Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

Could please discuss the points in each task in the order they appear. Seddon69 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The things i have been looking at regarding this is whether:

The source existed.
Whether it counted as a source.
Whether its content should be used in the article.
Whether its current use in the article was correct.

Whilst thinking about this in college (when i prob should have been doing work) i came up with several answers to these questions.

Firstly i would like to confirm that this source does exist. It was sent to me by Martin Shilmer and it has also been found online with a watchtower watermark.

With regards to whether it can be counted as a source, it is an official document and certainly meets the requirements of wikipedia. Third party sources would be useful to back this up but until the article as a whole is improved this does not need to be issue right now

I have no problems with the use of the information it contains being used in this article. The source is available online, although with a watermark it certainly proves its existence. Though i would not be happy as linking this as a source and merely stating where the article was from with a brief description of its contents. The second reason is that the document concerned is being released to the public even if it means that it needs to be payed for. Articles with similar sources have passed through FAC with no questions. The information it contains is clear and i see no reason for it not being included.

This fourth point was where i felt issues needed to be dealt with.

Firstly the title of the sources needs to be changed.

"University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz. 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."

This needs to give better details of what this source is and what it contains. Not as its currently being used as which is to prove a point.

The sentence that proceeds it: "Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati where his formal training concentrated on Latin and classical Greek." i feel is not truely correct. I would prefer that it contained a more accurate description and being more NPOV ie. avoiding the word concentrated. Rather i would like to see something along the lines of "Frederick Franz attended the University of Cincinnati one a degree course but left in his third year. During his time on the course he recieved x hours of _____ y hours of ______ and z hours of _______"

How do you feel about this overview? Seddon69 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1: Marvin’s Response

Seddon69: As a stickler for accuracy in editing, the document I sent you does not have a “watchtower” watermark. It has a “watchthetower” watermark. I do not want other editors to have a false impression of this document.

Second, though I know the document is authentic, I am compelled to point out that having a document that is purported as Franz’s U of C transcript is not evidence the document in question is official. Digital images are extremely easy to concoct. If I want, I could make the document I sent you say whatever I wanted it to say, and look like, and you would not know the difference if you looked no further. As I expressed earlier and frequently to Vassilis78, the only way to know you have an authentic copy of a university transcript is to have that institution issue one to you. Alternately, you could probably accept the document as authentic if it appears in a written work vetted by a reputable institution. This is why the reference details are important. These details are what allow other editors to authenticate the document (just as I did) if they feel it needs challenge. The online version is useful to have a picture to look at, and undoubtedly most readers will probably accept it as valid. But such an assignment of authenticity is less than fragile solely on that basis. Again, though, because reference information makes the document testable it is, then, just fine for an encyclopedic entry as a third-party source.

You suggest the “title” of the source needs to be changed, but you failed to suggest a title for the document. If you do not accept “University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz” then what do you suggest? Perhaps we could state it as “University of Cincinnati transcript of Frederick W. Franz, 1911-1913”.

As for the rest of your suggested language, I have no problem with the detail you suggest. One problem is, though, that some of the details on that transcript are a bit hard to make out, even on the document I sent you which is better than the two hardcopy versions I have in my archive. The Latin and Greek credits can be made out, as well as the cataloged item “GK New Testament”. What about the indiscernible items? I asked about these at the time, but did not keep track of the information because it seems relatively useless (typical 100 stuff). I am not making another request on this document through my library, and I am certainly not making another trip to U of C just for this. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1: Cfrito's Response

Seddon69: I am in agreement with your suggestion. Stick to the facts, no editorializing, neutral language to make the information palatable without distorting or impugning or glorifying. There is published account by Fred Franz in which he states the reasons why he left University, that he did in fact study Biblical Greek, that he studied Latin for years before attending University, and that he declined a Rhodes scholarship. Perhaps this can be used to confirm what the transcript says and add detail where the copies are less than perfectly legible or are vague in description. See Watchtower, May 1, 1987 p.22-30. This autobiographical account adds relevant details and includes professors' names and so on, and it may provide the depth and color necessary to balance the negative comments of those groping for an answer to "who" worked on the NWT. Since F Franz has already acknowledged to working on the NWT as its editor, there would be no objection to providing balanced coverage of the man Frederick William Franz. -- cfrito (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: Please see my final remarks at the end of the Assumptions Elevated to Material Fact section time-stamped 05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC). -- cfrito (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: Franz did not decline a Rhodes scholarship because he was never offer a Rhodes scholarship. What Franz declined was an invitation to take the competitive examine for a Rhodes Scholarship. Even if Franz had accepted this invitation, taking the competitive examine is one thing and gaining the scholarship is something entirely different. But Franz never took the competitive examine. You should read more closely the very source you cite!

Franz testifies that he took “Bible Greek,” a very odd usage by the way. Franz’s academic record states he took a course cataloged as “[Greek] New Testament”. The two are not necessarily the same thing. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1:Vasileios78's Response

As it was repeatedly noted in the administrators’ board, the use of the transcript in the article has to do with great problems of original research. My knowledge of Biblical Greek allows me to add much original research in the article, giving evidence of the NWT accuracy, but I suppose that this would not be accepted by the editors. So why should I accept the original research of others? In the administrators' discussion board it has been said that the orthodox way is to use published opinions, especially from scholars, as regards every point. So, if you use original research, I will do the same.

The second problem is that the whole matter about F. Franz's participation in the translation project is based on a scenario. And as a scenario, it must not be given too much attention. The fact is that Watchtower Society has not given in public the names of the translators and it has been criticized for this. Hence, the problems we have are:

F. Franz participation as a translator in the NWT is a scenario.
 But F. Franz did not have academic credentials for being a Biblical translator.
  Here it is the transcript of his studies in the university.

The above line of though does not seem to me very fitting to a Wikipedia article.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis78: “Great problems of original research”? That remark from you is a bit selective, isn’t it? One user (administrator?) wrote, “proving someone's receipt of a degree by a link to a published version of the transcript is acceptable.” Hence using someone’s college transcript to express course work and earned credits is acceptable because it is definite information just like earning a degree would be definite information. This is not original research. It is stating what comes from a verifiable record available to anyone who asks for it. Otherwise administrators left more questions with their responses than they did answers, and when tested for substantiation, users declined.

Franz’s “participation” in the NWT project is a matter of historical record. Franz testified under oath that he was the Editor and, specifically, that he was charged by the Watchtower organization to check the accuracy and correctness of the translation prior to publication.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the correct scenario based on soures already cited:

F. Franz is alleged to have participated as a NWT translator, but he definitely was Editor of the NWT.
 But F. Franz "was not professionally trained in biblical studies" according to Ron Rhodes.
  F. Franz's college transcript shows course work in Latin and Classical Greek, and a 2 hour course called "[Greek] New Testament".

--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the above structure presented by Marvin. It does not make assumptions and everything stated is completely factual so long as each sentence can be sourced. 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC) As an extra point i would like to see the source "Walsh vs Honorable James Latham, Court of Session Scotland, 1954, cross examination of Frederick Franz" pp. 87 and 88 if possible. Seddon69 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: I have emailed the documents you ask for.

When we speak of someone's academic credentials it is important not to stir false impression. If we present the information above, do you think oblivious readers will gain an impression that Frederick Franz attained some sort of degree in humanities, but that he did not specifically get training in "biblical studies"? Or, do you think readers will understand that at no point in Franz's life story or in the U of C's transcript is there a claim or indication that he earned a university degree? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: Can you please tell me what is the value of the things discussed here and here?

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

Proving there never was one from a particular university is a little trickier--there might have been one subsequently. This is a job for the investigative journalist or biographer, not Wikipedia. (And I note that even the best journalists and biographers have sometimes failed or disagreed in interpreting primary documents.) Even more clearly, concluding the quality of someone's education from his transcript, is an matter of interpretation. How much biblical Greek one learns in a certain course is not something to be assumed by bare statement here--this is exactly the sort or OR interpretation which is not permitted--an excellent illustration of why we need such a policy. But there is a more general rule: unpublished archives may not be cited on wikipedia, since they are not generally accessible. If the transcript were to be published in a RS, perhaps you could cite it but still not interpret it. Of the material mentioned above, you could probably best use Ron Rhode's opinion--quoting such a secondary source in adequate fullness & context is the way to do it. You asked on my talk page for my further opinion--now you have it. DGG (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is a continuation of the debate that started above, at #A_question_about_bibliographical_data. Wikipedia expects that only published sources will be used to substantiate articles. This is clear from a reading of WP:PSTS, which explains primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Even the sources called 'primary' in that policy are *published* primary sources. A school transcript can't be viewed as a publication. You mention above that you sought out the transcript instead of the 'obscure journal article' that might have made the same point. The obscure article would indeed be citable as a published source (subject only to concerns about undue weight), and as a secondary source, it avoids the difficulties that can arise in interpreting primary sources. EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the policy says published. No matter how you twist and turn, you cannot convince me that a transcript of which you have ordered a copy has been published. And stop trying to shop around until you find someone to agree with you. That behavior is not helping your case. -- Donald Albury 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read those comments and i have considered the points raised in it, however this source is in the public domain on the internet as you have shown to me. Seddon69 (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) This can be considered a primary source, as it is an administrative document. If its data cannot be contained the it should be either put in as a source to show he did not complete his degree or at the end of the article as an external link. Seddon69 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: Regarding potential usefulness of Franz’s transcript as a secondary source for verification purposes, the recurring objection asserted is, essentially, stated as “It is not published”. This is asserted as though Wikipedia policy though no one has yet to demonstrate this opinion is actually Wikipedia policy. In essence, responders have argued “The transcript is unpublished because we say it is unpublished”. When this is challenged everyone goes silent.

