware of any policy or guideline asserting what you do above. Please explain yourself.

Given your address of this, perhaps editors should begin an article specifically about the New World Translation Committee, and then link to that article from this one on the NWT. Would that suit you? Should this occur, there is even more information that editors can get into about this committee. Three are sources other than the NWT where this committee has presented itself.

It is laughable that you strain yourself trying to discount the response of Rowley to the NWT. I doubt you’ve even read the article cited containing Rowley et al’s response to the NWT in order to know why they say what they have said. What you apparently fail to grasp is that when a renown academic like Rowley goes on record with the opinion he offered, it is noteworthy as that learned person’s conclusion in relation to their relevant education and training.

By the way, a person who asserts 2+2=4 has a burden to prove it in the face of challenge, which in this case is 4-2=2. If the individual is unable to offer this proof then, understandably, their credentials are challenged just as much as a person who asserts 2+2=3. Now you should go back and prove all your ridiculous assertions above that you have, so far, failed to verify with anything other than your opinion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: A quote from Shilmer himself: Dtbrown: ... When the subject and evidence of an existing consensus within the vetted literature was raised by me you avoided any pursuit of it despite my repeated requests....I am more than happy to consider evidence from whomever brings it forth, and it matters not one iota to me whether it happens to agree or disagree with a view I may hold at the time... -- Marvin Shilmer 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) In this quote Shilmer feigns to consider any legitimate research. But when another editor presented such we find Shilmer taking the opposite approach: Jeffro77: ...When you decide to actually interact with the information provided from third-party vetted sources feel free to chime in. In the meantime, your ad hominem serves no purpose. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Above he accuses me of being the only one who insists on vetted sources. Knowing that he blows in the wind, I admit to teeing this one up. I'm fed up with his demanding answers, then giving them only to have him accuse me of not answering him. It wearies all but him, and it is just cheap theatrics to exhaust everyone with his childish "I know you are, but what am I? first-grader games. Well, here's verifiable proof the guy is as biased as they get, constantly switches positions to suit his chopping away at anyone he sees as an opponent to his agenda. I believe that he should be censured for his bullying and his deceitful and misleading nature. -- cfrito (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As for Singelenberg’s remarks, the point of offering it is to demonstrate that an objective perspective does not put a primary source’s assertions above those of an anti-primary source. You want editors to use one source and deny the other! Such an approach denies NPOV presentation, something Wikipedia policy forbids.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Singelenberg's remarks are misapplied here. The NWT has made no negative assertions about anyone. And they are misinterpreted too: Singelenberg actually said that these things should be given equal weight, not that they are given equal weight in by an average reader. -- cfrito (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: you wrote, “Singelenberg actually said that these things should be given equal weight”. (Emphasis added) Well said!!! So, why are you fighting contrary to what you agree “should be”?Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The list of translators is not a criticism of the NWT. It is out-of-subject, and it is a recollection from a memoir. It should not be included here. I support listing F Franz in the History section as Editor. If the list were verified fact, it should be in the History section too. If it is not, it should not appear anywhere. Furthermore, remaining anonymous is a criticism of the translators and their wish. At best it is a perceived weakness and should be listed in the criticism section as such. Knowing if Tom, Dick or Harry translated Phil 2:6 makes no difference on whether it is correct or not. No one has ever shown that it does, it only makes the debate personal and not linguistic. -- cfrito (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Of course “the list” of translators is not a criticism of the NWT; no one has said otherwise. The criticism is of the lack of credentials of the named translators; translators responsible for the NWT as reported by two independent eyewitnesses.

You write, “If the list were verified fact…” Here are two questions for you: 1) If the Watchtower organization published a document naming the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? 2) If a group of heretofore anonymous individuals independently published a document claiming themselves as the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the questions above? Is it an attempt at some 'slippery slope' argument about what constitutes a verifiable source? Do you actually have access to those hypothetical sources? If so, present them. If not, the questions are irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: My questions are to elicit from Cfrito what s/he would accept as a verifiable source for the informaiton in question. Cfrito has complained and complained about verification as though the information presented (names of translators) is somehow unreliable. Well now it's time for Cfrito to put his or her money where his or her mouth is and state what s/he would accept as a source for this information. If Cfrito is unwilling to answer the two questions above and express what would be, to him or her, acceptable sources then all Cfrito's complaints are mere whines.

It is no slippery slope to ask an editor to provide testable information, and this is my request. For Cfrito's complaints to have any merit then his objection of verifiabiliy has to have a solution. My questions ask Cfrito to go on record with a solution to his complaint. Then we will examine his solution for any sense.

The very reason why the sources of which you ask about Cfrito's acceptance don't exist invalidates the purpose of your request.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Please explain this to Cfrito! He is the one that, apparently, does not understand this, and is why his complaints have no validity whatsoever. That is, based on Cfrito's stated parameters to date, there is no way anyone could verify the translators or their credentials. But in the real world of academia eyewitness and firsthand sources are used all the time so long as the testimony carries weight of authority based on position or proximity that is verifiable. Were we to accept Cfrito's self-serving criteria for what amounts to verifiable information we would have to reject publication of any and all insider information, even when the sources publish their accounts and can prove their disposition in relation to the information. I believe the reason Cfrito refuses to answer the questions posed to him or her is because he or she knows that to answer the question would be just on more time he or she refuted their own assertion. So far the editor going by the name Cfrito has not demonstrated one iota of academic prowess or training. All he or she has demonstrated is a playground mentality where POV rules.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Again for Cfrito: 1) If the Watchtower organization published a document naming the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? 2) If a group of heretofore anonymous individuals independently published a document claiming themselves as the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer should desist from the game-playing. The desire of the NWT translators to be kept anonymous should be stated in the criticism section as a perceived weakness on the grounds that it disallows any review of personal training or theological bias. But it has been demonstrated time and again that such things have no bearing or are valid predictor on whether a given NWT rendering is supportable linguistically -- it lends itself only to personal assaults on the translators. (As if the statements "I have never given you the right to call an fish a "fish"! Who do you think you are?!?" is anything short of profoundly ridiculous.) It should also be mentioned that the NWTTC are not alone in requesting anonymity: other translators of unaffiliated translations have done likewise. Clearly, the list is purely trivia. If, on the other hand, the actual NWT translators make themselves known of their own free will, then they should be listed in the History section because it could no longer be classified a criticism in and of itself. Any third-party testimony should be considered dubious because it would contravene the wishes of the translators themselves and would by definition be purely accusatory and likely incomplete or misleading. If the NWT publisher reveals them, then so be it, but it should then be removed as a criticism (the sequestering) and self-revealed or publisher-revealed names listed and source-referenced in the History section. As for Shilmer demanding resolution, he should address his own four-day-apart contradictions on whether vetted sources or not should be used (since he argues both for and against, as the provided quotes prove) and then he further should explain why he takes a counter-position with me on this Talk page then he did on another Talk page saying falsely it is only I who ever said that vetted sources are preferred. Only when he answers himself -- beyond the trite, 'I've addressed that already in spades' nonsense -- does he deserve answers in return. His anti-JW bias has been exposed and he is not a credible source himself, in light of his own Singelenberg reference he is a virulent anti-writer and his commentary and writings should be dismissed. -- cfrito (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I am not game-playing. I am asking you serious questions in response to your complaints. You demonstrate ability to hit keys on your keyboard. Now why not try hitting keys in answer to straightforward questions asked of your assertions and positions?

There is no evidence that the NWT translators asked the Watchtower organization to keep their CREDENTIALS anonymous. Credentials is what critics have requested and repeatedly denied. The NWT is UNIQUE in this respect, which is one thing making it a subject of criticism. This latter point is something I doubt you grasp.

Again for Cfrito: 1) If the Watchtower organization published a document naming the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? 2) If a group of heretofore anonymous individuals independently published a document claiming themselves as the NWT translators, would you accept this as “verified fact”? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

As someone who really doesn't care either way (NPOV) -- giving both lists and their sources and stating that the Watchtower has not published the names is the correct way to go. For R. Franz, I believe he left and then was disfellowshipped for leaving. NPOV would state that as well.

The intensity of this debate is WAY beyond what is warranted. I don't believe the Watchtower has responded to R. Franz that these specifically named individuals did NOT work on the book. They do not need to list the names of the translators in order to state as a positive counter that the ones he named did not.

As such, R. Franz's list remains unopposed, and any third party observer should give it weight from that fact as well.

In reality, who cares? It gives the JW POV. The NIV gives an Evangelical POV. The NAS remained unnamed for decades, but affirmed that the translators signed a statement of faith -- establishing their POV.

This is what it is: a JW translation, giving the JW POV in contrast to other translations that give their POV. BeDuhn seems to favor their POV. Metzger and others do not.

Saying that Metzger said thus and so does no harm. Saying that R. Franz said thus and so does no harm. Both are factual statements. Both sources are notable. This should be a no brainer.

Excluding them, and fighting so hard to do so -- now THAT is POV.Tim (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim: A NPOV would state that R Franz left the JW organization and was later disfellowshipped (if that is indeed what happened). It would not state it was 'because of X': Any conclusion is purely speculative and R Franz cannot be relied upon to be completely candid and truthful (nor is it relevant as to the veracity of the NWT why he was DF'ed). Metzger is a scholar and commented on the NWT work and so it is material and germane. R Franz is not, and only comments about the JW organization. Include Metzger, R Franz has his own page for saying whatever he wants. Agree completely with your assessment of the translation sources and inherent biases of the translators. In fact, Furuli's book is an excellent review of how the bias mechanism is at work in all translations. And for the record the only thing I have asked to exclude was the alleged translator list and for reasons of reliability, relevance, and that it relied on recollections published in memoirs. The list is an alleged list, and it turns attention away from the NWT to people that may or may not be the translators and turns the matter from linguistic and translative to theological. There are established forums for the controversies surrounding JW's. Put it there instead. -- cfrito (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the question about POV and NPOV, I was wandering, is there any other article for a Bible translation that has a section or even a anti-article about criticism?--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewWorldTranslation blk-hdcovr.png

Image:NewWorldTranslation blk-hdcovr.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Before reforming the whole article...

The editors of the article are kindly requested to show me how Bruce Metzger is connected with this statement and its source:

Severe criticism of the NWT by recognized experts such as Dr. Bruce Metzger has stirred additional criticism by virtue of the Watchtower organization’s promise to keep names of translators anonymous. [48]

The source, under footnote 48, doesn't mention B. Metzger at all.

Please correct me if I am wrong or correct the article.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Good catch. I fixed the problem. Please review and comment.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now it is better. By the way, do you have the article of Bruce Metzger available? I would like very much to read it.--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

Allow me to add that we have a really funny case that has little to do with an encyclopaedia: There is no official record of the names of the translators. We take the unofficial scenario of Ray Franz, and then we criticize the credentials of the supposed translators based on this scenario. Are you serious, guys? Is this an encyclopaedia or an anti-sectarian site?--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Agreed. Quite literally my original request for edit review and subsequent edit involved removing an uncorroborated list of alleged translators. Such a list is trivia at best. The entire Criticism section is a bit out of place to be sure, but if it must exist, then it should restrict itself to criticisms of the NWT texts, sans the sweeping platitudes by competing theologians. -- cfrito (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The names of the translators are not the issue. The issue is the qualifications (training credentials and level of experitise) of the translators. Critics have most certainly inquired about the authority for certain translation renderings of the NWT. On this point, an objective analysis of “why” must included questions of training and level of expertise in order to avoid needless assumption of bias in translation. Do you have a reason why Ray Franz’s and William Cetnar’s independent lists of names should be dismissed in regard to the qualifications and training of NWT translators?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Utter nonsense. The NWT gives all that is necessary to mount a scholarly review of the work. Plenty of scholars have been able to offer their criticisms without knowing. Shilmer is just grinding his axe one more time. Pure POV. -- cfrito (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I am not the one who requested credentials of the NWT translators. Critics are the ones who made this request. Not the names. The credentials. The reason annalists would request this information is already expressed above.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: It is not Wikipedia's charter to be a clearinghouse for the demands of detractors of any particular work. I believe that we can close this matter leaving out the alleged list of translators. -- cfrito (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We must stay on the facts. The fact is that WTBS hasn't published the translators' names and that this policy has been criticized by A, B, C scholars. The rest is science fiction. Of course, you could put in a footnote that the ex-governing body member R.F., though not being himself present during the procedure of the translation, speculates A, B, C, as members of the translation committee and questions their qualifications. That's all folks.

And you have to know something else. If NWT was really such an amateurish work, as it is presented by some conspiracy theorists, then The Anchor Bible Dictionary, The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and the Word Bible Commentary wouldn't have taken it into account at all. My personal conclusion is that even the scholars who have criticized NTW do not criticize usually the project as whole but specific verses, which are rendered, according to their opinion, with bias. It is very different to say that five or ten verses are translated with bias than to reject the whole work as amateurish and full of mistakes.--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You write, “Of course, you could put in a footnote that the ex-governing body member R.F., though not being himself present during the procedure of the translation, speculates A, B, C, as members of the translation committee and questions their qualifications.”

In case you have not noticed, the information in dispute is now, and has been for some time, in a footnote. I am the editor who put it there. So what are you complaining about?

You are wrong saying that Ray Franz was not “present during the procedure of the translation”. The NWT Committee did not disband in 1961 when the complete NWT was first published. The NWT Committee continued to operate as a translating committee since that time. Particularly during the years Ray Franz was a governing body member (October 1971 – May 1980) the NWT Committee undertook a revision of the NWT, which was published in 1981. Hence Ray Franz’s tenure on the governing body was concurrent with an operational NWT Committee. Additionally, the Watchtower department responsible for checking the translation of this committee for accuracy was/is the editing (writing) department. Ray Franz not only worked in that department every day but was also on the committee that oversaw the complete goings on of that department. From the get-go you have been wrong by asserting Ray Franz’s tenure at Bethel was not concurrent with the workings of the NWT committee.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The statement: "According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary, the NWT is one of the major Bible translations in English." has been added to the intro. The import of the statement is unclear. It may imply endorsement by Harper's. The statement therefore requires a clearer context. Particularly, in what way is it (or does Harper's view it as) a 'major' translation? The value of including the statement at all is questionable. I will removed it if no one objects.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it questionable? Because you don't have the exact text of the citation? Do you want to play a game? I will give you the exact passage of the Harper's Bible Dictionary, and you will bring me the exact texts of all the critics, and if you don't have the texts of the citations, but you and others have just copied and pasted what you read here and there in the internet, we will erase these citations as questionable. Do you agree?--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78, your tone is argumentative, and ignores the point of what I wrote. And don't purport to know how I will respond. Re-read what I actually wrote, and respond accordingly. The value of the statement is questionable, because aside from implying endorsement by Harper's, there's not a lot of benefit. It is left unclear to the reader how "major" a translation it is, or how important such a statement is in Harper's. Wikipedia articles on other bible translations do not use Harper's as a reference to determine popularity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "major" is exactly the word used by the Harper's Bible Dictionary. The interpretation of the word is left to the readers. It may mean "important," "succesful," something like that I suppose. In addition, the dictionary says nothing about critisism against the NWT. On the contrary, it speaks about critisism against the Revised Standard Version. You raised another issue:

You have answered your own question. The statement refers to a work which superfluously leaves the interpretation of the meaning to the readers. It is therefore of no value to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The value of the statement is questionable, because [...] it is left unclear to the reader how "major" a translation it is, or how important such a statement is in Harper's. Wikipedia articles on other bible translations do not use Harper's as a reference to determine popularity

And I have some questions: Why are you hastening to exlude a positive comment about NWT and, at the same time, you are ready to add whatever negative? Isn't that NPOV?

Because the 'positive' statement is completely subject to the reader's interpretation, and is therefore not at all informative. If you want to include it in a list of testamonials somewhere, Wikipedia is not the place.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the value of Harper's Bible Dictionary? It is made by the Society of Biblical Literature and is one most used Bible dictionaries in English.

I did not question the value of the publication, I questioned the value of a specific statement as it relates to the Wikipedia article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand:

What is the value of this source: That this was purposefully translated in order to deny the traditional view that Jesus is God. [36] (36: Martin, Kingdom of the Cults (!!!), pages 85-89)?
Is this a site we can trust: That the addition of a second smaller "god" (Jesus) to the bigger "Jehovah God" (the Father) in the translation introduces polytheism into the New Testament (Martin and Bruce Metzger)[41] (41: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j01.html)?

None of the comments is with bibliographical data. And not to forget, the matter of "polytheism" has nothing to do with the grammatical documentation but with the religious viewpoint someone has.

What is the value of the opinion of the North American Mission as regards Biblical translation? No value actually.
What is the value of ex-JWs who did not participate in the NW translation project? If I leave JWs and publish a book and say that I was the translator, would that have any scholarly value?
Is it reasonble, finaly, the 1/3 of an article about a Bible translation to be about the criticism?
Is it reasonable to examine in an encyclopedic article ONE Biblical verse (John 1:1) in order to criticize to whole translation project?

The above tirade is completely irrelevant to the point being addressed, and I have never endorsed any of the statements you list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards, --Vassilis78 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you just want to attack someone because you imagine them to be 'persecuting' you, or your religion, or whatever, find someone else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro,

If you haven't endorsed any of the above statements that decorate the article as documentary elements of encyclopaedic interest, I suppose you won't have any problem if I proceed to a clearing out.

In saying that I haven't endorsed something myself, it doesn't automatically mean that all of the sources are not appropriate (for example, a source having the objectionable title, "Kingdom of the Cults", does not automatically invalidate all of the content of that work), however some of them could probably go, if not for any reason other than brevity. I am not the only editor with whom you should discuss extreme modifications to the Criticism section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the Harper's, this is the exact passage:

Modern Translations: The modern era in Bible translation began with the Twentieth Century nt of 1901-2. The translators—mostly laymen and laywomen—did a remarkable job of producing a scholarly and faithful translation into clear and idiomatic English. One of the consultants of the group was Richard Francis Weymouth, a London classical scholar who in 1866 published an edition of the Greek nt. His translation of this text was published posthumously in 1902. But it was the Scottish scholar James Moffatt whose New Testament: A New Translation (1913) had the greatest impact upon the reading public. His translation of the ot appeared in 1924, and the whole Bible was revised in 1935. Moffatt was at work translating the Apocrypha when he died in 1944. Ernest J. Goodspeed was the American counterpart of Moffatt. His nt was published in 1923; the ot, translated by a panel headed by J. M. Powis Smith, was published with the Goodspeed nt in 1935 as The Bible, an American Translation. In 1938 Goodspeed translated the deuterocanonicals, and The Complete Bible: an American Translation came out in 1939

Many major translations of the Bible into English have appeared in the United States and Great Britain in the last thirty years: Monsignor Ronald Knox’s translation of the Bible from the Vg (1955); the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (1961); The Jerusalem Bible, the English version of La Bible de Jérusalem (1966), which has the most comprehensive and scholarly readers’ helps of any Bible in English at this time; the New American Bible (1970), the first Catholic Bible in English translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts; The New English Bible (1970), a new translation, rather than a revision of earlier translations, produced by a group of scholars from the British Isles that included experts in both Bible and English literature; the Good News Bible (1976), sponsored by the American Bible Society (edition with deuterocanonicals, 1979); and the New Jewish Version, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures by American Jewish scholars (1982).

The rsv was condemned as unfaithful by the vast majority of American conservatives, and several translations have been made with the purpose of providing conservatives a translation they would accept, such as the Amplified Bible (1965), the Modern Language Bible (1969), and the New American Standard Version (1971). The culmination of this process was reached in 1978 with the publication of the New International Version, produced by an international team of conservative Protestant scholars ‘with a high view of Scripture,’ as they described themselves. Although it is not a translation, Taylor’s The Living Bible, a Paraphrase (1971) may also be mentioned.

So according to Harper's Bible Dictionary, the major English Bible translations are (with chronological order):

Knox
New World Translation
The Jerusalem Bible
The New English Bible
The Good News Bible
The New Jewish Translation

I hope this information be helful.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. The full quote in context indicates the NWT to be a major translation of modern translations of the last thirty years, which neither endorses nor diminishes the work, so inclusion of the reference is still of only incidental value.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of references

Vassilis78 has removed several references in reaction to my removal of an edit made by him, though he acknowledges that the reference he inserted provides no definitive information. To avoid perceived bias of me by Vassilis78, I call upon other editors to establish the suitability of the references Vassilis78 has removed, and reinstate them if necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong and anjust, Jeffro. You removed one of the most scholarly sources because it calls NWT a "major translation" of the English Bibles, and you don't like the removal of unscholarly references with no bibliographical data. The whole article generally, as it happens with many religious articles in the Wikipedia, is very far from the encyclopedic scope and needs further reformation. But I don't see that you are really interested in the quality of the article. Your main focus is to discredit NWT. On the other hand, I will soon give my proposal for the whole article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference in question after you admitted that the context of 'major' translation is unclear, and only leaves the reader to subjective interpretation. That is why I removed the reference, and any other assessment is imagined.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your British English are very good, Jeffro, and I don't see why you see Harper's statement as unclear enough to erase it.

Major (according to Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary):

greater in dignity, rank, importance, or interest *one of the major poets*
greater in number, quantity, or extent *the major part of his work*
having attained majority
notable or conspicuous in effect or scope : CONSIDERABLE *a major improvement*

--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted the statement to reflect that Harper simply includes the NWT in a list of major modern translations, rather than the previous potentially misleading statement that could imply that Harper specifically endorsed the NWT. Hopefully this will be satisfactory for you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your adjustment is welcomed. Your comments ("misleading"...) are not. Please, if you have time, make a summary of the criticism mentioning the serious sources and not the paraphernalia. As you said, there is a main article for the NWT controversy. If you don’t have time, I can do the job on the weekend.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was "potentially misleading" becuase the statement was vague and not completely reseprentative of the statement in the source. The intent was subject to readers' interpretation and was therefore "potentially misleading". I will not have time to make any major considerations of the article until at least the weekend.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No speculation???!!! They were not members of the NWT project! At least, bring the passage of R. Franz and of the others so that we may see exactly what they say.--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I think you are confusing debated information with speculation. To speculate means to guess. Nothing suggests that Ray Franz or William Cetnar were guessing when these named individuals known to them as members of the NWT committee. In each case the writers asserted sure knowledge. Whether readers want to accept this assertion is, of course, up to each one; hence the debate. But it remains that neither Franz nor Cetnar expressed a speculation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The NWT publishing figures are 100 million as of CY2000. If extrapolated linearly, that means that as of 2007, the figure is more like 115 million. JW's nearly always place these with individuals for the purposes of individual study, as compared with others who seed nightstands and libraries with theirs. Given the number of active readers and studiers of this translation and the impact on the scholarly community it has had, it would be hard to dispute that it is "minor" in significance. The Harper's reference bears that out. -- cfrito (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, have a look also at BeDuhn's comments about the major translations in English in his forward. He says something similar.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: As to R Franz and Cetnar, there cannot be a debate about the truthfulness of the list published about the alleged translators: it either is, or it is not, correct. Since it simply an assertion by two people with known extreme bias and without any documentary evidence (other than the penning of their own recollections in memoirs), is can only be classified at this time as speculative. The debate is between individuals and groups regarding the decision of the translators themselves to remain anonymous, and whether R Franz and Cetnar have a motive to lie, mislead, or even unwittingly publish names erroneously. Without corroboration from the translators themselves or the publisher the list is inarguably speculative. Indeed, The American Heritage Dictionary defines "speculate": To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. A debate most often means a contention of points of view. The list is not challenged from a point of view, but rather that it cannot be independently verified and thus is subject to doubt, particularly given the bias of those asserting them, and that the two asserters are not in 100% agreement despite each one's claim to 'know the truth'. The "list itself" fits the definition of speculative perfectly. It has indeed given rise to a contention but that is not what I understand constitutes a debate. Should Shilmer, for example, argue over my assertion that casting a contention as a debate is substandard, a debate would ensue, but the list would remain a speculation. -- cfrito (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "the two asserters are not in 100% agreement" is flawed. If person A says "A, B & C" are letters of the alphabet, and person B says that "A, B, & D" are letters of the alphabet, both are correct, and there is no disagreement at all. One (or both) source not including all of the names does not invalidate either list. There is no reason to doubt the list, because a) Franz had a position of authority in the organisation and worked closely with the individuals listed, b) the individuals listed are credible candidates, c) the list has never been denied as correct, d) there is no benefit to the author in the provided list being false. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: For an editor here to assert that Franz’s or Cetnar’s statements are speculative is to make an assertion that is unprovable because neither source has stated they were guessing based on inconclusive information, and both assert their knowledge as sure. This does not prove the veracity of the names they offer (that is evidenced by other mechanisms), but it does prove that these men were not speculating in what they wrote. According to Cetnar, who was working as translators on the NWT was common knowledge at Bethel at the time. (Bethel = world headquarters of Watchtower organization).

Regarding the axiom you parrot (p = q or –q), it would be fallacious to assert p = -q because you are unable to prove p = q. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, they were based on inconclusive evidence, since they never had any verbal or written report about the list of the NWTC members, but they just made their own conclusions. Me myself can raise a simple question: How can someone be sure that there were no non-Bethelite collaborators of the NWT project? I personally know that the writing department has collaborators and counselors beyond Bethelites, people who are specialists on their field. And I can assure you that these people are not known by the Bethel staff, they are known only by the those who take the lead in each project. So, the whole matter about the NWTC members is science fiction. And it is science fiction with no scholarly value. There are major scholars who easily write things that would please their sponsors, and anonymous or debated as regards their authorship works, like Illiad and Odyssey, which have worldwide acceptance as literary milestones.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: A premise for you remarks is that “they never had any verbal or written report about the list of the NWTC members”. You make this assertion and then use it as a premise toward a conclusion you prefer. Can you prove your assertion that “they never had any verbal or written report about the list of the NWTC members”? If not, then all you’ve done is argued circularly.

I believe there was at least one non-Bethelite collaborator involved with the NWT, but I am unable to prove it from published sources. On the other hand, neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar has suggested there were no non-Bethelite collaborators, so why do you think this is an issue?

It appears you are under a mistaken notion that Ray Franz and/or William Cetnar has asserted their list of NWT translator names is comprehensive. Neither man has suggested this. Both men have asserted the names of NWT translation committee members known to them. My working knowledge of Watchtower headquarters is that committee makeup changes according to circumstances. I doubt the NWT Committee of today is the same as it was in the late 1940s. Between then and now it has probably undergone many changes in personnel due to deaths, poor health, standing or infinite other reasons.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If they had a report, they would have said that: "The president told me that A, B, C were the members of the committee." Is is very simple. If you have any more enlightening details, we would be pleased to share it with us.--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Because this is how you would have presented the information is not proof of anything other than that is how you say you would have presented the information. You are asserting a fallacious argument, and you just confirmed it. Cfrito has made the same mistake, repeatedly.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am positively sure that if they were ever told who the members of the NWTC are, they would have said that to support their claims. Their silence on this proves that what they say is their personal conclusion and nothing more than that. As for the "common knowledge" in Bethel you adduced, this is called in my country "rumour." Personally, I do not find it wise for someone to base his convictions on rumours.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: You have argued that had Ray Franz had a verbal or written report he would have cite that verbal or written report. This argument suggests a dilemma that either Ray Franz had a verbal or written report and he cited it or Ray Franz did not have a verbal or written report to cite. Since Ray Franz did not cite a verbal or written report then you conclude he had no verbal or written report to cite. This is a false dilemma because it ignores alternate events and actions. For example, Ray Franz could have had a verbal or written report but chose not to cite this and instead offer the information as his firsthand experience, which it would be in terms of information known or made know to him.

You have a terrible working understanding of the term “rumor”. Firsthand eyewitness testimony is not rumor. Rumor is hearsay; second hand information with no substantive basis. Neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar has asserted NWT translator names as information they were only told about. Rather, both men have presented this information as something they knew firsthand. Because William Cetnar asserts the names of NWT translators was common knowledge at Bethel is not to say William Cetnar’s knowledge of NWT translators was something he did not know firsthand. Again you have argued fallaciously.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Only Shilmer is flogging the dead horse known herein as the "alleged translator list" If R Franz or Cetnar has the documentation, let them provide it. Insistence on its inclusion as a critique of the NWT (laughable on its face) on the basis that "everyone knew", "common knowledge" "firsthand knowledge" when the two guys can't even agree on who should be on the alleged translator list is proof of pure foot-stomping by Shilmer. The alleged translators list's relevance is one of trivia, and so on. It's time to retire this matter and to the more important and productive task of cleaning up the entire Criticism section. Especially so if Vassilis78's work on F Franz's Ph.D is verified. This endless nonsensical argument over a speculation by three JW haters, where Shilmer persists in calling everyone else an idiot to get his way, has about run its course (in my opinion, that is). -- cfrito (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The difference between what you are doing and what I am doing is one thing: verification from sources.

Any information I have included in this article is based on something other than my opinion. Conversely, you persist in pressing your own POV as though it equals what can be verified by source material. All your complaints of names presented by Franz and Cetnar have been thoroughly refuted. I appreciate you do not agree. But rather than you simply continuing to state disagreement why don’t’ you, instead, address the straightforward rebuttals with straightforward replies? You avoid questions and substantive bases left and right, and this in the record here for any reader concerned enough to read it.

It will be interesting to see how Vassilis78 handles the questions asked of his or her claim to having just yesterday visited “the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies.” To be sure, this could be a telling moment for the editor going by the name Vassilis78.

The horse I'm flogging is the one of demanding verification of information presented.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer has persisted in listing recollections from memoirs masquerading as reliable sources even though this is strongly recommended against by Wikipedia standards. Shilmer knows this, and it well covered above. He has aggressively supported the fiction that hearsay and personal character references from himself should suffice over facts and credible evidence and verifiable source material. When it suits him, he insists in an increasingly caustic and enraged way that editors demanding verifiable evidence from him prove that it doesn't exist, a fools errand, rather than simply providing it. Mr Shilmer doth protest too much, methinks.. When he is asked to produce evidence (as it should be for reasonable people) he assaults and abuses those asking, as if they had no right to ask that he comply with standards of excellence. He retreats to a predictable tactic of feigning obtuseness and commencing a battle of wits until those who seek balance become exhausted or frustrated or both. In this particular Article, he insists on placing undue weight on platitudes of detractors of the NWT as he well knows that many references he advocates simply cite each other as their scholarly authority, and the vast majority do so on theological (not linguistic) grounds. For example, he claims that F Franz's credentials (in an erroneous argument) aren't sufficient to qualify F Franz as a translator, but vehemently supports critics of the translation like Weldon and Ankerberg who are not ancient language scholars themselves. And a close examination of such references shows that they are simply paraphrasing the comments of Bowman, Countess, etc., that have already been cited. For example, these same references are largely repeated in the reference [56] from the Southern Baptist Convention. Also, Shilmer has not disclosed his bias as a prolific anti-JW writer even though I specifically asked for clarification in this regard. He is making a mockery of Wikipedia, and is likely principally responsible for this Article's "B" rating, given his undue influence on its contents. He ought to be banned from editing anything related to JW's and probably all Wikipedia Articles. And Shilmer's assault on Vassilis88 for a trumped-up lack of subtleness or for missing fine details of colloquial and idiomatic English are far more impolite and inexcusable than any intentionally misperceived coarse phrasing coming his [Shilmer's] way. -- cfrito (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section needs to be trimmed significantly. Much of the content belongs at Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses#New World Translation, with just a summary of issues in this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Jeffro77 has a valid point. It seems that the Criticism sections (or what constitutes them) of the RSV, the KJV, the NASB or even ASV Articles might be good prototypes and guidelines. -- cfrito (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

In criticism it is said:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

Can you please provide bibliographical data for that?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: This data is available to anyone and everyone from archives of the University of Cincinnati. If you are unable to go in person (which is what I did) then, for a fee, you should be able to request Franz’s transcript from the University.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that I went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: What is the full and complete name on the transcript you allege? What are the dates of enrollment and completion of the doctorate you allege? What is the course work indicated on this transcript? What was his doctoral thesis? Specifically at what university would I find the transcript you allege? Truth is I want these details to check your story.

Finally, biblical studies is not training in biblical language translation.Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, Marvin and whoever else is interested: Wikipedia is not the mirror of what we read in the Internet. We must base what we say on bibliographical data. "Go to University of Cincinnati" is not an answer. I can assure you that if Franz has taken 20 hours of ancient Greek, I have taken more that 200 hours and I have been studing the original text of the Bible for more than 12 years. Only in my congregation there are two linguists in ancient Greek, and the one, the P.O. of the congregation, is one of the most famous lexicographers in Greece. All of us know very well if NWT is an amateurish work or not, and we can provide much information in the NWT article. But our personal opinion about the NWT has no value for the Wikipedia. In Wikipedia we have to use sources. I think you know what I mean.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I have not offered Wikipedia as a mirror of anything, and frankly on this point I have no idea what you are trying to say. The documentation you question is presented formally and directly from the transcript itself.

Above you have made serious claim. You have said that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”. Now please answer these questions: What is the full and complete name on the transcript you allege? What are the dates of enrollment and completion of the doctorate you allege? What is the course work indicated on this transcript? What was his doctoral thesis? Specifically at what university would I find this transcript you allege?

