Talk:Watchtower Bible School of Gilead

Misstated name
Researchers of this subject have been hampered by the fact that even well-respected sources have misstated its actual name. Since August 2009, the article has included these verifiable misstated names so that researchers can know each is identical to the subject, and not merely related to it. Including them also allows this article to appear directly in an internet search for any of the misstated names. A few days ago, editor User:Jeffro77 began something short of an edit war:
 * "Watch Tower Bible Society of Gilead"&mdash;Sect, cult, and church in Alberta by William Edward Mann, ©1955, University of Toronto Press, page 109, As Retrieved 2009-08-24, "Watch Tower Bible Society of Gilead [sic] in the eastern United States, which gave a five-month training course to leaders selected by the central organization from branches in all parts of the world."
 * "Watchtower Missionary School of Gilead"&mdash;A History of Jehovah's Witnesses: from a Black American Perspective by Firpo W. Carr, ©1993, Scholar Technological Institute of Research, page 48
 * "Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead"&mdash;Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions by Wendy Doniger (editor), ©2006 Encyclopaedia Britannica, As Retrieved 2009-08-24, page 563, "Knorr established the Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead (South Lansing, N.Y.) to train missionaries and leaders, decreed that all the society's books and articles be published anonymously, and set up adult education programs to train Witnesses to deliver their own apologetical talks. Under Knorr's direction a group of Witnesses produced a new translation of the Bible."
 * "Gilead Watchtower Bible School"&mdash;Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, ©2001, Continuum International Publishing Group, As Retrieved 2009-08-24, "Knorr improved the Society's training programme, establishing the Gilead Watchtower Bible School [sic] in South Lansing, New York, and organizing the 'theocratic ministry schools' in each congregation. Knorr expanded the work of the Witnesses abroad"
 * 1) Remove: On May 2, 2010, editor Jeffro77 removed the reliably-sourced alternate names claiming, "These references...not necessary or useful".
 * AuthorityTam here misstates my edit summary. Actual edit summary: "These references might be useful in the context of establishing notability, but not necessary or useful to highlight that others have gotten the name slightly wrong"-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Reinstate: On May 2, 2010, I reinstated, writing, "Explicitly stating incorrect names allows searches to land here, and clarifies that all are same."
 * 2) Remove: On May 2, 2010, Jeffro now claims, "It comes across as smarmy fault finding."
 * Edit summary incomplete. Actual edit summary: "It comes across as smarmy fault finding. I have created the necessary redirects"-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Reinstate as footnote: On May 4, 2010, I reinstate the verifiable sources and misstated names in a footnote, to avoid distracting from the main article but still allow text searches to find notably-misstated terms on this page.
 * 2) Remove: On May 6, 2010, Jeffro removes, claiming, "no need to mention slightly incorrect use of name - no substantial risk of confusion of term".
 * The redirects were also mentioned again in this edit summary.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? If there were truly no risk of confusion, it seems obvious that the writers and editors at the University of Toronto Press, the Scholar Technological Institute, Britannica Encyclopedia, and Continuum Publishing wouldn't have confused the terms in the first place. It seems silly to ignore that Wikipedia readers (lesser professionals than they) benefit from and perhaps even appreciate an explicit explanation of the (misstated) formal names seen in scholarly works. Furthermore, the reason for inclusion goes beyond "the risk of confusion". It will allow same-page text searches to find a term likely to be searched, that is, a term used by a reference work as vaunted as Britannica Encyclopedia et al. I am typically untroubled by immaterial edits, but I feel this persistent deletion of relevant facts and verifiable sources detracts materially from a full encyclopedic discussion of this subject. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro asks why a person would search for "the wrong title of the school". That's the point; the researcher wouldn't know it was the wrong title and would have excellent reasons for believing he had a right title. A researcher using a printed bona fide reference work would believe he had a valid title of a (not necessarily the) school. After all, it's known that Gilead is subsidiary to So, if Wikipedia's overriding priority is to avoid any possibility that a source will feel "mocked" when others simply quote accurately from it without further comment, then exhaustingly-empathetic editors should work toward phrasing the information with less offense. The answer is not to hide it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC) --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have partially reverted this edit, because there does not appear to be a significant chance that the misstated names would be mistaken for some other thing independent of this article's subject. (I previously created redirects corresponding to the misstated titles.) For example, it seems unlikely that readers would think that "Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead" in Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions refers to some separate thing to "Watchtower Bible School of Gilead". Similarly, presentation of the "Gilead Watchtower Bible School" in Exploring New Religions is not likely to be confused for something other than the "Watchtower Bible School of Gilead". Presentation of such minor errors comes across as mocking sources that were not precise in stating the name rather than to provide 'needed clarification'. If a particular title is distinctly different and is frequently used in various publications, then such a misstated title would be valuable for the purposes of clarification, however this has not been demonstrated. The misstated titles are not notable.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would a person already at the article do a "same-page text search" for the wrong title of the school when the article name already shows the right title.