Accordingly, I have researched the essential question “What is “published”?” for sake of wikipedians. The results of this research is presented here. I believe previous responders to this issue have made hasty assertions of opinion at the expense of what we can actually demonstrate based on current Wikipedia policy, and this assertion of opinion also flies in the face of what can be demonstrated from Wikipedia discussion and examples resulting from that discussion. Though I think it inappropriate and upside-down, by asserting their views as conclusive, administrators in essence placed a burden on me to disprove their opinion rather than them proving their opinion. (A classic shifting of the burden of proof!) I believe the opinions of record are, at this point, successfully refuted as wrong from a Wikipedia perspective.

Though I appreciate and do not disagree that the Franz transcript is “published” in terms of its online accessibility, I believe it is also demonstrable that it is “published” as it sits on the books at U of C. The latter statement is based on what you will find on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard under the heading What is published?. I invite comment from all.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have many primary sources from grammar books and lexicons to support the accuracy of the NWT. But I am supposed to give only published opinions. If someone wanthttp://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13_New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures&action=edit Editing Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias to become a biographer and present his findings, I can also become a Biblical scholar and present my findings. I think it is fair enough.--Vassilis78 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis78: So long as your sources actually articulate the conclusion you would assert as information in the article, and provided the conclusion/information is relevant to the article, I see no reason why your sources would or should be objected to. However, if you form a conclusion from these sources that the sources themselves do not assert, then you have offered original research. Editors are here to present verifiable conclusions of record. Editors are not here to present conclusions they form based on sources. In other words, we are here to present information (in this case the conclusions of others) rather than our own opinions/conclusions. Wikipedia readers and researchers are not interested in what you or I think. These want to know what information is found in the body of world knowledge.

I invite you to share the information and sources you speak of on the talk page for editors to see specifically what sort of information you are talking about, and how you suggest using it.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task 2: A complete overhaul of the article

I would like to suggest that this article is to be rewritten. This article through out has various criticisms and controversies. One set of editors trying to edit in response to a controversial statement. I would also like the suggest that anything dealing with controversies is limited to the controversy section. This will result in the whole article being removed of arguments and being limited to where it belongs which is in the criticism section. Additional articles dealing with Fred Franz and/or the editors and translators who worked on the translation. Also i would like to the article follow a similar line to other bible translations. It seems to me that this article is being used a war ground. This article needs to concentrate on the specifics of the NWT rather than the controversy that surrounds it. This is not exactly what i request but i want to see if you would agree with something along these lines. Seddon69 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: Historical controversy is not controversial information. Controversial information is information that is questionable/unverified. Historical controversy is part of the fabric of a subject. In some cases, without the historical record of controversy a subject would not exist! Can you imagine an article on Martin Luther King that attempted to remove historical controversy from the article? Can you imagine an article on the English Civil War that attempted to remove historical controversy from the article?

In the case of the NWT, the historical record of controversial acts/events is part of the subject. To remove these is to slice away part of the actual subject.

I have every reason to agree that controversial information about the NWT should be treated differently that historical controversy of the NWT. If you are intending that historical information be removed then the article will unavoidably encounter a fire storm of learned resistance. If an encyclopedic entry is not there to present the body of world knowledge on that particular subject, then it is nothing more than advertising propaganda.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so much i wish to get rid of the controversy thats involved what i want to do is to simply make the article more ordered, move things around, make sections not so much linear or dynamic but simply structured better. Seddon69 (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: I have no objection to improving the order and structure. Such improvement should be welcomes in any article. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: I agree with you about the reformation of the article. It is many times I expressed this opinion in the the talk page. The top priority is the presentation of the project as a whole with its linguistic and stylistic characteristics. I believe I can contribute to the reformation of the acticle.--Vassilis78 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis78: An article with the top priority of presenting the linguistic and stylistic characteristics of the NWT would be titled “New World Translation’s Linguistic and Stylistic Characteristics”. The name of our article is “New World Translation”. If the New World Translation is to be addressed under this general title then it is asserting an editorial POV to say “The top priority is the presentation of the project as a whole with its linguistic and stylistic characteristics.” I do not know if you will understand this or not, but I am sure objective editors will. -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: I too have asked for a restructuring so that readers can make sense of the information contained. The whole point/counterpoint style of the article gives it that "war zone" feel. The controversies about the NWT aren't that many or that deep, really. They have mostly to do with theological ramifications of certain renderings, the prose, that the translators are beyond reach of personal inspection because of their anonymity. Scholars have investigated the translation work itself and their results can be presented. The history of the NWT can be given using the 5 W's. Controversies can be explained without pandering with dubious data. We should eliminate selection bias and giving undue weight by trying to separate theological criticisms from linguistic ones. As to the issue "editorial POV" we need pay attention to the reasons why the NWT is notable. It is notable because it is a fresh translation that has presented difficult challenges to the theological status quo, because it is perhaps one of the most actively studied translations, is broadly circulated in many languages, that its translators and editors are not known, and that its detractors and critics are often highly charged and extremely harsh. In looking at the other Bible translation articles, none is as filled with anti-references as this one. The KJV is widely considered a poor translative work, which is brought out even-handedly. The NWT article, as it stands, is unique in its fixation with what anti-sources have to say, rather than on the work itself. This should be changed. The controversies surrounding JW theology should be specifically avoided in this Article, since there are already Articles that deal with those directly. -- cfrito (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Task: 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.

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) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the translators have taken reasonable steps to be anonymous, then it certainly isn't our role to identify them. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: The reason names of these translators is known is precisely because these men did not take reasonable steps to ensure anonymity. Edited to add: The role of an encyclopedic article is to express information of what is known. The inclusion threshold for information is verifiability. If primary and secondary sources have already made known the identities of the NWT translators then this information is already revealed. Furthermore, the information from primary and secondary sources is not (and should not be) presented as material fact. Rather, it is (and should be) presented as what those sources say. If the sources actually say what an edit asserts of them, then the edit is verified as presented. The edit has not revealed anything. The edit has only expressed information of something that is known. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: Clearly R Franz abused his access as a GB member to disclose this information after he left the JW organization and began opposing it actively. And there is no way to verify its accuracy. It has been my argument all along -- the list of names useless as a means of evaluating the NWT and we would simply becoma a party to perpetuating rumor and innuendo. -- cfrito (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is covered by the principle behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy.--Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: This response of yours gives undue weight to one primary source because it assumes it is actually representing the views of a real entity it terms The New World Bible Translation Committee. Your response also assumes these translators took reasonable measures to ensure their anonymity without proving this is the case. This assumption is given undue weight to one primary source compared to another primary (and secondary!) source when the other source(s) asserts the identity of these translators was common knowledge to many people. Edited to add: You may or may not be aware that the individuals alleged as NWT translators (Franz, Knorr, Gangas, Schroeder and Henschel) by primary and secondary sources are all deceased. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: There are other considerations such as exceptional sources and so on. R Franz has no documentation nor does Cetnar. Both lists (they do differ) are no more than published recollections in memoirs advocating against a position that both these men once defended, etc. There is also sufficient doubt regrading these names: it could easily be a strawman list synthesized expressly to bait the publisher into breaking its oath to keep the true translators and editors anonymous even after their deaths. Since we know that the identities are the relevant information to the Article, and these cannot be verified, it doesn't matter if we know who synthesized the list. And this is just the tip of the iceberg: for example, the sources are dubious, the lists differ but are both represented as true and complete, and so on. As to reasonable care to protect the information, the "list" has only been leaked by super-privileged-access insiders and only after they each began anti-JW campaigns. For example, R Franz kept silent when Cetnar's list was published by Gruss in 1974: Indeed, the Watchtower organization strengthened its commitment to remain silent along with why in that same year -- And R Franz was a GB member at that time. In the case of R Franz, if the entities were indeed true arm's-length entities, then R Franz would have no right to access confidential documents, but he could easily abused his authority as a Governing Body member to gain illicit access. If he was permitted access because he was a GB member, it would have been because he was indeed bound by the agreement/stipulation of the GB made to the translators which was reaffirmed in print in 1974 in the middle of his GB tenure. Either way, it would take extraordinarily privileged access to gain access to the information -- so it actually demonstrates better than reasonable care. -- cfrito (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the translators have taken reasonable steps to be anonymous, then it still isn't our role to identify them. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: The reason names of these translators is known is precisely because these men did not take reasonable steps to ensure anonymity. Please review and comment. Edited to add: The role of an encyclopedic article is to express information of what is known. The inclusion threshold for information is verifiability. If primary and secondary sources have already made known the identities of the NWT translators then this information is already revealed. Furthermore, the information from primary and secondary sources is not (and should not be) presented as material fact. Rather, it is (and should be) presented as what those sources say. If the sources actually say what an edit asserts of them, then the edit is verified as presented. The edit has not revealed anything. The edit has only expressed information of something that is known. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is still covered by the principle behind Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy.--Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: The Wikipedia policy you cite is explicit that biographies should document what reliable third-party published sources present if it is notable, but should go no further. Are you advising contrary to this policy? Edited to add: You may or may not be aware that the individuals alleged as NWT translators (Franz, Knorr, Gangas, Schroeder and Henschel) by primary and secondary sources are all deceased. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: As alleged members cannot be notable with respect to this Article. R Franz and W Cetnar (via Gruss) cannot be considered reliable sources. See also Strengths and weaknesses of primary sources. -- cfrito (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if there are secondary sources, then you don't require a primary source. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: You have offered a non-answer response to the actual question asked. To be clear, the question addresses two primary sources in relation to each other. Please review and offer an answer to the actual question. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: These sources are all rooted in recollections from only two dubious sources published in literature that specifically advocates against a position they once defended.