Your statement conflicts with multiple published sources, and is not at all supported by Fred Franz’s own life story wherein he does express his formal education, and it does not include any PhD in biblical studies. There is every reason to doubt the integrity of what you claim and no reason yet to believe it. You need to answer for yourself.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, you don't seem to me as fool as you pretend. I just gave you a good answer to your "go to univerisity and check for yourself". This is not how we work here. I cannot say "Metgzer said that" and go to the library to check if it is so. If I write something positive of the NWT, your scholarly instict will immediately spur you to say: "Give us the bibliographical data!" I accept that, but do the same. This in not jehovahs-witnesses forum. This is Wikipedia.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: You asked for bibliographical data and I provided it. Whether you have access to a decent library is not my problem. The bibliographical data is the transcript itself! The only way you can know you have an authentic university transcript it to, get this, order it for yourself. Apparently you fail to grasp this fundamental.

Your “answer” was to assert that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”. Not only that, you edited the main article to read, “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.” If what you stated on the talk page and what you wrote in the main article are false, then you have lied, which makes you unfit as an editor! Did you lie? Yes or no?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is without documentation in Wikipedia is false. You should know that.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Yes. I know this perfectly well. This is why I am keen to provide source verification for my edits! Now please answer the question of your editing integrity! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are making progress, Marvin, but the Cincinnati University testimony is still without documentation. Please, find a way to documentate it, otherwise we will continue our discussion tommorow. I wish you all to have a good night.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The university transcript is the documentation. What about this do you fail to grasp?

Now, to your conduct as an editor,

You wrote on this talk page that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”.

You edited the article to read, “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.”

Did you LIE with your statement and edit? Yes or no?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope your agony to take an answer to your intelligent question won't disturb your repose tonight.--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: What’s the matter? Afraid to be honest and, as you say, tell what “The truth is”? (Emphasis added)

Did you LIE with your statement and edit? Yes or no? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will answer you if you answer me something else first. Have you yourself ever been at the university where F. Franz studied? Have you ever seen this specific document? Yes or no?--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: The answer to your first question is, yes. The answer to your second questions is, yes.

Now, to your conduct as an editor,

You wrote on this talk page that you “went yesterday to the University and saw that F. Franz has a PH.D. in Biblical Studies”.

You edited the article to read, “Frederick Franz’s credentials are very good, since he has a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies.”

Did you LIE with your statement and edit? Yes or no? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. I just gave a good example of the value of your answer: "Go the university and check for your self." This answer is unacceptable in the Wikipedia. From the beginning of this discussion I am asking the bibliographical data of the file, and you refuse to give it. You want us to display confidence to your personal testimony, which is of no value for Wikipedia articles. So, by refusing to give bibliographical data, you manifestly show that you don't care at all for the rules of Wikipedia, and that your sole concern is to promote your ideas. Endorsement or criticism to NWT is acceptable when it has bibliographical support, mister. Whatever else, such as personal testimonies, is unacceptable. Since you don't seem to understand what I say, or you pretend that you do not understand, I will ask the help of administrators to tell us if your statement could be considered as bibliographical support. On the other hand, I have suspicions that you may be the LIAR, because you said above that you did go to Cincinnati University, but still you are unable to provide the file/archive number of the document. Since you spent the time to travel to the Cincinnati University in order to check Franz's credentials, why didn't you keep the file number and why didn't you take any photo of the document? If I was in your position, I would have done it. You spent so much time only to give your personal testimony? It doesn's sound very logical to me.

P.S. I want to explain something. The value of the translation has to do with the translators' academic credentials ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN POSITION TO APPRECIATE THE TRANSLATION ITSELF DUE TO THEIR IGNORANCE OF THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES. But the scholars who are in position to appreciate the translation itself do not depend on any credential of the translators. It is the translation that matters. To make it plain, when you give an exam, it is your paper that matters, not your identity. So the whole matter about the credentials has become hilarious indeed. On the other hand, my insistence on the subject has to do with the purposeful degradation of wiki-rules as regards the articles. This degradation brings propagandistic and misleading articles

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78's Dishonest Editing

Vassilis78: You have applied a dishonest edit within this article by knowingly inserting false information. You place an assertions of information into this article knowing perfectly well you had no basis whatsoever for the assertion. You did this despite contrary and verifiable information cited for your benefit. This is rank dishonest editing, and directly contrary to Wikpedia standards and policy.

You complain that you have to go to a library or archive to read for yourself a referenced source. This is what everyone has to do! This is the purpose of providing reference data in the first place. Providing reference data lets researchers/skeptics/critics go read the material first hand if they have reason to doubt it. By providing reference data I provide the means for checking the veracity of what I write. It is absurd for to complain that you have to get off your derriere and make a trip to the library, or actually request a university transcript from the source, to check sources. Editors here have no obligation to do your research for you by taking their own time and resources to provide you with copies of referenced material! Furthermore, the only way you can obtain a known valid university transcript is to request it yourself from the source! Apparently you are ignorant of this!

And, for your information, asking for "bibliographical data" is asking for reference data. The reference data is ALREADY provided in the citation, just like it is for all other cited sources. Your complaint is, essentially, that you do not have the actual referenced documents sitting in front of you, or that editors like me have no obligation to provide this service for you personal convenience.

For the umpteenth time, YES!!!!! I obtained copies of Franz’s university transcript in person!!! I have a copy in my library that I made while I was there!!! I do not provide information into an academic work without having the primary source material in my own possession to read it firsthand.

Editors: Possessing this transcript is not evidence that F Franz had no other formal training or no specifically tutored training in the areas of concern. I am not saying that Franz had more -- I have no idea, frankly -- but it is clear that proving what was completed educationally at one point in history cannot serve evidence one way or the other about what happened afterward. And there are plenty of people who perform at levels far exceeding what could be or was predicted by their formal training. For example Einstein did not learn Relativity from his professors, nor did the ancient Egyptians learn pyramid-building from the Oxford Divinity School. But Einstein produced Relativity and the Egyptians the pyramids notwithstanding. Given how few NWT verses are debated on linguistic grounds (25 perhaps?) it is impossible to argue that the translators lacked skill in the art of translating -- in any reasonable, scholarly way, at least. No translation of the Bible is without critics and no translation is unanimously considered perfect by all scholars. Indeed many of the sweeping platitudes Shilmer embraces have been asserted many, many times, and against many translators, over the centuries. When I added remarks to this effect Shilmer quickly deleted them, along with my references of the many translations that had even fewer translators than the NWT and that had a similar number of verses in contention. He just couldn't abide such balance it seems

Furthermore, Shilmer says he is presenting information based on his own research. He looked into Franz's education, and beyond the factual information it provides, Shilmer presents extrapolated conclusions based the document in combination with his own conjecture on its meaning that was no further training and that F Franz had insufficient skill. This constitutes original research and should be dismissed on that basis. -- cfrito (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I recommend you try reading what you would critique, and that you read it before offering your critique.

Since I have read the article and the referenced material, I’ll share a piece of information you have, apparently, not read. Franz’s university transcript is not the sole source verifying the information you question. Also cited are Franz’s published life story from The Watchtower, and research by author Ron Rhodes. I have read these sources. Have you?

The information you question addresses no more than Franz’s credentials of record in relation to translating biblical languages into English. Regarding English, it is telling that highly trained and esteemed scholars like Rowley have questions the NWT translators’ command of English as much as their command of biblical languages. Apparently you are unaware of this.

To my knowledge I have expressed no personal conclusions within this article, and you have not offered a single example of one, either. All you have done is hurl an accusation. If you believe I have presented a personal conclusion (original research; POV) then please quote the words. Then we have something to discuss.

In any event, editor Vassilis78 has disgraced this whole discussion and article--not to mention himself and Wikipedia--by knowingly and willfully inserting falsehood into the article, and that on top of lying in his interaction with editors on this talk page!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You have edited dishonestly! You disgrace yourself and Wikipedia! On top of this, you have demonstrated extremely poor academic prowess. From now on editors with an ounce of credibility will have no option but to question the integrity of your edits.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put the subject to the administrator's table. I will accept their opinion whatever it is. If you really had a copy of the file, you would have had its serial number of the archive. Your refusal to give any specific information for the file or to publicly present a photo of the file, which is, by the way, with no copyright, proves how invalid your claims are. I will discontinue discussion with you on this matter. I will just wait to see the administrators' opinion. Allow me to apologize for bringing you in this unpleasant situation, but I had no other choice. I wish you to have a nice day.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Your allegations of me are audacious and false. Your accusations are the work of a desperate person. I have never refused to give any specific information of or from the file. Indeed, in the citation I provided specifically offers details directly from the transcript. Only today in one of your many tinkering edits to your remarks above have you asked for additional detail from the transcript itself.

For your information, the registration number showing in the margin of Franz’s transcript appears to be 102-191172. It is written in script and hard to make out with certainty. But I am reasonably sure this is the number. The seven could be a nine. But I believe it is a seven.

It is nearly obscene that after your dishonesty and tasking me on this issue that you further lay a demand on me to “publicly present a photo of the file”. I have already expressed that for purposes of verification a copy like this is worthless. Apparently you are unaware that images can be digitally altered! Which is why verification of a transcript is possible only by means of getting it from the source. Also for your information, there is a copy of Franz’s transcript online that even a cursory Google search would find for you. Though such a copy is not known by you as authentic, it is there for the finding. Apparently you are so keen on having other editors do your research for you that you fail to even apply a basic online search! I have no intention of feeding your laziness. Do your own research!

You have demonstrated a willingness to insert false information into Wikipedia article content and assert it as true. This is disgusting behavior. Dishonest editing is worse than plagiarism! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Now that it appears you have finished tinkering with your latest pleading, it is false for you to say “you had no other choice”. You most certainly had another choice!

The choice you made was to assert a falsehood on the talk page by claiming to have accessed information when you had not. You did not have to assert this falsehood! The second choice you made was to assert a materially false claim into the article itself! You did not have to assert this falsehood, either. You made these choices purely at your own discretion, and both actions were something you had options for. In both instances the options were to tell the truth by refraining from asserting falsehood in the first place. It is ironic that you began this sorry episode of bad behavior with the prefatory remark, “The truth is”. What you asserted and the material edits you made in the article having nothing to do with truth and honesty and everything to do with dishonesty. Other editors should beware of your editing from now on!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer: Vassilis78's attempt for a reductio ad absurdum was quite successful, particularly taking into consideration his home culture and dialectic tradition. Regardless of your effort to discredit him, the truth is that we (the readers and editors of Wikipedia, that is) have nothing more than your word for the university document. You would have to either scan a copy of that file and present it to us (at which point it can be submitted to the University, in order to have its authenticity certified) or otherwise provide some verifiable bibliographical reference that would testify to your claim.

On the other hand, the fact that the document would essentially be of little value to the article, when one can only surmise that F.F. Franz was a member of the NWT committee, only goes to show that the whole conversation is redundant.

--Hieronymus (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hieronymus: I have not attempted to discredit Vassilis78. Rather, I attempted to learn 1) whether Vassilis78 lied to editors on this talk page and 2) whether Vassilis78 knowingly and willfully added false information into the article. He did both. Vassilis78 discredited himself.

Regarding the verifiability of Frederick Franz’s university transcript, it is false to assert you have ‘nothing more than my word’ for the authenticity of the document. The reason for this is right in front of your eyes. I provided means of testing the information provided by citing the source document. If you (or any editor) doubts the authenticity of the information I cite all you have to do is the same thing you would do were the citation from a published journal or book. You need only acquire the document and read it. To obtain a copy of this document all you have to do is contact the University of Cincinnati and request the transcript of Frederick W. Franz. When I requested this transcript in person all I needed was the name because, apparently, the Frederick W. Franz in question had been the only student at that university enrolled under that particular name. (Note: the actual transcript shows the spelling Frederic, but the archivist found the transcript using the name spelled Frederick)

Fred Franz was named by Cetnar and Ray Franz as a member of the NWT translation committee. But his qualifications for translating biblical languages into English arise for an additional reason, and one that is verified by Fred Franz himself in a statement made under oath and recorded in a judicial trial transcript. Fred Franz was the editor of the NWT, specifically assigned to check the translation for accuracy and correctness. Hence, when it comes to the NWT, Fred Franz’s qualification to translate ancient biblical languages into English is certainly relevant.

Let me as you a question. If an editor cites a journal article as a source of verification, are you of the opinion that it is the responsibility of that editor to supply you a copy of that article? Or, is it your obligation to locate the source material by doing your own research? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Critical Review

Editors: I have retitled "Criticism" to "Critical Review" to more accurately reflect the point-counterpoint nature of the section contents. Calling it Criticism" seems to make it a magnet for weblog style platitudes of detractors regardless of their academic lettering. This new section title is designed to make the contents more worthy of an academic work. We should all remember that while many of the comments and criticms of modern critics are aimed at the NWT, the NWT is not alone in garnering enemies to their renderings, and we should keep the references relevant to the translative work and not focus on policies of its publishers or work hard to ascribe sinister motives of its translators. We should also refrain from putting material that has been edited out by consensus in footnote references to perpetuate a personal agenda.

I have also moved F Franz as Editor of the NWT to a more appropriate place, the History section. -- cfrito (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Cfrito: Bold editing is one thing. Removal of verified information and persisting in adding unverified content is something else. You have done the latter. You have persisted in this despite warning. This is vandalism.

Regarding POV editing, these examples taken from your editing are for your benefit:

To write, “Criticisms of Bible translations are not new, and most are motivated by theological differences between the translators and their critics” is POV editing without verification. (Emphasis added) You provided no verification.

To write, “The most often cited criticisms are sweeping platitudes based on the emotions of theological scholars defending their theologies rather than criticisms on linguistic grounds” is POV editing without verification. (Emphasis added) You provided no verification.

Editors: Absolutely false charge, Shilmer is grandstanding. Thomas More considered both Tyndale and Luther heretics and condemned their translations ostensibly on linguistic grounds but later these were all seen by all as theological ones. Even More himself characterized them as "heresies". As soon as I can find the exact verifiable reference I will add a commonly attributed quote to Sir Thomas More, 'Finding errors in Tyndale's translation is like searching for water in the very seas.' I added the references for both More's famous heresy dialog and of Tyndale's reply. This evidences that although Tyndale's work is now largely heralded as landmark, at the time, More challenged his translation's accuracy (and he met with a gruesome end over it) but it was proved to be motivated by theological bias and ultimately dismissed the linguistic charges. The relevance here is that the same things are being said by theologically opposed critics of the NWT. The issue is exactly the same and Readers should be informed of this. Shilmer is just having a yet another temper tantrum. -- cfrito (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These two instances exemplify a great deal of your edits. If you need more examples feel free to ask.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer has characterized the two dozen or so texts under serious debate as "most" of the texts. Setting aside the two-dozen number (I have only ever been able to count 15 or so personally, but including that would be original research). In order to qualify for "most texts" the number in dispute would need to reach something like sixteen thousand! Shilmer is perhaps the most guilty of POV editing and undue weighting. He has also persisted in making the translators the central issue in the NWT Article, not the NWT itself largely because so few texts are actually challenged and there are serious supporters of many of the texts at issue. I believe that as long as Shilmer bullies this and the other JW pages they will always be rated a "B" project. -- cfrito (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Criticisms by scholars that do not reflect precisely on the veracity of texts have no place in this article, regardless of who said it, or where it was published. For a "scholar" to say "This is the biggest pile of rubbish I ever read!" or "This is a work of pure genius!" has no place here. Those are platitudes that bear no light on the validity of textual renderings. Furthermore, to recursively include references like Rowley's reference by virtue of a televangelist 's anti-JW/pro-trinitarian diatribe who essentially says 'I agree with Rowley because it agrees with my theology' adds undue influence to Rowley's comments without adding any insight whatsoever as to the translation accuracy. Theological sermons concern JW doctrine, beliefs and practices, and not on the accuracy of the NWT. Such commentary has no place in a critique of the NWT texts. Unless the commentary applies directly to the texts, it should be eliminated. A better home for that kind of ranting would be the JW Controversies Article. My edits have been thoroughly discussed and either silence (no contest) or agreement/consensus had already been reached before I made any such edits (we understand that unless it casts JW's in a bad light, Shilmer will object).

I welcome other Editors -- besides the rabidly anti-JW Shilmer -- to make some comments on my edits before we declare them heretical. I have added only referenced material, and Shilmer is so fast to restore his approved view that I don't think anyone else ever gets a chance to see the work. I suggest Shilmer cease with the edit reversals/wars and desist from the POV characterizations and allow others time to review and comment. We already know Shilmer prefers to say anything bad he can find a reference for and eliminate anything balanced, references or not, and a few days or a week is a reasonable request for a discussion session on the edits. I believe that I will also ask the Administrators and Dispute Resolution groups to have a look at this behavior if Shilmer reverses again or aggressively over-edits in the next 7 days. -- cfrito (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito, several of your edits are POV rhetoric, not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Though such usage is ok on Talk pages, please refrain from using such language on the article. Providing references does not justify the style employed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77, Which edits were rhetorical? I have reviewed many of the other Bible translation article pages and I can say with clear conscience that my edits were not rhetorical. -- cfrito (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: If you do a quick check of the page's history you will find Jeffro's systematic deletion of every one of your edits called into question below (and more!), and for precisely the reasons I stipulate. You failed over and over again to verify your edits, something you apparently do not understand.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that lack of verification was not the primary reason for my removal of those edits. In most cases, the tone and style of the removed edits were not appropriate. Much of it sounded more like pleading a case rather than providing encyclopedic content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Yes. I understand your stated reason was not lack of verification. But lack of verification is still centric to those edits because only rarely do we find such rhetoric/oratory to have material verification. Accordingly, had you even suspected the statements could have had verification you would have requested verification rather than deleting them. We both know the oratory we both deleted at seperate times was unverifiable as stated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Assertions must be verified

Cfrito: Please provide verification that “most” criticisms of Bible translations “are motivated by theological differences between the translators and their critics.”

Editors: I have read the references, especially the ones from various ministries and televangelists. They all object to a handful of verses (15 or less) and the vast majority of these because they claim that the NWT renderings 'deny the deity of the Christ' but not on a clearly linguistic basis. Where they do make a criticism of the linguistics they simply cite Rowley, Metzger, Countess, etc. as the authority, who are already cited many times directly or through these recursive references. Citing Metzger and then citing another who's only linguistic criticism is to cite the same comment from Meztger adds undue wight to Metzger and allows theological arguments into a review of a translation work. I already provided a review the Weldon/Ankerberg reference. What proof would satisfy you beyond their own words? -- cfrito (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Saying you have read references and then sharing your personal observation is not verification. Verification requires you citing source materials that asserts what you want to assert in a given statement. Citing sources gives other editors an opportunity to test the veracity of whatever you assert. Even now, you have yet to offer a authoratative source asseting that “most” criticisms of Bible translations “are motivated by theological differences between the translators and their critics.”--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer has done precisely this with F Franz's transcript and also with R Franz's alleged translator list. As for Shilmer's attack, he asked me how I came the conclusion I came to, I simply answered him. If it's a wrong statement then let him provide the exact number or justify his approximation of "many". And Shilmer is real quick to accuse people of not reading the references. And discovering that these references are theological in nature and are redundant references to a few scholars just frosts ol' Shilmer. Shilmer is just not credible. -- cfrito (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I cited Fred Franz’s university transcript by expressing what the transcript itself expresses. I also provided sufficient information for any editor to locate and read the transcript for themselves. I cited this source material after reading it with my own eyes rather than taking someone else’s word for what it says or does not say. I ask no more of you, or any other editor.

As for Ray Franz’s remarks, I cited exactly what he said without adding anything, and I provided source information sufficient for any editor to locate and read the material for themselves. What more do you want? I have not characterized Ray’s remarks as true, or speculative, or as anything other than his statement. I have asserted what he said as what he said. I cited this source material after reading it with my own eyes rather than taking someone else’s word for what it says or does not say. I ask no more of you, or any other editor.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide verification that “The most often cited criticisms [of the NWT] are sweeping platitudes based on the emotions of theological scholars defending their theologies rather than criticisms on linguistic grounds.”

Please provide verification that it is “difficult to present criticisms of the New World Translation without inadvertently delving into the underlying theological issues.”

Editors: I did already provide it and was included with my edit as a reference: Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, Introduction, p. xiv, "When we make decisions or undertake evaluations, as translators do all the time,our mental "programs" are activated, our horizon of understanding exerts an influence on the decisions just as much as intelligence and logic. It follows that it is impossible for a human being to be completely objective...It is obvious that,aside from knowledge of the languages,the most crucial factor influencing a translator is personal theology." (Underlined emphasis mine, bold added to make sure Shilmer reads it this time). I have linked Furuli's credentials before. Because every translator (which includes critics evaluating the texts) personal theology cannot be discounted at all. And every text, unless it violated a linguistic rule without question is one of theology. -- cfrito (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Because a translator is influenced by theology is not verification that a critic is influenced by theology.

Editors: Is Shilmer really saying a critic doesn't translate a text for himself to make a determination of whether he thinks the NWT is wrong?!? How do they do it then??? What a total moron. -- cfrito (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I am saying that critics all have their own perspective for whatever it is they like or dislike about the subject of their review. I have seen reviews of the NWT criticizing things as remote from theology as the green color originally used for the cover to the removal of archaic English prose. Because you, apparently, focus more on criticisms related to theology does not mean that this is the focus of all critics, or even many critics.

Have you actually read with your own eyes the reviews of the NWT published by Rowley or Metzger? If you have not, then how on earth do you know the bases of their critiques, whether theological or some other perspective?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: 1. I added text to the main article that said that translators, translations and theology are hard to separate, and gave Furuli's text as a reference. 2. Shilmer deleted the statement and the reference from the main Article demanding a reference and application (among other things). 3. I repeated the reference in this Talk page (above), added the entire quote and made application. 4. Shilmer then accused me of misapplying it because critics don't do any translating themselves making their theology irrelevant. 5. I pointed out how utterly stupid that assertion was. 6. Shilmer then comments back that critics use theology as a frame of reference to make their translation judgments (which is very well covered territory by scholars from all walks) -- which was my original referenced edit in the first place!. 7. Shilmer, characteristically, shifts the focus to me and away from the matter at hand, by asking have I have actually read Metzger, et al. Since the question couldn't be more irrelevant, and since he agrees now that all critics use theology to frame their remarks, I will put back my edit back along with Furuli reference. It'll be fun to see how Shilmer makes this all come out that he was right the whole time and explain away his continuing heritage of contradicting himself just to frustrate and weary other editors. I can hardly wait. -- cfrito (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Regarding your use of Furuli, here is the language you actually added to the article:

“The most often cited criticisms are sweeping platitudes based on the emotions of theological scholars defending their theologies rather than criticisms on linguistic grounds. It is therefore difficult to present criticisms of the New World Translation without inadvertently delving into the underlying theological issues. This quickly diverts the academic review of the art and mechanics of translating Bible texts into debates on theological points of view. Dr. Rolf Furuli, and recognized expert in ancient languages, makes a critical review of translation principles examining lexical semantics, grammar and original language syntax while reviewing theology's role in the work of translating[33].”

Above we find four related but distinctive assertions. The Furuli citation is found at the end of the fourth assertion as “[33]”. Earlier you quoted what you felt was the relevant language from Furuli. According to you, Furuli writes:

"When we make decisions or undertake evaluations, as translators do all the time, our mental "programs" are activated, our horizon of understanding exerts an influence on the decisions just as much as intelligence and logic. It follows that it is impossible for a human being to be completely objective...It is obvious that, aside from knowledge of the languages, the most crucial factor influencing a translator is personal theology."

This material from Furuli does not verify your assertion that “The most often cited criticisms are sweeping platitudes based on the emotions of theological scholars defending their theologies rather than criticisms on linguistic grounds.”

This material from Furuli does not verify your assertion that “It is therefore difficult to present criticisms of the New World Translation without inadvertently delving into the underlying theological issues.” Furuli’s remark fails to verify this assertion because Furuli is not addressing the work of a critic but rather the work of a translator. This was pointed out to you already, but apparently you do not grasp it.

This material from Furuli does not verify your assertion that “This quickly diverts the academic review of the art and mechanics of translating Bible texts into debates on theological points of view.” Furuli made no remarks whatsoever indicating that reviewing a Bible translation would divert into debating theology.

Ironically, even your fourth assertion is not verified by Furuli. It is patently absurd to think we can cite an author’s own work and believe it verifies that the same author if a “recognized expert”.

You should note that I am not the only editor that has removed this editing of yours. The rest of your allegations of me are so backwards they need no address.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Critics frame their criticism around whatever is their perspective of criticism, and these perspectives vary from critic to critic. These pespectives could be literary, grammatical, academic rigor, theological etc. So, for example, in his review of the NWT H. H. Rowley had no difficulty offering criticism frpm purely academic and literary perspectives. But to assert it is difficult to critique a Bible translation without delving into theology is nearly absurd on the surface. And, your appeal to Furuli is certainly not verification because Furuli is not even talking about the work of a critic, rather he is talking about the work of a translator.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide verification that criticisms of the NWT are based theological POV rather than academic standards.

Editors: Please see the answer to the first "Please provide..." -- cfrito (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide verification that, in particular, “Dr. Bruce Metzger has stirred additional controversy over of the Watchtower organization’s promise not to publish the names of its translators.”

Editors: The exact edit was derived from this immediately preceding and long standing edit from someone else: "Severe criticism of the NWT by recognized experts such as Dr. Bruce Metzger has stirred additional criticism by virtue of the Watchtower organization’s promise not to publish the names of its translators. ref Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 150-153." I simply toned the negatively charged phrasing down a bit I kept the reference the same and the attribution the same. Apparently Shilmer doesn't care if a negative comment is wrong, just a neutrally phrased one. It would be pretty hilarious if Shilmer wrote the source edit. -- cfrito (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Citing Metzger as an example of criticism that has stirred additional criticism is not saying that Metzger in particular stirred the controversy of who translated the NWT. It only means Metzger is part of a chorus that created the controversy. When you change a sentence so that its meaning changes then you need to provide sources in verification of the new assertion. In this case, it appears you changed the sentence (and its meaning) and used the previous source without having read that source with your own eyes to know whether it verifired the new sentence! This is not competent encyclopedic editing. It is POV editing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide verification that critics have requested credentials of NWT translators based on the veracity of “less than two dozen out of more than thirty-one thousand translated passages” in the NWT.

Editors: I have never seen a list of criticized text renderings that were longer than 15 or so. I gave "two dozen" to be fair. Please provide some exact count or leave out the reference to the number of texts entirely. If it cannot be said that two dozen or two hundred exactly without citing a reference, than niether can one say "many" as Shilmer does repeatedly. In that case my composite estimate made from counts given in the references used on the page are far more accurate portrayal of the actual situation. -- cfrito (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: What you have or have not seen is verification of nothing whatsoever. Wikipedia entries are not about what any editor as seen or not seen. Wikipedia entries are about what editors can verify in the way of information.

Editors: The verse count data are in the references provided in the Article for anyone to count, much like Franz's transcript, that Shilmer saw is in a file cabinet at Franz's university that anyone can go verify if they doubt the statement. Shilmer needs to be consistent. -- cfrito (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Franz's transcripts are listed because of what Shilmer has said he has personally seen. It should be immediately stricken from the Article based on Shilmer's own words. -- cfrito (talk)

Cfrito: All editors make their entries (or should!) based on what they read with their own eyes. But verification requires more. Verification requires offering sufficient reference data of the source material that it enables other editors to locate and consider the same information with their own eyes to know that the presentation is accurate. This is why I have not only expressed what I read on Fran’s university transcript, but I also provided the name of the university and Franz’s full name so other editors could retrieve this data to test my presentation for accuracy. This is, apparently, a method you are unfamiliar with. But it is standard practice, and precisely what Wikipedia policy requires.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the number of actual texts critiqued, it would be highly unusual for any critic to cite more than a few texts to illustrate whatever is their criticism. Critics are not trying to proof read a text. They are trying to express whatever it is they like or dislike about what they are reviewing. Hence critics limit the number of texts because they are only using these few texts as examples. The current sources of Rowley and Metzger are a case in point. Both the critics cite a few examples to illustrate their criticism.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: If it is true that critics don't read more than a handful of verses, then on what basis do people like Ankerberg and Weldon write things like this: "“the scholarly Christian community has rendered its verdict on the NWT: such a translation must not be trusted to accurately convey God’s Word because of its unrelenting biases in translation.” If they only looked at a handful of verses? Their reference gives 26 verses as examples, but only makes thirteen discrete arguments. Twice the comments are for a pair of verses. Five of the verses have a single composite comment that words are inserted that are not in the original Greek, but being so vague and unspecific they must be assumed immaterial because even this severe criticism doesn't take them very seriously. The remaining four verses mentioned speak only of a different rendering of the same word but is silent as to form or context and only a single point is being made. So totaled, there are 15 comments made on all the verses they take issue with. Of these, all make reference to theological reasons for taking issue with the verses, and these boil down to three distinct reasons: The 'immortality of the soul' theology, the 'deity of the Christ' theology, and 'manner of Christ's return' theology. For every scholarly complaint against a NWT rendering, there is neutralizing comment by another scholar in support for the NWT rendering (Furuli, BeDuhn, et al). So how many renderings are they taking serious issue with? They materially challenge 13 issues and 15 verses, and in these they simply repeat the comments made by other scholars -- these two make no representation that they have any special insight on the linguistics and every critique begins with a phrase like "They did this to support their theology...] and never a scholarly review of the linguistics based on their own skill. "Monday morning quarterbacks." So adding this reference adds undue weight to Countess, Gruss, Metzger, Mantey, Martin, Rowley, which have been recursively cited by other references, and their commentary is purely theological -- they are televangelists speaking to their adherents (or potential ones). And just before you find some minute flaw that causes you to want to dismiss this paragraph of mine, consider this huge flaw of the cited reference: They say, "We can see biased translations in other areas as well, even in the Witnesses’ own term Jehovah which is so important to them as allegedly signifying the "true" name of God." (emphasis mine) Trouble is that the term is not a JW term at all. It is so widely known that it is not a JW rendering one must wonder why they would be driven to such an emotional extreme. They argue extensively of the gross misconduct for putting in the Divine Name where it isn't in the originals, but then lauds the brilliance of those taking it out where it is in the originals. They even go so far as to say that "Jehovah" doesn't appear anywhere, but then say that since the vowels are arbitrary no one knows for sure, etc. etc., etc. But they consistently call Yeshua "Jesus". Bizarre. So That's one where the number of verses I cited is accurate -- less than two dozen but is actually difficult to fix, and that every argument is theological (they specifically chose verses that highlight theological differences). I can do more, but I suspect that between Shilmer's accusing me of not reading, and then how my reading means nothing I really wonder as to what end. Ankerberg and Weldon are simply presenting opposing theology, and any linguistic comments they make are not their own. This reference should be deleted. -- cfrito (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: No one has said “that critic’s don’t read more than a handful of verses”. What was said is that critics typically do not cite more than a few texts (to illustrate whatever is their criticism). It is bizarre how you think the latter is in any way asserting the former. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer's pedantic attack addresses none of the issues he pressed me to answer, and certainly does not address the about-faces he has made. -- cfrito (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Pedantic attack? You completely misapplied what was said. You took the statement that “it would be highly unusual for any critic to cite more than a few texts to illustrate whatever is their criticism” to mean “critics don't read more than a handful of verses”. These two statements are not remotely similar in meaning, yet you used the former as basis to state the latter.

As for the rest of your statement above, what of it? It supports nothing you have advocated adding to the article. Do you think your remarks verify your earlier assertion that critics have requested credentials of NWT translators based on the veracity of “less than two dozen out of more than thirty-one thousand translated passages” in the NWT? If so, it does not. The statement you added to the article regarding “less than two dozen out of more than thirty-one thousand translated passages” is sweeping. You have offered no verification of such a sweeping assertion; hence there was no need to spend time replying to it, again.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your current edits use loaded language without any verification whatsoever. Wikipedia policy provides that such edits be deleted.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: My comments were fully referenced. To be balanced one cannot suggest that the NWT is unique in being severely criticized. Many other translations have been too, and in nearly the same terms. If this Article's main purpose is to discredit what BeDuhn considers a highly respectable translation, and Furuli does too, then the Article needs more balance. -- cfrito (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: "Fully referenced" means you provide source information sufficient for other editors to locate and consider what you cite as an authority in support. You failed to do this over and over again, and even above when it is specifically requested you do not offer it!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer deleted my edits and references and then accused me of not providing them. If he were interested in neutral editing, he simply would have asked rather than wholesale deleted the edits and replace them with his own suppositions and biased viewpoints. Shilmer has still failed to provide more than recollections from memoirs regrading R Franz's alleged translator list. -- cfrito (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Anything I edited out was information inserted without verification. After you kept reinserting the same unverified information I finally decided that rather than deleting it I would tag it with a request for verification. After that, another editor swept through the Section in question and removed the same statements for same reason; they were unverified.