 * As for the claim that "researchers have been hampered", you clearly had no trouble finding sources that used slightly different names for the school, so it is unlikely that anyone doing actual research would be particularly inconvenienced.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the claim about internet searches, the current version of the article appears at the top of the Google search results for each of the misstated names. As previously stated, I have also put redirects in place for the misstated names.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the implication of editor consensus in the statement that the references were present since August 2009, until the last couple of days there had been no edits at all since AuthorityTam added the 'references' in August 2009. If someone had done a copyedit but left those references in place, it might then be be valid to suggest other editors agreed with their presence.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter is not one of convenience or inconvenience. It is about encyclopedic quality, which suffers from the removal of information such as is contained in the sources mentioned above. Why the insistence on hiding this information, when it can answer questions a researcher might reasonably have?
 * Theocratic Schools Department, which is subsidiary to
 * Watchtower Educational Center, which is subsidiary to
 * Watchtower Society (NY), which is subsidiary to
 * Watch Tower Society (PA).
 * Is it really so silly to imagine one of the four misstated names may be a subsidiary of Watchtower Bible School of Gilead? The article already states that Watchtower Bible School of Gilead has (at least) three explicitly-named subsidiaries:
 * Gilead Extension School
 * Gilead Cultural School of Mexico
 * Ministerial Training School
 * A researcher knowing of the existence of, for example, "Gilead Missionary School" and confirming that name from a respected print reference, would be entirely reasonable to wonder if and how THAT school related to Watchtower Bible School of Gilead. Why in the world would Wikipedia deny readers that information? How can it be argued that Wikipedians benefit from less disambiguity?
 * AuthorityTam's false arguments here hide his original reason for including these references, his original statement in the article being, "Secular and non-Witness reference works have at times misstated its formal name as:". The point of adding them in the first instance was 'these people got it wrong. The article doesn't suffer from the absence of these 'references'. I asked why a person would search for the "wrong title of the school" in the "same-page text searches" about which AuthorityTam was purportedly so concerned, when they're already at the article which shows the correct name, not merely the "wrong title of the school". As previously stated, search engines already show this article when searching for any of the misstated titles. Contending that Gilead Watchtower Bible School and Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead might be confused with something other than Watchtower Bible School of Gilead is special pleading at best, and it has not been demonstrated that any particular misstatement of the name is a common error.-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial wording was a plain dispassionate introduction of verifiable relevant facts, not a snarky "gotcha" exposé: Secular and non-Witness reference works have at times misstated its formal name  I'm content to let this be for a bit and then open a WP:3O or something; there's no hurry.
 * And yet you didn't state that The Watchtower has also referred to it as "Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead" (e.g. w93 10/15 p. 12; w86 4/15 pp. 22-23;), the same "misstated" name used by the "secular and non-Witness" Britannica Encyclopedia of World Religions. And why the wiktionary links for mundane words? But you're of course welcome to get a third opinion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would like a third opinion, couldn't a solution to this be to do something similar to the opening words of the article on Swedish-speaking Finns? That is, by saying: "(also referred to as...in some reference works)" and include the details as a reference note? Deddly (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a suitable solution for a common alternative name, but isn't necessary for the occasional gaff.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "Watch Tower Bible Society of Gilead" gets 7 Goolge hits, 5 for "Watchtower Missionary School of Gilead" 295 for "Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead" and 83 for "Gilead Watchtower Bible School". Take away 1 from each number to account for hits to the Wikipedia page itself and I think at least the latter two deserve a mention in the article. Deddly (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the Google test for "Gilead Watchtower Bible School" (got 81 when I tried it). Three were parenthetical "Gilead (Watchtower Bible School of Gilead)" and four were introductory "Gilead [:or -] Watchtower Bible School of Gilead". After 3 pages of (25) results (including the seven non-results), Google said the rest were "very similar" to those already shown. Of the 25, several were mirrors of the Wikipedia article from various times. On top of that, it's simply a basic rephrasing of a possessive, not a completely different term.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got similar results for "Watch Tower Bible School of Gilead" when accounting for what Google considered "very similar" results.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the superfluous references for the very slightly different name because it is sufficient for the point to include one JW reference and one external reference. I realise you (AuthorityTam) want to present this as an alleged attack on notability, however the minor point about the typography of the school name has no impact at all on the notability of the subject.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deacons