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) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all primary sources are equal. If the NWT publishers have issued a statement, that could be a notable view worthy of inclusion. However, journalistic research has no place in Wikipedia. Addhoc (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: No one has suggested that all primary sources are equal. No one has suggested journalistic research, either. Essentially the question asks whether it is appropriate to give equal weight to two primary sources when both sources are reliable and published. Please review and offer comment. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: Including the list of alleged translators violates common sense: Which list? Both? Franz's? Cetnar's? Was Henschel a translator or not? How would we know? Both R Franz and Cetnar both say that they had perfect knowledge. Isn't it odd that in an organization that is known for its ability to translate into many many languages that only Governing Body members are listed, and no lesser ones? How can it be used to judge the quality or reliability of the NWT? Why publish it if to make it comply with NPOV standards we have to follow it with strict verbiage that says that the list is unreliable, that the sources cannot be trusted due to extreme conflicts of interest and non-neutrality? Shilmer admits that these men are alleged translators, that they are not the complete list, and that they do not accurately represent the skill set that critics would need to do the evaluations they claim are the impetus for demanding their identities and credentials? What benefit do these names really represent to the Article? The Article is not a dumping ground for speculation and trivia. -- cfrito (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis78's question for Marvin Shilmer

Marvin Shilmer, how many administrators telling you "no" as regards your methods do you need to see so that you may change your policy of editing? Tell me, how many? What is the efficient number of "NOs" to persuade you? Why do you still persist?--Vassilis78 (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis78: I do not give much attention to requests of editors who have knowingly and purposely inserted false information into an article. You have done this, recently. Accordingly, I confess an uncomfortableness responding to you. For your own reasons, I’m sure the feeling is somewhat mutual. But you should know this uncomfortableness cuts both ways. In my case, for the reason above.

In answer to your question: A convincing reply from a single person (administrator or otherwise) is all I need for moving forward. (A convincing reply is a reply given with testable reasons) What I see above from Addhoc is less than convincing for a number of reasons. 1) It is odd that of six questions asked we would find an administrator who fails to agree with the questioner in each case. 2) This failure to agree even once is exacerbated (if not suspicious) by a parallel failure to state an outright disagreement in all of the instances. 3) Addhoc deferred at least twice to a Wikipedia policy with very little if any relevance to the questions asked because the cited policy deals with living persons and not deceased persons. 4) The very policy Addhoc cites stipulates that including information published by a secondary source is acceptable and should be included, but not go beyond this. 5) Addhoc has, so far, failed to respond to my questions designed to test the soundness of his or her responses. 6) Addhoc’s responses are contrary to statements from Seddon69. All this and more leave Addhoc’s responses floundering.

You took an issue having to do with using Fred Franz’s college transcript to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I had to ply administrators for quite some time to finally get convincing response, which are responses with testable reasons. You initially presented your question here. I asked questions of initial responses and then narrowed the discussion here. This narrowed discussion reduced the question yet again, which led to an even narrower discussion here. At this point administrators continued the discussion on their own initiative here and here. Finally administrator Wjhonson summarized essential findings here. I doubt you followed these discussions because you demonstrated a willingness to accept the first untested response given that favored a conclusion you favored. Assuming you did not consider these engagements of minds, after much testing of reasons, the result was that a university transcript is a published source provided any member of the public, perhaps even paying a nominal fee can view them, or even better view them freely by *going* to said University. Administrators Wjhonson, J Readings, Slp1and EdJohnston all agreed that on this basis college transcripts are published. These same administrators also agreed that a college transcript is a reliable primary source. To my disappointment, administrators DGG and Donald Albury did not follow the discussion to its end, and in both cases these administrators refused to let their responses be tested because in each case they failed to directly respond to specific questions testing the veracity of their initial responses. Untested responses are not very useful for forming a solid basis for moving forward. Fortunately other administrators were willing to let their response be tested, and eventually the issue was resolved. The resolution as it stands now is not at all a “No” from administrators to using Fred Franz’s college transcript. This is because 1) the transcript is available to the public hence it is “published”. Given the nature of college transcripts 2) the source is reliable. As a source classification it is 3) deemed a primary source. An irony in all this is that Cfrito apparently agrees with me that Franz's college transcript is a published reliable primary source because this editor has recommended citing it as a source. This is an irony because at one time Cfrito stated the Franz transcript “should be immediately stricken from the Article”.

In short, in this current debacle, I have yet to see an administrator tell me “No” on any substantial basis. Contrarily, I have had administrators tell me “Yes” on substantial bases. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Question on Relevance

We have tediously debated whether to include an alleged list of translators of the NWT. Shilmer alone has argued that the names are relevant simply because we know who said them, with no regard to the accuracy of the list. Others have argued that the list is an aside, trivia, rumor, and unreliable. We know that the publisher stipulated that in exchange for the publishing rights, the translators' identities would be kept secret, even after their deaths for the purpose of forcing a depersonalized examination of the translated work on its own merit (among other things).

The apparent relevance to the Article is that knowing the translators' and editors' identities permits examination of their motives, their theology, their skills. Regarding their skill, whoever they might be, the publisher argues that the work product testifies in that regard and is a better measure than any other testimony, because credentials-based criticism is only useful as a predictor of what might be expected to be accomplished, not as a gauge of what has been accomplished. To illustrate, we have no transcripts, no third-party corroboration by acknowledged experts that those that designed and built the Egyptian Pyramids had sufficient training: no transcripts, no resumés, nothing. What we do have, though, are the pyramids themselves. The work product -- the physical pyramids -- provide incontrovertible proof that he builders possessed the required skill. Anything else is mooted. The same is true regarding NWT. The NWT is the subject of the Article. It exists and it can be examined. Above I discussed why Addhoc's position should be accepted regarding reasonable care to protect the anonymity of the translators. But Shilmer, predictably, remains unconvinced.

The cogent question, then, is this: Since we have the NWT work product that can be, and has been, thoroughly tested (Metzger, BeDuhn, Furuli, et al have been satisfied even without the actual names), the only issues left are questions of motivation and theology. Are motivation and theology of the translators sufficient reason to perpetuate allegations of who they might be and throw reliable source cautions to the wind? Comments? -- cfrito (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: What you write is demonstrably contrary to the record found in the archive of talk and article pages for this article.

1) Names of NWT translators have been a constant part of the article since at least October of 2005. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Since 2005 many editors both pro and con have left this list of names untouched, that is until I removed the name Karl Klein because it was not sourced to any published reliable source. (Yes. I removed a name from this list because of the same poor academic standards I always insist upon rejecting)--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3) Recently editor Jeffro77 has argued there is not enough value in providing these names “without stronger verifiability”. (See: Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2008) Cfrito, you “wholeheartedly" agreed with this statement by Jeffro77. Hence my later question to you asking whether the additional verifiability from secondary sources would matter in your opinion. You have refused an answer to this question so many times I lost count. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) When this list of names was newly edited into the history section, editor Jeffro77 responded by writing, “Section is ok, but the last sentence was unnecessary.” The last sentence Jeffro77 referred had nothing to do with the names being provided. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5) To my knowledge the only “others” who have “argued that the list is an aside, trivia, rumor, and unreliable” is you and Vassilis78. What about all the editors who have reviewed this article over the last 2 years and have left the material as is? Wikipedia policy states that silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Two years is a lot of exposure, and a lot of different editors have viewed and contributed during that period.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6) The relevance to the subject of the NWT of the list of translators is for third-party sources to determine, and third-party sources have expressed a relevance to this particular information. If third-party secondary sources express the translators’ identities or credentials are relevant to the subject then it would be an act of original research for a Wikipedia editor to counter that. We are not here to interpret. We are here to provide information of what is known, and to provide sources to verify the information is presented as sources present the information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7) The cogent question is what does primary and third-party secondary sources have to say on the matter. If it is found that primary and secondary sources speak to this issue then editors have an obligation to objectively determine if there is a minority opinion and then avoid giving undue weight to that opinion. But, in this case, no one has asserted any source has challenged the veracity of the names of alleged translators, which means the information stands unopposed by a minority of sources, or even one source. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that if the list could be verified by a exceptional source, then it might be usable, but it hasn't been so far. That was my understanding Jeffro77's point -- he is clearly unimpressed by the Cetnar/Gruss/RFranz sources And I agreed "wholeheartedly". Gruss published Cetnar's recollections only after Cetnar began vigorously attacking a position he formerly vigorously defended (protecting the anonymity of these people). When Cetnar did disclose it, RFranz, by virtue of his GB position, vigorously defended the Watchtower organization's agreement on anonymity at that same time in 1974. RFranz did not disclose the names at that time, or even some reasonable time later that would be consistent with a position that he was not bound by this confidentiality agreement. Only after RFranz left the Watchtower organization because of some personal crisis and began opposing his formerly defended position, did he disclose a similar list, but not an identical one. Henschel's involvement is certainly in question, Klein was wrongly included in the Article, and these varying lists come from disgruntled ex-JW's. It is subject to exceptional source verification. As to how long this misfeasance persisted, why did Shilmer wait so long to take care of the Klien issue? So based on current evidence there are three against including the lists (four, counting Addhoc), and one for its inclusion, based on the references and sources disclosed thus far. And it seems that Addhoc doesn't see it as the Article's charter to perpetuate trivia just because we know the malcontents who said it, especially when the sources are so clearly questionable. And again, I am not opposed to the list, provided the data is verified, since it is the data that is relevant. Those sources are subject to exceptional source verification because of the nature and timing and motive for disclosing the list by the two sources used. I noticed that Shilmer never addressed the relevance question, ironic given his repeated disdain when he perceives it happening to him, but decided to ask a question he'd rather ask, one that presupposes (falsely) that the referenced sources are beyond reproach -- they are not, and indeed, they are highly questionable. My question is aimed at deciding relevance to the Article, which trumps any theoretical application of rules, especially when the Editors are being asked to ignore the obvious conflicts of interest of the cited sources.