You state that were I neutral I would request rather than delete. Well, guess how this sub-section on the talk page came into being. I created it precisely to request you to verify your remarks that, as of now, have been edited out of the article by another editor. So, though I do precisely what you say I should do, you still allege me a hostile editor. How amusing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: No one uses more loaded language than Shilmer. In simply disclosing F Franz as the editor, he insist on making it seem shameful and uses it as a means to demean the man's capabilities, as if he could never do more than his alleged college transcript suggested. Secondly, we have only Shilmer's word for it, and his inclusion is Original Research. I will remove it and continue to remove it until Shilmer can prove 1) it is accurate (beyond the "I saw it with my own eyes!!!" nonsense); and 2) Shilmer can prove that Franz's capabilities were limited to those of someone with that education level; and 3) that it is somehow relevant to the actual accuracy of NWT. HShilmer would need to cite verses that have been linguistically mistranslated. -- cfrito (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have not characterized Fred Franz’s editing as shameful! In fact just today I added language from Metzger that, to me, somewhat underpinned Franz’s scholarly ability for translating biblical languages into English. Another editor deleted my sentence.

What I have done is to present verifiable information of Franz’s training. If this verified information you find shameful of Franz then that is your finding; it is not my assertion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Example

I have removed most of the longwinded example. If anyone insists on reintroducing it, please keep it brief. It should be an example of disputed passages, not an in-depth analysis. It should not form the bulk of the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Right now the opening paragraph makes an unsubstantiated assertion. The statement “Most of the changes relate to verses that are traditionally viewed as 'proof texts' for the Trinity” needs verification. Who says this? Where is it published that “most” of the changed related to Trinity ‘proof texts’? The current reference does not verify this assertion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Publishers

After 1996, JW publications generally indicate that they are published by 'Jehovah's Witnesses' rather than WTB&TS. Does the 2006 revision of the NWT still indicate that it is published by WTB&TS?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: The latest NWT English edition is copyrighted 1984 and the title page shows the publisher as WBTS of NY and IBSA.

The latest 2006 NWT edition (as shown in the 2006 WTS Pub Index) is published in American Sign Language, Chichewa, Croatian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian (Cyrillic) and Serbian (Roman). I do not have any of these editions. However, for all literature published in the United States the publisher of record is the WBTS of NY and IBSA. This has not changed. This is why these corporate bodies were formed and exist. Footnotes you read in Watchtower literature expressing that a book is published by Jehovah’s Witnesses is no more than an expression of what religious body is behind the publication. It is not a statement of the publisher of record. The publisher of record (in the US) is the WBTS of New York. Academic/encyclopedic entries take care to cite the publisher of record found on a book’s title page.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Following a request at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal i have accepted a case based apon edits and users concerned with this page. The following have been notified about this:

I would request that throughout this case, all users remain civil and that editing to the page concerned is kept to a minimum. I hope that everything can be sorted as smoothly as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Thank you for taking on the task of mediating the dispute. It has been a very frustrating experience. Your input is most welcome.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative and Hearsay?

Editor Cfrito believes Ray Franz and William Cetnar’s statements of NWT translators is hearsay. It would be appreciated if Cfrito would explain why these published firsthand accounts from known insiders is hearsay.

Editors: The issue of R Franz's alleged list of translators has been well covered, and Shlmer misleads by suggesting that it has not been previously (and exhaustively) covered. R Franz did not have firsthand knowledge as Shilmer suggests, no more than a newspaper reader has firsthand knowledge of the covered event. The NWT/NT was completed in 1950 and the entire work was completed and released to the public by 1961. R Franz did not become a member of the GB of JW until 1971. The alleged translator list, according to Shilmer's representation, is based on information that R Franz was supposedly later made privy to but this goes uncorroborated. R Franz's book is a memoir ("A Crisis of Conscience" where R Franz recalls all the things that bothered him personally about the JW organization). R Franz's information is based on recollections, so far as anyone has shown, including Shilmer. Shilmer has been asked to supply documentary evidence that proves his and R Franz's assertions but he has simply retorted that he knows R Franz personally and has seen how extensive R Franz's personal notes are, demanding that these testimonies suffice. It was pointed out by other editors that this is unverified trivia that is already listed on R Franz's Wikipedia page and many other places on the Internet. Moreover, Shilmer himself has agreed that the list is likely incomplete, so including any of the alleged translator list requires that Wikipedia Editors stipulate that the names given by Franz are actually correct, but this is far beyond editorial authority: there is no basis for it. This is self-evident since the work is continuing to the present and those that originally worked on the project have likely all perished by now, and so Franz's and Cetnar's lists become even more irrelevant to the NWT itself. Other editors have already voiced the position that Wikipedia is not a mirror for every piece of Internet trivia. Cetnar also has no documentary evidence, and his list is also hearsay. The two lists are not identical, but both men represent that they had intimate knowledge and that the list of translators was commonly known and their lists are precisely correct. However, this is not a huge list of names easily confused or left off, and these names, according to the list, were some of the highest profile names in the JW organization. Given that the two publishing these lists are rabidly anti-JW, they may indeed be motivated to publish lists that would make easy targets for detractors. Since there exists a possibility that these lists are at least in part falsified, and are derived from memoirs without verification from either the translators or the publisher, and the extent to which Shilmer is personally testifying as to its correctness (also an anti-JW writer under this same pseudonym) casts clear suspicion over the alleged translator list's reliability.

It suffices to write in Article that the list of translators is not published at the behest of the translators and that certain critics see this as a weakness. However, this adds bias: "It is not unique for a Bible translation to refrain from naming its translators, though it is unique for a publisher to refuse this information when requested privately." It ought to be written as the translators require anonymity as a precondition for the publishing rights for this is accurate and verifiable. This highlighted statement suggests that it is somehow the publisher's decision to release or withhold the list of names irrespective of its agreement otherwise: It is not, and misleading verbiage like this should be deleted. Other editors have pointed out that no critic ever said or even implied that a critical review of the NWT texts are precluded for translator anonymity. Anonymity only prevents their backgrounds and theologies from being specifically addressed, forcing the focus to be the translative work itself. -- cfrito (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Thanks for responding. The following is a long reply, but I want to get to the bottom of your complaints so please read and respond.

My questions are not to suggest this issue has not been discussed. The questions are asked to try and drill down to precisely your bases for complaining as you have. Your current response offers several premises. I will address them one at the time so that, hopefully, you can understand why my questions are asked, and why my questions remain.

You write: “R Franz did not have firsthand knowledge as Shilmer suggests, no more than a newspaper reader has firsthand knowledge of the covered event. The NWT/NT was completed in 1950 and the entire work was completed and released to the public by 1961. R Franz did not become a member of the GB of JW until 1971.”

Response: You have raised this on prior occasions, but you offer no basis for anyone to reject Ray Franz’s statement based on his high position as a governing body member. I asked you once before and you failed to answer the question, “if governing body members do not have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the discretion of the Watchtower organization then who does?” If you agree that governing body members have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the direction of the Watchtower organization then you have to agree that Ray Franz had access to the names of NWT translators. It you disagree that governing body members have unfettered firsthand access to anything and everything done at the direction of the Watchtower organization then you arguing that the organization’s highest appointed position is less than authoritative. Please answer the question.

Your reply above also ignores that the NWT Translation Committee DID NOT DISBAND in 1961. In fact during the very years of Ray Franz’s governing body status the NWT Translation Committee was hard at work on a revised edition that was published in 1981. So it is false to claim that Ray Franz was not present while this committee was functioning.

Editors: The bona fide reasons are: 1. It (the alleged translator list) is a recollection; 2) It cannot be verified apart from personal testimony; 3) It is, at best, incomplete and therefore profoundly unsuitable to judge the competence of the translation team over its 45 year history; 4) It is, at worst, a complete fabrication; 5) As part of the team that serves highest administrative role for the JW organization R Franz is duty bound to keep his word to the Translation Committee. That R Franz feels that he no longer has a personal obligation to keep his pledge means he has a serious character flaw. "I don;t like them anymore" is not a sufficient reason to break his oath. Shilmer has written previously that R Franz never explicitly agreed to keep the translators' requirement to remain anonymous, but to anyone who has any association with the law or governance or morality would know that this is a laughable proposition that R Franz would not be so bound implicitly. With such questionable integrity, one cannot be sure that R Franz (or W Cetnar for the same reasons) are trustworthy. And finally 6) Shilmer is not a Prosecutor and Wikipedia should not be forced to publish hearsay and recollections built on a circumstantial evidence trail and stitched-up time line and compound nonsensical if-then statements. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: To begin my reply I want to express my appreciation for the time you took to provide specific response to individual items. This takes time, and it demonstrates sincerity. I appreciate both.

Response: 1) The assertion that translators named by Ray is a “recollection” is an unproven assertion made by you. 2) Because translators named by Ray are presented as no more and no less than Ray’s personal testimony then on this basis you agree the names are accurately presented (and this is who the names are presented, in case you still have not noticed this!). I doubt you understand the agreement you have stated, and you will probably deny it after you read this. This is not said here or later in this reply as sarcasm. It is said sincerely in the hope you will scrutinize what you are actually stating in your responses here. 3) Because names stated by Ray is not asserted as comprehensive then you agree on this basis the presentation of names is accurate. I doubt you understand the agreement you have stated, and you will probably deny it after you read this. 4) Because a personal testimony asserted as firsthand could be “complete fabrication” does not make it inaccurate to present the information as that individual’s testimony. 5) You have offered no show of proof that Ray was under an obligation to “keep his word to the Translation Committee” because you have not evidenced that Ray made such a promise or that he was otherwise obligated as you claim. What you have done is assumed Ray was under such an obligation based on his high position and then used your assumption as a premise for your preferential conclusion. Reasoning of that nature is termed circular. The actual evidence on this point says it was the Watchtower organization’s Board of Directors that obligated itself, and Ray was never a member of this Board of Directors. Secondly, the specific obligation accepted by this Board was not to publish the names of the translators. Hence, allowing inside knowledge of these translators was not a breach of the Board’s obligation, and insider knowledge is what Ray has represented his names as. 6) Testimony purported to be firsthand is not considered hearsay in anyone’s book. Rather, it is properly presented as that person’s testimony alleging firsthand information. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You also fail to acknowledge Ray Franz’s presence on the very governing body committee (writing committee) that was/is responsible for everything published by the Watchtower organization, including the NWT. So, again, your response above falls miserably short of expressing a bona fide reason why anyone should reject Ray Franz’s account.

Editors: If R Franz were on the Writing Committee then his name should be on the translator's list too. And if he was in a position of oversight for the publishing arm and it's writing staff for the JW organization then he remains duty bound to his oath and this oath would have been both explicit and implicit in all publishing matters for sure. R Franz thus has demonstrated serious character flaws if he has broken that oath for any reason other than the immediate protection of someone in imminent physical danger. Theological issues aside, R Franz never saved anyone from immediate physical harm by his breaking this trust, and I doubt any unbiased observer would think that R Franz's dislike of the organization he once loved is sufficient reason to break such an oath. Such a weak character cannot be taken at his word. It is likely one of the key reasons that Wikipedia's guidelines so strongly cautions editors against using recollections from memoirs, especially in such an emotionally charged case as with R Franz's need to share his own personal misgivings against JW's. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) It is equivocation to assert responsibility on one committee amounts to responsibility on a second committee when you have not demonstrated the two committees need have the same membership. 2) Again you assume Ray had an obligation without proving this is the case. 3) Strength of character neither proves nor disproves a source’s specific testimony. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “The alleged translator list, according to Shilmer's representation, is based on information that R Franz was supposedly later made privy to but this goes uncorroborated.”

Response: I have presented no such a thing! I have asserted that by virtue of his position (governing body member) and work assignment (writing committee) that he had access to the names of NWT translators. You have not refuted this. You have only talked circles around it.

Editors: Any way one slices it, R Franz "remembered this list, then published it in a memoir/tell-all book. This is not a reliable source. Cetnar's personal recollections are even less reliable. Neither are academic sources, and the reason to include the list is to challenge the credentials and investigate the backgrounds of the translators. This cannot be accomplished with a partial list, and especially so when the partially named people cannot be proved to be the actual translators and the actual translators have never made themselves known, except F Franz in his admitted role as Editor. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) If Ray had documents (personal notes taken at the time, or other) as a basis for his names of translators then it is false to characterize this as “remembered” information. Remembering you have contemporary personal notes (or other documents) and using this as a basis for presentation is routinely accepted as a sound basis to offer personal testimony. Law enforcement officials do this all the time for preparing written reports and offering testimony under oath. Such notes help establish the individual is offering what was initially learned/observed rather than a dated memory. But, names alleged by Ray are not asserted in the article as coming from such documents so proving such documents exists is not a burden. Other hand, because you have asserted Ray wrote from memory then you have a burden to prove he had no such documents. I doubt you understand this. Certainly you have not demonstrated an understanding of where the burden of proof rests on this point. 2) You assert that Cetnar’s personal testimony is “even less reliable,” yet you offer nothing more than your opinion in support of this. 3) In case you still do not realize it, the material you contend against has been relocated to the history section. Why you think it somehow inappropriate to examine translator’s academic credentials from a historical perspective you fail to state. In effect, the names are not offered as criticism but, rather, purely for whatever historical value it may or may not have in the form of personal testimony alleged as firsthand. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “R Franz's book is a memoir ("A Crisis of Conscience" where R Franz recalls all the things that bothered him personally about the JW organization). R Franz's information is based on recollections, so far as anyone has shown, including Shilmer.”

Response: You have yet to prove your assertion that Ray Franz had no documents at his disposal regarding his statements of NWT translators. Until you can prove this assertion then you contention that Ray’s book is “based on recollection” is purely your speculation. I do not think you understand this.

Editors: It is R Franz's assertion and Shilmer is sponsoring it's inclusion herein. I have shown with sufficiency that the list of alleged translators is R Franz's written recollection that he published in his memoir. The burden of proof is on these, not me or anyone else. I truly believe that Shilmer repeatedly insisting that I prove what R Franz does not possess is adequate evidence in itself that R Franz possesses no evidence at all. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) Ray has not asserted he had documents for his presentation of names, and neither does the presentation in the article. Hence neither Ray nor I have a burden to prove the existence of such documents. You are the one who has made an assertion on this issue, namely that Ray did not write based on documents at his disposal and instead wrote strictly from memory. Accordingly, you have a burden of proof you have yet to meet. On this point, you have repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of burden of proof. It is this simple: I have not asserted in the presentation that Ray’s names come from anything other than his memory, whereas you have asserted that Ray definitely did not provide the names from anything other than his memory. You have made the assertion on this point; not me. Please prove your assertion. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Shilmer has been asked to supply documentary evidence that proves his and R Franz's assertions but he has simply retorted that he knows R Franz personally and has seen how extensive R Franz's personal notes are, demanding that these testimonies suffice.”

Response: I have no assertion to prove on this point because I have not used any documentation Ray may or may not have had as a supporting premise for why Ray’s remarks have merit. My remarks about Ray having documentation at his disposal were only to express personal knowledge, but I have not used this personal knowledge as a premise for anything I have asserted in the article. I do not think you understand this, either.

Editors: The only documentation Shilmer has used is from R Franz's memoir. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) And Ray’s testimony is presented as just that; his testimony. 2) To be precise, the current presentation in the article DOES NOT assert anything more than the names Ray offers are the names he offers. 3) Since you do not dispute what is said by Ray as coming from Ray then you do not dispute that presenting the names Ray offers as his testimony is appropriate presentation. I doubt you understand your lack of dispute, and you will probably deny it after you read this. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Moreover, Shilmer himself has agreed that the list is likely incomplete, so including any of the alleged translator list requires that Wikipedia Editors stipulate that the names given by Franz are actually correct, but this is far beyond editorial authority: there is no basis for it.”

Response: My statement was that neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar presented the names as though a comprehensive list of the NWT Translation Committee. All this does is dispel concern over why one (Franz) does no mention Milton Henschel whereas the other (Cetnar) does mention Milton Henschel. The relevance of neither source presenting their names as comprehensive is, again, something I think you fail to understand.

Editors: If it is not a complete list then it cannot be used as a basis for criticism on the skills of the translation team, ostensibly the reason for its inclusion in this Article. Nor is there a way to prove that it names it does include are correct. It remains two men's allegations made from memory of an organization and of people they do not like and actively campaign(ed) against. The one who had the most skill may remain unknown because it is not in R Franz's interests of selling books to publish that the NWTTC had world renowned biblical Greek scholars on the team. I don't know if they did or didn't, but neither does anyone else, and that is exactly the point. The alleged list remains unproven trivia. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) Clearly you still do not realize the material you contend against has been relocated to the history section. The names are not offered as criticism but, rather, purely for whatever historical value it may or may not have in the form of personal testimony alleged as firsthand. 2) The names are not asserted as “correct” or “incorrect”. The names are presented as Ray and William’s testimony, which you agree is the case. 3) The potential conflict of interest of Ray and William in relation to their testimony about Watchtower issues is declared in the article’s presentation. So this issue is resolved by disclosure. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “This is self-evident since the work is continuing to the present and those that originally worked on the project have likely all perished by now, and so Franz's and Cetnar's lists become even more irrelevant to the NWT itself.”

Response: What you speak of here is all the more reason why Franz’s names and Cetnar’s names do not coincide 100 percent.

Editors: See the previous response. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) Yes. Please do. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Other editors have already voiced the position that Wikipedia is not a mirror for every piece of Internet trivia.”

Response: No one disagrees with this, including me! To my knowledge no editor has attempted to do this, so what is the point of the statement?

Editors: The point is that unverifiable recollections from memoirs, they are untrustworthy reports and should not be included. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) But because no one has asserted Ray’s testimony and anything more than his testimony then whatever trustworthiness/weight is attributed or not attributed to his list of names is left strictly for readers to decide however they want to decide, and the potential conflict of interest is included precisely to assist readers in assigning weight to what Ray says. Nevertheless, the information of what Ray Franz reports as his firsthand knowledge is presented, for whatever that is worth. I have not assigned weight, lack of weight, trust or lack of trust to what Ray states. I have only presented what Ray states as his personal testimony as an ex-governing body member. To this day you have failed to demonstrate this is either inappropriate or inaccurate, particularly from a historical perspective. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Cetnar also has no documentary evidence, and his list is also hearsay.”

Response: Cetnar’s names are NOT presented as DOCUMENTED by Cetnar. Rather, Cetnar’s names are presented as CETNAR’s firsthand account. Accordingly, your complaint of lack of documentation by Cetnar is a red herring. Cetnar’s account is firsthand and it is published for other editors to look up and read with their own eyes for purposes of verifying that what Cetnar is purported to have said is in fact what the published record shows.

You write: “The two lists are not identical, but both men represent that they had intimate knowledge and that the list of translators was commonly known and their lists are precisely correct.”

Response: Neither Franz nor Cetnar presented their lists as comprehensive (as though they were claiming to have named ALL the translators of the NWT). Again you raise a red herring.

Editors: No red herring, just simple questions on elevance, reliability, etc. It seems that this list cannot pass even the simplest test in these regards. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) According to you (and I agree) the names provided by Ray Franz and William Cetnar pass the test of whether the names are the testimony of Ray and Cetnar’s alleged firsthand information. This is the only test it needs to pass because this is how the information is presented. The source data provided verifies the names as the testimony of these men. 2) The reliability of this testimony is not characterized in the article’s presentation of this information. Because no assertions are made of the testimony’s reliability then there is no burden to prove anything more than that the testimony has been accurately conveyed as coming from Ray and William, and source data proves the latter. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “However, this is not a huge list of names easily confused or left off, and these names, according to the list, were some of the highest profile names in the JW organization.”

Response: Again, Franz and Cetnar provided their firsthand accounts. Cetnar was at Bethel nearly 20 years prior to Franz. The only difference between the names these two men provide is one person, Milton Henschel. For all we know Milton Henschel was involved with the NWT translation committee in the 1950s but not in the 1970s when Franz was at Bethel. What we do know is that both Franz and Cetnar offered firsthand accounts, and this is how their statements have been presented in the article. Their names have not been presented as anything more than this.

Editors: Reading a list after the fact is not "firsthand" knowledge. There is no way to verify that the list is accurate. R Franz, apart from what he wrote in his memoir, has no documentary evidence that has been presented. The list is at best incomplete and misses the goal of providing a basis for challenging the NWT for lack of skill of the translators. Since it cannot achieve the primary goal or even address it with any sense of credibility or reliability, it should be discounted as trivia and not perpetuated here. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) The only editor asserting that anyone was “reading a list after the fact” is you. Hence there is burden on any editor other than you to meet on this point. 2) Because the list is not characterized in the article as verified or unverified then on this point, too, there is no burden of proof to meet. 3) The information is presented as the testimony of these men, and proving the testimony is of these men is provided by reference to the source publications containing their testimony. Whether this is trivia or relevant depends on the reason a reader/researcher is examining the article. For example, if a reader is considering the article to investigate when the NWT was published then who did the translation work is immaterial/irrelevant. But if a reader is considering the article to learn whether anyone in an authoritative position with the Watchtower organization has ever went on record with information about NWT translators, then the information is material and relevant. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Given that the two publishing these lists are rabidly anti-JW, they may indeed be motivated to publish lists that would make easy targets for detractors.”

Response: Are you saying that Nathan Knorr, Fred Franz, George Gangas and Milton Henschel are “easy targets”? Every one of these men was appointed to the highest position within the Watchtower hierarchy! Otherwise, what you write is pure speculation. As it stands the article presents Ray Franz’s names and William Cetnar’s names as no more than their own statement. Additionally, in each case the references include the potential conflict of interest that both men were disfellowshipped by the organization.

Editors: Shilmer agrees the alleged list is a product of their own unverifiable statements. This Article isn't a proxy court in which personal testimony is solicited. It should be excluded entirely or we are a party to perpetuating personal testimony as corroborated and verified fact. A great many of the critics are motivated by theological disagreements and are just looking to take pot-shots at the JW leadership. Publishing such a strawman list makes these men Shilmer mentioned "easy targets" in the sense that it's just another synthetic reason for critics to build readership/viewership, like Ankerberg and Weldon for example. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) An editor need not verify that testimony is correct to correctly present testimony. To help you understand this, were you to testify/say, “Marvin Shilmer is a hostile editor” I can then correctly assert that “Cfrito says Marvin Shilmer is a hostile editor” whether your testimony is true or false. I can include this information on a Wikipedia article, too, if your statement is documented for purposes of verifying that you actually stated the above (which in this case you have, essentially, but that is another discussion). 2) No one has suggested the article is a court, of any kind. The article is about information on the NWT, including its history. And, like or not, Ray and William’s testimony is a matter of historical record since the time each man made known their testimony. 3) By asserting the testimony of NWT translators is a strawman you are asserting that the information is incorrect. Yet you have not proved the list is incorrect. I doubt you understand this, and you will probably deny it after you read this. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Since there exists a possibility that these lists are at least in part falsified, and are derived from memoirs without verification from either the translators or the publisher, and the extent to which Shilmer is personally testifying as to its correctness (also an anti-JW writer under this same pseudonym) casts clear suspicion over the alleged translator list's reliability.”

Response: A possibility of falsification is not a probability of falsification, any more than a possibility of correctness is a probability of correctness. For this reason the names presented by Franz and Cetnar can be presented as no more than they personal testimony based on position and proximity, and this is how the information has been presented.

Editors: This is not Las Vegas. We are not playing the odds. If it not verifiable, if it is recollection, if it is from a memoir, if there is a known conflict of interest, if it not expert opinion on subject, it should be excluded (including sneaking it in in footnote references). In the end, that is all R Franz's and W Cetnar's alleged lists amount to: unsubstantiated recollections from two men with an agenda to spoil the wish of those they now hate. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) I am not the editor who raised the issue of prospect. You raised this when you wrote, “Since there exists a possibility that these lists are at least in part falsified.” So please forgive me for responding to what you actually wrote. What is verifiable is that Ray and William testified as the article says they testified. This is the only thing in need of verification because this is the only thing asserted. Clearly you fail to understand this fundamental. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “It suffices to write in Article that the list of translators is not published at the behest of the translators and that certain critics see this as a weakness.”

Response: In case you have not noticed, the information you take issue with has been completely removed from the criticism section and placed into the history section precisely because the information is more relevant to the history of the NWT than criticisms of the NWT, though the latter has also occurred regarding the translators of the NWT. Accordingly, the information is no longer attached to what critics have to say as criticism.

Editors: Even worse, since it is not verifiable, provable history. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) The testimony of Ray and William is verifiable as their testimony. Since this is all that is asserted of the information then this is all there is in need of verification. Specifically, the current article presentation makes no assertions of the accuracy of the testimony; hence there is no assertion on this point to prove. The historical piece of information is no more than each man has testified as is presented in the article. Whether this has any value or relevance depends on the weight it is assigned by any given reader and why that reader is considering the article in the first place. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “However, this adds bias: "It is not unique for a Bible translation to refrain from naming its translators, though it is unique for a publisher to refuse this information when requested privately." It ought to be written as the translators require anonymity as a precondition for the publishing rights for this is accurate and verifiable. This highlighted statement suggests that it is somehow the publisher's decision to release or withhold the list of names irrespective of its agreement otherwise: It is not, and misleading verbiage like this should be deleted.”

Response: The statement of observation you question is taken directly from a verifiable source. If it is relevant that the NWT is not unique in not publishing names of translators (you have asserted this yourself) then it is equally relevant what is unique in this respect. The unique aspect is that the Watchtower organization is the only Bible publisher who has agreed not to provide names of translators (for the NWT) when asked for separate from the translation publication itself. This is a historical uniqueness I think you do not understand.

Editors: It may be commonplace for other publishers to disregard their word to their writers, but evidently this does not apply to the JW organization (R Franz notwithstanding). The publishers have no right to disclose the names; it is simply not their choice to make. The behavior and circumstances of other organizations are irrelevant. The point is that the translators exchanged publishing rights in part for the pledge of protected anonymity. It appears that this remains in effect, because the individuals always had the right to reveal themselves at any time (unless the commitment was mutual but I have never gotten that impression from what I've read). But the third-party debate on this position of the translators has no relevance here. And personal distaste for this decision is not sufficient to perpetuate an unsubstantiated list of names in a misguided effort to set matters straight according to one's own personal view. The list of alleged translators should be comprehensively excluded from this Article. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) No one has said it is common place for “other” publishers to disregard their word to anyone. 2) The particular information your response refers to does not suggest publishers should disregard obligations to writers/authors/translators. 3) The information only offers the observation that the NWT is unique because the Watchtower organization is the only publisher that has refused to provide the names of translators aside from the work itself (e.g., in response to separate letter of request). This only shows a unique historical aspect of the NWT. It does not characterize it as good, bad, or anything else. It is just a historical piece of information that happens to be unique. Uniqueness related to a historical subject has a value no matter the particular subject of history. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You write: “Other editors have pointed out that no critic ever said or even implied that a critical review of the NWT texts are precluded for translator anonymity. Anonymity only prevents their backgrounds and theologies from being specifically addressed, forcing the focus to be the translative work itself.”

Response: I have not contended otherwise. Beyond examining whether a translator is trained for the work, the primary value of knowing credentials of translators is to aid in determining what school of thought and training influenced the translator. The latter helps understand why renderings were arrived at. Again, I think this is something you fail to grasp. Nevertheless, as is the information has been removed the section on criticism and into the history section, so this issue is moot.

Editors: This issue is far from moot. It is even worse to put this alleged translator list (or refer to this list) in the History section because it cannot be established as historical. If the entire list of translators cannot be known, then the question of skill and competence and training can never be answered in any meaningful way at a personnel level, especially when the names given cannot be verified at all. They are simply statements of a couple of guys from what they recall hearing or reading. Knowing the backgrounds and influences moves the argument and commentary from linguistic to theological, which indeed is very difficult to keep separate. I presented references from Dr. Rolf Furuli (along with his full credentials) who makes this point brilliantly. When I made this point about the difficulty in separating theology from a purely linguistic challenge Shilmer claimed I had no basis for making it, despite the scholarly reference. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) For readers seeking information about the history of the NWT, and potential translators in particular, it is relevant to note what high-ranking Watchtower insiders (former or present) have said on the matter. What weight a readers assigns to the information is for each reader to determine after they consider as much on the subject as they wish to consider. What is important for the Wikipedia article is that whatever information is presented is verifiable as it is presented. You should pay special attention to the latter part of the preceding sentence because it is something you routinely overlook the significance of. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

On several occasions you have attempted to impugn my edits by asserting a bias on my part. Any bias I have is a basis for verifying what I write. It is not a reason to reject what I write. The same is true of all other editors, too, including you. Because I expect my edits to be checked for veracity, I accordingly supply ample source information specifically for that purpose.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer is a prolific anti-JW writer himself. He has yet to make this conflict of interest known or deny that he is the same "Marvin Shilmer" that is the anti-JW writer. But his chumminess with "Ray" betrays his bias and his desire to cloak his agenda. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) Assuming I have an evil agenda, please tell everyone why that matters so long as the information I present is verifiable as it is presented. What you do not seem to get is that bias matters not one iota so long as the information presented is relevant to the topic and it is verifiable as it is presented by means meeting Wikipedia policy. 2) You have not demonstrated the information is irrelevant beyond voicing your opinion to that end. 3) You have not demonstrated the information is presented in a way other than the sources present the information. 4) You have not demonstrated the sources of verification are outside Wikipedia policy. In terms weight, I am the editor who 5) moved the information from the main article text to the referenced end notes. I am the editor who 6) inserted the potential conflict of interest statement of Ray and William. I am also the editor who 7) removed the name of Karl Klein from the list because it was not verified by sources as anything more than hearsay. That is, there was no source provided asserting who claimed Klein was a NWT translator or whether the information was allegedly firsthand. But in the case of Ray and William, published sources verify that the names they offer are coming from Ray and William as their firsthand testimony. 8) I am also the editor who included complimentary remarks from Dr. Metzger about the “scholarly equipment” of NWT translators. 9) Were I more interested in “anti-JW” presentation than I am in accurate presentation of information from verifiable sources, it is more likely I would have refrained making those edits as I did. 10) Your attention to my edits focuses on edits you deem unfavorable at the expense of attention to my edits that you would deem favorable to your particular bias, and everyone has bias including you. If you want to harp on whatever you think is my bias then you need to form a conclusion based on all my work rather than a selective portion of my work. I doubt you understand this. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Cfrito believes it pejorative to cite Fred Franz’s formal educational credentials. It would be appreciated if Cfrito would explain why it is pejorative to express this information along with its verification.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I do not believe that it is a pejorative to cite F Franz's education per se. But to say "He failed to attain a post-graduate degree" is pejorative -- it conveys that he was incapable rather thandecided not to pursue. A neutral comment would be silent on this matter: the transcript says what he accomplished at that particular University and that's that. If it is relevant somehow to quote this particular transcript then we should refrain from editorializing or telling others what it all means or otherwise speculating on behalf of the Reader -- for example, pretending that a University transcript is an accurate predictor of F Franz's skills as a translator after a lifetime devote to scriptural studies and linguistics. According to Dr. Bruce Metzger -- no fan of JW Theology himself -- there was nothing inferior or incompetent about the translators' skill. Shilmer's storytelling of F Franz's college transcript is unacceptable according to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy: Clearly, facts wrapped in personal review, analysis, and editorializing constitute Original Research. (I know that this reference is in the Article already, so "down, Rover, down") -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) The current language used in the article states,

“Franz did not complete his university education. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” Classical Greek studied by Franz should not be confused with biblical Greek.”

I am the editor who made this change. That Fred Franz did not complete his university education is something he expresses himself within his life story published in The Watchtower. In that article Franz specifically addresses his university education under a subheading titled “High School and College”. In that subsection depicts his university education, and all of it comes from the University of Cincinnati. Later Franz states, “With my father’s permission, I had left the University of Cincinnati in May 1914, just a couple of weeks before the end of my third term there as a junior classman.” If you do not like the present wording, my recommendation would be to place Franz’s own expression in the reference citing his life story in The Watchtower (which is already included as a reference) and then immediately after that quote Franz’s own statement.

2) A university transcript’s presentation of academic achievement is a double edged sword. These transcripts show academic degrees that are earned from a particular institution only if they are earned from that institution. Franz makes no claim to having earned college credits from any other institution, and the one institution he does name does not show a degree earned by him on his transcript. Hence as far as U of C is concerned, Franz earned no graduate or postgraduate degrees. The reason is provided by Franz. He dropped out for, according to him, his own reasons.