Jeffro, why do you feel that that statement about deacons there at the subheading Bible School for Single Brothers is not important enough to reword. I brought this up here, but they told me to bring it up here. I sense that you're not willing to reason on the issue, that's why I brought it up there. Would you be willing to at least help me word it in a way that is both, not POV, and not wordy? Lighthead  þ 21:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Either this page gets little edit time, or you deem this comment not worthy of a response, Jeffro. If the latter, then that's a really mature attitude to have. Lighthead  þ 07:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he didn't comment in the space of 10 hours 50 minutes! He sure is ignoring you! ...or lives in a different time zone and was asleep. 83.70.170.48 (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I edit when I see fit. And not when I'm asleep or at work. Sheesh.
 * In regard to the actual question, I do not believe there is any need for a wordy explanation about JWs using a different term for deacons, or that there is a POV issue. It is self-evident that their term is the term used by JWs, and it is also self-evident from the link that the linked term is the common name.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lighthead also needs to review the WP:BRD process instead of automatically presuming that an editor who reverts is "not willing to reason on the issue". It is quite inappropriate to immediately rush to the Neutrality noticeboard without attempting any discussion at all, or expecting that another editor immediately respond to your subsequent request.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To Jeffro and the IP user, thank you for treating me like an idiot, but this discussion existed on another page, long before yesterday. If you don't have that page on your watchlist then that's not my problem. If you see a new section on that page that says Watchtower Bible School of Gilead, that might be a red flag. But anyway, thanks for the explanation. That's all I wanted. And I see that neither you, Jeffro, and especially the IP user has the social skills or the maturity to achieve anything worthwhile here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Just so you know, Jeffro, dominating a wikiproject so that no one can breathe without you having any say is not doing something worthwhile. I don't see that anywhere else, here. :) Lighthead  þ 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly you still need to learn about Wikipedia's policies, as well as general courtesy. It's not clear how anyone should be expected to know if there was related discussion elsewhere (which still has not been indicated), particularly since you didn't mention any other discussion apart from a section you inappropriately raised at the Neutrality noticeboard prior to any attempt to discuss. Don't blame other editors for your own failure to follow the rules.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all what policy are you talking about? As far as I know WP:CAN is a guideline, not a policy. And I wasn't canvassing by the way. I just mentioned it at the NPOV noticeboard first for reasons I would like to keep to myself but that I have hinted at. But needless to say, I was not canvassing. As far as general courtesy, I symbolically strike out my mean comments. I was very angry at the time, and so I take those statements back, now. And as to your related discussion comment, I don't understand what you're talking about. What do you mean by which still has not been indicated? I simply don't understand the first part of that sentence, please explain. Lighthead  þ 04:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's various policies you seem to have trouble with, including WP:AGF, but there are also various guidelines you would do well to review. I don't know why you don't understand what my comment about "related discussion". You claimed that "this discussion existed on another page, long before yesterday". Where is that discussion?? The fact that you feel the need to 'keep the reasons to yourself' about why you went straight to the other noticeboard seems to suggest that you already know that isn't the proper procedure and that you had some particular motive for doing so.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you might be right that I have to review that. I have to admit that. I actually don't edit a lot for the time that I've been on Wikipedia, if that's any excuse. That discussion was simply on the NPOV noticeboard, but I realize now that you may not have that page on your watchlist, because you would have seen a JW related section. To prove to you that I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm gonna disclose the reason I mentioned it first, there. I had this impression in my mind that you weren't willing to reason on that edit or anything for that matter. I had this impression that you were trying to keep those articles purely POV. I understand that you most likely are not, now. But that's why I brought it up there, because I assumed that you had a problem, and didn't assume good faith as you mentioned. But, I will try to do that more. Assuming good faith isn't easy when there are so many people doing bad things. Sockpuppetry, vandalism, etc. are rampant on Wikipedia. The person that was in charge of handling the requests for reviewers was blocked for sockpuppetry, coincidentally when I put in my request for reviewership. And I put in charge in italics because he wasn't even supposed to be involved in those requests. But I will try to do that. Thanks. Lighthead  þ 23:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