Perhaps other Editors/Mediators might comment and give poor Shilmer a sorely needed rest. -- cfrito (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: I would love it were mediators and additional editors to speak up more on this issue. As I said to Seddon69 early one, the more the merrier.

What do you mean by “exceptional source”? I do not get an impression from Jeffro77 that he is unimpressed with the primary sources already cited. He seems to accept what these sources say as believable, if not true. My impression is that Jeffro77 was looking for sources that offered more in the way of secondary sources to verify a value to expressing the names in an article on the NWT. Jeffro77 can speak for himself if he wants, but his historical remarks are on the talk page for anyone to read. The fact is, though, that Jeffro77’s last affirmative editorial remark on these names was to say of the section I created and placed them into “Section is ok.”

The reason (or reasons) why primary sources publish what they publish does not make what they publish correct or incorrect, valid or invalid, or true or false. What we get from primary sources is no more than what primary sources say. If we make more of it than that it becomes original research. All the times you have cited this policy to me, you should know this well by now. It is original research for you to assume and assert anything of information from a primary source beyond what it says verbatim.

As for removing Klein’s name from the article, I only began reviewing the article on or about December 10, 2007. I removed his name 16 or 17 edits later on January 3, 2008. Unverified information should always be stripped from Wikipedia articles.

“The relevance question” is not for editors to settle, Cfrito. Whether information is relevant to a particular subject depends on what sources say, particularly what secondary sources have to say. If either of us determines content on what we think is relevant to the subject then we are applying original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. We must let sources do the talking. Also, truth is not the threshold value for inclusion here. Rather, verification is the threshold value. Verification means we must be able to prove that information in the article is presented in the article as it is presented in primary and secondary source material. This is the verification threshold for encyclopedic entries.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: The actual translators are still not known. Even Shilmer says that they are "alleged". And I am not seeking "truth". The requirement of exceptional sources is not mine, it's Wikipedia's. When sources are known to have extreme conflicts of interest, or are recollections from memoirs, or the statement being made is contrary to one formerly defended, it should be handled with extreme caution. The identities of the translators is sought to review their credentials and their theologies so that these can be used instead of the work itself. But since we can't be sure that the "names" are fully representative of the entire group, or even accurate, then they can't be used to judge the NWT. But repeating them in the article gives undue weight to hearsay and will easily mislead. There is evidence throughout the talk page of taking out superfluous information, no matter how well referenced, if it is deemed by other editors as being "off-topic". The assertion that “The relevance question” is not for editors to settle is just plain silly. That's exactly what editors must decide with every single edit. -- cfrito (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: I have used the term alleged to ease your pain and because from retrospective of primary sources provided to date, it is the proper term. This usage does not mean the information is unknown.

Several times you have asserted the need for an extraordinary source for an extraordinary claim. Ray Franz is an exceptional source. When William Cetnar’s statement of names was first introduced to the world in the early 1970s your claim would have had potential merit. But in 1983 when a former governing body member offered corroborative evidence by confirming four of the five names Cetnar had provided earlier. Confirmation from a past governing body member is extraordinary.

When it comes to Ray Franz and conflict of interest, you assert a circumstantial ad hominem. It is patent fallacy. Any mediator with keyboarding and reading skills can look it up and confirm it. What you assert is fallacious because you use it to assert a primary source as unreliable based on circumstances without actually proving the source or the source’s information is unreliable. You are just attacking the person of Ray Franz. No more. No less.

As for being sure, we cannot be sure Cfrito is not a sockpuppet or that Cfrito is a sockpuppet. (Not that I suspect or suggest either) But the absence of sureness does not mean Cfrito is or is not a sockpuppet. Being unsure of factualness does not make us unsure of what sources actually say. Of what published sources say we can be sure. We know William Cetnar has said thus and so were part of the NWT translation committee. We know this for sure because we can read the published source and confirm he said the words. We know Ray Franz has said thus and so were part of the NWT translation committee. We know this for sure because we can read the published source and confirm he said the words. We also know both these sources are ex-members of a religious community they write about. Though this does not make what they write true or false, it is reason to state a disclosure of interests, and I have made sure this was added to the references to these sources. This is proper. It is not hearsay or unverified use of sources to present what primary sources say as those sources present the information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Regarding exceptional evidence and names of NWT translators, besides the exceptional evidence Ray Franz’s own statement in his book Crisis of Conscience (1983), I have asked you several times about a third-party secondary source. I am asking again.

If there is a published third-party secondary source giving the names of NWT translators as Franz, Knorr, Gangas, Schroeder and Henschel and the source asserts this information in relation to the NWT itself and the author is widely regarded as authoritative and not particularly biased against any single religion, would you accept this as sufficient reason to include the information in the article? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NWT Article’s Editing History with “The Names”

A review of editing of the NWT article is revealing in terms of general editor disposition toward the presence of names of NWT translators in our article.

This NWT article page was created August 9, 2002, with a very small and slow beginning. 35 edits later in March of 2004, for the first time names of alleged translators were place into the article’s main text, where they remained for 46 edits until October of 2004 when they were edited out. This edit stood for less than a day before it was reverted. Again the names were in the main text until 39 edits later in January of 2005 when the names were removed. This edit stood for 140 edits, until August 2005 when the names were again placed into the main text. The names remained for 20 edits when an edit removed them, but then the edit was reverted on the very next edit placing the names back into the article. The names remained in the article for 68 edits, until December 2005 when the names were again removed and then reinstated into the article only 4 edits later. Since December of 2005 the names remained in the article until the end of December 2007, when the current controversy of these names began.

The life of this article to date is 1,090 edits. Since the dispute there have been 117 edits+-. Prior to this dispute the life our article was 973 editorial reviews. Of these 973 edits, names’ of NWT translators have been part of this article for 792 of those edits. Hence, over the editing life of this article until the end of December 2007, the translator names have been part of this article for more than 80 percent of the edits. And these names have been in the article’s main text rather than as a note with references.

From a chronological perspective, prior to the end of December 2007 names of translators were first placed into the article 1,365 days ago. Since that time the names have been omitted from the article for a total of about 194 days. Hence, since the information was first in the article for editorial review, it has remained there 86 percent of the time.

To give some context, then, to my recent edits on this matter, I want to point out that I am responsible primarily for three things. 1) I improved the reference data for this information, 2) I removed the names from the article’s main text and relegated the information to notes accompanying the referenced sources, and 3) I removed the name Karl Klein because it was not verified from reliable sources as far as I could tell. If I may briefly opine, this is not the work of someone with a bias against the NWT. Among other things, this is the work of someone who 1) worked hard to make sure only verified material was included in the article, 2) reduced exposure of the information to alleviate concerns (valid or not) over undue weight and 3) wants to put objectivity ahead of subjectivity. I am not the editor who placed this information into the article, and I have not at all contributed to this article in any substantial way (or not at all) until about 45 days ago. My entire tenure on this article shows a history of moderating this particular piece of information. And look what I get for my efforts. I believe editors here have seriously misjudged my contribution on this article, and particularly these editors have misjudged the intent of my contributions to this page. I wish the complainers would make a wider observation of at my work on this page. Then they would see what I am talking about. I am no one’s enemy. I am interested in fair treatment, appropriate weight, and verifiability. This is the underpinning of my every contribution here. The complainers have consistently overlooked edits of mine they would no doubt find favorable to their preferential views and so focused on specific edits they disfavor, that they have convinced themselves I am practically a villain!--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Shilmer's recap it seems that the alleged translator list has always been a bone of contention. Who knows why the other Editors gave up so easily, maybe they weren't up for a 6-week, 2.5RR, end-in-mediation, slug-fest like it's taking this time round to get Shilmer to see that it's flimsy sourcing at best and irrelevant to the Article because a list of "suspects" cannot be used to judge the NWT's trustworthiness. The active editors are 3:1 against, plus a mediator leaning against, but Shilmer's hanging tough. It would appear that Editor Shilmer now prefers this matter to be judged on the length of time this rumor has been masquerading as fact. Funny enough, it eerily similar to paraphrasing of a John Huston line from the movie Chinatown: "Even old whores and ugly buildings get respectable if they stay around long enough." Trouble is, I don't believe that's an encyclopedic perspective. Show relevance and show exceptional references, or show The Made-Up List the exit. Anyway, Nice dodge of the question by Shilmer, two-for-two. -- cfrito (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: I would agree that historical use of information does not make that use of information correct. But this historical use of information demonstrates that a lot of editors have been exposed to names of NWT translators, and that a supermajority has not objected to inclusion of the material. The history of this material being in the article’s main text only underscores this.

I suggest you take a harder look at the data above. For more than the past two years these names have been on this page consistently, and without removal by editors. I know some of those editors very well. Some of them are very active supporters of the Watchtower organization and the NWT in particular. None of these have attempted to edit these names from the article. But along you come, and all of a sudden you make the radical change of completely removing the information. Placing these names in the end notes with references is a moderate position compared to the position you take and the historical place these names have held in the article. I am not the extremist here. You are. This is what the historical overview evidences.