3) Given your dogged determination to make bias an issue with my edits, another item you fail to account for regarding my edits on Franz’s ability is that I am the editor who placed Dr. Metzger’s remark into the article where he states, “On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators”. I specifically included this remark from Metzger into the context of Franz’s abilities. It was another editor who removed it. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Again Shilmer misleads. First, I did not add, or add to, the reference so it is not a duty incumbent upon me to provide verification. I have not deleted the coursework reference or Shilmer's representation of factual information, but simply asked Shilmer to supply evidence beyond his personal testimony of what he saw on a visit to a single University campus. I have edited F Franz's transcript information to reflect only the coursework sans the POV editorializing. Also it should be made clear to the Reader that this may not be definitive or all-inclusive. For example, Shilmer prefers to use the coursework as a platform to highlight what Shilmer says F Franz did not achieve, in effect testifying on behalf of detractors. It is doubtful that the transcript lists all the things that F Franz did not do or did not achieve. For example, Shilmer has edited the reference to now say, "Franz did not complete his university education," but prior he wrote that Franz failed to earn a post-graduate or doctoral degree. So which is it? Why is Shilmer playing such word games? This is pejorative and biased. Further to this, Shilmer adds, "and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” Classical Greek studied by Franz should not be confused with biblical Greek." I doubt the transcript says all that, and I edited it to say F Franz had '2 hours of Classical Greek'. Adding verbiage to say 'what it is not' is conclusive and biased. Beyond this, when asked by other editors to supply evidence of the transcript and proof that F Franz sought no other formal training or received no further tutoring to extend these implied limitations of skill, Shilmer replied that he himself went to Franz's University and read the transcript for himself. This combined with Shilmer's conclusions on this matter constitute Original Research. This has been pointed out to Shilmer on several occasions. -- cfrito (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have not asked editors here to take my word for anything. I supplied the source information for other editors to seek and retrieve the document for verification purposes (the same as anyone would do for any other document, such as a journal article or book!). I supplied the name of the school (University of Cincinnati) and the students full name (Frederick W. Franz). This is all the information you need to seek and obtain a copy of the document cited. Indeed, this is all the information I needed to obtain the document. So why does any other editor need more? What else about this document do you need in order to request a copy for yourself?

Another serious flaw in your complaint is that assertions of Franz’s training as not based solely on his university transcript of record. Rather, two other sources are cited. If you doubt the veracity of what I asserted based on these three sources then please explain how these sources fail to support the information I have provided. (The sources are 1) Franz’s university transcipt, 2) his life story published in The Watchtower, and 3) statements published in a book by Ron Rhodes. Specific bibliographical data on each is provided with the actual citations in the article) Have you read all three of these sources to know what they state? I have.

As for classical Greek and biblical Greek, the two have different systems of grammar hence the note you question was added so the casual reader would not confuse the two. Do you need me to provide a source for this? If so, it will be easy to do. The only reason I did not already include this was to keep the notes to a minimum. But, if you need it, I’ll put it there.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Clearly the Administrative decision and other editors' comments show that Shilmer has undeniably asked editors to take his word for things. As for the case of R Franz's and W Cetnar's recollections, he simply demands that others prove what these men do not possess or else we must take them at their word. And Shilmer has personally vouched for his personal friend R Franz and calls him "Ray". Shilmer's own neutrality is clearly questionable (and that he has never disclosed his personal history with the JW organization. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) The administrative remarks to which you allude are premised on using a single source of verification. Administrators have not suggested that the other referenced sources do not verify the information as it is presented. 2) A editor need prove what Ray did not posses if they assert he did not posses whatever is that thing he supposedly did not posses. You are the one who made this silly assertion, not me; hence is your assertion to prove. I suggest you either get on with proving it or else cease asserting it. 3) I write “Ray” strictly for brevity. But to minimize the potential of confusing other editors who might read this in the archives, I also make liberal use of “Ray Franz” compared to “Fred Franz”. This is a writing strategy to help avoid confusion. That you attribute familiarity to this usage is an amusing assumption to read. 4) My history relevant to editing on Wikipedia is a mouse click away. Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: As a closing comment on this issue, Shilmer needs to find corroboration for this alleged translator list. R Franz's memoirs and Cetnar's written statements are woefully lacking. Wikipedia's policies are against it. And it should absolutely be excluded from this article. How anyone could sleep well calling this list "history" or verified because of a circumstantially contrived evidence trail is beyond me. Furthermore, Shilmer should come out from the shadows and state clearly what he has written in the past about JW's, and his current standing with the JW organization, and his point of view of the JW organization. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: 1) I am not trying to corroborate a list of names because I do not need to corroborate a list of names. I have corroborated that two particular individuals provided the list of names because this is what is asserted in the article. 2) I have written extensively both pro and con about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Watchtower organization in particular. I believe it was you who asked me on a prior occasion whether a particular article published online by the British Medical Journal was written by me. I readily answered you question. If you want to research what I have presented regarding the people of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the organization known as Watchtower then I recommend that you take a look at all my contributions rather than focusing on work you would probably find unfavorable. The former is objective. The latter is rank bias.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: This whole :alleged translator list has just been resolved by Shilmer: His own words show that this list must be removed completely.. He writes:

1) "If Ray had documents (personal notes taken at the time, or other) as a basis for his names of translators then it is false to characterize this as “remembered” information. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)"

2) "The assertion that translators named by Ray is a “recollection” is an unproven assertion made by [Cfrito]. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)"

3) " You have yet to prove your assertion that Ray Franz had no documents at his disposal regarding his statements of NWT translators.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)"

4) "Ray has not asserted he had documents for his presentation of names --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)"

Wikipedia Policy states: "On many historical topics there are memoirs and oral histories that specialists consult with caution, for they are filled with stories that people wish to remember — and usually recall without going back to the original documentation. Editors should use them with caution." It also sates: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources...Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:..surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;." (Underline added for emphasis).

Shilmer admits neither that R Franz nor Cetnar offer any documentation beyond what they conveyed from memory and it should be taken as reliable because of their proximity in time and place (completely circumstantial evidence). This makes their accounts recollections (and in R Franz's case taken from his memoir). Wikipedia policy says that such should be used with caution. Further to that, Wkipedia policy says clearly that in cases where reports of a statement by someone seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended there needs to be the need for exceptional sources. Franz and Cetnar have no other references and they have broken oaths to publish this alleged list. We know it is incomplete at best, contrived at worst, and therefore cannot be used in any effort to critique the NWT. It should be deleted from the article based on Wikipedia's policies and Shilmer's own statements. -- cfrito (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: The Wikipedia page you quote from is expressly not intended to be comprehensive. Specifically it is said to provide discussion/examples of what editors have accessed as reliable. The article opens by reminding editors to use common sense. So let’s take a look at this notion of common sense in relation to how you assert this information.

Your first quote comes from the pages section on history. It reminds editors of a tendency for people to remember things they wish to remember with a result that they offer recollections without consulting original documentation. Here is the fact of the matter in relation to Ray Franz: He was a governing body for nearly a decade. He worked day in and day out in the very department responsible for editing the NWT. He was a prolific research writer where getting the details right is important. He resigned as a governing body member in May 1980. He published the first edition of Crisis of Conscience in was published in 1983. These indubitable facts make it practically impossible that Ray Franz would incorrectly recall individuals he knew personally as NWT translators. If nothing else tells us this, common sense does.

Your second quote (incorrectly linked, by the way) reminds editors that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The problem with this is that there is nothing exceptional about a claim to have knowledge of translators whose work you are responsible to edit. Rather, common sense tells us that such knowledge would be everyday among those charged with overseeing such a department (writing department at Watchtower).

Your third quote reminds editors to watch out for “red flags” of surprising or important claims that are not widely known, or not covered by mainstream news, or against an interest previously defended, or that is contradicted by the academic community. When it comes to NWT translators, we do not know whether this is widely known firsthand or not because we have no idea whether this is common knowledge among who knows how many part and present staff at Watchtower. We do know the Watchtower has not verified this information. The names provided by Ray and Cetnar are, in fact, widely known because those names are widely published in all sorts of media over the past 40 years. Regarding the information representing something that is “against an interest previously defended,” this is purely subjective. For example, when Ray Franz presents these names he does not suggest it represents something embarrassing as though it is “against” the interests of the Watchtower. Contrarily, on several occasions in his book Ray Franz speaks to the talent of Fred Franz in relation to languages and translation work. Hence, the names Ray provides is not “against” anything. He is just sharing information. Additionally, Ray Franz did not evern give prominence to this information! He placed in the small print of a footnote!

You have so abused the Wikipedia quotations above that it defies the senses. Another thing you fail to mention throughout your complaints on this issue is that a great many scholarly writers have seen fit to mention Ray Franz’s testimony of NWT translators. Apparently these authors see merit in Ray’s testimony where you would deny it. The rest of your complaints are so thoroughly addressed and undressed already that there is no need to keep kicking them to show how soft is their underbellies.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions Elevated to Material Fact?

Cftito: You write: “R Franz had taken an explicit oath of confidentiality which he felt no longer applied when he began disliking his former colleagues.”

Your statement is an extremely strong assertion. You assert Ray Franz was 1) under an oath of confidentiality in relation to the NWT Translation Committee, and you assert 2) this oath was explicit. Please verify this “explicit oath of confidentiality” that you assert of Ray Franz. I think you write stuff like this in all sincerity. But I believe you are, perhaps unwittingly, elevating your own assumptions to the level of material fact in your own mind and then using these as premises for a preferential conclusion. I will believe this until you are able to prove assertions such as the one above. Where is the proof? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The Dec. 15, 1974 Watchtower magazine, pages 766-768, Question from Readers said that the JW organization had "kept [their] agreement" with the NWTTC to keep their names secret even after their death. The date is significant. They used the word "agreement" and it was to continue even after their deaths underscoring the seriousness with which all involved took this agreement and how important they all felt this agreement was (is), and that it was perpetual. This was written and published during R Franz's tenure on the Governing Body and so it was clear that it was an outright agreement with the NWTTC to protect their anonymity and R Franz was party to that agreement by virtue of position as an active Governing Body member. Publishing it in the Watchtower makes it explicit. Whether R Franz raised his right hand and spoke specific words like "pledge" or "oath" is misdirection: R Franz was clearly bound by this agreement. The fact that he waited until after he had his "personal crisis" and separated from the JW organization to break that "agreement" only underscores the issue of a willful breach of trust and why he allowed himself to breach it: R Franz flat-out stopped liking those he had the agreement with and preferred to defy the wishes of his former religious brothers. I can find nothing published by JW's about Ray Franz except that he helped rescue some other JW's from a mob attack, written in 1975, referring to him as a "fine brother." Since there has only been anti-writing by R Franz and no anti-writing by the JW organization, R Franz's writings should be discounted -- but not JW's -- on matters involving R Franz's word against the JW organization (or against their interests) according to Shilmer's "Singelenberg" reference.

So, I did simply not "assume" R Franz entered into an agreement to protect the anonymity of the NWTTC members and then elevate it to "a material fact", R Franz himself established it as material fact by virtue of his oversight as a GB member when the 12/15/1974 Watchtower article was published that explicitly said that the JW Organization had an agreement with the NWTTC to forever protect the Committee Member's anonymity. -- cfrito (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer misunderstood what I meant about R Franz's anti-writing against the JW organization, so in case it is unclear to others: In terms of anti-writing to any extent, only R Franz has engaged in it, so far as I can determine. The JW organization, so far as I have been able to determine, has never written publicly against R Franz (unless his rescue efforts are seen as anti-R Franz, which I don't) I suspect if there were any we'd know about through Shilmer, rather than having to endure some rant about theological arguments not even remotely involving R Franz as a target of the anti-writing, although ironically as part of the writing committee R Franz probably sourced a lot of the 'Catholic, et al. bashing' as Shilmer puts it. -- cfrito (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I did not misunderstand what you wrote. I responded by showing you the problem with it. And, I see you fail to respond to the question ask, which is: Would you have us disregard what the Watchtower says about the Roman Catholic Church when what it writes is anti-Roman Catholic Church? Try answering that question and you will see why what you assert about Ray Franz is so upside down. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: R Franz as a member of the writing committee wrote the anti-whatever material and as a member of the Governing body he was directly responsible for it. So his own anti-writing against others zeros out his credibility, not to neutral but none, no credibility for the reason that he now is a anti-writer against JW's. It is a very strong support for Wikipedia's published position that what people say when it is about face from what they used to say should be discounted heavily. Shilmer provided the Singelenberg reference as authoritative, and despite Singelenberg being staunch anti-JW himself, Singelenberg's comments may indeed have application here: A person's or group's anti-writings are of no more value than the anti-writings of others aimed back at them. It just so happens that in this case it is R Franz himself on both sides of the comparison. It was Shilmer's reference and I am sure he hates that it reveals how little integrity R Franz seems to have -- He'll say anything if it fits with his personal agenda apparently. -- cfrito (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: So when Ray Franz wrote anti-Roman Catholic Church material as a member of the Watchtower organization’s writing staff you want us to accept what he wrote, but when he writes anti-Watchtower material after leaving the Watchtower organization we should not believe him? What are you saying?

You assert that author Richard Singelenberg is “staunch anti-JW”. Please prove this. I have read ever paper the man has ever written on the Watchtower organization and the people of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have also read his rather scathing reviews of written works published by ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses such as Jim Penton. Please prove your assertion about Singelenberg. Or, are you of the genre of bench-warmers who believe that if an author is critical of a group that this make the author anti-that group? Please explain yourself.

Now I asked you a question that you have still not attempted to answer. Again: Would you have us disregard what the Watchtower says about the Roman Catholic Church when what it writes is anti-Roman Catholic Church?

Why do you keep avoiding an answer to that question? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Because Ray Franz is, as you say, “on both sides of the comparison” you suggest it “reveals how little integrity” he has. Do you apply this equally to Jehovah’s Witnesses who today speak badly of a religion they were once an adherent of?

The unequal scales of weight you apply are outdone only by your pervasive us of just about every known informal fallacy. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Tsk, tsk!!! When it comes to presenting written evidence as proof of something, you should take care to present what that evidence actually states, rather than asserting what you believe it means and then rendering a conclusion based on your own belief.

The Watchtower article you cite from December 15, 1974 (pp. 767-8) states of the agreement you offer as evidence:

“Over the years, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has printed many different Bible translations. In doing so we have not ignored the wishes of the translators. For example, in 1972 we published The Bible in Living English in the style and format desired by its translator.—See title page.

“On September 3, 1949, the New World Bible Translation Committee presented us with a completed translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This manuscript, along with their work on the Hebrew Scriptures that followed, became our legal property. In regard to this, page 258 of the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose notes: “The one request of the translation committee was that its members remain anonymous even after their death.” We have kept our agreement and respected their wishes.”

This written material shows precisely what I have repeated often. The agreement was between the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the New World Bible Translation Committee. Guess what? Ray Franz was not then and never has been a member of the corporation known as Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. You can email him yourself and ask, if you don’t believe me. If you do not have his email just contact me privately.

Your argument represents an argument form called division. This informal fallacy attempts to infer what is true of a whole (e.g., a group, or a corporation in this case) is also true of constituents (individuals) of that whole, and this inference is asserted as a conclusion without proving that what is true of the whole is also true of the constituents. Here is neutral example to help you understand this wrongheaded argument form:

-Binkler Press Corporation agrees never to verify or divulge who authored book X published for Wicker Automation.

-Mel Banks is a high ranking executive of Wicker Automation, and he has never been a member of Binkler Press Corporation.

-Mel Banks agrees never to verify or divulge who authored book X for Wicker Automation.

Because Mel Banks was never a member of Binkler Press Corporation and because there is no evidence of an obligation of high ranking Wicker executives never to verify or divulge who authored book X, then the argument above falsely (unsoundly) concludes that Mel Banks was obligated to such an agreement. Here is the interesting aspect of the argument above. The conclusion might be true!!! But that argument form does not prove the conclusion is true. I have asked you for proof that Ray Franz was under an “explicit oath of confidentiality” as you claim. You have yet to do so.

Do you know what “explicit” means in common usage? It means overt, clear, definite. It is an antonym for implicit. What you have argued above is not remotely close to something explicit. Even if your argument was valid (which it is not, and any basic textbook on logical development shows this), all you done is argued for a implied obligation. You have not even bothered to argue for an explicit obligation. You have, in essence, argued that because Ray was a high ranking official of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses that he was obligated to an agreement made by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., yet Ray has never been a member of this Pennsylvania Corporation, let alone part of its Board of Directors which is actually the responsible party to the agreement.

Your reply above makes several new assertions. You make these assertions, I believe, with reckless disregard. For example you assert of Ray Franz since he was disfellowshipped by Watchtower, “there has only been anti-writing by R Franz”. Of the Watchtower organization you assert there is “no anti-writing by the JW organization”.

If you believe this then you have not read what Ray Franz has written. His book Crisis of Conscience compliments many aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses, both as individuals and as a group. For example, in his book In Search of Christian Freedom he writes, “Are Jehovah’s, then, ‘true’ Christians?” He responds by writing, “My own answer would be that I believe about the same percentage among Jehovah’s Witnesses are true Christians as in any other church.” An answer like this is not “anti”. It is about as neutral as you can get! Of the very Governing Body members who allegedly conspired to oust Ray by having him disfellowshipped, Ray writes in the same book, “I know personally the members of the Governing Body and, while I cannot say it of all, I know many to be basically kind, honest persons, who are simply doing what they believe is expected of them”. Ray’s writings are full of complimentary expressions like this. Hence it is false that Ray’s writing “has ONLY been anti-writing”. On the other hand, have you read The Watchtower journal where is its forever bashing other religions? and the Roman Catholic Church in particular? Talk about “anti” writing! Would you have us disregard what the Watchtower says about the Roman Catholic Church when what it writes is anti-Roman Catholic Church?

Finally, here is something else you, apparently, have failed to consider. If we apply your standards to the Watchtower organization then we must not accept its word that NWT translators have asked not to have it publish their names and credentials because we have not seen any documentation original to the NWT Committee to that effect! All we have is the testimony of one party to the alleged agreement. We have the publisher’s word, the Watchtower organization. In this case, silence from the NWT translators of Watchtower statements is no more indicative than the Watchtower organization’s silence of Ray’s testimony.

As I ponder this whole discussion and the turmoil of edits and views, the whole dispute boils down to just a few things essential for resolution. One is respecting readers of Wikipedia by categorically refusing to ever assert known falsehood, particularly into the text of the article itself! Another is bad argument forms. A primary subset of these is an ever present attempt to leverage circumstantial ad hominem. Another is understanding the veracity of specific documents issued by reputable institutions, and how to reference them. I am not speaking of all editors named in this issue, but a couple of them demonstrate little appreciation for the bias-neutralizing value of soundly constructed argument forms. Were more time spent learning and appreciating this as a tool, then editors would have a very powerful implement to overcome dispute and arrive at learned consensus.

I look forward to reading, following and participating in Seddon69’s linear approach to issues raised here. None of us should edit or otherwise participate here to win a popularity contest, to stroke ego, to coddle, or to assert anything we cannot prove when challenged to do so. None of us should be editing here for ourselves. We should always be editing for readers and researchers of the world. The needs of these and the needs of academic rigor are what we must fulfill as editors. Accomplishing this requires, among other things, 1) honesty at all times, 2) learning and applying known valid argument forms, and 3) learned use of source material. If either one of these is missing or resisted, there will be trouble. It is unavoidable.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC

Editors: Shilmer is actually saying that the published, public reaffirmation of a perpetual Governing Body agreement made by the Governing Body -- 3 years after R Franz joined the Governing Body -- didn't apply to R Franz, a matter which Shilmer has said repeatedly R Franz was intimately involved in -- "firsthand knowledge" argues Shilmer. R Franz is bound by the agreement as per the 1974 public reaffirmation and statement of the present and perpetual obligation of the GB members individually and collectively. The "implicit/explicit nonsense is pathetic: I implicitly know murder is wrong, but I read the law on it too, so I also have explicit knowledge of its wrongness. They may be antonyms but they are not mutually exclusive in application. I fear Shilmer is not well enough to be an Editor. -- cfrito (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Read the information again. It was not the Governing Body that made the agreement. The agreement was made by the Watchtower’s Pennsylvania Corporation, and specifically the bound parties were the Board of Directors for that corporation. Apparently you think the Governing Body and the Pennsylvania Corporation’s Board of Directors is one and the same. It was not and it is not. Only some of the then members of the Governing Body were members of that Board of Directors, and Ray Franz never was. Not only that, Ray Franz was never even a member of the Pennsylvania Corporation!

To illustrate this, in the year 1975 the following men were Governing Body members:

Frederick W. Franz, Raymond V. Franz, George D. Gangas, Leo K. Greenlees, John O. Groh, Milton G. Henschel, William K. Jackson, Nathan H. Knorr, Grant Suiter and Lyman A. Swingle.

In the same year of 1975 the following is a complete list of all members of the Pennsylvania Corporation’s Board of Directors:

Frederick W. Franz, Milton G. Henschel, William K. Jackson, Nathan H. Knorr, Grant Suiter and Lyman A. Swingle.

In the 50’s and 60’s when the NWT Committee asked for and received the Pennsylvania Corporation Board of Director’s agreement not to publish their names, Ray Franz was not even at Watchtower headquarters.

You have offered zero evidence that Ray Franz was ever under an obligation to maintain the Board of Director’s obligation, except apparently for his own preference to keep the information private (not public) until he saw fit to do otherwise. You have certainly not demonstrated that in 1974 there was a reaffirmation of that agreement binding the Governing Body because the 1974 reference you cite is specific again to who made and who have the obligation. It was the Pennsylvania Corporation, and specifically the Board of Directors of that corporation.

Let me ask you a question. If the Board of Directors of Exxon Corporation obligates itself to maintain certain information confidential, does this agreement bind individuals who are not members of the Board of Directors, not members of the corporate body, and who do not hold any official capacity within that Corporation? When you answer this question then, perhaps, you will understand why the agreement made by the Watchtower Penn. Corporation was not binding on Ray Franz. If you are serious about this particular issue, you will answer the question in this paragraph.

As for your use of “explicit,” you chose the word. Not me. If you do not know what a word means then you should not use it to express whatever it is that is on your mind. Please excuse me for taking your word for what you actually wrote; words and all! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: This will be my last comment on this issue regarding R Franz's "agreement" with the translators, not because I am giving up, but because the arguing with Shilmer as he takes any position to be argumentative is a tax and a burden to all and it is plain unfair to dominate this forum. To make my point for one last time consider these two statements made by Shilmer on exactly the same matter at two different points in the argument:

1. "[Cfrito] You also fail to acknowledge Ray Franz’s presence on the very governing body committee (writing committee) that was/is responsible for everything published by the Watchtower organization, including the NWT. So, again, your response above falls miserably short of expressing a bona fide reason why anyone should reject Ray Franz’s account." -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2. "Cfrito: Read the information again. It was not the Governing Body that made the agreement. The agreement was made by the Watchtower’s Pennsylvania Corporation, and specifically the bound parties were the Board of Directors for that corporation. Apparently you think the Governing Body and the Pennsylvania Corporation’s Board of Directors is one and the same. It was not and it is not. Only some of the then members of the Governing Body were members of that Board of Directors, and Ray Franz never was. Not only that, Ray Franz was never even a member of the Pennsylvania Corporation!" --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

R Franz was on the writing committee and the Governing Body. The Governing Body is responsible for everything published by the Watchtower organization. The Board of the WTB&TS is a subset of the Governing Body which includes R Franz. Years after R Franz is appointed to the GB the Watchtower organization uses the WTB&TS to reaffirm its agreement concerning not only the names of the individuals who translated the NWT, but to protect their credentials as well, even after their deaths. While the agreement was made in the past, the article is expressing why the WTB&TS would never publish the names (it would have to be them, they do all the publishing) and the writing is done under the strict guidance of the Governing Body. All this is based on what Shilmer himself has written on this talk page within the span of a few days and on the same subject matter. And that Shilmer expects everyone to believe that R Franz is somehow not bound by the position of the WTB&TS and the Governing Body on this matter? It is just profoundly implausible to me, and moreover, extremely bizarre to me that any sane person would even suggest this as a joke, never mind as a serious matter for reasonable people to accept.

The contradictions are everywhere. R Franz had notes, he didn't have notes, it's not a recollection, he has an impeccable memory and would not easily forget such a thing, he had first hand knowledge of all involved and their desires but yet wasn't aware of the key agreements by a subsidiary he was in charge of, and on and on and on. The alleged translator list is a recollection published in a memoir. It is subject to exceptional source reliable third party verification but Shilmer cannot provide it. The material cannot even be verified by the publisher or any other neutral party: indeed, it cannot be verified beyond R Franz's say-so. The list has been published in breach of an agreement without due cause, may well have been falsified, is known to be seriously incomplete even if one assumes the names it does list are correct, and is not even relevant or required to establishing the veracity and reliability and trustworthiness of the NWT. And that is what this article is about: The NWT. Not this "whodunit" with respect to the translators or their college educations. I now leave this matter completely in Seddon69's hands. -- cfrito (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I can see why you do not want to continue this subject; you have run out of special pleadings and are unable to answer all the questions that refute your school-yard attempt at rebuttal.

The Charter of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania Incorporated disputes your claim. That charter shows that the Watchtower Pennsylvania Corporation acts in cooperation with the Governing Body but it specifies that it is the corporation’s Board of Directors that is responsible for its actions. You should read these charters sometime. I have all of them from the very first one, which is written in script. Your entire premise for assigning an obligation to Ray Franz on this point is false, which means your conclusion based on that premise is unsound.

Additionally, and since you apparently have not grasped this, the specific agreement made by the Watchtower’s Pennsylvania Corporation was to refrain from publishing the names of the NWT committee members. This agreement has not bee breached by anyone, including Ray Franz, because to date the Watchtower organization has not published the names of the NWT committee members, or otherwise attempted to officially represent who made up this committee.

The rest of your special pleading on this point is so wrongheaded my opinion is that it neither needs nor deserves treatment. The head is on backwards for all to see and run from. If an editor needs more on what you write all they need do is ask. A dull butter knife will easily slice through your pleadings. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: A "dull butter knife", huh? No wonder Shilmer thinks he's the perfect geezer for the job. His rant above reminds me of the Black Knight's final taunts in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Pretty hysterical really. -- cfrito (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let us take this one step at a time

Although there are excellent arguments being put forward on both sides i feel it would of more worth to this article and this MedCabal case if we dealt with issues one at a time. At the moment i think we have about 5 different discussions being started but no resolution is evolving on any of them and ergo nothing is being gained by this. I suggest we deal with this one at a time otherwise this case is going to be unnecessarily more complex than its current state and will simply go around in circles. I would like to call a kind informal recess till tomorrow evening so that a discussion reboot can occur. I will draw up several points that need to be discussed. They will be short points and we will discuss them one at a time. This is a complex case so i feel if we do this in a more "linear" and more orderly fashion this case will be a lot more successful. If you feel that what im suggesting is not necessary then i expect this case will be dragged out for a lot longer. I hope you understand why i am suggesting this. Many thanks Seddon69 (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Your suggestion is a good one. What you observe is one reason why in this very talk page section I took time to isolate and address individual issues raised. My recommendation is that you just ignore clattering going on between editors (all of us) and just start your own section below where each of us will participate at your direction. There is no reason why the rest of us cannot pursue discussion on the rest of the page because your separate lineal discussion will accomplish the aim of the informal mediation. Plus, there are other issues to address on the article worthy of discussion and there is no reason not to raise and pursued these at each editor’s discretion.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Finally something we call agree on. Progress is being made already. -- cfrito (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I protected the page to put a halt to this incessant edit warring, so can we try discussing what's causing such a fuss? Discussing potentially controversial edits before making them would also be a positive step. What exactly is the problem? Cowman109^Talk 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cowman109: You can get a glimpse of the problem by visiting this Wikipedia Mediation Cabal Case. Your participation is welcome.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen... The decision from the administrators' board

I am sorry to disturb you with my question, but, after a mini edit-war, as a last solution I decided to ask your experienced opinion. In the New World Translation article it is stated:

Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.[ref]University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. Franz failed to earn either a postgraduate or graduate degree. He took 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.” The Greek studied by Franz is a different system of grammar than biblical Greek.[ref]

I repeatedly asked bibliographical data for this file, and I was answered that the reference itself (as you see it above) is adequate bibliographical data. Is it really? Can this reference stand alone as bibliographical data?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

the entire paragraph can not stand. It is an excellent example of the harm done by using undigested primary sources and interpreting them with OR. From the facts of his courses, one cannot conclude whether his formal training is adequate. One can say he has as aBS degree, but no higher degree, if that can be documented. But even in terms of proper use of primary sources, I dont see how a transcript from one college would prove it, because he might have taken graduate work at another. DGG (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG: What is the paragraph are you talking about? Vassilis78 cites a single sentence followed by a reference. The sentence in question reads, “Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages.” Though Vassilis78 provides the reference given of Mr. Franz’s transcript from the University of Cincinnati, the same editor, Vassilis78, failed to provide the additional two references cited for the same sentence. Those two sources are provided as “The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24” and “Rhodes R ThD, The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, 2001, p. 84”.

1) Franz’s university transcript shows he did not complete his university education at U of C, and his course load demonstrates little if any formal training in biblical languages.

2) The Watchtower of May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24 publishes Franz’s account of his life story. In that account Franz states, “With my father’s permission, I had left the University of Cincinnati in May 1914, just a couple of weeks before the end of my third term there as a junior classman.” In his life story, though Franz spends considerable time speaking about his university education, he never asserts that he completed his university education, either at U of C or any other institution.

3) In his book The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, author Ron Rhodes Thd writes, “[Frederick Franz] was not professionally trained in biblical studies, but he is regarded now as having been more knowledgeable than previous Watchtower presidents.”

Combined, are you of the opinion that these sources do not verify the assertion that “Frederick Franz’s credentials of record show very little if any formal training in biblical languages”? The only formal training of record is the transcript from U of C, and that transcript shows little if any training in biblical languages.

Since you have seen fit to comment as you have, your further response would be appreciated.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We actually have two problems conserning the transcript from the University of Cincinnati. The first, about which I asked help, has to do with the citation data of the "transcript." There is no such data at all and we are expected to trust the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer.
The second case is that the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer has no value because it is original research added with personal conclusions as regards F. Franz's credentials to translate. So the reference is questionable in every aspect and I propose its deletion. The only opinions acceptable about F. Franz's credentials are those that have bibliographical support.

P.S. Not to forget, F. Franz's participation in the specific tranlation project is a speculation by itself. The whole critisism about Franz's credentials has to do with the speculation of his participation in the project. (Hence, the whole story is POV).

--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Your further assertions here are shocking!

The data provided is 1) the name of the university of record (University of Cincinnati) and 2) the full name of the student (Frederick W. Franz). This is all the information necessary to request the transcript of record. Indeed, this is all the information at my disposal when I requested and received the transcript. So why is this information insufficient for any other editor to request and receive the same document?

Because the edit is based on information found in the public record (a university transcript, a published life story, and a statement in a published book) then on what basis are you asserting the information is “the personal testimony of Marvin Shilmer”? I have not asked anyone to take my word for anything. I have provided sources for purposes of verification!

As for Franz’s participation with the New World Translation, I have also cited court testimony by Fred Franz himself where under oath he testifies that he was the Editor and that, specifically, he was charged to review the New World Translation for accuracy and correctness. I see that, again, you provide less than full information. Why do you keep doing this?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the definition of a 'reliable source' in Wikipedia is "published". Being part of a public record is not enough. A university transcript does not meet the definition of a 'reliable source'. -- Donald Albury 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Donald Albury attempts to make a distinction that Wikipedia policy nowhere addresses. Wikipedia policy requires that a source be published. It does not state a requirement that a source must be published for general distribution. If a person was unable to have a university publish (in effect, issue) a transcript then there would be no transcript. What about transcripts from other issuing agencies? Are these also to be considered as unpublished documents?

If you are going to copy and paste material here you should at least take care to copy all of it, including replies to what you emphasize. Here is a link to the discussion you copy from, for the benefit of readers who care to get the information firsthand.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I note that editor DGG failed to answer the actual question you asked of whether the bibliographic data given for Franz’s University of Cincinnati was adequate for that transcript. I see you also fail to point out this lack of an answer to your question.

Also noted is that editor DGG responded to the merit of the sentence in question (rather than the question of adequate bibliographic data). In this respect, since you failed to present all the references provided for the sentence in question, DGG’s response is premised on a falsehood. The sentence in question was/is not supported by the single reference you included with your request to Wikipedia administrators. Rather, the sentence in question was/is supported by three (3) references, two (2) of which you omitted in your request to administrators.

Despite DGG’s failure to answer the actual question you asked, and despite DGG’s actual response premised on less than full information, you assert on this talk page that DGG’s response represents “The decision from the administrators' board”. This is pure poppycock, not to mention that it pure dishonesty on your part, something for which you have already demonstrated prowess. (Your dishonest editing on this page is something you have yet to apologize for and promise never to do again, for whatever that is worth!)

Editors reading this talk page will do well to follow the issue you raised to Wikipedia administrators here. I do not take it kindly when my work is misrepresented.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As the mediator in this case, i requested and received the source that has been in contention and i can verify its existence including its contents. Seddon69 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add that the editors involved need to have the ability to assume good faith edits of those who edit articles on both sides of this argument rather than assuming the worst. Also in future to avoid repeated reverts and counter edits. Seddon69 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism, Names and Credentials of Translators

At the moment the Critical Review section (formerly Criticism) has had removed any criticism arising from the NWT’s publisher (Watchtower organization) agreeing not to verify the names of the translators, and its subsequent refusal of an alternate request for credentials of its translators.