New and Old Testaments/Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
Apologies if I'm doing this wrong. I still have a lot of ignorance on the groundrules for editing WP.

At any rate, the phrase "the Old and New Testaments, which they refer to as the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures" struck me as odd. Of course, I realize that this is (I think) a minor issue. Nevertheless, Genesis through Malachi are literally "Hebrew(/Aramaic)" "Scriptures" and Matthew through Revelation are literally "Greek" "Scriptures". "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are interpretations of their content. Furthermore, they don't make lexical or contextual sense. The greek word at 2Co 3:14 was translated inconsistently in the KJV and the context itself shows that he wasn't referring to the entirety of the Hebrew writings. This has been known for a very long time.

One thing that helped strike the oddity on this was the discussion on deacons here. It is absolutely correct that the base word is 'deacon'. This is the transliteration of the greek word. "Ministerial Servant" is a translation. The article reading is entirely accurate referencing the literal word with the 'referred to as...' derivative after the comma.

Perhaps the same consideration can be given to this subject as well. Literal words first with interpretive derivation after the comma.

Again, I realize this is a minor issue and I've seen WT publications use 'Testament' at times to help new readers understand what they're referring to. But I've seen some rather intricate discussions on WP because of technical issues like these, and I figured it'd be appropriate to bring it up.

Jeffo, you seem to be the de facto head over all things English JW on WP, so what do you think?

Addition: I suppose it would help to include my suggested change, "....alternating between the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures (commonly known as the Old and New Testaments). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.57.128 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Following Wikipedia's principle of using common names, the article properly makes references to the sections of the Bible using the terms that are most often used, and then provides the terms used by JWs. No change is required. In particular, it would be more ambiguous to use the term 'Greek Scriptures' as an initial description, as that generic term may refer to any scriptures translated into Greek, and the term is often used to refer to the Septuagint.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Theocratic Ministry School
While I have been unable to verify it with an RS (my sources are mostly OR, being my mother and a few other JW's I know) apparently the Theocratic Ministry School within each congregation was discontinued in 2015. If someone can fine some RS's for this it would be good information for the article. Vyselink (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sort of. The "Theocratic Ministry School" has been 'rebranded' as "Treasures from God's Word", with three of the 'student talks' shunted off to a section called "Apply Yourself to the Field Ministry". The format of the talks and the order of the meeting parts has been modified. 'Talks' are still 'assigned' to 'students' and the 'students' are still given 'counsel' (by the "Life and Ministry chairman") based on material from their Ministry School textbook, so it's as much of a 'school' as it (n)ever was, and the changes are only really semantics. Our Kingdom Ministry has been rebranded as Our Christian Life and Ministry–Meeting Workbook and now includes less content, with more whitespace and lots of pretty pictures. But it's more or less the same concept as before&mdash;some talks that focus on a chunk of the Bible or a JW publication. It is still followed by what used to be called the 'Service Meeting' called "Living as Christians", which now also includes the "Congregation Bible Study" as a 'meeting part' rather than being considered a 'separate' 'meeting', which had still been the case after it was merged into the same evening instead of being the "Book Study" on a separate night). As with many 'important' changes in the JW microcosm, it's probably considered a 'big deal' by adherents&mdash;this is easy to imagine of a group where semantics play such an important part.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This article only tangentially mentions the 'Theocratic Ministry School', and only in a historical context. The 2016 change to the TMS is probably of no importance to the scope of this article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)