I have no idea what you mean about a 3:1 ratio of active editors, with the 3 representing editors who are against use of these names in the article. I believe you are playing fast and loose with views expressed by editor Jeffro77.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: There is absolutely no documentation to support R Franz's claim or Cetnar's, other than the willingness of self-serving sensationalists to perpetuate what they said. The information it presents cannot be used for the reason it is being included: it is just a list of suspected translators. It is intentionally misleading to include it. These men only made these claims after they left the JW organization. They both meet the WP:REDFLAG criteria. The real problem is that in order to be a reliable source, never mind an exceptional source, the source must have a reputation for fact-checking. In this particular case it is impossible to fact-check. And the lists aren't identical and there is plausible explanation as to why they are not. R Franz untrustworthy because A) he abused his position as a GB member to gain access to confidential WTBTS documents (if as Shilmer has said the entities were truly separate organizations and the anonymity was the responsibility of the entity of which R Franz was not a part) years in advance; or, B) He had access legitimately because he was bound by the obligations published in 1974 while he was a GB member. Cetnar too. Both men remained silent until they found themselves in a position to strike back at men they no longer liked. They made accusations and someone wrote them down and published it. That is not fact-checking. And we are all very well aware that they cannot fact-check. There is also the matter expressed in the History section of the Reliable Source Examples Article that specifically cautions against using recollections in memoirs: "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.". These two references cannot, and do not, meet the criteria for reliable sources.

As to Shilmer's "bedside manner", nothing reveals Shilmer better than this rather fascinating exchange between Shilmer and Jeffro77. -- cfrito (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: Ray Franz does have a reputation for fact checking. Anyone who reads his books will see this is the case for multiple reasons. For example, 1) Ray Franz offers sufficient details of incidents making his statements testable. So far I have yet to see a source prove false anything Franz has presented, or even place suspicion on its accuracy. 2) Ray cites a lot of primary source materials, and to a large extent goes so far as to place images of these documents into his published books. This citing of sources also makes what Ray Franz has written testable in large measure. Yet, to date, I know of not a single source that has published any refutation of what he writes showing it as false. On the other hand, we have sociologists like Richard Singelenberg who characterizes Ray Franz’s published works as “well-received” and “moderate”. (Singelenberg R, Book Review, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1992) Sociologists Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone are favored writers of the Watchtower organization, and these sociologists cite Ray Franz’s published books as source material. All this speaks directly to the reputation of Ray Franz’s published works. Why should we accept your characterization of Ray Franz’s published work over that of published sociologists?

I have no idea what you think my bedside manner has to do with any of this. I have not asserted my own experience, education, training, position or opinion as a basis for anything under discussion in this dispute. Hence, whether I am an angel or a demon has no bearing on the veracity or usefulness of primary or secondary source materials. This complaint from you is a red herring.

My actual editing demonstrates a moderate position compared to the historical use of these names in the article and your editing of these names. Historically the names have been used in the main text. You completely deleted the names from the article. I placed the names as data into the reference section with the corresponding referenced items. If this is not moderate editing by comparison please explain why. You are asserting your view over and above every editor that has come before you over the past two years and over 700 edits. I am doing the something similar by relegating the names to the reference list, but this is moderate compared to the complete removal you would impose.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Source Ray Franz

Ray Franz's published work has come under attack by editor's Cfrito and Vassilis78. Following is a brief presentation of how Ray Franz's published work has been utilized and/or characterized by various authors and editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-Wikipedia Use of Ray Franz’s Published Work

Editor Cfrito has regularly disparaged the published works of Ray Franz as unreliable. Contrary to this opinion by Cfrito, among peer reviewed books and journal articles, when Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Watchtower organization is a subject addressed by authors who are not writing on behalf of the Watchtower organization, we often find these citing and quoting the written works of Ray Franz as authoiratative. For example,

- Professor of religious studies Dr. John R. Spencer cites Ray Franz’s published works in his article A Point of Contention: The Scriptural Basis for the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Refusal of Blood Transfusion published in Christian Bioethics, 2002, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 63-90.

- Sociologist Dr Ronald Lawson cites Ray Franz’s published works in his article Broadening the Boundaries of Church-Sect Theory: Insights from the Evolution of the Nonschismatic Mission Churches of Seventh-day Adventism published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Dec98, Vol. 37, Issue 4.

- Sociologist Dr. Richard Singelenberg cites Ray Franz’s published works in his article The Blood Transfusion Taboo of Jehovah’s Witnesses: Orgin, Development and Function of a Controversial Doctrine published in Social Science and Medicine., 1990 Vol. 31, No. 4 pp. 515-523.

- Medical Doctor Osama Muramoto cites Ray Franz’s published works in his article Medical confidentiality and the protection of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ autonomous refusal of blood published in Journal of Medical Ethics, 2000, 26:381-386.

- Sociologists Dr. Rodney Stark and Dr. Laurence Iannaccone cite Ray Franz’s published works in their article Why The Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow So Rapidly published by Journal of Contemporary Religion, 1997 Vol. 12, No.2.

These authors are widely published and held in high regard within their respective professions. Authors writing on behalf of the Watchtower organization cite some the sources and authors above as authoratative. These samples are but a few of many sitting in my personal library. The authors are not adversarial towards the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses or the Watchtower organization. I understand the latter is my own impression, and editors here will doubt that impression for their own reasons. But the sources are cited for anyone who wants to retrieve and read the works for themselves. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: In his 1994 dissertation proposal Imagining Jehovah’s Millennium: The Globalizing Strategies of an American Religion, Joel Elliott writes, “Raymond Franz's publications (1983, 1991) are indispensable sources of information about the Society and its internal operations. Franz is a nephew of the previous president (F. W. Franz) and is himself a former member of the Governing Body.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: There is no way to fact-check what R Franz is claiming. To any anti-JW writer, R Franz is a gold mine, no question. People doing original research may decide to rely on a handful of Franz's statements, but we are not doing original research here. If we know that a referenced source is representing something as fact which is impossible to fact-check, the source is unreliable for (at least) that reference item. -- cfrito (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: There is no way to fact check a great deal of what comes from primary sources. This includes what is published by the Watchtower organization and Ray Franz alike. Can you fact check what the Watchtower organization says about the NWT translation committee?

Were you to testify in open court by giving firsthand eyewitness testimony you could not prove what you were saying, either, except to the extent someone else who witnessed part or all of the event also testified. In this case Ray Franz has stated what he knew of NWT translators. William Cetnar has done the same thing. What they assert is reasonable and believable given the known positions of the individuals they name. Other than you and Vassilis78, I do not see anyone expressing doubt about the veracity of this information. Third-party secondary sources cite Ray Franz’s books as authoritative. Why should we take your word above these published sources as to the wherewithal and authenticity of Ray Franz's published statements? Third-party secondary sources also name the same individuals as NWT translators, and express the information relevant to the NWT itself. When you are asked to go on record about the acceptability of third-party secondary sources, you routinely decline. I must confess this de facto refusal does not inspire confidence.

By the way, the sources above are not “anti-JW”. Editors here can read the cited works for themselves to see this. Particularly authors Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone are favorites of Watchtower writers.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Let's stick to the issue. R Franz and Cetnar are making unfounded accusations. Their statements are potentially damaging to those they are speaking about and those that rely on that information. And then there is another editor, whom Shilmer quotes and comments on, Jeffro77, who said this: "Recently editor Jeffro77 has argued there is not enough value in providing these names “without stronger verifiability”. (See: Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2008) --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)". And then there are Addhoc's replies that disadvantage Shilmer in this matter. I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything, just test the information against the published Wikipedia standards. These two references fail Wikipedia tests for source reliability. And anyone can fact-check what the Watchtower organization says about the NWT Committee. They published it at least three separate times in three separate publications over a 25 year period. They said the translators wanted to remain anonymous, and that their policy was at the translators' behest. Not a single person to my knowledge ever said "I am one of the translators," and it took a court trial cross examination to get it out of F Franz that he was the Editor up until at least 1954. There isn't even a shadow of doubt over what the WTBTS is representing, not a single shred of evidence either in their actions or in others'. Do R Franz or Cetnar allege that the WTBTS is somehow forcing these translators to remain anonymous against their respective will? When they were part of the Watchtower organization, they said nothing but evidently somehow 'knew' this information. Why did they not reveal all when claim they learned of the translators' names? Why did they wait until making these revelations helped bring them personal fame and fortune? Have they ever said that they were forced to remain silent against their will? Or did they, of their own free will, choose to stay silent out of respect to the Watchtower organization's confidentiality agreement because they understood that they were tacitly or expressly bound by it? Some may wonder, why has the Watchtower organization not sued them over these confidentiality breaches, if that is indeed what these two people have done? Very likely it is because these lists are completely inaccurate and therefore is only an apparent breach. It is one of the more obvious evidences we have that these lists are indeed completely false. And there doesn't seem to be a mighty crowd rallying to Shilmer's side either, not that it would matter. This is not a democracy nor is it mob rule. The references stand or fall on their own merit or lack thereof. These sources do not pass muster. They must fall.

As to third party sources, each reference stands on its own merit. My personal policy is irrelevant. Each reference must be individually tested. Elapsed time between posting and testing is irrelevant. I will not be baited into making a blanket statement only to have it devolve into another of Shilmer's intentionally befuddling debates. -- cfrito (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: Expressing the names provided by Ray Franz and William Cetnar is not using any accusations either man has or has not made of these named individuals, or of the NWT itself. The names themselves are founded by virtue of each mans' proximity and position in relation to the individuals they name and the production of the NWT and/or its revisions. This foundation is presented by third-party authors for why they accept what these men have to say as substantive and relevant on the subject of the NWT.

You further assert use of these names is damaging to the individuals named. Please explain how asserting these names as members of the NWT translation committee is damaging to any of these men (now deceased by the way). If it damages their reputations, please explain how and in what way. If it damages their estates, please explain how and in what way.