Should the Critical Review section address criticism arising from the NWT translators’ decision to remain unverified by the publisher then I believe the following statement by author Jim Penton is relevant and should be included. Specifically addressing the NWT, Penton writes:

“Of course, [names and academic credentials of the translators] has very little to do with the quality of the translation itself which deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merits rather than on who and what its translators were or were not.” (Penton J, Apocalypse Delayed Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 1999, p. 174)

This is an excellent source to corroborate something Cfrito has suggested we add to the article, should the Critical Review section at all address criticism arising from the NWT translators decision to remain unverified by the publisher.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: While I agree with the principle expressed, Penton is not an expert in this area, and his statement is simply another banal opinion with no encyclopedic/academic value. I strongly object to its use on this basis. Now if this were to come from a recognized linguistics expert Id be all for it -- cfrito (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Are you seriously contending that a well-trained and accredited professor of history is not an expert on the historical significance of the NWT in terms of distribution numbers and languages? Forget banal, the word is ignorant! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: It is an utterly pointless reference. This suggested reference has nothing to do with historical significance. The quote's point is already obvious, it's a point I've made repeatedly, and I'm flattered that Shilmer sees my insights as so excelling. However, it is simply silly to justify why an unverifiable list is not included in the Article. And Penton is not an expert in Biblical languages, so his statements here about what is important to an expert is profoundly irrelevant. If it were relevant, we'd need to add with all authority a reference to the Peking Duck Article clarifying what Thomas Edison thinks is not needed to make a world-class Peking Duck. After all, Edison is a recognized genius, not just any old historian of little consequence. The dispute this reference is aimed at resolving is that the JW organization pledged to protect the anonymity of the NWT translators, later clarifying that the pledge included all personal details about them and not just their names, and that critics are none to pleased about it. Period. That should be stated. The desires of the translators are their own, and they need no justification. So even Shilmer agrees that this alleged translator list is irrelevant, so we have consensus. Leave off the names from everywhere, even the footnotes. Now, on the other hand, if Shilmer is simply fulfilling his role as publicity agent for Penton's anti-JW book, maybe we should reconsider. -- cfrito (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You assert the remarks by Penton have no historical significance. May I ask, other than your own opinion, do have a way to demonstrate your assertion is valid? For your information, the book Penton’s words are cited from is, in fact, a historical presentation! I doubt you have even taken time to read the book to know this, yet you take the time to offer an opinion starkly contradicted by the source itself! Have you read this source? Do you understand that the work is presented as a historical account?

Also, and since you have apparently forgotten, the article on the NWT contains a history section! Hence we have every reason for the introduction to include information of why the NWT deserves consideration from a historical perspective.

Published testimony of individuals alleged to have worked as NWT translators is relevant as historical information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Major / Important?

Jeffro77 and Vassilis78 bantered around edits to the article’s opening paragraph having to do with a statement in Harper’s Bible Dictionary that the NWT is one of many major translation published during a certain window of time (mid-1950s to mid-1980s).

My impression is Vassilis78 wanted to use language from this source to express why the NWT is worthy of readers’ and researchers’ attention. Jeffro77 objected to the usage on the ground that Harper’s use of “major” is unclear and its use in the opening paragraph suggested an endorsement that is not necessarily intended by Harper’s. I do not believe Jeffro77 was implying Vassilis78 was trying to advance an endorsement, but that perception of an endorsement was a likely though unverified result; hence Jeffro77’s objection.

If this article on the NWT is worth consideration by readers and researchers then there is reason or reasons for this, and I believe this is what Vassilis78 was attempting to accomplish. Jeffro77 must agree the article deserves attention by readers and researchers for otherwise he would not assist with its editing. If my assumption of Vassilis78 intent is correct then I agree it is appropriate to include verifiable information in the opening paragraph to alert readers and researchers of reason to consider the article. To this end I have a recommendation.

In his book Apocalypse Delayed, author and historian Jim Penton states the following of the NWT:

“An important version because of its widespread distribution (it has been translated from English into Dutch, French, Italian, German, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish), it has received some praise and much criticism.” (Penton J, Apocalypse Delayed Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 1999, p. 173)

Accordingly, the opening paragraph could include a verifiable sentence stating:

“The NWT is an important Bible translation because it is widely distributed and translated into many languages.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: It is more neutral to reference the number of languages it has been translated into and the number of copies printed circulated by its publisher along with the Harper's reference. It might also make sense to reference the number of Bible study courses conducted with the NWT because it accurately reflects the impact and influence it has had. These Bible course figures are published annually by the WTS. Thus I favor the statement: "The NWT is an important Bible translation because it is widely studied by serious Bible students the world over, with over 100 million copies in circulation, and its availability in many languages.” Penton's reference is far off-subject, and though lettered as a historian, Penton's comments on the NWT are not authoritative, especially in light of his anti-JW stance and writings. One editorial review on the book cited is: "Penton considers changes in doctrine, practice, and governance on issues such as medical treatment, higher education, apostates, and the apocalypse", whereas the Harper's reference is on-subject which is reflected by its editorial review of the subject matter: "General editor Achtemeier commissioned more than 3500 original articles from 179 Christian and Jewish scholars (all members of the Society of Biblical Literature, and hailing from seven countries) for this nonsectarian reference source which can be used with any Bible translation." -- cfrito (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: What does the number of “Bible studies” reported have to do with the NWT? During these teaching events the student used whatever is their choice of Bible version, and we have no way of knowing how many of these are NWT versions. In some cases even the Jehovah's Witness that is conducting the "Bible study" uses a translation other then the NWT in order to gain the trust of the student.

It is doable to use the distribution figures (not “circulatin” because we have no way to verify circulation figures) and the number of languages the translation is published in to express the value of readers and researchers to concern themselves with the NWT. I am not stuck on using Penton’s words. The suggestion of Penton arose because he applied the term “important” in a way that is unambiguous and helpful to expressing why readers and researchers should consider the NWT. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: When considering the matter of "important" or "major" certainly the impact and influence the NWT has had on real people is a primary factor to consider. The number of people who use it for intensive personalized Bible study is an indicator of this influence and impact. This is why I ask that we consider using this data, and if we do, we should make this motivation clear or Readers may misinterpret the data as an endorsement. Penton's words do accomplish what Shilmer says they would (in my opinion), but Penton is not a recognized expert in the discipline such a quote requires -- that of a competent Bible translator or a ancient language linguistic expert. It might as well be my quote or Shilmer's quote, and while I think the balance is needed, this is not an acceptable source. -- cfrito (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let us take this one step at a time

Although there are excellent arguments being put forward on both sides i feel it would of more worth to this article and this MedCabal case if we dealt with issues one at a time. At the moment i think we have about 5 different discussions being started but no resolution is evolving on any of them and ergo nothing is being gained by this. I suggest we deal with this one at a time otherwise this case is going to be unnecessarily more complex than its current state and will simply go around in circles. I would like to call a kind informal recess till tomorrow evening so that a discussion reboot can occur. I will draw up several points that need to be discussed. They will be short points and we will discuss them one at a time. This is a complex case so i feel if we do this in a more "linear" and more orderly fashion this case will be a lot more successful. If you feel that what im suggesting is not necessary then i expect this case will be dragged out for a lot longer. I hope you understand why i am suggesting this. Many thanks Seddon69 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Get us started.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Finally something we call agree on. Progress is being made already. -- Cfrito (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon 69: As I have repeatedly said, the entire article needs reformation. The article needs, I believe, more information for the NWT as translation project as a whole, not focusing too much one or two characteristics. As it is now, the article just mirrors the controversies for few points. The use of Jehovah's name in the New Testament and five verses that are used by Trinitarians is not the whole translation project. Many important linguistic and stylistic characteristics of the translation are not mentioned at all. Beyond that, criticism must be balanced according to the size of the whole article. NWT, as it happens with many religious articles in Wikipedia, has sadly proved to be a battlefield.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanded Project Coverage

I have brought this article under Wikiproject Religious Texts and Wikiproject Bible. This is in hope that it will come under the eye of more editors so that a broader community view can be involved in this article. I feel that it fits unde the scope of both of these projects as the NWT is a religious text and it is a translation of the bible. Feel free to comment if you feel that this was an incorrect decision. Seddon69 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69:' As far as I am concerned, the more the merrier! -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I concur with your actions. -- cfrito (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Task 1: The use of the University source and its content

I thought seen as this was part of the problem that brought this article and user to MedCabal this would be the best place to start. If you follow this link here it ewill take you to the talk page on the MedCabal case. I am following your advice and so im gonna keep anything that is involving the case ther so that this talk page and continue without as little interruption as possible. Seddon69 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

X testimony is accepted and Y testimony is rejected

Something disturbing occurs over and over again in discussions above. I do not know if editors do not realize the mistake, or if they are wittingly asserting/condoning wrongheadedness. Here is the problem:

X once belonged to organization Spiffy, but then left Spiffy and joined organization Uniform where X began bashing Spiffy.

Y once belonged to organization Uniform, but then left Uniform and joined organization Independent where Y began bashing Uniform.

Editors assert (or condone by silence) that we should accept the testimony of X but reject the testimony of Y. Of Y, it is asserted that unless we can verify the testimony with documentation that it should be rejected. Piled onto this assertion is the complaint that Y is saying bad things about an organization he once belonged to. But of X, it is asserted that we should accept the testimony on the word of X, and it is inconsequential that X is saying bad things about an organization he once belonged to.

Am I the only editor here that sees the problem with this scenario?

In a somewhat different but relevantly similar scenario:

Cfrito has asserted over and over again that we should accept the Watchtower organization’s testimony about what it asserts of the NWT committee. He asserts this despite a complete lack of documentation proving that 1) there is such a thing as a NWT committee and 2) that the NWT does not want the Watchtower organization to publish the names of the NWT committee (assuming there are “names”, as in plurality).

Cfrito then goes on to harangue the testimony of Ray Franz and William Cetnar saying we should reject what they say because neither has produced documentation to prove what they say is true.

Cfrito accepts the word of one party and would have editors reject the word of a second party, when both parties carry their own biases. I have yet to see any other editor point out this contradiction, and this lack is disturbing. Are we editing here for good encyclopedic content? Or, are we editing here to push personal bias? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The Watchtower organization has documented their agreement regarding their pledge of anonymity of the translators. It is a public expression by the JW Governing Body, in 1974, and not that of the WTB&TS apart from or independent of the JW Governing Body ("GB"). I used this particular reference because R Franz approved the publishing of confidentiality agreement reaffirmation along with a clarification of its sweeping nature (it included even nameless biographical data, and was clearly perpetual), and it was in a section of the Watchtower magazine called Questions from Readers with the GB answering the question on why, along with their identities, the WTB&TS continues to decline publishing the academic histories of the translators themselves. Shilmer makes a loud noise over the differences between the GB & WTB&TS but it is the GB and the writing committee that decides on the content published in the WTB&TS publications, and Shilmer greatly emphasizes this himself when it suits him. The Watchtower reference is not a response to R Franz's disclosure; Rather, it perfectly reflected R Franz's position in 1974 regarding the GB's confidentiality agreement and he helped write it and authorized its publishing in a column written by the GB. In 1974 R Franz was a member of the Governing Body and had been for for several years, and so this reflects R Franz's own position -- he was not caught out by some publishing time-lag. And he continued for years afterward, so it wasn't a protested misrepresentation matter either. R Franz explicitly agreed that the identities of these people should be kept confidential, along with their histories of all sorts, even after their deaths. R Franz left the JW organization several years later and decided to profit from his experience and broke that explicit oath of confidence. The list of names that R Franz published is without documentation, other than his own written recollection published in his memoir. Since R Franz had/has a profit motive, and he has taken a position against what he defended, Wikipedia says that to use such information requires an exceptional source reference and further strongly cautions against using recollections published in memoirs. All this is well and good, and I am sure that Shilmer will respond with more distractions and inapplicable logic lessons and whatever else he can to distract from the fact that R Franz explicitly knew of, and was a party to, this confidentiality agreement. R Franz's disclosure was done later with a profit motive where it cannot be argued that future harm was averted. And to the matter of relevance, it is meaningless. It has been proven time and again that critics from all quarters can make scholarly and theologically based critiques of the NWT without knowing the translators or their credentials. Furthermore, even Shilmer agrees the list is incomplete so any criticism of the people listed by R Franz would be meaningless anyway. The list is only important to anyone who wants to show their disdain for the JW organization by defeating or seeming to defeat this published wish of the translators themselves. This name list adds no insight into the NWT itself, cannot be verified for accuracy or completeness, runs afoul of several Wikipedia source standards, and more. I do not agree with Shilmer's crusade to use Wikipedia as a platform to frustrate the wishes of the NWT translation committee, especially since it is predicated on false pretenses. -- cfrito (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: We have the testimony of the Watchtower organization that the NWT Committee exists and that it says this and that, just like we have Ray Franz’s testimony that the NWT Committee exists and names of members. You have yet to express how one of these sources has verified their testimony from documents any more than the other. Both have offered testimony in their own self-published books/statements. Why should the testimony of one be accepted and the other rejected when both have a bias and neither has produced documents you assert as essential?

Specifically you assert that Ray Franz approved your cited 1974 article. Where is your proof of this? According to policy at Bethel, articles are given specific approval by individuals and not collectively. Specifically Ray Franz states that on many occasions he would not sign off on material for publication because he was not in full agreement with it. So exactly how do you intend to prove that Ray Franz approved specifically of your cited 1974 article, as though it represents him accepting an obligation?

Additionally, you have failed to prove how Ray Franz’s testimony in any way impinges the Watchtower organization’s agreement not to publish/verify the members of the NWT committee because Ray Franz’s independent testimony of NWT translators is not a verification from the Watchtower organization. Frankly, it is impossible for Ray Franz to unilaterally breach the agreement the Watchtower organization has asserted. You, apparently, fail to grasp this finer point of responsibility and outcome. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors:Please see my response #7 in the cfrito (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC) list below -- cfrito (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Testability, Ray Franz and Watchtower

Above editor Cfrito vigorously asserts we should reject the published testimony of Ray Franz for its historical value of alleged NWT translators. On the other hand, Cfrito asserts we should accept the testimony of the Watchtower organization that the NWT translation committee is a real entity, that it has multiple members and that these members have insisted the Watchtower organization never publish the identity of its members.

There is a marked disparity of testability between Ray Franz’s testimony and the Watchtower organization’s testimony. What the Watchtower organization states is testable in no respect whereas what Ray Franz states is testable in many respects.

It is impossible to test a declaration when that declaration is to make no statement. This is what the Watchtower organization has done in this instance.

It is possible to test Ray Franz’s declaration precisely because he offers detail we can research. For example, of the alleged NWT Committee, Ray declares that only Fred Franz (his uncle) had sufficient knowledge to translate ancient biblical languages into English. This is testable because at the time is was possible to research whether there were any other adequately trained individuals among Jehovah’s Witnesses to stir a new Bible translation, let alone complete the task and find a publisher like the Watchtower organization (or anyone else!) willing to spend an enormous sum for printing and distribution. This research was easy enough to do (and still is) for Jehovah’s Witnesses. All they needed to do was talk with high-ranking Watchtower insiders during one of their many visits for local speaking engagements. In private conversation these men (they are always men) were/are quick to express the names of qualified Jehovah’s Witnesses who are useful to the Watchtower organization for work in translation and many, many others areas. This circumstance made it possible at the time, and even today, to test Ray Franz’s statement for veracity.

Despite Ray having published his statement more than twenty years ago, and despite William Cetnar having made his similar statement more than thirty years ago, to this day not a single name has surfaced among Jehovah’s Witnesses of any other individual who at the time had training and/or experience sufficient to translate ancient biblical languages into contemporary English.

The disparity of testability between the Watchtower and Ray’s testimony on this issue gives a decided advantage of reliability to Ray Franz's statement. When a person goes on record with names, they paint themselves into a corner if they have asserted the wrong names, and Ray Franz knows this perfectly well. Not a single solitary statement has ever been issued by the Watchtower organization, any ranking Watchtower insider or ex-insider to dispute or in any way caste doubt on Ray’s testimony. After more than twenty years had the details Ray provided been false, someone would have at least disputed it, if not refuted it. But no one has. Not even former Watchtower insiders who are not fans of Ray Franz.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer's illogic is awe-inspiring. Here's why:

1. The existence of a Translation Committee was announced by the committee itself. It's in the prefaces of all the NWT editions that I know of. Frankly, I'm not sure why this is even mentioned.

Response: Guess what? The NWT is published by the Watchtower organization; hence the statement in the NWT you allude is the Watchtower organization telling everyone what the alleged NWT committee allegedly said. On this point, you have completely misstated the evidence. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

2. The plain fact is that the list of names R Franz supplied is not verifiable. There is nothing to verify it against: no documents, no video tapes, no audio tapes, no contracts, no snapshots, no fingerprints, nothing. All Shilmer offers is a "whodunit". Circumstantial evidence, well-known names, clues, innuendo, etc. But that's it. No translators revealed themselves other than Fred Franz, who admitted to being the editor under cross-examination. So that's all we know, Fred Franz, and I've supported listing him in the history section. In fact I recall making the original edit myself, based on the already-listed (I assume Shilmer's) court document reference..

Response: There is no need to verify the veracity of names provided by Ray Franz because no one is asserting his list of names is correct or incorrect. The only thing we need verify is that Ray Franz actually provided the names attributed to him because this is all that is asserted in the article. Your continued request for proof of something that has not been asserted testifies to your skills of analysis and understanding of proof burden. I offered to assist you to improve this lack, and the offer stands indefinitely. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

3. The Watchtower organization's position is easy to prove: They said the translators did not want to be revealed. The translators wanted to remain anonymous even after their death. Only Fred Franz revealed himself, and it was under cross-examination, so I'm sure it was only because he was forced to, but it was his choice and, yippee! now we know ***yawn***. None of the other translators followed suit, so it must have been their wish. If the Watchtower organization's claim were false, the committee members could have simply revealed themselves. They didn't. So there's really nothing to question and the Watchtower organization's position is completely and unquestionably verified. And we didn't need R Franz's list at all to discover Fred Franz was the editor, even though Shilmer kept putting Fred Franz's name in the Criticism section rather than the history section where it belongs.

Response: “They said” is the operative expression. As for Fred Franz, though he admitted to be editor of the NWT, he never admitted to being a member of the NWT committee. To this day the obligation by the Watchtower organization not to verify identities of the alleged NWT committee remains intact because the Watchtower organization has never offered identities of this group, assuming it really exists as the Watchtower says. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

4. The JW organization is in no way required to meet the same strict source reliability tests that R Franz does, because, A) the JW organization was not publishing recollections a memoir in 1974 they had the source documents at hand and still do, R Franz relied on his recollections in his own memoir since he did lost access to the source documents years earlier; B) The JW organization have not broken any oath or any confidentiality agreement, R Franz has so broken one according to the 1974 Questions From Readers; C) The JW organization is not opposing a position they once defended regarding the translators' confidentiality, R Franz is doing that; D) The JW organization has never engaged in anti-writing against R Franz, but R Franz has engaged in such against the JW's. All these facts put a much higher requirement on R Franz, and in some cases, the only requirement for the burden of proof rests with Shilmer/R Franz, if the data and reference are to be included herein.

Response: Assuming Ray agreed to abide by the agreement made by Watchtower that the Watchtower organization would never reveal the identities of the NWT committee, Ray has never broken this agreement because no action by him as caused the Watchtower organization to express the identities of this group. Apparently, you do not understand that it is impossible for Ray to unilaterally breach this agreement. Yet you suggest otherwise. This is telling.

Otherwise, the Watchtower organization as a source holds a bias towards itself. This is why what the Watchtower states of its own actions is unreliable as verification for itself. This is a fundamental point of weight assignment, and you miss it by about three city block. This is telling, not to mention frustrating.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

5. The JW organization pledged to keep the names anonymous. As a logic problem, they can never confirm or deny any individual or group because both acts lead to the discovery of the translators and a betrayal of the confidence pledge. And it is also the single biggest reason to doubt the R Franz list: Let us assume the R Franz list strawman. If the JW org were to issue an official statement, "These aren't the people," then we just issue another strawman list and another until we get "positives". If we put a list to them that has 6 names and they issue and official statement that says, "The three A, B, and C were not a a part of the team," then we know D, E and F were. and then we just keep asking until we're satisfied or bored. So the fact the the JW org has remained silent means absolutely nothing and it demonstrates why someone might publish a strawman list. So even if R Franz got it partly or even mostly right, the JW organization cannot confirm or deny anything. And they do not have to, it is their prerogative, and though Shilmer might not like it very much, it is not sinister to give something away anonymously or to keep your word.

Response: There are millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses and billions of non-Jehovah’s Witnesses. To deny, for example, that Nathan Knorr was not a member of the NWT committee is a long, long way from ‘leading to discovery of the translators’. At least a million away, in fact! To deny a few names does not require denying more than a few names. Hence you offer a false bifurcation, which is fallacious reasoning. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Cetnar's list and R Franz's list do not match. One of them is wrong, by at least one name. The JW organization has said nothing of either list; their silence therefore cannot be construed that both lists are correct, so their silence cannot logically be construed as implicit acceptance of either one's correctness. The JW organization's continued silence only means we cannot know.

Response: Your statement on this point represents a informal fallacy of logic known as false dilemma, or false bifurcation. The difference between the names provided by Cetnar and Ray Franz is not necessarily because either set of names is wrong/incorrect. That you still fail to grasp this questions whether you are even trying to be responsive in this discussion. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

7. The Governing Body meets as a Body. They act as a Body. While it is possible to dissent, the decisions of the Body are binding on the Body. Otherwise it would be called the "Governing Klatsch". This would be especially true of the WTB&TS, whose board represented 60% of the Governing Body. Since R Franz is the only blabbermouth out of them all, we can confidently deduce, as Shilmer is fond of doing in this instance, that the vote went 9:1, assuming that R Franz did actually dissent (again we have no proof, just Shilmer's suppositions and perhaps R Franz's "word for it"). Any way you look at it, R Franz was bound to a n agreement of confidence, by the publication he knew of it explicitly and this is verified and referenced, by virtue of the 12/15/1974 Watchtower article.

Response: As demonstrated above in spades, because it is impossible for Ray to breach the actual agreement (not the agreement you attempt to construct) then Ray Franz has not breached any agreement on this issue. It is utterly amazing to watch your responses on this point. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is not necessary for any analysis of the NWT texts and there is no way to verify what R Franz published. It is not history, but rather, pure legend. It must be excluded entirely. -- cfrito (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Response: Red herring. No one is trying to use the names provided by Cetnar and Ray to analyze text of the NWT. What Ray writes is historical as his account. This is a finer point that, apparently, goes right over your head. It is an amazing observation! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Oh good, we finally have consensus. Shilmer says, "No one is trying to use the names provided by Cetnar and Ray to analyze text of the NWT." --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) And he also wrote: "There is no need to verify the veracity of names provided by Ray Franz because no one is asserting his list of names is correct or incorrect." --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Shilmer clearly admits no one uses them to examine the NWT text (ironically the original argument to use it in the first place -- editors included it after statements about critics complaining that they were necessary for 'understanding'. Next Shilmer admits that it is just an anti-writer's say-so with no way to know if it's reliable, so it does not meet Wikipedia's standards, and indeed, is specifically cautioned against using.

So Shilmer agrees. The names are not needed insofar as the NWT translation Article is needed. He also agrees that while it is "history" that R Franz wrote a list of names in his memoir, it is legend that these men he lists had anything to do with it. The list is available in the memoir, it is available on R Franz's Wikipedia page and it is available on many anti-JW websites, where accuracy doesn't matter, they perpetuate anything that serves their propagandizing. With respect to this Article, it is unverifiable trivia. R Franz's alleged translator list is simply not notable. Adding it here is link-spamming and gossiping. -- cfrito (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Because the statements of Cetnar and Ray Franz are not used in the article to analyze the text of the NWT is not to say the statements of these sources do not meet Wikipedia source criteria.

Do you know the difference between presenting a statement as a person’s statement compared to presenting a person’s statement as correct or incorrect? Do you? You talk circles around this without ever addressing it. Why do you do this?

To express a person’s statement as their statement and then verify you have correctly presented that person’s statement is as Wikipedia compliant as you can get! Either you do not understand this or you refuse to acknowledge it. Which is it?

I have returned purely historical information into the history section as it relates to NWT translators. The information is verified as it is presented, which is what Wikipedia policy requires. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Translators and Editor

Under the History section, Translators and Editor ought to confine itself to discussing the history of the NWT and its translators and its editor. References thereto should be so restricted by relevance, not tit-for-tat banter. Criticisms of the translators, the editor or their personal decisions are just that: criticisms and should be placed in the Critical Review section. Thus I have moved edits that are clearly criticisms to the Critical Review section. Because I moved them and did not delte them should not be construed as acceptance of them. -- cfrito (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Consistent with your recommendation, I have returned purely historical information back to the section addressing history of the NWT related to the translators. This information is verified as it is presented, which is what Wikipedia policy requires. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Shilmer is beginning yet another edit war. Criticisms belong in the criticism section. Just because a criticism happened in the past doesn't mean it was history of the translators, the NWT or the editors. -- cfrito (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Please show me where I included criticism into the history section. Please quote the words so other editors can see what you believe is criticism.

What you deleted states that "former Watchtower insiders have expressed names of translators" with a reference to published statements of these insiders that includes the sort of position held by these insiders and the names of individuals they say were part of the NWT translation committee. There is also included language included to express a potential conflict of interest (i.e., these insiders were disfellowshipped by the Watchtower organization).

Please explain how the historical statements of these sources is presented as criticism. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors Above Shilmer agrees tat there is no way to verify the list of names and that it is unnecessary for determining translation accuracy (actually Metzger, DeBuhn et al did just fine and said so). The list of names is "legend" and it is simply not relevant or proper based on Wikipedia standards to include what can't be confirmed. It is trivia. It is internet dross. If I say it is a complete fabrication no one can prove me wrong, not even Shilmer, though he will go on and on about all the file cabinets that R Franz stoofd near and all the conversations he probably had and all times he "crossed his fingers behind his back" so as not to be bound by Governing Body decisions, but all that is just as made up as the list. It is fiction. It can be confirmed that R Franz wrote it, and it is included on his Wikipedia Article. But as to the translators, it is an unreliable source. It should be left out unless the Mediation Cabal and or an administrative review says it is usable. -- cfrito (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Why do you keep distorting what I write? I have not even argued whether we can or cannot verify the translators of the NWT, because nowhere have I asserted the identity of these translators as correct or incorrect. I realize this is a finer point you, apparently struggle to understand, but I have argued that we can verify the statements of Ray Franz and William Cetnar as the statements of Ray Franz and William Cetnar. No one, and I mean no one has asserted into the article that what these men have to say is correct or incorrect. What these men said is purely a historical matter that is verifiable as their statements. What about this do you not understand? What part of this do you feel fails to meet Wikipedia policy?

As a note on burden of proof, if you assert something is fabrication no one has a burden to prove you wrong. Rather, you have a burden to prove your assertion is true, that something is a fabrication. It is preposterous that you think others, such as me, must prove an assertion of yours false until you first meet your own burden of proof! That you think this way is part of the problem in the current dispute. How can one apply known valid forms of reason with someone who turns these on their head?

Let me ask you a question, and I ask our mediator, Seddon69, to note your response. What about a secondary source that names Knorr, Franz, Schroeder and Henschel as members of the NWT committee. Would you accept this as meeting Wikipedia policy? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I moved this comment to the Critical Review section, because that's what it is: "Severe criticism of the NWT by recognized experts such as H. H. Rowley has stirred additional criticism by virtue of the Watchtower organization’s promise not to publish the names of its translators.[16][17] Questioning the veracity of many translated passages, and realizing the commitment not to reveal names of translators, critics have requested the qualifications of translators of the NWT. The request has been refused.[18][19]" Rowley is a critic and his comment is criticism. I also changed "many translated passages" to "certain translated passages" because "many" is a POV. I will be much happier if we had a definitive count ("29 passages", "254 passages", etc.). "Certain" ,makes it clear that critics have focused in on a relatively small number without saying how many or injecting bias. -- cfrito (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection, and a quick note about mediation

I have protected the page indefinitely. I have done this to *force* the members of the dispute to engage here in real discussion, rather than edit warring. I'd suggest that the protection only be removed when the dispute is either resolved or goes stale.

Now, a quick note on mediation. I have every faith that the mediator assigned to you by the MedCab is perfectly capable of completing his task of facilitating resolution of this dispute, given some degree of cooperation from you. This doesn't seem to be forthcoming, frankly. Mediation can and will only work if all involved parties are committed to resolving the issues at hand. If any one of you feels that you can't continue mediation in good faith, I suggest you make it known now so that everyone's time isn't wasted and the dispute can move down the DR path. On the other hand, if you are all committed, then for goodness' sake listen to your mediator and aim mutually for a resolution. There is some give and take in these things, and you will have to offer concessions to the other members of the dispute if you hope for it to come to a close. If your mediator asks you to avoid eachother for a few days, do it. If he asks you to play devil's advocate and see the view of the other side properly, do it. If he <blah blah blah>, do it. You get the idea - this is the only way the mediation can succeed.

If mediation fails, the next stage is an RFC, if you are willing to accept the results without question, MedCom (though we'll be useless if you can't work together in mediation at all), and finally ArbCom. I really hope the dispute doesn't go any further than it is now - there is no reason for it to do so if you are all willing to make the effort. --Martinp23 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinp23: I did not ask for mediation on this article, but I have cooperated with the mediator who accepted the task. I have been asked and asked for data and source materials, and I have complied for the convenience of the mediator. But I am beginning to wonder about the academic wherewithal of this mediator. We are not hear to coddle personalities, we are here to build encyclopedic content. Encyclopedic content is built on the back of academic rigor and objective editing. Both of these are testable. Given the amount of material that has been handed over, it is ridiculous that by now objective testing of edits has not already progressed well along. Instead, where we are is mired in the sticky goo of personal opinions and editors who are either unwilling or unable to respond to challenge on any academic level known to me. I have sat by and watched outright falsehoods enter the article in dispute, and the mediator says nothing. I have watched some of the most horrid reasoning skate around on this talk page, and the would-be mediator says nothing. I have watched my name be maligned over and over again with every manner of personal insult, and the would-be mediator says nothing. Worst of all, I have watched an editor purposely introduce content he knew was false into this article, and our mediator has yet to say anything about it!!! If Seddon69 is going to mediate then he needs to get on with it. It is absurd to take on such a task and then sit by while all this sickening nonsense goes on. Objective editing is testable. So get on with testing it will you. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped what mediation is on Wikipedia. A mediator can't take a side in a dispute and "judge" edits, which seems to be what you are calling for. It is the job of the mediator to encourage and facilitate discussions between involved parties and stop the disruption to the article in the short term in order to find a lasting long term disruption. That Seddon96 hasn't done some of the things you mention in your comment is of great comfort to me, for I would be quite worried if a mediator were to start judging content. On another of your points, mediators are required to be neutral, and neutrality is best achieved by having no, or very little knowledge of the subject (in may cases).

You complain above about personal attacks being made against you. This is what I would term the pot calling the kettle black, having just read you call your mediator "incompetant" among other terms. This sort of behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and given your hypocrisy I feel compelled to leave a public warning to you that further comments could result in a block, rather than taking the usual route of going to your talk page. Sort it out, please.

Finally, answer me this: do you want the dispute to be solved for both parties, or do you just want to get your own way in it? Martinp23 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinp23: I am not asking anyone to “take a side”. I am asking that a mediator (who should already be a competent Wikipedia editor) make his or her own objective analysis of 1) what is causing the dispute and 2) whether certain edits meet Wikipedia standards or not, and then 3) speak up already. If these are not essential to mediation then please tell me what is? I have asked Seddon69 in particular to look at edits of mine as well as those by others and speak his or her “own side” (if you will), which “side” should be that of objectivity and experience, and hopefully some training too.

Regarding discussions, I have no problem with discussing. But for discussions to work each editor has to work from the same rules of compliance. I work hard to make my edits comply with Wikipedia standards, and when edits of mine need adjusting on that basis I have not one iota of problem with that. But Cfrito has invented his own rules of compliance aside from Wikipedia policy and uses these as a basis to compel other edits. This is wrong, and leads to conflict. For example, Cfrito is of a mind that information from primary sources cannot be used as it is presented in the primary source unless we can verify the factualness of that information. This is not Wikipedia policy; it is Cfrito’s policy. Complicating this policy of Cfrito’s is that he applies a dual standard to primary sources. That is, if the primary source says something he wants to have included in the article then we need only verify that the information is presented as the primary source presents it. But if the primary source says something he does not want in the article then he asserts that unless we can verify the factualness of what the primary source says that it cannot be used, even if the information is presented just as the primary source presents it. Until someone brings such madness down to earth, conflict is unavoidable.

To be clear, I am not asking Seddon69 to judge content. I am asking Seddon69 to review editing for Wikipedia compliance. This is as neutral a request as anyone can ask for! Or, do you see differently?

As for personal attack, I do not consider it a personal attack to express a characteristic along with some substantive reason. I explained my reason for feeling Seddon69 incompetent and/or indolent at the time. These are not said of Seddon69’s person but rather of his work on this project as a mediator. This is not what Cfrito (and others) have done in relation to my person and that of others. Above in several instances I am vilified, and so are others by Cfrito for the crime of holding an alternate view on specific issues. Cfrito has over and over again applied an ad hominem argument that my edits should be relegated because of things he does not like about me personally. Not only is this personal attack, it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Yet no one has said a thing!

