Talk:Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 3

Milton Henschel
Jeffro77 has suggested an editor is perhaps dishonest for indicating the year 1947 as the point at which Milton Henschel became a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The record shows Henschel became a Director of the Society in the year 1947, and prior to 1971 Directors of the Society were considered as the governing body. (See The Watchtower of Oct. 1, 1947 p. 304; The Watchtower of Jan. 15, 1944 p. 30; The Watchtower of Nov. 1, 1944 pp. 330-333)
 * Okay, I was wrong, but edited in good faith.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77 has asserted an NYT article stating Henschel was a governing body member since 1971 and a Watchtower obituary stating in "1947 he began serving in an administrative capacity." I understand Jeffro77's references as refering to 1) the period beginning in 1971 when the Society's president's power was diluted by restructuring the governing body so each member carried equal weight and 2) Henschel's inside work assignment as an administrator, which work was in addition to and beyond his work as Knorr's personal secretary. Jeffro77 does not like interchanging with me, and has taken it upon himself to gossip about me to others, and leave loads of personal attacks on my talk page and elsewhere. I would like other editors to weigh in on this. Perhaps several of the beginning dates of deceased governing body members need further editing.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If Marvin had stopped typing after the word "secretary", no more would need to have been said. He quite aptly demsonstrated that I made my edit in good faith, and that he understood it to be such.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeffro77: You have abused my character and participations here over and over again. I am sick and tired of your behavior toward me, and see no reason to hide it for you. I expressed what I did because I wanted other editors to know why I was asking them to weigh in rather than asking you . What I wrote is true. And, I know better than to ask for your participation in any discussion here with me because you have told me to think as much in so many words. Please get over yourself and stop trying to assassinate my character.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You made an issue beyond what was necessary. You made an ad hominem attack. You made accusations of gossip where none exists. You make frequent condescending comments. You could have simply stated I was wrong (something you evidently took great delight in), indicated the reasons why, and left it that. You went after me. Grow up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you've resorted to an ad hominem attack, and a false one, is amusing. I do not like interchanging with you largely because of your condescension, a trait other editors have also commented on (eg, User:IronMaidenRocks, as per your Talk page - to whom you gave a condescending reply), without any collusion with me. There has been no 'gossip' of you on my part. I have directly approached you regarding your approach at various times, and have only mentioned you to others with regard to existing discussions they and you have been involved in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: You are wrong about a great many things, including your remarks about an anonymous editor suggesting his or her edits were not in good faith but, rather, wildly inaccurate and, worse, dishonest. You need to take a close look at the inner man. I have offered no ad hominem and have not said anything here inaccurate. Take is however you please.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'take a close look at the inner man'??? More condescension. Oh dear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You attempted to represent me as an editor who gossips about you. It's an ad hominem attack. Saying I'm wrong about 'a great many things' is also an ad hominem attack.
 * I'll leave it up to the other editor whether they want me to give my reasons for my mistaken edit at the time, which is no business of yours.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Ad hominem is a fallacious form of reason where a person attempts to persuade readers against a particular conclusion by attacking the person (character et al) of whomever has asserted that conclusion. I have not done this. That you think otherwise only demonstrates a misconstrual, which is a mistake on your part. Rather than resort to ad hominem, as you accuse me of, I offered hard evidence in the form of published documents that contradicted your edits and proved true the edits you removed.
 * I was wrong, and you could have simply presented the information I had wrong, which I have already amended. But instead you went on your little ad hominem tirade (while somehow deluding yourself into believing you did no such thing).

Otherwise, it is true that you gossip about me. You know it and I know it. I have even called you to task for this on occasion. That you are wrong about a great many things is something you have thoughtfully demonstrated right here.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about a thing. I'm occasionally wrong about other things too, that have no relevance here. As are you. However, statements such as "wrong about a great many things" do not address specific instances, and are intended to attack credibility, as was the mention of gossip, which had no relevance to the topic at hand. That makes it an ad hominem attack, specifically, it is "ad hominem abusive". You will have to present what you imagine to be 'gossip' about you, because I know of no such event, and your presumption regarding what 'I know' is pathetic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: And who exactly was “attacking credibility” when he wrote “Wildly inaccurate info for Henschel implies other edits by same user to be dishonest”? Look inward, and please stop transposing your own feelings onto the writings of other editors, including this one. I have no need to feed pettiness. Think as you will.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed my error with the editor in question, which is none of your business. Being suspicious of an anonymous editor based on information from an article I thought was correct, for which I have apologised is hardly the same as your attack. You are feeding your own pettiness.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The current article
As I read the article since its current changes, I can just say that the article is presenting what is a largely critical view that is not neutral. Maybe some will say that it is MY opinion and that my opinion is always 'organization friendly', but I really think this is not the case. The article mostly cites critical sources and the text is rather suspicious in many cases. Please remember that an article in wikipedia shall be neutral and not part of a debate. Summer Song (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The major sources for the article are (a) a book by a former Governing Body member, who provides an unparalleled view of the inner workings of the Governing Body and its history, providing information never previously released; (b) a book by a retired professor of history and religious studies whose interest in the religion was heightened by the fact that he was a long-time Witness and (c) several Watchtower magazines. Rather than being "critical sources", both of those non-Witness books are reliable third-party sources, presenting valuable information about the Governing Body that is both positive and negative. Although a glance at the list of sources shows a predominance of references drawn from Franz and Penton, the article is not dominated by a critical tone. It contains factual material about the function and history of the Governing Body drawn from all three sources and also covers some issues that have not been mentioned in Watchtower literature. These are presented fairly and accurately, so I disagree with your suggestion that the article lacks neutrality. The problem, if anything, is that the Governing Body acts so secretively that there are few reliable third-party sources that can be used to create such an article. As can be seen from the material drawn from Franz and Penton, Watchtower Society publications also ignore or whitewash historical developments, depriving readers of what could be an opposing "official" view of events.


 * I believe the current version is a marked improvement on what it was around November: it has corrected erroneous information in the History section, provided some critical material that was previously absent but ought to be provided to inject balance (and arguably provides neutrality for the first time), and provided a wealth of sources. LTSally (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)