You state anyone can fact check “what the Watchtower organization says about the NWT committee”. To substantiate this you cite what the Watchtower says of the NWT committee. If what a primary source says itself is accepted as fact checking of what that source says, then all we have to do to fact check what Ray Franz says is read what Ray Franz says. You accept this method for the primary source of Watchtower publications, but you reject this method for the primary source of Ray Franz’s publications. You apply a different standard to the primary source. This dual standard is one essential reason for the current dispute.

Whatever the reason Cetnar and Ray Franz publicly disclosed what they knew of NWT translators after leaving the Watchtower organization, it must be assumed these men have a conflict of interest by virtue of their status as ex-members. Hence my insistence that a statement of disclosure accompany the reference. Otherwise, that neither man published these names until after leaving the organization says nothing as to the veracity of the information. This is typical of anyone who leaves an organization and then decides it appropriate to shine a little light on previously undisclosed information. Whether this information is deemed useful, relevant or reliable in academic circles is determined by how or whether reputable authors use the information. In this case, reputable author on top of reputable author has used these sources for a variety of subjects addressed.

That the Watchtower organization has not sued or otherwise disputed either William Cetnar or Ray Franz over their published works (or “the names” in particular) says nothing about the veracity of the information. All it means is that what these men have stated is unchallenged by the Watchtower organization.

After weeks of arguing your opinion of sources, now you state “My personal policy is irrelevant.” If you hold your personal policy as irrelevant then please stop using it as a basis for having mediators decide as you would have them decide. Your opinion of the usefulness and veracity of Ray Franz’s published work stands in stark contrast to how published professionals have used his work. Your opinion of the usefulness and veracity of Ray Franz’s publish work also stands in stark contrast to the level of testable detail offered by Ray Franz in his works. Other than your “personal policy” what have you brought to the dispute? Above you make accusation on top of accusation, and none of it demonstrates that what Ray Franz wrote is either false or unreliable. You have done no more than attack the man (Ray Franz). And you have done this in stark contrast to multiple third-party published sources which are authored by trained experts in their fields. At most your arguments present a viable reason for including a potential conflict of interest statement with the reference, and I did this early on in my editing of the article on my own volition.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Editors’ Use of Ray Franz’s Published Work

Ray Franz’s published works have received considerable support by Wikipedia editors. Mediators reviewing accusations and arguments in this current dispute also deserve to realize the extent Wikipedia editors have cited and quoted from his published works as a primary source of information. Aside from non-Jehovah’s Witnesses related articles, the following is a list of Wikipedia articles currently citing Ray Franz’s published works as a primary source in relation to subjects impinging Jehovah's Witnesses: Organizational structure of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, History of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Controversies regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Eschatology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood, Jehovah’s Witnesses and congregational discipline, Aid to Bible Understanding. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: All the above is completely irrelevant, pure theatrics, a sideshow. The matter at hand is whether the lists of alleged translators are reliable. These lists cannot be fact-checked which makes any source quoting them unreliable in this matter, and the circumstances under which these have been published are dubious. The number of times a probable lie is repeated does not transform it into a reliable source. And a source that can be reliably referenced in one matter is not a basis for relying on all that they say in every matter. Besides, Wikipedia cannot be used as its own reference, that I am aware of anyway. -- cfrito (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: Why is it that the editing reviews of countless Wikipedia editors’ of articles containing the same primary source should be dismissed as irrelevant compared to your own opinion of that primary source? Why should your opinion of this source carry more weight that the editing reviews of all these other Wikipedia editors? More importantly, why should your opinion of this source carry more weight than the usage of the same source by trained professional on top of trained professional in their published works?

When it comes to fact-checking: “Verifiable” in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

The information from Ray Franz and William Cetnar is published. The statements of these men are cited often in secondary sources as authoritative. Furthermore, and in relation to the NWT, the specific information in question is cited and used in secondary sources written by third-party authors. Seddon69 knows this perfectly well. I sent some of these documents to him days and days ago, along with my prediction of how you would respond.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito's Representation re The Names

Editors: It is simple why it doesn't matter where else this information is published. Its presence in the NWT Article gives a false impression that the listed men were actually the translators. It suggests that these lists of made-up names should be taken seriously. I doubt very much that Shilmer would allow anyone to post any warnings about the unreliability of this information. Trained professionals know when a piece of information is relevant to an Article, and when unreliable information receives undue weight in one context and is fair in another. For example, if it's on R Franz's page then who cares, t contains his personal point of view and what people think about his personal point of view and whatnot. He is notable only for being an ex-JW, that's it. Other than that the guy is a big snooze. And Cetnar too. Who really cares about these guys, they're more-or-less jokes apart from their financial value to muckrakers, theologians wanting to bash the competition, and grad students that can' figure out if they want to be researchers or beat reporters for tabloids.

For those keeping score at home, Shilmer has yet to provide a single shred of evidence beyond the say-so of two ex-JW whiners who are profiting from convenient recollections. I have shown time-and-again why this information doesn't meet encyclopedic standards as it pertains to this Article. And one of them actually defended the anonymity of the translators when the other first published the list. Zero for personal integrity. Zero for strength of character.

A reliable source is one that is known for checking their facts. But in this case we know that the facts cannot be checked, so the information is unreliable at its core, and any source that repeats it is unreliable in that context.

This would be a perfectly accurate representation: "In 1974 Centnar's list was published. R Franz, who was an active member of the Watchtower writing committee and was a Governing Body member at the time, published an extensive article on why these translators' identities should and would be perpetually protected. Several years later, R Franz suffered a personal crisis and left the JW organization and later published a for-profit tell-all book, in which he followed Cetnar's lead and published who he thought were the translators, a knowledge the Governing Body he was an active part of pledged to keep secret. R Franz and Cetnar both claim their lists are accurate, but they do differ. The names they give are simply top figures in the Watchtower organization. There are no written records of who the true translators are, but a number of authors and researchers have repeated Cewtnar's and or R Franz's recollections despite having no hard evidence. The names are {The Usual Suspects}. While some harsh critics have claimed that the list is important to gain a full understanding the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NWT, many scholars have said just the opposite and have conducted thorough examinations of the NWT independent of the issue of translator anonymity. This list is included here for completeness but it should be known as completely unprovable, unsubstantiated recollections." And Shilmer knows that anyone can supply verifiable reliable references for every single one of these statements. But Shilmer would never let a single word of this stand, because it shows the list to be absolutely worthless, which it absolutely is.

For those that haven't seen it yet, Shilmer has created his own fairyland Article page where he can fantasize about a time and place where he is Content King. How quaint. -- cfrito (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito, you write:

“This would be a perfectly accurate representation: "In 1974 Centnar's list was published. R Franz, who was an active member of the Watchtower writing committee and was a Governing Body member at the time, published an extensive article on why these translators' identities should and would be perpetually protected. Several years later, R Franz suffered a personal crisis and left the JW organization and later published a for-profit tell-all book, in which he followed Cetnar's lead and published who he thought were the translators, a knowledge the Governing Body he was an active part of pledged to keep secret. R Franz and Cetnar both claim their lists are accurate, but they do differ. The names they give are simply top figures in the Watchtower organization. There are no written records of who the true translators are, but a number of authors and researchers have repeated Cewtnar's and or R Franz's recollections despite having no hard evidence. The names are {The Usual Suspects}. While some harsh critics have claimed that the list is important to gain a full understanding the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NWT, many scholars have said just the opposite and have conducted thorough examinations of the NWT independent of the issue of translator anonymity. This list is included here for completeness but it should be known as completely unprovable, unsubstantiated recollections."

I am perfectly fine with every single assertion above that can be verified with sources. I am sure you agree. So now all we have is to see verification from sources. (See WP:VERIFY) According to Wikipedia policy we must take care not to assert our own interpretations of what a source says. (See WP:NOR) We must let sources speak for themselves. Also, Ray Franz is yet living. Hence we must take care to follow Wikipedia policy regarding living persons. (See WP:LIVING) So let’s set about the task of finding source material to verify each of your sentences. Once we verify then we are ready to publish. I will begin inserting some reference material. In a spirit of cooperation you can add references from there. If a reference is challenged by either of us we must produce a quotation in context from the source so the verification can be tested for veracity. References that are self-published are tagged as SELFPUB. Here are your sentences:

Editors: I truly respect R Franz's privacy. He should be left entirely out of this Article because he had nothing to do with the NWT other than support its publisher's policy, which he helped form, to protect the anonymity of the translators. And without a way to fact-check his assertions, the value of the names he mentions is only trivia and he is an unreliable source. Unless, of course, he or asomeone reputable can produce the source document(s). -- cfrito (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: Ray Franz has no problem with accurate presentation of what he has published, that is why he published it in the first place. Otherwise, in my NWT sandbox article I have completely removed the Ray Franz primary source and replaced it with two secondary sources. Hence there is no more issue over Ray Franz on this matter. One of the two secondary sources is peer reviewed by at least ten researchers and editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- “In 1974 Centnar's list was published.” (Ref: Gruss E, We Left Jehovah's Witnesses, 1974)

Editors: I don not believe that this statement of Cetnar's was properly fact-checked with the publisher or the translators. Without documentation, Gruss cannot be considered a reliable source on this data, and it is this data that must be fact checked to considered reliable. -- cfrito (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: In my NWT sandbox article I have completely removed the Ed Gruss (Cetnar) primary source and replaced it with two secondary sources. Hence there is no more issue over Cetnar on this matter. One of the two secondary sources is peer reviewed by at least ten researchers and editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- “R Franz, who was an active member of the Watchtower writing committee and was a Governing Body member at the time, published an extensive article on why these translators' identities should and would be perpetually protected.” (Ref showing Ray Franz was on the governing body: Yearbook, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1973, p. 257 SELFPUB, Ref showing the governing body of 1974 would respect the wishes of the translators to remain anonymous: The Watchtower, December 15, 1974, p. 767 SELFPUB)