To be sure I have not argued that Seddon69 should not mediate here because he is a bad person. I have expressed that until the time I said what I did that he had responded inadequately, and I gave my suspicion for why that was the case. It is one thing to say a person is unqualified for a task of due to incompetence for the task, and quite another thing to say a person is unqualified for a task because they are villainous!

You write: “do you want the dispute to be solved for both parties, or do you just want to get your own way in it?”

I want the dispute settled so that editing is Wikipedia compliant. I am not interested in being right or having a preferential way. I am interested in getting things right, and right from a perspective of Wikipedia compliance.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: As the issue went to mediation, Shilmer snuck in several controversial edits and reversions. Right after that, the Article got locked down. I waited until Shilmer had agreed that the alleged list of translators was unverifiable and was not needed for a scholarly review, so the names (hearsay, legend, recollections in a memoir, potentially falsified) should be deleted from this Article. The criticisms about not publishing these names or their credentials are given in the Article. The Article is not an exposé or sensationalized cheeseball news leader. It's an encyclopedic work. Anyway, Shilmer agreed to all the points and so I deleted the list of alleged translators. Apart from that I added additional references (Shilmer loves those), rephrased the content under Translators and Editor section so that it didn't read like a half dozen random thoughts, and condensed one duplication. I also added information on Fred Franz's education from his autobiography plus the reference, since the section is partly dedicated to the Editor, Fred Franz. It was clearly not the section for the criticisms of HH Rowley and others, There's a criticism section for that, so I put them back there (in fact Shilmer moved then to the history section to counteract that fact that I moved Fred Franz from the criticsm section to the history section). A review of the edit history will show this clearly. See below for what I added about F Franz,m why I did, the reference and the quotes from the reference material. I am all for letting Seddon69 do his job since I asked for the Mediation. I was unaware though that there was a strict moritorium on all edits by me. I will comply with this until I hear otherwise from Seddon69. I have already tried to contact him on this very point. -- cfrito (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we admins have an annoying tendency to protect the wrong version :). Mediation should be able to resolve the issues you state above by encouraging discussion and a compromise. Unfortunately the other party at least doesn't seem willing to accept this sort of approach (unless he says otherwise, above), so we are at an impasse. A shame really. Martinp23 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Martinp23: It is a real gas to read what you write above to Cfrito. I guess neutrality went out the window, in your case. So be it.

Compromise has no place between editors when the question is of policy compliance, or not. Cfrito disputes that certain information (names of alleged translators) should not be in the article, at all. Either Cfrito is wrong or Cfrito is right. Cfrito disputes that certain information from a primary source (Ray Franz) should not be allowed (at all!) as it is presented because we are unable to prove what the primary source says is true. Either Cfrito is wrong or Cfrito is right. I contend he is wrong on both counts, and at the moment it looks like I have the company of Seddon69 (for whatever that is worth at the moment). Either Cfrito is wrong or I am wrong, or else both of us are wrong.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Franz and Rhodes

The May 1, 1987, pages 22-30 Watchtower magazine carried the condensed autobiography of Fred Franz.In paragraph 4 on page 24 he wrote, "A high point in my academic life was when Dr. Lyon, the university’s president, announced to an assembly of students in the auditorium that I had been chosen to go to Ohio State University to take competitive examinations with others to win the prize of the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, qualifying me for admission to Oxford University in England." After relating how he decided to change his focus from studying to become a Presbyterian minister to join with the International Bible Students Association, he wrote, "I have never regretted that, shortly before the announcements by the educational authorities regarding the outcome of the examinations for the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, I wrote a letter to the authorities and advised them that I had lost interest in the Oxford University scholarship and that they should drop me from the list of contestants. This I did even though my professor in Greek at the university, Dr. Joseph Harry, informed me that I had been chosen to receive it." (Emphasis added). This shows that Fred Franz was selected for the Rhodes Scholarship despite being told by Dr. Joseph Harry the he was selected for the Rhodes Scholarship. That's what the account says.

Here's what Shilmer deleted: I wrote, "In his short autobiographical account, Fred Franz admitted to declining the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship to study at Oxford University. According to Franz, Dr. Joseph Harry informed him of the award in an effort to convince Franz to complete his education rather than pursue a career with the International Bible Students Association. Franz also admits to studying Biblical Greek under Professor Arthur Kinsella and classical Greek under Dr. Joseph Harry.[18]" Reference [18] pointed to the Watchtower reference. The last line was not about the Rhodes award, but rather that Franz said that he studied Biblical Greek and under whom, which Shilmer is desperate to deny. It is also included in the same autobiographical account by Franz. -- cfrito (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: First, it behooves me to admit I misread something about Fred Franz’s own statements in his life story. I failed to see that Franz said he did in fact take the competitive examine, according to him. Earlier I had misread this piece of information.

Second, you have objected to my use of Ray Franz’s statement of who he knew as members of the NWT committee. Your objection is that this information cannot be verified as correct (or incorrect). So I have a question for you, based on your own standard. Can you verify Fred Franz’s statement is correct, either that Dr. Joseph Harry told Fred Franz he was selected for the Rhodes Scholarship or else that Franz was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Editor Shilmer well knows that at this point we have ourselves a genuine predicament. Hopefully he sees this potential quid pro quo as no accident. I will ponder potential resolutions to suggest. Perhaps Seddon69 might offer some too. But perhaps we could hear what, if any, problems there are to referencing the Biblical Greek Fred Franz says he took. Also, the on-line transcript unearthed by vassilis78, is it The Transcript? Does it cover the three years or so that Franz said he attended U of Cincinnati? -- cfrito (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may. You're both arguing a similar issue from opposite goals. Firstly, if one person, relevant to this article can be quoted, than another person, relevant to this article, can also be quoted. The situation appears identical. Secondly, when a person is being quoted, there is no requirement as Wikipedians, to verify the *underlying content* of their quotation. It's obvious from the quote-marks that this is being presented as a quote by X, and not as an undisputed or obvious fact. Remember that our policy of verifiability is not about *truth*, it's about attribution in conflict, and neutral-voice in consensus. Would any of you object if I made an offer to your mediator to join as a co-mediator in this dispute? Thanks and hope you all have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: Thank God someone finally said the words! What you write is precisely Wikipedia policy. From this policy perspective I have no problem whatsoever with citing Fred Franz’s remarks about himself, including what he wants to say about any education he did or did not get. But, as you say, the same thing applies to what other relevant sources have to say. Editor Cfrito does not seem to understand this, with a result that he wants everyone to accept on primary source for what it says and reject another primary source for what it says. On this point editor Cfrito applies dual-standards. In his defense, up to now I think this is done out of ignorance rather than dishonesty. This is why it is good to finally see someone not involved in the dispute actually say the words. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I understand exactly and concur with Wjhonson -- in principle. However, there are material differences in this particular situation. First, the reference for Fred Franz answers issues raised by Shilmer and are necessary to neutralize selection bias in the provided references. Second, these were listed in the section about Fred Franz as the Editor of the NWT, so relevant bits of his history taken from his autobiography are apt and valid quotes on their face. Third, they are properly referenced. Fred Franz's statements are about himself; he is not accusing anyone of anything. By comparison, R Franz, Fred's nephew, is making unsubstantiated accusations of others. While we can certainly say R Franz indeed made those accusations, I have questioned relevance and applicability to the NWT Article.

Here's why: Clearly, not every unprovable accusation about the NWT should be published in the NWT Article. Common sense must influence what is and is not selected from all that is said in print. Since the names cannot be confirmed or verified then the list is not relevant to the New World Translation. If R Franz, hypothetically, were to have written "I, R Franz was a translator working on the NWT from 1965-1975," then by all means include it. It would be relevant and it would be his own admission. If the Watchtower organization wrote in reply, "No, R Franz was not one of the translators," then include that too. This list of names are already listed on R Franz's Wikipedia page, on countless anti-JW sites, in his own memoir, and likely in others' books. I have no delusions that predisposed people or simpletons will cease believing that these men are totally responsible for what's being written and revised in 2006, despite their being dead, just because we don't repeat the list in this Article. Common sense tells us that to have a competent, informative and useful Article on the NWT, we do not have to list every suspicion and accusation anyone has ever made. R Franz's list is at the very best materially incomplete, we all agree, so it cannot address its intended purpose: to discover if the people working on the project had sufficient skill to produce a reliable work. Even the scholars agree knowing such is not necessary. It infuriates some of them that they do not know who these people were, and more importantly who they currently are now (the NWT is undergoing continuing scrutiny and revision, according to the references included herein). The translators required anonymity, and it is given in the article, along with the publisher's statements and references. The scholars who are frustrated by this decision are also noted and referenced. As a final point, not a single scholar has ever said, "Oh okay, swell, R Franz has revealed them all so we will quit demanding the Official List since now we get on with things and properly critique the NWT." This is one of the best pieces of evidence on why the names themselves are not relevant.

Fred Franz's personal history about himself is relevant because we know him to be the Editor and he provides details about his own life that are relevant. Stories of his childhood, etc., are left out because they have nothing to do with the NWT. Also not included are his guesses about who the the six secret advisers were to R Franz when he wrote his personal Crisis memoir. The alleged names list serves no useful purpose here and gives no insight as to he veracity or history of the NWT. It is trivia at best, gossip by definition, and merely perpetuates legend as fact. Otherwise we will have to agree to spend some effort on making sure that the phrasing does not seem to suggest that the list is correct or that it can be used for any particular purpose. If we are to publish the names here and be take due care, we must say that the names are not verified and the list is incomplete, and there were many others who may have had skills far in excess of these listed men who required anonymity in exchange for their contributions. As for Fred Franz's statements they are simply quotes from the man himself and should be quoted as-is and simply referenced as such (as has been done). -- cfrito (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Primary sources are just as vulnerable to bias whether it is a person speaking about himself or a former associate speaking about the same person. Such primary sources are only different sides of the same point of bias.

As for reliability, above I asked you a question that you have yet to answer. I asked:

What about a secondary source that names Knorr, Franz, Schroeder and Henschel as members of the NWT committee. Would you accept this as meeting Wikipedia policy?

Are you going to answer this or not?

As for the NWT’s translators, their identity is made an issue by virtue of the alleged request for anonymity and the unique refusal to acknowledge these under separate cover. That insiders decided to express themselves on this issue is a response to this. Finally, all this information is part of the NWT’s history. To suggest an article about the NWT should not include history centric to the NWT is absurd on its face.

You assert that Fred Franz’s statements are relevant because of his position. Then why is Ray Franz’s statements any less relevant on the same basis? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like the editors to discuss in my new section below whether an interesting and perhaps ultimately remarkably useful approach could be taken to this controversey. See next section. Wjhonson (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see Cfrito answer the very relevant and straightforward question asked above.

I would also like to see a mediator have the decency to repudiate the public display of bad faith by editor Vassilis78 who purposely and knowingly adding false information into the article!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A new approach

Your particular sort of controversy is not new on-Wiki. I can certainly see the approach and validity to *all* sides of this discussion. You are each right, and you are each wrong. Since we are all adults and are discussing this sensibly, I am assured, that you both understand this. Although in controversies, it might appear that one side is 100% right, it is invaribly not the case and as mediators we never take that approach but try to find some way to accomodate multiple entirely sensible yet contradictory views. There are rare case, and they are indeed quite rare, in which one side is actually completely wrong-headed. This is not one of those. We can dispense with that approach. Wjhonson (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now for a new approach. We have articles on-Wiki which spread out over various pages. It would seem to me that you do indeed have *enough* material to create a brand-new article such as "xxx controversy" (replacing xxx with a title of your choice). Then at the appropriate place in *this* article, that other article can be cross-linked (and vice versa) so that interested parties of which there are many, can view the entire controversy evidence, which I trust will be sourced from verifiable WP:reliable sources. It is my own humble opinion that such an approach will serve to both calm your quarrel, and additionally, allow all of you to work together to achieve the common goal of laying out all the material related to this controversy. What do you think? Although today you may seem embroiled, it has been my own experience that this approach can work. Wjhonson (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: What bothers this article is not contrary personal views. What bothers this article is edits contrary to Wikipedia policy.

When edits of mine cannot be demonstrated as Wikipedia compliant then these should be rejected and removed. But when these can be demonstrated as Wikipedia compliant then these should be acknowledged and accordingly left in the content. The same standard should be equally and uncompromisingly applied to all edits, regardless of personality. Readers and researchers do not care who placed what edit into the article. Readers and researchers only care that the information in the article deserves to be there within the context of Wikipedia policy. This is the hard cold fact, and personalities and “sides” (in this narrow context) have no place in this. What counts is compliance with Wikipedia policy.

As for having a second controversy article, though I have no objection to an article that addresses controversy, it would be patently absurd to remove controversy from an article when that controversy is part of the subject.

There is a difference between controversial information and verifiable controversy of a subject. If an article about the New World Translation does not contain the verifiable/historical controversy within the subject then what is the point of writing the article in the first place, particularly where that controversy is prominent? Can you image an article about Martin Luther King that did not present the historical controversy stirred by the man and his mission? Can you imagine an article about the English Civil War that attempted to remove historical controversy from the article?

Whatever historical controversy exists for a given subject rightly is addressed within that subject address. So, getting back to your suggestion, it is right and proper to place controversial information about a subject in a remote place, if it achieves Wikipedia standards for information. But it would be wrongheaded to place information about a subject’s controversy in a remote place. A core aspect of Wikipedia policy is to give due weight within the article based on reliable published source material. To place verifiable/historical controversy of a subject in a remote location gives undue weight to whatever is deemed the uncontroversial view left to remain in the same article.

Bringing Wikipedia policies and guidelines to bear on this article is all that is necessary to fix the current problem. Since this should be done anyway then we might as well save everyone time and trouble and just get on with doing that.-Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Marvin with all your points above. Are you willing to give my approach a try? I am not suggesting we leave "whatever is deemed the uncontroversial view...in the article". I'm suggesting we move the entire section into it's own article. Wjhonson (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson: What “section” are you talking about? The disputes that have occurred in this article are not centric to any section. The disputes are centric to objective and subjective editing; to Wikipedia compliant editing and non-Wikipedia compliant editing. We can move content until the cows come home, and these disputes will not subside until someone brings an end to the current bad editing methodology, no matter who it comes from. Specific to this article editors have jumped from section to section with their complaints. So, for instance, when an editor felt like content did not belong in the criticism section it was moved to the history section because if nothing else the content held historical value. But this was not enough. The content was still objected on a basis with no merit whatsoever within Wikipedia policy. When it was demonstrated the content was indeed Wikipedia compliant as a source, the editors sill objected.

This article has a general title. Under a general title we cannot avoid including controversy about the subject if that is part of that subject's history. To extract all detail of this would be to turn the article into a propaganda piece. And, frankly, the amount of information we are talking about would nearly fit on the head of a pin!

So, what “section” are you talking about? -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say i agree with you martin. This is what i was gonna post but there was an edit conflict with you. I suggested creating a Fred Franz article, but i assume your suggesting and "Editors and Translators of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". I can see the purpose behind it but wouldnt it simply be moving a problem to a different article rather than dealing with it itself. Seddon69 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: There is already an article on Fred Franz. But, again, the dispute here has to do with meeting Wikipedia standards. Particularly editor Cfrito objects to primary source material on unheard of grounds! Until this sort of thinking is squashed the dispute will continue.

Furthermore, the information in dispute is central to the NWT and not Fred Franz. For instance, primary source material naming NWT translators is relevant to this article, so this is where is belongs. But Cfrito objects to this on grounds so outlandish that it boggles the mind! The contortion and distortion he employees is ridiculous. He does not even have the decency to answer straightforward questions when he is asked. This is not good faith from an editor. This, too, is centric to the dispute here.-Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I have not suggested we produce another, seperate article. You are correct. The problem will follow. We should not remove controversy about a subject from that subject presentation to satisfy a bias. This would turn the article into a propaganda piece, not to mention violate Wikipedia policy on undue weight.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the problem is the way that things are being put. If there is an opinion someone reasonably notable has said about someone else or has given supposition about some thing then those opinions/and ideas are welcome in wikipedia so long as they arnt libelous and express a NPOV on behalf of the editor then they should be included. Its the wording that needs to correct. As you have suggested we need to look at the ways the sources are being included in the article but we cannot enforce those changes. We can certainly guide and suggest things but it is down to the two of you to agree something yourselves. If you need a more enforced decision then you need to be looking at Formal Mediation, if you want the opinions of others i suggest something like RfC or WP:3O.

Neway back to this discussion, the section i feel its not NPOV and needs to be in a different form is "Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati where his formal training concentrated on Latin and classical Greek" I feel this needs to be changed. I am happy with this edit [1] i am much happier with this source. What i wouldnt mind seeing is a different version of Martin's edit I would like to have the text that was inserted put at the end of this section. That means the texts flows more and isnt talking about onething then talking about another thing then going back. Would this be more acceptable? Seddon69 (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: You must be kidding me! Much more is going on here than phrasing. Editor Cfrito has been conducting hand-to-hand combat to keep certain information out of this article altogether! What have you been reading?

For example, Cfrito concocts all sorts of reasons why this article should not express the names of NWT translators as alleged by former Watchtower insiders, and this despite the information being meticulously referenced to primary sources. You have copies of the sources yourself on this point; I sent them to you at your request! Check your email. You will see even more information I just sent on this point, along with predictions.

What is going on here is plain old standard-issue bad editing. Editors here with a particular point of view prefer to have a propaganda piece than an encyclopedic piece. The quickest remedy to this dispute is simple and quick. Examine the edits and proposed edits for veracity and then speak up with your findings. -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Just to be perfectly clear regarding wording, I have not and do not have any problem with edits to wording that improves the accuracy of what sources present. My own edits need and deserve such review (everyone's edits do), and I rely on fellow editors to give feedback for this purpose. But I will not stand idly by if edits attempt to frame information with an effect that is presents source information differently that the source presents the information. -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I recommend that you make the edits you speak of, and then let's see what happens. It would be appreciated were you also to express why you think the information you cite should be in the article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Clearly the names listed by R Franz and Cetnar are "alleged" unless they can provide some kind of information that proves the men they have accused were in fact the translators. Otherwise the source is verifiable but not the data. Since this particular Article is about the NWT, unverified data about it are not acceptable according to Wikipedia standards and common sense too. What exactly does it add to this article besides fueling controversy with innuendo? These are recollections, one from a memoir, the other is perpetuated hearsay, from men who now hold a personal bias that is contrary to one that they once defended. One case is pure hearsay (Cetnar) and belief in the other is based on circumstantial evidence. The lists are not identical, and it raises a question since both claim to know exactly who were the translators. there is also the possibility that it was a strawman list -- trying to goad the JW organization to break its word to the translators by getting trapped in a process of elimination. Am I right? Is R Franz? Is Cetnar? Who know? and that's exactly the point. While the sources are verifiable the data is not, and since it is the data that is relevant, it itself must stand the test of verifiability. Also it is questionable because it is not a list of the most skilled linguists at the JW organization, but rather the most prominent. This is not hand-to-hand combat, it is Wikipedia policy and common sense. The NWT Article is not a rumor mill. R Franz has his own page that can be used to perpetuate any rumors he may want to spread. His page is linked here. -- cfrito (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: There is a section about the Editors of the NWT. Fred Franz is mentioned specifically (there have been others who remain anonymous), and it is quite acceptable to hear from him on his own education. He is allowed to testify by virtue of his autobiography which gives relevant details about that very thing, classes he took ,under who he studies, what his studies were about and even that he took the exams, passed and was selected according to one of his professors to receive the Rhodes Scholarship. It is far more germane than rumors of who may or may not have been involved. It gives his studies, his focus and his academic power. It should be included because it gives exactly the kind of information that is argued is relevant: Who were the people who worked on the NWT? What was their background and training? What do they say about themselves? And it doesn't accuse anyone of anything that cannot be properly defended The only one who knows now is the Watchtower Society and they cannot reveal he names -- not a "choice" they make, it is a consequence of their agreement with the translators to protect their anonymity even after their deaths. And better still, the Fred Franz comments are verifiable references. -- cfrito (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Further to a preferred wording to Shilmer's edit, his version spends far more time justifying why we should believe Cetnar and R Franz than presenting what is known about those we know about for a certainty. Regarding the "suspects" we my have reason to believe or doubt but this alleged list not about the translators or editors. Of the editors that have been assigned, we know only of Fred Franz, because he said so himself. Of Fred Franz's education, we have a transcript (is it his final one, or some intermediary one?) Franz's testimony about his own education is absolutely relevant and source-verifiable. So as a framework, I propose we lead off with the Watchtower organization's statement regarding translator anonymity from the 1974 Watchtower, 12/15 Questions From Readers. Then add the information about Fred Franz, that he was the Editor at least until his court testimony, then add that apart from that we do not know. We can then say that it is quite likely that the original translators have all perished, but the work of translating and editing continues and include references. We can then add Franz's account of his education and the transcript reference, and state whether we know for a fact it is completely representative of his entire formal education or not. Any suppositions, accusations, rumors, innuendo, unverifiable information about the translators or editors needs to be elsewhere (and not necessarily in this article at all). If we have general agreement on this I will propose some text along this line. -- cfrito (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ok this is just a brief thing as im in a rush and so i cant do a deep look through all the edits at this moment in time or give a thorough answer, but i wll later on. I wanted to ask a suggestion so that i could see what you all thought before going into a deeper discussion. What i would like to do, with the permission of the people involved in this case (and the other 2 mediators), is to move the section Translators and Editors from the history sub-section to a section in itself. You may not initially see the point behind this, again i will give a more detailed reasoning for this later on, but i just wanted to test the water so that i know what sort of questions you will have about this?. Seddon69 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I hope you deal with the quacky nonsense above from Cfrito. His reasons are just too bizzare for me to needlessly expend time on. As long as s/he keeps editing on the bases s/he has asserted (such as above) there will be problems. And, pardon me for saying the words, but Cfrito demonstrates a very poor grasp of Wikipedia standards of verification and content. I'm sure s/he feels differently, and will probably say the same of me (in fact I have no doubt this is the case!). I have confidence that objective editors will see bull for what it is, no matter who it's coming from.

Regarding your suggestion to remove the Translators and Editors material from the history section and into its own section aside from history, I fail to see the benefit but apparently you do, so I have no problem with trying this approach to see where it goes. I would like to see your ideas.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry its taken me a while to respond, i have literally jus got in and booted my computer straight up. Ok now the reason for my suggestion is as follows. Firstly i would say that the section on the editor and translators deserves its own section whether or not this dispute was occuring as id say its certainly a notable part of this translation considering the various controversies about it hence why eventually i would like to see an article about them but that is something to discuss in the future. Now the problem i have with placing the text concerned in the criticism section is that it that i feel that this section should be about the criticism/controversy of the NWT itself not the editors this results in an article that has information about serveral different things throw in through out. Now by having a section purely about the people involved in the making of this translation, including whatever controversy about them, you allow the rest of the article to get on with talking about the translation. This means you don't then get confused with whats the history of the NWT and whats history of the editors and whats controversy about the NWT and what's controversy about the editors. I realise that we need to discuss the edits themselves as well but i feel this might solve one problem about where the information belongs Seddon69 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: The reason I moved the information you cite from the criticism section and placed it in the history section is precisely for the reasons you cite. But moving the information was not good enough for other editors, such as Cfrito. Cfrito wants nothing less then certain material (e.g., names of alleged members of the NWT committee) to be completely withheld from the article on the NWT. Until you get this sorted out then Cfrito will continue squeaking like a wheel in need of lubrication. Or, at least that is my impression based on what s/he has written.

Within the current NWT article I see no more suitable place than the history section. Alternately, and along the lines you suggest, we can develop a section just to address the NWT committee within the NWT article. I have no problem with this at all, and in fact when I created the sub-section within the history section it considered that the information might become its own section. The hurdle on this point is one thing: Cfrito. Cfrito’s complaint is not about which section the material goes in; he objects to the information going anywhere in the article. Did you get my last email with two attachments?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I, Cfrito, was the one who moved Fred Franz as Editor from the Criticism section to the History section because Franz as Editor it is verifiable and accurate History. As I recall, Shilmer promptly moved it back -- twice. I suspect he was none too pleased because this edit separated the historic information from the harsh criticism that had immediately followed it which Shilmer just could not -- and cannot -- abide. Reading about Fred Franz as the editor and seeing his achievements -- uncolored -- along with that man's own testimony about his own academic history is insufferable for Shilmer. And then putting criticism in a Critical Review section is just beyond the pale for Shilmer: How is the Reader going to attain a sufficiently bad impression of Fred Franz with this state of affairs?!? Fred Franz was in the Criticism/Critical Review section specifically to be the butt of the criticism! A desire for anonymity is not ignoble. Shilmer quickly moved the literal criticisms out of the Criticism section and into the Editors and Translators section. Shilmer is also adamant that Fred Franz's comments about his own education, including his professors' names, his achievements, and his coursework, be excluded. But some made-up list of R Franz's should be included so that the masses can have a list of "suspects" to gnaw on, even though the only evidence we have is that some grudge-bearer said it was so. It is shameful pathetic pandering. Shilmer favors phrasings like "Franz failed to achieve any college degree..." followed immediately by, Critics say...Much criticism about..." Shilmer only wants to present just enough information to allow the heap of criticisms he adds liberally to sound well-founded and inarguable. So unverifiable, made-up lists of names about third parties should be included because Shilmer needs it to impugn the NWT on the basis of a flimsy case of a lack formal Bible Greek classes. And includes the fake list simply on the basis that we know who faked it (Shilmer's personal friend), but will not accept Fred Franz's published statements that he was recommended for the Rhodes Scholarship, took the exams, and was accepted but turned it down himself because his personal theology shifted from Presbyterian to IBSA [Jehovah's Witnesses] theology. Shilmer's approach is shameless POV editing. While he is good at stating the rules, he is awful at applying them. I have seen too many other editors complain, be maligned and abused, demeaned, and bullied only to give up in frustration. And Shilmer's been warned by others about his edit warring, original research, and WP:3RR rule violations (and the 3RR thing not just with me either). Of course Shilmer will spare no expense in attacking me (or anyone else who challenges him) personally using the most obnoxious, derogatory remarks possible. Perhaps that is why he avoids citing Wikipedia Etiquette policy -- it is one policy he revels in flagrantly disregarding. Oh, Shilmer also has no respect for the Civility guideline either. -- cfrito (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito:

1. My remarks were of the alleged names of NWT translators and not specific to the editor of the NWT (i.e., Fred Franz). You did not move these names to the history section. You removed these names from the article entirely. I am the editor who moved the names from the criticism section to the history section. Specifically this is the action my remarks replied to. Please read what people actually write, and get your facts straight.

2. I have no issue at all with an objective presentation of Fred Franz’s credentials. I wordsmithed this myself to make it conform more closely to verifiable records, including his life history. In fact, it was an edit of mine that inserted the reference to his life story in the first place! Hence your allegations against my person on this point are false. Please get your facts straight.

3. I have not asked to have Fred Franz’s remarks about his own life and credentials removed from the article. I asked you whether you were going to apply the same standard to this primary source as you do to the primary source from Ray Franz. I included language from the Fred Franz primary source into the article myself! I included this on the same basis that I included language from the Ray Franz primary source. In each case I inserted information from primary sources as those sources presented the information. This is Wikipedia policy. Please get your facts straight.

4. As for your allegation of gnawing on a list of names, I have repeatedly asked you a question on this point, and you have consistently failed to respond. Again, the question is: What about a secondary source that names Knorr, Franz, Schroeder and Henschel as members of the NWT committee. Would you accept this as meeting Wikipedia policy for inclusion into the article?

5. As for the expression, ‘Franz failed to achieve any college degree,’ I edited out this usage myself. Get your facts straight.

6. You continue asserting it as a material fact that Fred Franz turned down a Rhodes scholarship. This is not material fact. Fred Franz relates that someone told him had been chosen to receive it. Franz never states that he was actually offered a Rhodes scholarship and that he subsequently turned down the offer. He states that someone told him he had been chosen to receive a Rhodes scholarship and despite having this information he dropped out of college anyway. Franz does not even allege firsthand information from the Rhodes scholarship committee on this point! Please read your source and get your facts straight.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: The above is a good example of why coming to any sort of common ground with Shilmer is so difficult. (See Marvin Shilmer 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC) above.) First, he outright abuses me about Franz's information, telling me to "READ it" (his emphasis), deletes it all what I added -- several times -- then sheepishly admits the information says what I said -- amazing right after I posted the relevant quotes to disabuse everyone of Shilmer's baseless accusations. But does restore the correct information? Oh no, not our Shilmer, no sir. He moves stuff around so that nothing non-negative stands unanswered for a single sentence. Then refers to his slash-and-burn edits in the vaguest ways, then crashes in and accuses everyone else of wrongdoing when they try to pin it down. He has been caught out several times by several editors contradicting himself and even prevaricating on some matters, but gets righteous-overmuch when he senses others are misunderstanding him or misapplying what he has written. He is quick to snap at others, generally assumes bad faith, perhaps the biggest POV editor of all, with bipolar phrasing and selection bias his constant editorial companions. He is bloviating and arrogant, continually emphasizing that only he is capable of understanding ad applying what he reads, even referring to his own infallibility as an editor and a researcher (gag). And on and on and on. I noticed he didn't respond to the Civility or Etiquette references. As for Franz and the Rhodes Scholarship, it is a more reliable reference because: 1) It is being said about himself affixed to a precise point in time; 2) It gives specific references including through whom he was advised; 3) He details the steps he went through and the others that were involved; 4) He is not advocating against a position he formerly held; 5) It doesn't go against the wishes or interests of others on a hearsay basis; 6) Fred Franz is directly relevant to the Article and the matter at hand; 7) It is not based on circumstantial evidence; 8) He had firsthand knowledge of it from a reliable source; 9) Fred Franz was not under personal oath to keep it secret, nor was he under the oath established by a corporate body he was a part of; 10) He is not personally profiting from its publication; 11) the statement stands on its own and is not materially incomplete; 12) Fred Franz has never engaged in anti-writing of the Rhodes Scholarship. Since Shilmer so thoroughly dominates the Article editing and Talk page I guess he gets credit for one thing without question: This Article's "B" rating belongs to him. He should be so proud.-- cfrito (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito:

1. You have misconstrued my 17;36, 22 January 2008 entry. You wrote, “‘READ it’ (his emphasis)”. The emphasis is your own. Please learn how to correctly quote and attribute.

2. I have read where you allege contradiction by me, and I have read my words you quoted in support. Those words of mine were just as badly misconstrued as your misconstrual above, just of a different genre.

3. “Correct information” within the context of Wikipedia is information with a bearing on the given article, and that is verifiable as the source presents it. Within this context I edit everyone’s contributions, including my own edits. This is what all of us should do. Then, on the talk page, and based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, editors should work out differences among themselves. Among other things, this requires good articulation and straightforward questions and answering of questions relevant to the article. I am more than willing to do this. Are you?

4. I have not assumed bad faith by you, up to now. In fact I have defended some of your more ludicrous assertions as from ignorance rather than bad faith.

5. Not once have I asserted that “only [I am] capable of understanding and applying” what I read or anyone else reads.

6. All the reasons you offer for the Fred Franz life story source demonstrate that it is a primary source worthy of as much consideration as any other primary source. When a person writes about themselves the bias is to speak flatteringly of themselves. This is only the opposite side of bias from another primary source from a known detractor who speaks unflatteringly of the same person. You apparently do not see that bias runs from the same point, only in opposite directions.

7. You still have ignored the question: What about a secondary source that names Knorr, Franz, Schroeder and Henschel as members of the NWT committee. Would you accept this as meeting Wikipedia policy for inclusion into the article?

Why do you keep ignoring this question? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Above Shilmer claims a few things. Here are my general defenses to the Editors according to Shilmer's numbering:

1. According to the Edit History for the Article we have Shilmer's own words: "22:57, 2008 January 19 Marvin Shilmer (Talk | contribs) (36,540 bytes) (→Translators and Editor - Deleted false information. F Franz DID NOT turn down a Rhodes scholarship. READ what your source ACTUALLY says, Cfrito. You have already been told this is false info!)". I swear I didn't add any capitals. (Is this a "proper way to say it? I have no idea any more...)

2. I call attention to my comments cfrito (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Here I highlighted to contradictory statements from Shilmer (I shortened it for space considerations):

1. "[Cfrito] You also fail to acknowledge Ray Franz’s presence on the very governing body committee (writing committee) that was/is responsible for everything published by the Watchtower organization, including the NWT." -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2. "Cfrito: Read the information again. ... Apparently you think the Governing Body and the Pennsylvania Corporation’s Board of Directors is one and the same. It was not and it is not." --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer first asserts that the Governing Body is all-knowing and all-powerful insofar as the NWT work and its publishing details were concerned. Next Ray Franz shouldn't be held accountable for a reaffirmation by the Governing Body, Writing Committee and publishing arm because they are completely different and operate at "arm's length" in all matters.The first statement was why R Franz would know everything about the NWT committee members and the second why he was not bound by the official (Governing Body) reaffirmation of the JW organization's stand on the anonymity commitment made to the translators while R Franz was on the Governing Body (middle of his tenure).

3. Wikipedia policy clearly states that some information require more than this. It requires exceptional source references. The R Franz list demands an exceptional source reference and I've written it over and over. You have yet to provide an exceptional source reference or document and I will not give in on this point. The list of alleged translators cannot be used as-is for the purpose it is being referenced. It is misleading, it is giving undue weight, it is intellectually dishonest, and so on. It is irresponsible to say, "Police don't have any evidence whatsoever on who killed So-and-So. But Police say definitively that Mr X did it." It is ridiculous: Let's just say it like it is: "The Watchtower Society and the translators themselves have never admitted who did the translating. W Cetnar heard in the hallway several times that 6 people did it and told Gruss and so it's firsthand and totally accurate. R Franz was seen standing near a file cabinet that probably had the names in it so he also has firsthand information, and he says that there were only 5 and it's totally accurate too. And besides R Franz had his fingers crossed the time that they published the pledge to keep silent based on the existing agreement so he's got lots of integrity going for him too!" Sheesh.

4. See #5:

5. In 4 he says I'm just too stupid to understand so he pities me. In #5 he says he never said any such thing. What's even funnier is that he'll read this and write how I didn't understand or I'm intentionally misrepresenting what he wrote (see #1) Being a contradiction, it also applies to #2. And the "Read the information again...Apparently you think...it is not" also applies here regarding my alleged reading comprehension deficit and Shilmer's comparatively advanced skills. In fact, these types of references abound, and not just aimed at me. Here's one about Seddon69: Seddon69: You must be kidding me! ... What have you been reading? It seems Shilmer feels our mediator has a comprehension deficit too (see Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC) in this section)

6. Fred is writing about himself giving specifics about who, what, when, where, and why. R Franz broke his oath and just remembered, for a fee, things about other people and the proof is "how could he not have known given his position and access?". They are not equivalent. Not even close.

7. I have written repeatedly that I will not engage Shilmer directly on any random interrogatory he proposes. I will address the editors in general when there is an issue over a specific edit. If Shilmer has incontrovertible evidence of who exactly the translators were by way of an exceptional source (either by their own admission or by an official Watchtower response) he should post it. When I tried to quit this nonsense once before, he accused me of running away out of defeat. I just don't see the value to the Article to continue this senseless debate any longer. I will propose edits, make them, and challenge things I believe to be out of line or out-of-subject. Period.

-- cfrito (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cfrito would you mind commenting about the idea to have a translators and editors section? and im not trying to prevent free speech or restricting you but can we try and cut down the user bashing at each other, i realise you might be gettin frustrated with each other but we need to keep cool heads on :) Seddon69 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito:

1. My apology. I confused your quoted “READ it” with the source you cited of 17;36, 22 January 2008. I expressed it this way for good measure.

2. The remarks of mine you cite address different aspects of positions within the Watchtower organization. Ray Franz’s position on the governing body and writing committee gave him access to information. But his position as a governing body member (and/or writing committee) did/does not place an obligation upon him that was/is accepted and born by Directors of the Pennsylvania Corp because membership on the governing body is not membership on the Penn Corp’s BOD. In fact, the Watchtower organization purposely keeps these two bodies separate as legal and spiritual entities. Apparently you still do not understand this. Because Ray Franz had knowledge of an obligation held by the Penn Corp’s BOD does not mean he had a duty under that obligation. In any event, the agreement of the Penn Corp’s BOD was/is that it would not publish names of the NWT committee. This obligation has not been breached by or at the instigation of Ray Franz because to date the Penn Corp (or any Watchtower organizational entity) has not published the names of the NWT committee. Hence, were Ray Franz under the obligation accepted by the Penn Corp’s BOD there is still no breach by Ray Franz. Again, the nuances of this you are, apparently, confused about.

3. Yes. Wikipedia policy requires exceptional evidence for exceptional claims. But, guess what? There is nothing exceptional about a high ranking insider having information held at high levels within the same organization. Hence there is no exceptional claim requiring exceptional evidence. What precisely do you think is exceptional about a high ranking former member having insider knowledge held in the same organization at high levels?

4 and 5: I have not said you are stupid, or that I pity you. Do you know the difference between stupidity and ignorance? Or, are you ignorant of the difference?

6. Ray Franz has not said or written anything about Fred Franz that is inconsistent or contrary to what Fred Franz writes in his life story.

7. I am not asking that you respond to me. I am asking that you answer a question of yourself. Again: What about a secondary source that names Knorr, Franz, Schroeder and Henschel as members of the NWT committee. Would you accept this as meeting Wikipedia policy for inclusion into the article?

If it makes you feel better, just express your answer to other editors, something you obviously have no problem doing. -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Translators and Editors section?

Seddon69: I am a little confused about your recommendation above. I think you are suggesting the following. Please look it over and express yourself. I invite all other editors to do likewise

[Lined out words removed, underlined words added]

Translators and Editors [proposed]

The New World Bible Translation Committee requested the publisher, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, never to publish names of its members.[1] Accordingly the Watchtower organization has never confirmed or denied any names or biographical data regarding the translators, though former Watchtower insiders have expressed names of translators.[2,3] It is not unique for a Bible translation to refrain from naming its translators~~, though,~~ however it is unique for a publisher to refuse this information when requested privately.[4] Rather than offering ~~their~~ credentials, the Watchtower organization states "the particulars of their university or other educational training are not the important thing" and that the translation testifies to ~~their~~ qualification.[5] ~~Despite not knowing the translators' identities or credentials,~~. Of the NWT translators Dr. Bruce Metzger states “On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators”.[6]

The Editor of the NWT was Frederick Franz.[7] Specifically, the Watchtower organization’s Board of Directors tasked him to examine the NWT and determine its accuracy and acceptability as it was submitted for publication.[8] Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati where his formal training concentrated on Latin and classical Greek.[9,10,11]

[Referenced data:]

1. The Watchtower, September 15, 1950, p. 320

2. Franz R, Crisis of Conscience, Third Edition, 2000. Raymond Franz was a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses Governing Body from October 1971 to May 1980. (pp. 30-32) He names Frederick Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas as members of the New World Translation Committee. (p. 54) Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped by the Watchtower organization in 1981.

3. Gruss E, We Left Jehovah's Witnesses, 1974. Gruss quotes William Cetnar naming Frederick Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas and Milton Henschel as members of the New World Translation Committee. (pp. 70-75) During the period the NWT Committee offered its translation for publication the Watchtower organization acknowledges William Cetnar held a special appointment of great responsibility at its world headquarters. (See Watchtower Yearbooks 1952, p. 39 and 1958 p. 49) William Centar was disfellowshipped by the Watchtower organization.

4. A Closer Look at the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, North American Mission Board SBC, 2000

5. The Watchtower, December 15, 1974, p. 768

6. Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 150-153.

7. Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Frederick Franz pp. 87-88

8. Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Frederick Franz p. 88

9. University of Cincinnati transcript for Frederick W. Franz, Between 1911 and 1913 Franz attended the University of Cincinnati. He earned 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and a single 2-hour credit class in a course titled “The New Testament—A course in grammar and translation.”

10. The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24, Frederick Franz states he left the University of Cincinnati near the end of his junior year

11. Rhodes R ThD, The Challenge of Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, 2001, p. 84, “[Frederick Franz] was not professionally trained in biblical studies, but he is regarded now as having been more knowledgeable than previous Watchtower presidents.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark I for Administrator Alert

Seddon69: Certainly, but this first. As to the edit wars by Shilmer and revisionist history of Shilmer, here goes:

1. At 00:55 2008 Jan 7 I suggested on Talk moving F Franz as Editor from Criticism to History. No one objected and I moved it on 16:23 12 Jan 2008.

2. At 16:36 12 Jan 2008 (13min later) Shilmer summarily reversed the edit.

3. At 16:50 12 Jan 2008 (14min later) I put it back

4. At 17:15 12 Jan 2008 (25min later) Shilmer summarily deleted it again

5. At 21:44 12 Jan 2008 (4hr29min later) I put it back

6. At 00:23 13 Jan 2008 (2hr39min later) Shilmer created new Translators and Editor section, and moved criticisms about Fred Franz from the original criticism section to the newly created History/Translators and Editor section to counteract "the neutral" with "the negative" at close range.

7. On 15 Jan I took it back to Talk where it entered what I generally refer to as the "Shilmer Bamboozles" phase. We battled over whether criticisms should be in the criticism section (Cfrito's suggestion) or follow tit-for-tat any non-negative statements about F Franz (Shilmer's big idea).

8. On 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Shilmer makes the patently false statement that he moved the information from the Criticism section to the History section. Review the Edit History yourself. Shilmer wrote, Seddon69: The reason I moved the information you cite from the criticism section and placed it in the history section is precisely for the reasons you cite. Taking credit to apparently win favor with the Mediators, how low can you get.

9. On 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC) I wrote this to combat the plagiarism by Shilmer: Editors: I, Cfrito, was the one who moved Fred Franz as Editor from the Criticism section to the History section because Franz as Editor it is verifiable and accurate History. As I recall, Shilmer promptly moved it back -- twice.

10. In answer to #9 Shilmer wrote at 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC), 2. I have no issue at all with an objective presentation of Fred Franz’s credentials. I wordsmithed this myself to make it conform more closely to verifiable records, including his life history. In fact, it was an edit of mine that inserted the reference to his life story in the first place! Hence your allegations against my person on this point are false. Please get your facts straight.

Good, I got my facts straight. It was Shilmer who had it all screwed up. Fine, that's off my chest.

As to your question, I would suggest that the Translators and Editors section include what is known about them and why. Reference the Watchtower's comments on why they are keeping the names and credentials confidential. We can then say that Fred Franz was the first editor and list what we know of his academic career, both what they transcript reveals and what he says about it himself in his autobiography. Then I would suggest adding criticism to the end of the section or keeping them confined to the Critical Review section. I believe this is a saner approach and leads to a more structured Article. The reader has a chance to get their minds around one idea, and then can move on to the other ideas (neutral and critical counterpoints). As you might guess, since Shilmer's List is unproven they should not be listed here since this about who were the translators and editors, and not who they might have been.

Is that what you were looking for? -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried posting the above earlier but I got an edit conflict with Shilmer. So I made my modifications to his proposal and present it below for consideration:

Translators and Editors [proposed]

The New World Bible Translation Committee stipulated that the publisher, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, never publish names of its members, even after their deaths.[1][2][3] Accordingly the Watchtower organization has never confirmed or denied any names or biographical data regarding the translators. In 1974, the Watchtower organization reaffirmed that agreement, further explaining that they were bound to never disclose the credentials of the translators.[4] Despite not knowing the translators' identities or credentials, Dr. Bruce Metzger states “On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators”.[5]

The first editor of the New World Translation was Frederick W. Franz.[5] Specifically, the Watchtower organization’s Board of Directors tasked him to examine the New World Translation and determine its accuracy and acceptability as it was submitted for publication.[6] Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati where his formal training concentrated on Latin and classical Greek in pursuit of his goal to become a Presbyterian preacher.[9] Frederick Franz states he left the University of Cincinnati near the end of his junior year despite being told by his Greek professor, Dr. Joseph Harry that he been selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship.[10] Franz states the reason for leaving University early, despite such a bright academic future, was his change in theology to that of the International Bible Students Association, now known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

The identities and academic credentials of the other editors and translators remain unknown.

[Referenced data:]

1. The Watchtower, September 15, 1950, p. 320

2 Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p. 258, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

3. The Watchtower, December 15, 1974, pp. 767-768

4. The Watchtower, December 15, 1974, p. 767

5. Metzger, Bruce M, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, The Bible Translator 15/3 (July 1964), pp. 150-153.

6. Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Frederick Franz pp. 87-88

7. Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Frederick Franz p. 88

8. University of Cincinnati transcript for Frederick W. Franz, Between 1911 and 1913 Franz attended the University of Cincinnati. He earned 15 hours of Latin, 21 hours of classical Greek, and 2 hours in New Testament grammar and translation

9. The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 pp. 23-24

10. The Watchtower, May 1, 1987 p. 25

I have deleted the R Rhodes reference because it conflicts with F Franz's transcript. R Rhodes says Franz was not professionally trained in Biblical studies. Franz received extensive Latin training, clearly a Biblical language, and also passed his Biblical Greek and Translating course. Also, according to Franz, his course of study was chosen to meet his original goal of becoming a Presbyterian preacher (May 1, 1987 Watchtower, p. 24). So R Rhodes is incorrect in stating F Franz was not professionally trained. It is clear he was, the dispute is over the extent of that training. -- cfrito (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito writes: "Franz received extensive Latin training, clearly a Biblical language". That statement explains a great deal about why you edit as you do and your gross lack of knowledge on the subject.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark II for Administrator Alert

Editors: If that's all Shilmer the Plagiarist had to pick on, well, I'm a happy guy. So as to not make a statement without proper referencing, see my cfrito (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) in this Talk section above for incontrovertible evidence of Shilmer's plagiarism.

What I meant to convey in explaining why I removed the R Rhodes reference is that those who receive professional training in Biblical studies take extensive Latin, not that the Bible was originally written in Latin. "Clearly a Biblical studies language" is what I should have written, O the shame! O the shame! I thought it was clear from the context, but I guess not. Shilmer is certainly a diligent and careful critic. (At least I know Shilmer won't be stealing credit for that statement of mine.) The R Rhodes reference is a bad one because the writer clearly is wrong about F Franz's training and it would be dishonest to use knowingly false information like that -- cfrito (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

IS IT PROPER TO USE SO MUCH SPACE FOR A SCENARIO?

A scenario deserves little space:

Watchtower Society has been criticized for not publishing the names and the credentials of the translators[1]. From its part, Watchtower Society respondes that that was the will of the Translation Committee and that the translation stands on its own merit[2].

[1] sources. Some critics have stated that the refusal of the WTBTS has to do with the fact that the actual Translation Commitee did not have any academic credentials. This is based on the translators names list given by the ex Governing Body member R. Franz.—sources.

[2] sources.

This is how it should be.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: What about a secondary source that identifies members of the NWT committee. Would you accept this as meeting Wikipedia policy for inclusion into the article?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I deeply agree with Vassilis78 because his presentation states the facts and all that is necessary to know about the matter. But I also know that Shilmer needs a bigger plate onto which he can heap reproach and plug his friends' books. So I took Shilmer's proposal and made it as NPOV as I could. -- cfrito (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for Mediators on Wikipedia Compliance

Solid answering of questions below is essential to resolving the current editing disputes. Conflict and frustration will continue and intensify in the presence of inconsistent application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I ask that you read the following questions carefully and respond with a considered and decisive answer. Please speak up on these Wikipedia policy and guideline issues to be heard clearly and decisively above the fray.

NOTE: These questions are also posed and getting feedback on the designated Mediation Cabal Case page --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding identity information of authors/translators of a written work

1. Do you think it appropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from primary sources about identities of authors/translators of that work? [My answer to this question is, yes, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Do you think it inappropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from a primary source or sources about the identity of authors/translators of that work because an alternate primary source asserts the authors/translators do not want their publisher to reveal or confirm their identities? {My answer to this question is, no, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources

1. Do you think it appropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from a secondary source about the identities of authors/translators of that work if information of identity is significant enough to address in the first place? [My answer to this question would be, yes, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Do you think it inappropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from a secondary source or sources about the identity of authors/translators of that work because an alternate primary source asserts the authors/translators do not want their publisher to reveal or confirm their identities? [My answer to this question is, no, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding weight, neutrality and points of view

1. Do you think it appropriate for an article on a given work (the NWT in this case) to include information from a primary source when the source presents a significant view that is consistent with other primary sources and secondary sources? [My answer to this question would be, yes, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Do you think it appropriate for specific information on an issue from one primary source to be included and specific companion information from another primary source to be excluded from an article when both sources are addressing the same issue and the issue is deemed significant enough to express in the first place? [My answer to this question is, no, for the record.] --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like these question to be answered on the mediation talk page. Results in less clutter. PLus it could be considered by some to be canvassing. Thanks :) Seddon69 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User page to continue improving the article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Mediators and Editors: I have created a sub-user page to continue improving the article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. I welcome editor and mediator feedback on the talk page. This is important: This talk page and article are not for discussing the present dispute(s). Anything related to resolving the dispute of this page should be presented here. The sub-userpage I have created is purely so I can carry on working on the article even though there is an edit war going on, and even though the version on the top is "the evil one favoured by the other side in the dispute". Please have a beer and take a look at my editing and feel free to voice approval or objection, to grant it sainthood or demonize it. But please, above all, offer affirmative suggestions for improvement. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I think Shilmer really needs a place where he can pretend that he is the Supreme Editor, a safe and secure world where no bad can happen to him. He can keep the "evil" editors who dislike editors who plug their own books using pseudonyms and the books of all their friends. A place where anyone can be summarily destroyed at the whim of the Might Shilmer. So please play nicely with our fragile editorial colleague, it looks like he needs this fantasy island article for personal psychological wellness reasons.

By "please offer affirmative suggestions" I take it only sycophants need participate. -- cfrito (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Thank you for sharing your comments and thinking.

The page stirring your ire is a personal copy set up for continuing to work on the article while disputes are worked out. Seddon69 has set up the same thing for himself. This is recommended by Wikipedia. Perhaps you should expand your reading habits, and reduce your use of ad hominem.

If you want to assault my person and character I woulld prefer you do it on my use talk page so it is easier for other editors to see your handiwork in respect to me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Translators and Editors section

Editor Cfrito disputes the use of New World Translation (NWT) translators' names as supplied by former insiders of the publisher. There are numerous published secondary sources that use this information by stating the names (Knorr, Franz, Gangas, Schroeder and Henchel) in connection with a discussion of the NWT.

Editor Cfrito believes this information is unreliable because 1) the publisher (the Watchtower organization) has not verified the list of names, and 2) the former insiders have given these names as their personal insider knowledge but have not produced any original documents with the names. As I understand it, Cfrito believes unless we can prove true the testimony of the two insiders the information they relate is unreliable.

In a nutshell, my position is 1) that no published source has disputed the reliability of information from the two insiders, and 2) plenty of secondary sources have examined this information and used it as reliable and relevant to the subject of the NWT. On this basis the information is reliable and relevant, and should be included in this article.

If I have misstated Cfrito's position I invite that s/he clarify.

The current article had the disputed names/information edited out just prior to the page being protected. Hence you will not find the names/information above on the current page.

Editors choosing to comment deserve to know this dispute has been addressed in a Mediation Cabal Case for the NWT, but as far as I can tell this mediation has stalled.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As one of the mediators of this case i agree that mediation has stalled. I would like to say that both users involved in this have very good points and i feel that this is something that needs to be taken outside of simple mediation and the 2 parties involved and requires a larger community consensus. It is from this that a decision can be reached apon if there is a clear consensus for one argument or the other. RfC has been discussed several times between me and Addhoc and we both agreed that it would be the best way forward. Seddon69 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As an academic I am compelled to express that it is patently silly to think Cfrito’s “points” objecting to the use of NWT translator names as used in numerous secondary sources has any merit whatsoever, and this is his primary complaint. It is incomprehensible to think this information is somehow unreliable or irrelevant when so many reputable secondary sources have presented it for what it is—information from high ranking insiders. You have expressed as much yourself! Hence one can only wonder what on earth you are talking about when you express that Cfrito has "very good points". You have made this remark repeatedly. Would you please explain what you are talking about with something more than a vague general remark? Generalities help no one! If you have something to say, please say it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability, see WP:V, hence why i believe that Cfrito does have a valid argument. Seddon69 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC) The same reason why i was willing to back you up for the inclusion of the details of the transcript is the same reason why i feel that Cfrito has a point of why he would need a reliable source, and even a primary source to confirm this. Seddon69 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas! Another general statement! Again you state Cfrito “does have a valid argument” but you fail to articulate what that argument is and how the policy you cite applies! Are you an administrator?

Tell me this: Other than Cfrito and maybe Vassilis78, who thinks the information in question (NWT translator names) is not verified as presented? You do understand the latter aspect of “as presented” don’t you? More importantly, what published source has even suggested that information on the names of NWT translators is unreliable? Can you name even one such source? I have repeatedly asked Cfrito for this, and all I get is reams of words void of a single source. I have to question your skill. Certainly I have no idea whatsoever why you take on the task of mediating! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not looking to state this as fact as you will see from the way i have worded it. The way that i have used the source at this moment is correct. Although the i would not use the sources for other information, they confirm what is stated by the 2 for JW's. If i stated that those members had been in the committee then that would be wrong and you would be right to question those sources, but im not stating that fact." (Seddon69 to Cfrito on proper use of source information as to NWT translator names) What you state with those words is proper according to Wikipedia policy as it relates to secondary sources and NWT translators' names, and it comes from your own mouth. Do you believe yourself? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother taking any note of your insult to me for the second time and simply take the bits of what you have said which are of value. I'm trying hard to remain as neutral in this as possible, that is what im supposed to be doing, i am not here to take sides or to state who is right and who is wrong. That was up to you and Cfrito to decide and now the idea behind this RfC.

Now ignoring what Cfrito has said if i wanted to state that i feel that this shouldn't be included in the article, I would quote "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." and i would go back to my suggestion to set up a seperate article for the translation committee so that this information should be included there and not here. Which i have suggested but was told that it didnt solve that problem.

That is my view, but that isn't affecting my position in this debate because as you can see from the NWT sandbox i have been trying to find ways that i feel would allow the inclusion of the information into the article as you have stated above. I believe that this information can be included. Unless the two of you are able to agree on something, and i have been suggesting things, there is no point in this mediation occurring. The two of you both continue to argue your own points and arnt trying to find a middle ground.

Stop having a go at me when im doing my best to include both of your views, which IS what mediation provided by MedCabal is supposed to be about, not deciding who is right and who is wrong. Seddon69 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I am not insulting you. I am challenging what you assert, and am trying to figure out what your general and vague statements are supposed to mean. It is not a good thing to be insulted by challenge, and you have yet to offer anything precise.

Neutrality is essential, yes. But neutrality does not mean a mediator should refrain from applying policy to arguments presented and commenting accordingly. By your own words you seem to understand this, but I have not seen much if any of this from you. In fact, I have not seen any mediation from you. You have requested information. You have talked a little here and there. But mediation requires getting your hands dirty in the task of, in this case, making arguments meet policy by asking precise questions of issues in relation to policy and then offering your third-party observaton accordingly. General statements do nothing more than add petrol to a fire. You should be articulating policy as it relates to source material so editors have a means of moving off whatever base they are on.

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe the information about NWT translators’ names is “tiny-minority views and fringe theories”? If so, please explain yourself.

I am not having a go at you. I did not ask for your mediation. I have been made subject to your mediation at the request of Cfrito. You have asked for documents and I have complied religiously. Yet you have ignored emails from me asking for input. You have also ignored online requests of you as mediator though you have promised to to respond. You have not remotely helped resolve anything whatsoever. Your mediation efforts stalled days ago, if not weeks! You have wasted a tremendous amount of my time! That is what you have accomplished. Given that I am made subject to you, and your stalled efforts at mediation, I suggest you get a grip on yourself or else stop wasting my time. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Specifically you write: “The two of you both continue to argue your own points and arnt trying to find a middle ground.”

Refutation is what moves an argument to new ground. Please refute me if you feel I should find new ground (middle or any other). I have shot holes in Cfrito’s complaints until near exhaustion, and I am not the mediator here. If you feel an argument needs to move off center than show what aspect of that argument is wrong or weak. Please! I am so tired of your generalities. Say something specific about something specific. Please! It is not "taking a side" to offer logical refutation, or to make and offer objective observations.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Marvin i want you to realise that i don't take any of this personally. I am new to this and i am willing to accept criticism of what i am doing, whether good or bad. I will take note of what you said but i want to ask you that no matter how annoyed you may get at my supposed incompetence or whatever else that you remain civil Now lets get back to this case. Agreed? Seddon69 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Good grief! If you have time to write stuff like this why don’t you have time to be specific about something that matters. I am not here to win popularity. I am here to contribute something toward improving the Wikipedia project for readers and researchers. My challenges are neither insults nor personal frustration. I am trying to put an end to wasting my time!

As for personal, I do not take any of this personal, either. So what? My time is being wasted at someone else’s behest, and you volunteered for what you are doing! No one asked me to spend time sending you documents and answering your questions; it was required under auspices of the mediation request.

Civility does not mean adults cannot express themselves as adults, and this is what I have done. My suggestion is that you get on with saying something specific about something specific. This is something you can do regardless of anyone agreeing or not. If you want to mediate please get on with it and stop wasting everyone’s time. You have sat on this thing for weeks! Get on with it or leave the matter for someone else, and stop holding the article hostage.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing mandatory about MedCabal from either the mediators or editors. If you remove yourself from this case the do so and i will close the case. If you want it to continue but want another mediator, post something on the Cabal talk page. If you want the page unprotected put a request in for it. There is nothing binding about any of this. Seddon69 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Nothing is binding on individuals about anything Wikipedia. Tomorrow is always another day. What is binding at Wikipedia is purely of and for Wikipedia. Time is the currency, and mine is being squandered left and right. When Cfrito brought his complaints to the mediation cabal it was fine, so long as mediation occurred. Frankly, I was initially encouraged at the prospect of a third-party mediator in the hopes that Wikipedia policies and guidelines could get a little airtime from someone other than me. The hope was a mediator could expedite by education and by sharing unbiased observations. For sake of time I responded promptly to any and all requests. Time is what bound me to this process.

Marvin, you've squandered your own time, completely by your own choice - even deriding the mediators who have tried to help. This RfC has turned into the lenghty circumlocutory that I believed it would, the exact reason why I avoided it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: As always, I value you sharing your opinion. There has been no mediation. It stalled as soon as mediators (for whatever reason) failed to put Wikipedia policies next to the problem and speak up about it. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The results so far:

Frederick Franz’s transcript

Vassalis78 complained to administrators that I had provided insufficient bibliographical data for Frederick Franz’s University of Cincinnati transcript. His response was to knowingly place false information into the article! (Something that as of this day only I seem to see a problem with, by the way!) Administrators began commenting on transcripts to a tune that using them would be original research. Yet when these responses were challenged every single administrator who voiced this view fell silent. Not one of them was able to offer a shred of testable information in support of their absurd notion. Finally, after much time spent routing out the details, additional and multiple administrators finally offered testable information showing that use of university transcripts is completely fine so long as they are available, and Frederick Franz’s is available. As a type, university transcripts are a primary source. At great expense of time I finally forced a conclusion on this matter to a testable end. Ironically, Cfrito has used Frederick Franz’s transcript in his own editing, but without taking care to authenticate the usage. He left that job to me, and so did Vassalis78. Again, my time was spent on someone else’s pet peeve. I am thankful for learned administrators who finally took their own time to help resolve the issue.

Use of NWT translators’ names

Use of NWT translators’ names is Cfrito’s burning issue. His argument so far boils down to not having ironclad proof. But at this point what precisely would (or could!) that be?

Let’s just assume for a moment that the names Knorr, Franz, Gangas, Schroeder and Henschel were in fact all the translators for the 1950s period and that Knorr, Franz, Gangas and Schroeder were in fact all the translators of the 1970s period. Guess what? 1) All these men are dead, which means none of them can stand up and make claims. 2) If one or all of them had left written statements to the effect that they were NWT translators, this would be no more than a primary source, and we already have primary sources in Ray Franz and William Cetnar’s published statements. So how exactly does one set of primary sources prove what another set of primary sources does not prove? 3) The publisher is the Watchtower organization. Were that organization to now issue a statement of who the translators were this would, again, be a primary source, and we already have two primary sources. Assuming Watchtower would offer different names for translators, then which primary source would (or could) we accept? A statement from the publisher would not provide an ironclad proof. It would only be another primary source of information. Cfrito has yet to offer a real and testable example of proof that would satisfy his desire for ironclad proof. What we do have is 1) published primary source materials. We also have 2) multiple secondary sources that have examined these primary sources and found them reliable enough to use and form conclusions from.

The world spins on published primary information that is in turn used by reliable secondary sources to form conclusions from. To reject this use of information is to attempt to stop the world of information from spinning. The effort is so ridiculous (not to mention futile) that as I hit my keyboard this moment it is a wonder why this needs explaining when there are so many productive things editors can spend their time doing while the unlearned go to educators to learn how to use information, which is how it should happen.

Where we are

One issue remains of whether it is appropriate to use the names of NWT translators as supplied by multiple primary sources and used by untold numbers of secondary sources as reliable and as a means of drawing various conclusions about the history, construction and scholarly bases of the NWT production. If it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to use primary information that is 1) unchallenged by other primary (or secondary!) sources and 2) used frequently by secondary sources, then it is time to say this so editors can move forward, and more importantly so the article can move forward. If it is not contrary to Wikipedia policy to use such information then it is time to say that. This is not a suggestion that any mediator should agree/support any editor. Rather, it is a suggestion that mediators should be willing and able to articulate Wikipedia policy in the face of an issue of policy. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary Sources stating names of NWT translators

At this link are several published secondary sources quoted in context and with full bibliographic data.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary Sources stating names of NWT translators

At this link are published primary sources quoted in context and with full bibliographic data.--Marvin Shilmer (talk)

About Primary and Secondary Source Authors/Editors

At this link is information about authors and editors of primary and secondary sources. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comment - It looks like this has been going back and forth for a while now. From what I read (and correct me if I mis-state anything) there does exist a set of verifiable sources indicating that the names formerly included in the article are in fact those who translated the NWT. The Wikipedia "Reliable sources" rule states that information that has secondary sources may be included in articles, and if there is another source that disputes this information, according to WP:NPOV both positions should be presented in the interest of neutrality and fairness. Now, if there are other sources saying that these names are NOT the translators, let these be included, but that is not grounds for removing or ommitting what we do have present with us. Wikipedia functions based upon the sources underlying its information, and getting into "what is proof" is more of a philosophical argument than a discussion about policies, which seem pretty clear to me. As long as there are sources saying so, these names should be included. Disputing sources should be added, if they exist, in order to give a more complete, rather than less informative, article. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zahakiel, sources must be used, but at the same time we must have in mind the proper space in the article for those sources. The proposed space by some as regards who were the translators and if they were qualified for the translation task is very big. Some have to remember that the lemma is not about the translators of the NWT, but it is about the NWT itself. So, a few brief statements are enough.--Vassilis78 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you there; I am not suggesting any detailed biographies be provided. But the issue here seems to be whether or not the names should be included at all. How much information attached to them is another matter. I am dealing with the matter presented in this RfC, to wit: "Editor Cfrito disputes the use of New World Translation (NWT) translators' names as supplied by former insiders of the publisher." If there are secondary sources available, it does not matter whether or not a Wikipedia user disagrees with them. Now, if the RfC did not request for comment on another relevant issue, or did not fully disclose the problem for which comments are needed, that can be ammended. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What I have proposed it on the main article to say:

"The Watchtower Society has not given to public the names and the credentials of the translators, and this has been criticized by some scholars. The Society answers that it acts according to the will of the translators, and that, in addition, the translation stands on its own merit." Here a footnote could be added: "Some critics have claimed that the anonymity is kept due to the lack of academic credentials. This is based on the proposed lists of the translators given by some ex-JWs, as R. Franz. According to those lists, none of translators had adequate formal training for a Bible translation."

So, I propose that this is the proper size of this topic. The facts must remain in the main body of the text, the speculations and the investigation of the translators must be at the footnote.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Your response skirts the issue of this RfC. As Zahakiel properly deduces, this RfC is to address whether the names provided by primary and secondary sources should be in this article or not.

Your contribution to this RfC has been in relation to proportioning/sizing. Proportioning information is a matter of weight as found in sources. Sources addressing the history, production and reception of the NWT weigh in on the question of whether such an article should included the available information on the names of NWT translators. Overwhelmingly these sources include the information about NWT translator names. If you want to address this RfC please do so on the subject it addresses. Additionally, if you want to discuss proportioning/size then please do so in view of what sources actually present in the way of information rather then just offering your own view of what that proportioning should look like.

No editor should push his or her personal view. Rather, each editor should promote having articles reflect what the body of published world knowledge offers on the subject. This article is not the narrow subject of the linguistic quality of the NWT as a work of translation. It is a broad subject of the NWT itself, which includes the history, production, reception and linguistic quality of the NWT. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the other articles about Bible versions (e.g., the NRSV, KJV, etc.) do contain significant information about the translation committees and individuals involved in the work. As such I believe it would be inappropriate to relegate this information to a footnote. It need not contain a lot of data about the individuals in question, as I mentioned above, but I believe that for consistency's sake if nothing else they should be mentioned in the main body of the text. If statements can be sourced (to avoid a violation of WP:OR) that indicate that the Watchtower society does not admit, or disputes, these individuals' work, or if there is some criticism of their qualifications and/or methods, that should be included also. ◄Zahakiel ► 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahakiel: I relegated the information to footnote status as a compromise between the historical place of the translator’s names in the NWT article compared to the recent editors who completely deleted the names from the article. Do I understand your view correctly that,

1) The sources offered for this information are reliable and accordingly the names the sources present as translators should be accordingly presented in the article’s main text?