- “Several years later, R Franz suffered a personal crisis and left the JW organization and later published a for-profit tell-all book, in which he followed Cetnar's lead and published who he thought were the translators, a knowledge the Governing Body he was an active part of pledged to keep secret.” (Ref: Franz, Raymond, Crisis of Conscience, 1983 SELFPUB)

- “R Franz and Cetnar both claim their lists are accurate, but they do differ.” (Ref: will follow with the list of names)

Editors: The reader must be cautioned that here are no documents or confirmation from either the publisher ot the translators that the list is complete or accurate in any detail -- cfrito (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: The peer reviewed secondary source provided in my NWT sandbox article supplies the cautionary information you advise.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- “The names they give are simply top figures in the Watchtower organization.” (Yearbook, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1973, p. 257 SELFPUB, Yearbook, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1986, p. 255 SELFPUB)

- “There are no written records of who the true translators are, but a number of authors and researchers have repeated Cetnar's and or R Franz's recollections despite having no hard evidence.” (Ref: 1974 Watchtower, Divine Purpose (19, )

- “The names are [Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, George Gangas, Albert Schroeder and Milton Henschel].” (Ref: Franz R, Crisis of Conscience, Third Edition, 2000, p. 54 SELFPUB, Gruss E, We Left Jehovah's Witnesses, 1974, pp.70-75)

- “While some harsh critics have claimed that the list is important to gain a full understanding the accuracy and trustworthiness of the NWT, many scholars have said just the opposite and have conducted thorough examinations of the NWT independent of the issue of translator anonymity.” (Ref: Metzger, Furuli, BeDuhn)

- “This list is included here for completeness but it should be known as completely unprovable, unsubstantiated recollections.” (Ref: )

I look forward to seeing what references you apply to statements above in need of verification.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working Cfrito’s Representation

Cfrito has offered what he calls “a perfectly accurate representation”. I already offered references to begin working on this presentation (see above), and have asked Cfrito to assist with sources, too. In the meantime I am drafting language based on Cfrito’s presentation in my sandboz NWT article.

Regarding Ray Franz’s decision to publish the names

I am looking for a secondary source where Ray Franz’s decision to reveal what he knew of the NWT translation committee is criticized. I need a reliable source (or sources) verifying that such criticism exists, that is beyond the opinion of editors here. It does not matter to me what flavor of bias the author may or may not hold. As long as it meets Wikipedia policy as a reliable source it should suffice.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: The sort of sentence I have in mind would read something like, "Ray Franz’s decision to offer identities of NWT translators has brought criticism questioning reliability of the information." There are several ways of stating this or something like it. But, again, I am looking for a source for verify the criticism for use in our article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: the language presupposes the list is accurate, and there is no way to fact-check it. It is made up. Or maybe not. Or maybe partially. The list is unreliable because it is a recollection from a memoir that is opposite a formerly defended position, and R Franz was party to agreement to keep the names confidential. There is no evidence at all to support his statement beyond circumstantial evidence. Shilmer's language cannot satnd as proposed. In fact the whole list is inappropriate even given wrapping it in countless cautions. In fact including the list changes the article from being about the NWT into being about R Franz and Cetnar. -- It must go completely, and this or any other attempt to try to fix it is doomed. -- cfrito (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: In my NWT sandbox article I have completely removed the Ray Franz and Ed Gruss (Cetnar) primary sources and replaced them with two secondary sources. Hence there is no more issue over Ray Franz on this matter. --Marvin Shilmer (talk)

Regarding "no written records"

I need another source verifying an assertion that “There are no written records of who the true translators are”. To be honest, I am not sure what Cfrito has in mind specifically on this point. Because Ray Franz has not published an image of an original document expressing names of NWT translators is not verification that there is no such a document. I know firsthand there are original documents on this, because I have seen them with my own eyes in Frederick Franz’s office in Watchtower headquarters. Not that it matters here, but Fred Franz’s office had reams of file cabinets containing research work on a wide array of projects. These cabinets contained a file named New World Translation. In these files were (are?) many documents in the form of letters written to, and copied amongst, the individuals Ray Franz named later as NWT translators. So I know there are original documents. What I do not know is whether Ray Franz happened to have a copy of one of the hundreds of documents (letters, etc) from this massive collection, or from amongst all the carbon-copied documents sent out. Ray has not said one way or another on this point. Hence, we need a source to verify the assertion that “there are no written records identifying the NWT committee.”

Alternately, we could make a statement of what we do not have. For example, in the absence of information or documentation, it is always a logically sound assertion to say “We do not have original documents”. This is not an assertion that there are no original documents. Rather, it is an assertion that we do not have original documents, or that we know of no one that has published any origial documents on this point. Though some of my edits have been undone on the objection that Wikipedia articles are not for expressing what we do not have, the NWT article already does this in a manner of speaking because the article speaks to the lack of original Bible manuscripts from which all Bible translations are made.

Hence, on this point, we either need to prove the assertion that there are no original documents, or alternately we can agree to make a logically valid statement that no original documents have been published with the names of NWT translators. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Yet Another Shilmer Side show. The sources aren't reliable because the data, which is what is relevant to the Article, cannot be fact-checked. Those saying the data is reliable need to produce the facts that can be verified or they are unreliable sources. Otherwise including the data here is inappropriate. -- cfrito (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediators: This is really bad data, no matter how you slice it. It adds nothing to gaining insight into the NWT, the Article's focus, and the language added just simply makes the article more tedious and ambiguous. I still object to its inclusion on the basis that the data cannot be fact-checked, and it's the data that's relevant to the Article. -- cfrito (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediators: The hypothetical reworking of the "names" issue above, Shilmer points out something important: quite a number of the sources are indeed self-published. We should probably ferret them all out mark them as such. -- cfrito (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: In my NWT sandbox article I have completely removed the Ray Franz and Ed Gruss (Cetnar) primary sources and replaced them with two secondary sources. Hence there is no more issue over Ray Franz on this matter. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: The issue is the same. The source can only be reliable if they fact-check. This reference is even flimsier than Cetnar and R Franz, because it simply repeats Cetnar's list with the some weak justification 'many working at the JW organization just knew." Again there is no documentary evidence, and a strawman list of names is inappropriate here. -- cfrito (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: In the book Kingdom of the Cults, author Walter Martin writes,

“While the members of the [NWT] committee have never been identified officially by the Watchtower, many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were. They included Nathan H. Knorr (president of the Society at the time), Frederick W. Franz (who later succeeded Knorr as president), Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel (currently the president).”

Hence, Martin does not say or suggest this information comes from any single source, such as William Cetnar. Rather, Martin says the information of NWT translators is known by and comes from “many Witnesses who worked at headquarters”.

Do you agree or disagree that Martin’s book Kingdom of the Cults is by Wikipedia policy a reliable secondary source? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree or disagree that articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.?

Do you agree or disagree that Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: I disagree with Shilmer on his first question because, according to Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy,"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Clearly this author did not fact-check this information -- it is impossible. He asks the reader to rely on the unreferenced assurance that "many Witnesses...were fully aware..." This author is representing as fact something he has not fact-checked, therefore is unreliable and the data is still unverifiable. This is tabloid reporting at its most obvious. And Martin himself is a rather dubious fellow -- he is no scholar and his "degree" is made up (see point #3). He writes that the Catholic Church is a cult. The editors of the Roman Catholic Church Article aren't giving Martin his due -- they don't mention the guy's "works" at all.

On Shimer's second point, I refer to the first point. The sources Shilmer is trying to use are not reliable on the very point he is using them for. I therefore disagree on Wikipedia Policy grounds.

On Shilmer's third point I also refer to Wikipedia guidelines: Content is not indiscriminate. I quote: "Merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." And these lists are pure fantasy -- they cannot be verified. As to the question of scholarly interpretation, the subject of the NWT Article is the NWT. Scholarly "interpretations" are invited on the NWT itself, by people qualified in the field they are commenting on. This isn't a crime scene investigation, and Martin is not a prosecutor, and Wikipedia readers are not jurors.. There is no crime and there is no need for an intrepid detective with a faked Ph.D to expose anyone. And there is no such thing as reliable "scholarly Gut Feel", no "Ph.D in Wild Hair Theory", no "Master's of I Just Know". So Martin's opinion on who translated the NWT is not "scholarly" at all. And neither is Martin. He got his "degree" from a diploma mill for a flat fee (see GAO Special Investigations Report # GAO-04-1096T). And I am far from the only one to accuse him of sloppy journalism or challenged his "claims". This character had a real knack for saying just about anything to sell a book or a ticket to his road show.

We know several things about these lists of names. 1) They cannot be fact-checked and they are thus unreliable per Wikipedia Policy; 2) The individual translators have never identified themselves; 3) Although there are several claims that "many knew" and "common knowledge" and "they had the highest access", these various lists are not identical demonstrating that the source data is inherently unreliable; 4) The data only have value to the NWT Article if they are undeniably, incontrovertibly true. Since they cannot be fact-checked, these lists are absolutely useless for the purpose for which they are presented and thus entirely superfluous, in the extreme. Including these lists simply insults the readers and cheapens Wikipedia.