2) And, that this information should be presented as unconfirmed and unchallenged by the Watchtower organization?

3) And, that the article should include resulting criticisms of qualifications of these individuals for Bible translation work? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way:

1) I would say that the sources you mention seem "reasonable," and certainly exceed the verifiability standard set by Wikipedia. As such, I do not see any policy of this encyclopedia that would necessitate, or even suggest, that the names provided in such sources should not be included in the main text of the NWT article. To include them would be only consistent with how other Bible translations are handled here.

2) I am sensitive to the fact that the NWT is subject to certain criticisms and controversies that don't attend the other translations, so we would perhaps need to exercise greater caution in our wording. It would, therefore, certainly be reasonable to mention that the Watchtower society has not confirmed the names; I am not sure if it is necessary or prudent to say "unchallenged," because any casual reader might wonder why that would even be an issue worth mentioning. Any criticism of the methods and credentials of the individuals on that list should probably go in a section dedicated specifically to that purpose and thus...

3) Only if reliable sources can be found, and in this case I am not sure Ex-JWs should be the primary voice for sourcing such an examination of their credentials. I don't think we need peer-reviewed articles on that subject, but certainly something with a neutral flavor would be best. ◄Zahakiel ► 02:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahakiel: Thanks for your response and comments. For the record, I do not disagree with a word you have said.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have intentionally steered clear of this RfC to allow others to discuss the matter freely, including Shilmer. But now it is time for me to add my reasoning.

The list of alleged translators is not being objected to on the basis that others have not repeatedly published it or used to draw certain conclusions. There seems to be only two primary sources, Cetnar and R Franz. The bulk of te secondary sources have used these two lists to conclude that the translators were without any real academic training and therefore their work should be doubted on that basis. Fine, it's all fine. My issue is with the relevance and the strong potential for misleading. So, why am I so adamant about this?

Their inclusion centers on their importance to address the criticism that the WTS made the statement that the translators themselves were competent scholars. For any list to be useful, it must be known that those listed actually did the translating work. So far, it has only been represented that these lists include some the members of the New World Translation Committee. But nowhere have I read, by any of these sources, that the only translators were official committee members. In fact, nowhere have I read that each and every Committee member did translating work. In the foreword to the NWT itself, the Committee refers to itself in the first person, whereas it refers to the translators in the third person. The Committee takes responsibility for producing the work, but assigns the credit of translating in the third person. So it is false to conclude that they are one and the same. To illustrate, the "Beautification Committee" in my neighborhood takes responsibility to produce fine looking common grounds areas, but owns no rakes, nor pushes any mowers. So to say that they are the gardeners is an equivocation fallacy. It is common for a committee to be formed for administrative purposes only, supervising -- but not personally accomplishing -- the core tasks. So saying that the NWTTC equals the translators is an equivocation fallacy. What proof? Penton, for example, says that the translating work was primarily the work of one man, Fred Franz. But we only know his background in Greek and Latin, not Hebrew or Aramaic. So who did that work? To say that no one did is silly, or to say that those who didn't know the languages at all is equally silly, for we have Goodspeed's assessments, Furuli's assessments, Metzger's assessments that this the NWT is a responsible work, at least. So can we say this list is complete? I don't think anyone, even Shilmer, argues that it is or even could be. So can these lists of names really address the issue of assessing the Watchtower's (inferred) statement about scholarship of the translators? Logically they cannot because they are incomplete and further require the equivocation that the Committee members are one and the same as the translators.

So what harm is there in 'just including' these lists? I argue that it will be wrongly understood, perpetuate an equivocation fallacy, and even fool unwary readers -- researchers and lay readers alike -- that these names can be used to judge the questions: Were the translators scholars in Biblical source languages? Has the WTS prevaricated or misrepresented? Since they logically cannot, it would be wrong from an academic point of view to represent -- implicitly or explicitly -- that they are a suitable basis for such a conclusion. Indeed, the WTS has only maintained, insofar as I have read, that the work itself is scholarly as a whole, and not represented any specific level of academic skill of any individual translator. Thus these questions cannot be fairly addressed without the possessing entire list of actual translators and their full academic and life's work accomplishments. And if I am correct about this, then Shilmer's entire premise, that these lists be used to allow others to test the veracity the WTS's assertions, is false on its face. But regardless, my opening argument stands on its own merit. These lists will only mislead, and indeed, that is the purpose for which Shilmer supports their inclusion. They should be barred to preserve intellectual honesty and integrity.

-- cfrito (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: You write, “My issue is with the relevance and the strong potential for misleading.” (Emphasis by Cfrito)

If these two issue are, as you say, what you are adamant about, then I have two questions.

1) Are you willing to let published secondary sources determine relevancy for the subject of the New World Translation?

2) As long as information is presented as sources present that information then why would you find this misleading or otherwise improper for a Wikipedia entry? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Over a month ago I said:

Having read and thought about the above, there is little value including the alleged names of the translators, apart from a) lending to bias and b) trivia. While it is unlikely that the list of names is wrong - because there is little reason in providing an incorrect list - it doesn't really provide helpful information. Obviously the translators were able to produce a translation, so some level of ability must have existed. To what degree they were trained (or even if they had no formal training) does nothing to establish veracity of the translation of any disputed passages, as even very highly trained translators could still allow theological bias to affect their work. Therefore, the translation should be critiqued on its own merits. It is appropriate to state the 'controversy' of the translators' anonymity, and of the WTS's failure/objection to provide credentials. There just isn't enough value in providing a list of names alleged by biased sources without stronger verifiability.

I will add to that that there is also no good reason not to include the raw list of names if properly sourced (without bias), but that such a list should not be used to attack the credentials of the committee (or to imply such). As Cfrito pointed out above, it is not necessarily an exhaustive list of everyone who did translation, making such an attack meaningless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I am not sure what your remarks are intended to recommend.

1) From a Wikipedia policy and guideline perspective, is it really up to editors to decide whether specific information has a value to the subject? Or, are editors bound to present what the world’s reliable and published knowledge base presents as having value to the subject?

A non-exhaustive list from a biased source does not represent "the world's reliable and published knowledge base".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

2) Are editors here supposed to let the weight of third-party secondary sources decide what and how information is presented? Or are we to pick and choose? If the latter, then how are editors to avoid undue weight if the weight is not determined by sources?

This has already been explained in that "Obviously the translators were able to produce a translation, so some level of ability must have existed." The full comment previously given suitably deals with this issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I do not believe you have answered my question. My question is of sources meeting Wikipedia’s policy for reliable published sources, particularly secondary sources. Hence my question restated asks:

1) Is it really up to editors to decide whether specific information has a value to the subject? Or, are editors bound to present what the Wikipedia compliant (reliable and published) sources present as having value to the subject?

I do not believe your second response answers my question, either. Sources have not used the information to question whether ‘a translation was produced’ or whether the translators had ‘some level of ability’. Additionally, my question asks something far more fundamental than these issues. Restated my question asks:

2) Should editors let Wikipedia compliant sources speak for themselves as these choose presentation of information, value of information, and assignment of weight to information? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying, exactly? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already told you the only response I am offering to those questions, which is covered in the significance of what I previously stated. I have neither the intention nor obligation to provide a further response on the matter, specifically because of the unnecessary circumlocutary that would result.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not seeing the validity of Cfrito's argument. What he is saying seems to break down to this:

The Watchtower society has not released the (full) list of the names of the translators.
Because they have not released the names, the names to which we DO have access should not be included because it might not be representative of the unknown set.
The inclusion of these names in the NWT article might be misleading, because the names that are present might be criticised due to a lack of scholarly merit.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here, but this looks like an attempt to use an argument from silence against verified data; i.e., "Because of what we do not know, we should not include what we do." This hardly seems to be the way a knowledge-base is built, and while I can understand that a little information is sometimes more dangerous than none, it is not the place of Wikipedia, or any of its editors, to defend an institution that is criticized because of what it does not say. If the Watchtower Society is concerned about what a Wikipedia article says about it's methods and workers, (and I doubt it's taken any such notice) it has the means of clearing up any resulting controversy on its own; and that is far, far beyond the scope of what any of us are here to do. If the data we HAVE can be presented neutrally, regardless of what it might be used for by others, it should be included per Wikipedia policy. It should be a simple enough matter to properly regulate how that information is used once it's there. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahakiel: First, the Watchtower organization does not have the means to clear anything up. They provided a guarantee of perpetual confidentiality to the translators even after their deaths. It is also not an attempt to silence information, these lists are well publicized and anyone who cares to can read them. How would you suggest these names be presented, and in what section? -- cfrito (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors: This points out an important issue. Since the WTS is ethically and contractually barred from speaking out in this regard, special care must be exercised in referencing the work of anti-writers and opposing sources. We shouldn't adopt the position that it was their fault for making the commitment, or that they can simply disregard their oath to satisfy hecklers or academics. Vassilis78's approach is balanced and well-phrased. And, for the record, the historical usage in the article clearly spelled out that he list was speculative. In late 2006 that language was deleted.

And to be clear, the only direct admission by anyone anywhere at any time that they were assigned to look into specific lexical usage, which research led to the discovery of a particular translated passage in the NWT, followed by the (assumed) chief editor's assignment to further research, and which research led to the specific NWT change according to the original recommendation -- closing the loop between research and change in a translated passage -- was that of Raymond Franz himself, by his own admission. And why does Shilmer object to using this information and presenting it exactly as R Franz writes it? Because R Franz does not come right out and say, "I was a NWT translator." If that's the standard, then let's apply it uniformly -- unless we have a direct admission by those people themselves, then don't list them by name. Otherwise, it would be fair and neutral to point this matter of R Franz's work to the reader. In fact, R Franz's passage demonstrates the editorial eagerness to adjust the NWT texts according to what is literally there and continually perfect the renderings. Here is what R Franz wrote:

When the subjects of "Older Man [Elder]" and "Overseer" were assigned to me, research into the Scriptures themselves soon made evident ...When I pointed out that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words "to office" in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, "Why don't you check it in some other translations...Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase."

-- cfrito (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Be that as it may regarding the contract, it is still not the place of editors to be concerned with what might be done with secondarily-sourced, verifiable information. We just don't have a policy issue here. As to where the names should go, I would recommend you simply read the articles on the other Bible versions; most if not all have prominent sections including the names and/or committees, some background information, etc. It is not a matter of faulting the Society for any contracts it may have undertaken, we're just dealing with the situation as it falls to us now. Motive is not the issue, the fact that we cannot use a lack of information to justify limiting known information is. We have data on at least some of the translators. I don't see any legitimate disputing of their identities; you yourself point out the lists "are well publicized and anyone who cares to can read them." Then, we should include them here for those who care to read them.

Further, saying, as you do, "We should wait for an admission by the individuals before including the names" is NOT the way verifiable sources work around here, for Franz or anyone else; primary sources are considered inferior to secondary ones. Anyone could say, "I was a translator of the NWT," but unless he/she can actually support that by other independent witnesses, it would be foolish to put that name in this article. It would be pointless even to say, "Person X claims to have been a translator of the NWT," because the next competent editor who comes along would remove it citing, "Lack of secondary sources." Secondary sources do not need to wait for primary ones for confirmation; it works the other way around.

By the inclusion standards of this encyclopedia, if an editor wishes to add these names, an opposing editor must bring a policy-based reason to bear for disbarring them. Now, the guidelines are somewhat more permissive when you are dealing with living persons. In this case, however, no such mitigating factor exists, because this isn't a biographical article; and the matter seems pretty clear-cut to me. You may be adamant about your position, but I do not see it holding up to the way I have observed articles being built, sourced, and expanded. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahakiel: With all due respect, you haven't said how you would list these men. Is Fred Franz an accomplished Hebrew and Greek expert, or not? And you haven't said whether you would list R Franz as a translator based on his own admission above. Do we list these men as translators? Some? Or only Fred Franz? Or just Ray Franz? The issue of whether to include them or not centers on how they should be presented, and if the presentation makes sense in the article or not. And what happens regarding other translations in this regard is irrelevant -- those translators made themselves known and not disputed. It is a material difference. On the other hand, if you are satisfied that these men are the translators (after you decide which is which, no one else seems to agree) then why not state that it is now moot that the WTS keeps these men anonymous because the secret is out. Philosophy class is over. We've all hashed out whether the primary sources are reliable (since they fall afoul of the reliable sources criteria, since both sources only published the source lists from memory in memoirs after they took up a position against one they formerly advocated. This is ground well covered and we've all made our points on this. Mediators agree that both Shilmer and I have valid points and it's not clear cut. You may side with Shilmer and frankly it's immaterial. Is Fred Franz an accomplished Hebrew and Greek expert, or not? And you haven't said whether you would list R Franz as a translator based on his own admission above. Do we list these men as translators? Or only Fred Franz? Or just Ray Franz? What do we say about the other translators who haven't been listed yet? Is the work ongoing? If so by whom? -- cfrito (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahakiel: Regarding Cfrito’s question (and assertion) of whether Ray Franz should be considered a translator of the NWT, Cfrito’s conclusion is based on this article. When you open it search for the phrase “When I pointed out” and it will take you to the opening sentence Cfrito is basing his claim upon. It will only take a few seconds to review Ray Franz’s remark, and whether it offers reason to assert Ray Franz as a translator of the NWT.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be said that they were translators, but it can't be said that they were the translators becuase there could have been any number of additional people. For the same reason, their level of education can be stated, but cannot validly be used to attack the scholarship of the work.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro: About the names of translators, you are correct that these should not be asserted in the article as “the translators” precisely because there could have been more. This is why in the sole instance where my NWT sandbox article presents this information it reads: “However, former high ranking Watchtower staffers have presented names.” This statement is referenced to sources that are quoted word for word for what they say.

As to how the information can or should be used, isn’t this really something for secondary sources to present on the merit of their own authorship?

By the way, it is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy to say “cannot be validly used”. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Not at all. Your objection is completely inapplicable. It is invalid to use the education of the persons whose names were provided as an argument against ability to translate because it is not an exhaustive list of names of the translators, and 1) the educational levels of those other people is unknown and 2) the translated work exists. It has absolutely nothing to do with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: What you are asserting is that your original research should determine editing rather than letting reliable secondary sources speak for whatever they have to say. You have not offered any sources verifying what you say about the names offered of NWT translators. What you have offered is a conclusion of your own from an inductive argument, also your own.

The reason your argument is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is because you are asserting your own determination of “validity” and then applying that to your own argument’s conclusion. I could form a similar argument that would end with “George Washington was not a true President” after I placed my own determination on what it means to be a “true” president. I am surprised that you would place your own research conclusion as a basis for presentation rather than the Wikipedia standard of presenting information as sources (particularly secondary sources) present the information. Are we editors, or are we authors?

If what you assert here is correct in relation to the information of NWT translators, then you should be able find a reliable secondary source (or sources) that presents what you say. Do you have sources? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your tedious reply relies on argument from silence regarding the absence of a complete published list of the translators, and attempts to relegate plain logic to 'original research'. I will not continue this pointless discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro: My reply makes no argument from silence. Rather, it argues that as editors our task is to determine edits based on what is published in reliable sources rather than controlling information based on our own personal conclusions. How is this an argument from silence? Are you leaving this discussion because I asked for sources?

Your argument "relies" on argument from silence because no complete list of translators' names has been published. As I have not added any 'original research' to the article, I am under no obligation whatsoever to provide any references, even if such did exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: I have not argued regarding a complete or incomplete list, or how either should affect usage here by editors. Hence I have not offered an argument from silence. You are the one who has argued on those bases; not me.

As I said before, I have argued for editors following set Wikipedia policy. That’s all.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your inductive (not deductive) argument focuses on a single use of the NWT names in relation to the NWT work itself. This narrow argument, if it is supported by sources, still does not dispute use of credentials of named translators for other aspects of the subject of the NWT.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors, Marvin's argument is supportive of the following analogy: "John Smith works for the Department of Cat Skinning. John Smith is indicated as a contributor to a policy on cat skinning, and other contributors are not named. Because John Smith has no formal education in the field, the accuracy of the cat skinning policy can be called into question regardless of the other contributors." Such would be ad hominem ("something John Smith contributed to can't be accurate") and argument from silence (qualifications of other contributors are not known).--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification. I am not disputing that the article should not say that critics have questioned the anonmyity of the translators because of their qualifications (or lack thereof), but that the article should not question the quality of the translation on the basis of training (or lack thereof) of those translators who have been named.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: This is not my argument at all. I have argued for following Wikipedia policy. Below you agree with editor Zahakiel when he asserts the use of information as it is presented by secondary sources. Neither of us is here to form conclusions from evidence and then control information accordingly. We are here to present what is already published by reliable sources, particularly secondary sources. Hence, if reliable sources use a list of persons and those person’s qualifications to assert a conclusion from these, then we have information as those sources present it. Our job is to present material on Wikipedia as sources present their information.

There must be some serious misunderstanding of what I have written for you to reply as you have. Perhaps I have not been clear. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

It is obvious, from Cfrito's somewhat combative reply to my statements, that there is more going on here than is reflected in the RfC. I am not about to get into the qualifications of Mr. Franz or anyone else. My position is this, and it hasn't changed from my insertion into the discussion: If we have secondary sources saying, "Mr. X was a translator of the NWT" and "Mrs. Y was a translator of the NWT," then the article should reflect this by saying, "The following were among the translators of the NWT:<provide reference number> <proceed to list the names X, Y, Z, etc.> We don't have to get into issues about "complete" list, or the individual qualifications of the translators; that's another matter entirely. I don't have any vested interest in pointing out their expertise or inadequacies, I'm just responding to the RfC within the scope of the request. This is not about "siding" with Shilmer or anything else - frankly I've had neither the time nor the desire to follow the parries-and-thrusts across its various pages - it's just about being consistent in treating this article about a Bible translation like any other. If we do that we will be working within the framework of Wikipedia's policides, if we don't we are not. ◄Zahakiel ► 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, too.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If Cfrito is in agreement then im happy enough to consider that a consensus. Personally i would like for it to be stated who said this so for example, "R Franz, a member of X. Has stated A, B and C were the translators of the NWT, based upon his observations at his time on/in X." Although I'm sure a better version of that suggestion should exist I feel this would allow even less room for ambiguity but if no one feels it is necessary then im very happy for that to happen. If more information is to be considered then an article should be started as suggested several times.Seddon69 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, according to Seddon69's stipulations/recommendations. Thank you to all. -- cfrito (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have no problem with citing and quoting primary sources as to who said what. But in this case we have at least two primary sources (Ray Franz and William Cetnar). Because the information varies, to quote primary sources we would have to cite and quote both of these, at least. There is an alternate approach. We can cite and quote a single secondary source that uses the same information. I do not champion either approach as necessarily better than the other. Again, either is fine with me.

Additionally, though Seddon69 and Zahakiel suggest this information be presented in the article’s main text (or at least that is my impression), I see no reason why including this information as language in the referenced footnote section would not suffice. But, again, if editors prefer this information find itself in the main text, I have no problem with that.

I have worked on this article in my sandbox NWT page. Editors can see what I have done with the information there to see what I am talking about as a minimal way of providing the information without giving it more attention that some editors would prefer. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

New languages to add

{{editprotected}} Please add Ewe and Kirundi to the languages that the Christian Greek Scriptures have been translated into. That would make the language total 71 as of 2008 as well.

We need reliable sources for that. See WP:V. Sandstein (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're a Witness or not, but every month there's a list that gets mailed to every congregation with publications and the languages that they're now available in. This list gets put on an information board. That's where these two languages came from. I wouldn't imagine it'd be in print for quite a while. They're not always mentioned in a Watchtower article and it'll be months before they're included in the list of languages in the Bible itself. So, do with that what you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.121.205 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

These lists are publicly available on the information boards around the world, thus available to the public and on public display, and can be ordered and delivered.Is anyone challenging this assertion that the NWT is available in Ewe and Kirundi? -- cfrito (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BeDuhn's book Truth in Translation

Today I finished reading Dr. Jason BeDuhn's book Truth in Translation. This is an excellent resource for editors working on the NWT article. I recommend it. Like all other written works, this one has a wart or two. But I find it candid, straightforward and easy to follow. It is also fairly well referenced. What I like the most is that it offers testable details, which is a hallmark of good non-fiction authorship. My remarks are not intended as a book review. This is only to recommend a source for editors interested in further development of the NWT article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Marvin's NWT article

Marvin has been working on his own version of an NWT article at his talk page, User talk:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Some of it would be an improvement to the current article, particularly the structure. I do not recommend that it replace the current article, but merging some of it in would be worthwhile. Because the two versions have become quite divergent, it would be a fairly manual process.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So long as this article page remains protected, I again extend any and all editors to work contructively on my sandbox NWT article. There is no reason to cease working on this material because of dispute.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All, please bear in mind that if work is done on Marvin's copy of the article, that any agreed changes that have been made to the current (protected) version since the article was copied should also be merged into Marvin's version. Otherwise, the article is going to become even more divergent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Even me? -- cfrito (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: Yes. As I have said to you twice before. The invitation is extended to you too. Feel free to voice approvals or objections, to grant sainthood or demonize. My only request is that editors who work on the article offer constructive participation. If you want to use the talk page associated with my sandbox NWT article please use the holding bin I provided for you rather than slicing and dicing other sections that are organized. Feel free to place sub-titles in the section marked for your contributions. You can organize that section any way you want, so long as it is in good taste. Have a beer and take a look.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors: This is all very welcoming except that Shilmer has taken up the habit of mauling my comments, reformatting them, moving them away from the discussion so they have no context, deleting punctuation, etc. because it's his page. Which is exactly what I predicted he'd do on the Mediation talk page. Pretty hysterical. We'll see... -- cfrito (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: As I said, so long as you place your remarks on my talk page in the designated bin, I have neither need nor intention of moving, reformatting, or "mauling". I will leave your comments just as you want to make them. Feel free to offer comments on my my sandbox NWT article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of Metzger Comments?

Vassilis78: This response continues objections you asserted on Seddon69’s talk page.

In addition to accusing me of manipulating sourced information presented on Metzger, now you are accusing the source (author Rhodes) of misusing statements made by Metzger. Yet, as of now, you have not actually said how anyone has misused Metzger’s remarks. I have asked you already for this, and do not understand why I must ask again, but I will in other words:

If you feel the information I have presented by author Rhodes is a misuse then please tell me how so I can review it for potential correction. Saying "The manipulation is quite evident" only tells me something is quite evident to you. If I understood your perspective I would not have to ask for it!

I have neither a need nor a motivation to manipulate information from any source. Now, Rhodes quotes Metzger four (4) times in his sentence in question (used in the opening paragraph of the Critical Review Section). What about Rhodes’ quotation is a misuse of Metzger? Please be precise so I can understand whatever is your objection. I do not see how I (or Rhodes) have misused Metzger’s remarks, and neither have you expressed a misuse. Please explain.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If im going to continue mediating whether in the capacity of MedCabal or simply to try and give whatever help if another mediator takes over i would suggest that:

Marvin, could you link to this other reading you speak about. I have no doubt that this is true but i could be see as OR if not back up by another source.

Seddon69: I do not understand your request. I have not referred to anything other than material already quoted in the main text of the article that Vassilis78 has complained about. In context, the sentence Vassilis78 complains of is here. It reads:

The New World Translation has received commendation and severe criticism. “Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation 'a shocking mistranslation.' Dr. Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls it 'a frightful mistranslation,' 'erroneous,' 'pernicious,' and 'reprehensible.' Dr, William Barclay concluded that 'the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in the New Testament translation….It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.'" (Ref: Rhodes R, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Zondervan, 2001, p. 94)

Vassilis78 asserts this is somehow a manipulation and misuse of information attributed to Bruce Metzger. I have asked him twice to explain why he thinks this and how it is a misuse, but he has not explained himself. There is no other reading I have spoken of, or else I do not understand your request.

I do not see any need for mediation on this point. I only see a need for Vassilis78 to explain why he feels as he does so other editors (myself included) have an opportunity to understand his objection, and then take things from there. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Many apologies, i misread what has been said. I'm confused as to how John 1:1 has anything to do with what you have said. I will wait for a response from Vassilis78 before trying to make sense of the argument again. Seddon69 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC) The other reading i referred to was what was contained here but untill i can actually make heads or tails of this ignore what i said. Seddon69 (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: Ah! Maybe I can help you now that I know what you are looking for. (And of course Vassilis78 should be heard)

Author Rhodes quotes Metzger (a recognized scholar on biblical languages and translation) four (4) times and asserts Metzger’s remarks suggest something about the NWT. As it turns out, one of the four (4) quotations from Metzger (“a frightful mistranslation”) is said by Metzger specifically of John 1:1 rather than the NWT as a whole.

My guess is that editor Vassilis78 perceives this as somewhat of a converse accident, which if true would be a misuse of Metzger’s words. If this is the basis for Vassilis78’s objection then his perspective has at least two problems. 1) What Rhodes asserts of Metzger is not based a single remark by Metzger but rather on four (4) statements by Metzger. And, 2) it is also possible that Rhodes was presenting a conclusion he reached by reading Metzger’s overall remarks on the subject of the NWT and supplied the four (4) quotations from Metzger merely as examples of Metzger’s criticism. We will have to wait and see what basis (or bases) Vassilis78 responds with. But, if his complaint is based on a converse accident then his objections will have to rule out at least the two problems mentioned above in order to have any merit.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: The source I alluded to is the article by Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon titled The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Ankerberg and Weldon quote Metzger’s “a frightful mistranslation” in what appears to be the context of Metzger’s original paragraph. Their more extensive quotation shows this particular remark by Metzger was said specifically of John 1:1. As the source for their Metzger quotation, Ankerberg and Weldon cite Word Studies in the Greek New Testament Vol. 2. by Metzger B and Wuest K. I do not have the latter reference in my personal library, and have not sought it. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78, if you have a problem with the way he or any other editor states something, can you say what evidence you wish to see or say exactly whats wrong with the way it is being used. It will allow me to spend more time trying to dissolve the dispute rather than trying to work out exactly whats wrong.

Seddon69 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69: I don't have the time to write dissertations for the nonsense quarrels in the religious articles of Wikipedia. The discussion I made in your page was clear and self-evident:

Marvin, can I ask you something? You state on your NWT article editon:

Dr. Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls [NWT] “a frightful mistranslation,” “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.”

Does Metzger refer to the entire translation or specificaly to the rendering of John 1:1?

--Vassilis78 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: Metzger’s remarks you inquire of are quoted from page 94 of Ron Rhodes’ book The Challenge of the Cults and the New Religions (2001, Zondervan). In the context of Dr. Rhodes’ paragraph he says of the quotations offered from Mantey and Metzger that they are in respect to “the New World Translation”. This is Rhodes’ stated conclusion. I know from other reading that Metzger’s comment “a frightful mistranslation” is in response to John 1:1. Of the remaining three Metzger quotations cited by Rhodes, I do not know which specific renderings Metzger applies his terms to, if any in particular. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[...]

In the case of the Metzger quotations, I have no idea how (or why) you think I have somehow manipulated a source. Frankly, I have not even quoted Metzger in this instance. Rather, I quoted Rhodes who quoted Metzger. I presented Rhodes' use of this material just as he presented it, as censure coming from recognized biblical scholars. If you please, offer something specific as to how you think I have manipulated this information. Have you actually read the referenced source that you are criticizing me as manipulating? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The manipulation is quite evident. Even though you know, or at least you speculate, that Rhodes has misused Metzer's statement, you don't hasitate to use his quotation in order to promote your ideas.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69 and for sake of Vassilie78: If this is all Vassilis78 is willing to say, then he has not offered an issue for consideration; he has only complained. When and if he wants to inform everyone else why he holds the complaint he does so editors can examine this for veracity, then we have something to consider. Until then, why waste time trying to read his mind? If he has something to say, let him say it. If he chooses not to explain his view then let him remain silent. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Status of MedCabal case

As the mediator of the case I would like to know peoples positions on the following:

Whether this case should remain open given the recent discussion on my talk page (I have not got involved in this new discussion as there as been no specific details on the disagreement).

If your not happy about this case staying open, what are your reasons.

I need a response from all parties to ensure all views are taken into account on the status of this case. Seddon69 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seddon69:

1) I see no reason for the original case to remain open. The issues raised have been resolved.

2) Complaints raised recently by Vassilis78 on your talk page have yet to find any substantive basis to determine merit. I can assure you of one thing, though. I have no intention of misusing or manipulating any source material, and this appears to be Vassilis78’s assertion of a particular quotation from author Ron Rhodes. When and if Vassilis78 responds with testable information affirming veracity of his perspective then I will be the first editor to remove the information from the article. I have neither need nor motivation to manipulate information. If, on the other hand, Vassilis78 fails to substantiate his assertion, then I see no reason to edit the presentation as though it is somehow defective or otherwise poor. At the moment, information Vassilis78 objects to is a direct quotation from author Ron Rhodes. Hence there is no way I have manipulated anything. But if, as Vassilis78 alleges, author Ron Rhodes has misused Metzger’s words then we should question the use of Rhodes’ statement. I am still waiting for Vassilis78 and offer his reasons for the latter. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1/3 of the article is about criticism!!!, and neutrality dispute tag

Editor Vassilis78 believes 1/3 of the NWT article is about criticism, and has tagged the article disputing its neutrality. Do other editors share this view?

I believe Vassilis78 is confusing criticism with critical review. The current Critical Review section contains both criticism and commendation.

It seemed to me it was inappropriate for the article to express criticisms of the NWT without expressing counter commendations in published secondary sources addressing the same point. Hence I added all but a fraction of the commendation that is in the current presentation. This substantially increased the proportion of the section, but it was done to offer balance without assigning undue weight.

Based solely on Vassilis78’s undetailed opinion, I have pared down the Critical Review section. Vassilis78 has tagged the article as lacking neutrality. It would be appreciated if he would engage edits on the talk page about this. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: I have removed your NPOV tag from the NWT article. If you feel the neutrality of this article is in dispute please feel free to reapply the tag, but please follow Wiki NPOV guidelines to “then explain your reasons” for dispute on this talk page so editors have opportunity to address whatever it is you dispute regarding presentation. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is in dispute. The tag should remain. -- cfrito (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article is very biased. The domination by a single editor in terms of content, phrasing, and construction is inarguable evidence of strong bias on its own. One of my general gripes is the length of the References section, and the amount of editorial content therein. Now, granted, there have been improvements -- such as breaking the criticisms into linguistic and theological subtopics, which I myself proposed initially (hence the improvement ;-) -- the article still reads like some Baghdad Daily. I am going to enlist three colleagues of mine to read the article as-is (one is Catholic, another is some protestant denomination, and the other is a "Christmas-and-Easter Christian") and review their general impressions. Is the article informative? Is it logically constructed? What is the article's focus? Would they now trust the NWT or not, and why so? Two care about religious matters, and one couldn't care less. They range in background (CompSci, professional manager, MBA, two males and one female, one graduate level, one undergraduate, and one tech schooler). None have or have read the NWT itself, and they are ambivalent about JW's in general. This may be pseudo-science, but my hope is that this will help give me some perspective away from Ground Zero. -- cfrito (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The size of criticism, or critical review, is very big comparing to the whole article. On the contrary, description of the NWT as a translation project is very poor. The truth is that my time is very limited. In the future I will try to enrich the section of the characteristics of NWT, as I have already done in the Greek article, which I reformed, and then I will check the reliability of the criticism section, because I have some suspicions. Of course the case with Metgzer is a self-evident misuse.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vassilis78: On what bases should editors undertake a review of proper proportion of any section in the article? What “size” do you think the various sections should be relative to one another?

If you have ideas of improving the description of the NWT as a translation project then why not starting editing it to see how other editors respond and/or help develop?

Any review for source presentations should be welcomed by all editors. Specifically you again mention Metzger. You say, this “is a self-evident misuse”. Please keep in mind that what is (or is not) self-evident to you may not be to other editors. Furthermore, your perception may or may not have merit. It would be appreciated were you to explain precisely how you feel Metzger has been misused. In a response above to Seddon69 I guessed at the basis of this complaint from you, along with expressing problems with that basis should my guess be correct. Please review this and please do editors the favor of explaining your perspective for review. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito: I have no problem with tagging the article as so long as whoever tags it engages whatever issues they see on the talk page so editors have opportunity to resolve things. But this is not what Vassalis78 did. Vassilis78 just applied a tag without providing a constructive means to alleviate whatever was/is his concern.

The current article you characterize as dominated by a single editor. Who would that be? I have added secondary source information both pro and con. But I am not the editor who inserted that list of names you so despise. That was done years ago. On the other hand, I have relegated it to the footnotes, and I have removed one name that never had any decent verification from reputable sources.

You object to what you call “editorial content” in the reference section. Can you point to a couple of examples of what you speak of? I wonder if you are confusing quoted material (conclusions found in secondary sources) with editors here editorializing on the contents of secondary material. An example of what you speak of would help to understand this objection from you for review.

Based on your comments, and assuming you will engage this discussion, I have reapplied the tag while we work together on this. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito and Vassilis78: I have removed the dispute tag because neither of you has offered anything in the way of dispute for discussion. If you dispute something in the article then please share the details of your dispute so there is a constructive basis for analysis and resolution. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)