On a policy question Shilmer didn't ask, there is this to consider: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. On this matter, Wikipedia states, "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for propaganda and advertising." Since R Franz and Penton are his personal friends and he has a proven track record of including mainly anti-writings on JW's coupled with his strong desire to perpetuate innuendo as truth, he is simply plugging his own books and those of his admitted personal friends. His personal bias has been clearly exposed. It is shameless. And his entrapping style is also rather odorous. -- cfrito (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: Can you offer a single secondary source that agrees with you that Walter Martin’s statement of NWT translators is unreliable? If you believe this author’s statement on NWT translators is unreliable then what about author Ron Rhodes, or any one of a plethora of other secondary sources? Would you have Wikipedia editors ignore all secondary sources offering the same conclusions?

Other than your own opinion, can you offer a single secondary source expressing that information from former Watchtower insiders of NWT translators’ identities is unsuitable (or unreliable) to the topic of the NWT?

Your consistent theme or contention is a de defacto assertion that editors must apply a threshold value of truth to the NWT article rather than the Wikipedia threshold value of verifiable from reputable and reliable secondary sources. It does not matter to you how many secondary sources offer the same conclusion, or how many different authors and researchers of secondary sources offer the same conclusion. You would have editors dismiss them all based on a threshold value of truth. Worse, you assert your opinion on the reliability of secondary sources without even bothering to evidence that any published third-party source agrees with your assessment!

I have not asserted that the Catholic Church is a cult. I know Ray Franz, I have worked with Ray Franz, and I have respect for Ray Franz. But I do not consider Ray Franz a personal friend. The same is true of James Penton. I consider both these individuals very brave. I have no books that I am plugging here. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: I am sure Shilmer thinks Franz, R and Penton are "brave": they abandoned their faith much like Judas Iscariot did. Are they the same? Who knows for sure is a matter of "truth", the philosophical kind that Wikipedia is not seeking. But these translators, their identities are a matter of factual truth, testable truth, and are subject to the rules ion accuracy, not theology or philosophy. I demand evidence on the accuracy of statements being made about what specific men did, or did not, do. This is not a debate of "angels on the head of a pin", this is a "falt earth/round earth issue. Shilmer is arguing "flat earth". No tangible, substantive, verifiable proof, just a long list of people who say they "just know".

Why would Shilmer, Franz and Penton work together? What do they have in common? One thing: Anti-JW activities. They are all ex-JW's. And that's exactly what Shilmer is doing together here. Shilmer has a conflict of interest and he's adamant that it not be disclosed. Wikipedia has specific policies that stand against such propagandizing. As to the issue of "truth", this is not an issue of "philosophical truth" it is the core issue of reliability and accuracy. And while Wikipedia is not pursuing philosophical truth, it is insisting on reliable, fact-checked and accurate source references. These five accused (or six, depending on whose recollection we're talking about) either did, or did not, do the NWT translating. Examine this: Fred Franz was the editor as of 1954. He had a certain training and he had a certain skill. He admitted to being such and having such. Shilmer would have none of it until he saw the transcript -- indeed, touched it -- and then only exactly what the transcript said, and not a word more. Fred is in the article as such. But when it came down to the matter of his Biblical Greek training, Shilmer was fire-hot about keeping it out, indeeed saying there was no documentary evidence, that it must be disallowed because it was merely Fred's say-so, regardless of the fact that Fred gave professors' names, locations and time frame. Fred also gave testimony about his being selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship based on his intellect (the other candidate was a better physical specimen). Fred tested for it, gave the time and location, and subsequently withdrew from college. Coaxing Fred to reconsider, his professor in Greek studies told him he was selected to receive the Rhodes Scholarship. Would Shilmer allow this data, a key insight on the assessing the translators' and editors' capabilities? Absolutely not. Why not? No proof beyond Fred's say-so, even though the historical references can be proved and there is no basis to disbelieve it -- this testimony provided Fred Franz with no financial advantage or social advantage. In short, Fred lacked motive for lying, whereas R Franz and Cetnar both have strong motives for lying. But we have the NWT as evidence, and even Metzger says that the translators' skill is acceptable. Contrast that with Cetnar and Franz, R: No dates, no times, no places, no records, nothing except what they said once they began a career of trying to discredit their former compatriots. Are they language scholars? No sir. Why are they included here? Anti-JW book marketing, perhaps? Much more likely. Why the OR added to these dubious references, if not to push a POV? Martin is a bona fide charlatan, a for-profit peddler of anti-literature, blindly repeating Cetnar's list. And even this weakling would have given factual references if he had any, but he chose to rely on the "well, everyone just knew" special pleading. And it is not my "opinion" that these anti-writers have no proof of what they claim, it is my observation. There is no proof, only "trust me" blather from people who make a living anti-writing. -- cfrito (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: I have never resisted the NWT article presenting what Fred Franz’s says of himself as what Fred Franz says of himself. What I have resisted is the NWT presenting what Fred Franz’s says of himself as material fact. I have applied the same standard to all source information. Wikipedia policy requires that information should be presented as the source presents it and not as our interpretation of what the sources means by what it says. Hence, were Fred Franz to say he had a doctorate in humanities and this was the only source referenced, then the article could state that Fred Franz says he has a doctorate in humanities, but it could not say Fred Franz has a doctorate in humanities. The different between these two presentations is an important nuance, but I fear you do not understand it. The same goes for anything a source provides in the way of information. We must present the information as the source presents the information (e.g., what Fred Franz says he was told about a Rhodes scholarship) because this is what is verifiable from the sources.

In all your reply not once do you answer relevant questions about why we should accept your opinion of the published opinions of secondary sources on top of secondary sources as to the reliability of information on the names of NWT translators. This omission is telling.

Again I ask you Cfrito: Other than your own opinion, can you offer a single secondary source expressing that information from former Watchtower insiders of NWT translators’ identities is unsuitable (or unreliable) to the topic of the NWT? -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: Red Herring Alert. The exact point is no one can prove anything in this regard. This is exactly why the information is unreliable. As recently as October 15, 1999 the WTB&TS and its Governing Body reaffirmed its resolve to keep the names anonymous, even after the deaths of the translators, as the stipulation of the translators. Due exactly to this position, it is impossible for a secondary source to confirm that the suspects offered by anyone, regardless of former station, is wrong or right, and that's the point. No one knows for sure what is right and what is wrong because the only ones who can confirm or deny and supply evidence that can be tested are not talking. No respectable researcher would even bother with such a stupid task as to prove R Franz wrong, or Cetnar -- these two 15min-of-famers are not scholars commenting on the NWT work, and anyone perpetuating their nonsense is likewise not important either. No one who is skilled enough to judge the quality of the NWT would ever listen to anyone stupid enough to suggest it. "Whodunit" only matters to anti-JW profiteers, malcontents and charlatans, not to serious scholars or anyone with a genuine interest in the NWT. -- cfrito (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfrito: We can verify what the sources present in the way of information. This is the Wikipedia threshold standard of verification. The threshold standard is not truth. You say you know this, but I fear you do not understand it. Wikipedia editors are not working to produce a work of truth. Wikipedia editors are working to build articles that present the body of world knowledge on the subject of the article, whatever is that body of knowledge. On the subject of the NWT part of the body of world knowledge is the presentation from various sources of NWT translators. This is just information that is verifiable for what it says. No more and no less. All Wikipedia’s threshold standard requires is that we present this information as the sources present the information.

You have yet to present a single published third-party source agreeing with you that the information of NWT translators is either 1) unreliable or 2) insignificant to the subject of the NWT. Why should editors here accept your opinion when you are unable to demonstrate your opinion has support in the world’s knowledge base? To the contrary, I have provided published source on top of publish source presenting this information as reliable and significant to the subject of the NWT. Doesn’t this disparity mean anything to you? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for in a source?

This is specifically to Cfrito. Seddon69 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC) as an addition, i dont want 3 paragraphs of text, what im after here is strict criteria. Seddon69 (talk) I ask this because i personally believe i have sources that can be used but i dont wanna just have them put here if they are gonna just be torn to shreads and want to know what you personally think, constitutes a reliable source. Seddon69 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seddon69: Either these men did or did not do this translating work. A reliable source for this information is the WTB&TS or the translators themselves. A reliable source as far as Wikipedia policy goes is one that fact-checks and is accurate. There is simply no other way to know who did or did not translate this Bible version other than the WTB&TS or the translators themselves. A copyright assignment document perhaps. A publishing contract. A transcribed death bed confession. Something beyond some disgruntled ex-JW that remembers hearing in mess-hall chatter or leaps of faith rooted in speculations of R Franz's occasional proximity to a file cabinet containing "the names." And what is the value to the Article? Show me the source data, the fact-verification trail, and the relevance to the article. You tell me: How would one fact-check R Franz's or Cetnar's claims, or anyone else's? What of all the others that worked on the NWT? Can the sources you have be used to beyond a reasonable doubt be used to determine whether Henschel did or did not do the translating? Which men worked on the Hebrew texts? The Aramaic texts? The Greek Texts? The appendices? The Forward? The Preface? Did they work on the English phrasing? Were these the only ones involved? Are your sources that conclusive? -- cfrito (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

Seddon69: What is the status of mediation efforts on the NWT article? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marvin, I concur the informal mediation efforts have stalled. I notice in the request for comment section you commented "plenty of secondary sources have examined this information and used it as reliable and relevant to the subject of the NWT". Could you provide a link to these secondary sources? Addhoc (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: you can see examples of these secondary sources, some of which are available online, on my NWT sandbox talk page. The ones available online have links provided. On my talk page you will find direct quotations from each source along with full bibliographic data.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I have placed a RfC tag in the talk page of the NWT article.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of MedCab Case

Following the apparent solving of this dispute are there any objections to closing this case? Seddon69 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the dispute is resolved. I have no objection to closing the case.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]