User talk:Marvin Shilmer/New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

User Edit Page for New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article
This talk page is for editors to comment and make suggestions on my continued editing on the article New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures during the period the Wikipedia article is under dispute and locked. The Wikipedia article page is found here. If you are curious about the dispute, you can read details here.

Potential Editors: Shilmer insists on thoroughly dominating Articles about Jehovah's Witnesses with anti-JW material. His currently preferred technique is to find quotes in anti-JW literature that seem benign but then overwhelm the reference section with original research and indiscriminate quotes. His Talk Page style is one of bamboozling, seeking to put any serious objections on a truly wearying and condescending track that most editors just simply give up. I personally have received specific encouragement from editors on all sides of various issues congratulating me for challenging so thoroughly Shilmer's despotism. Shilmer has been repeatedly taken to task for his truculence, his impertinence and his arrogance by a number of different editors. His pseudonym is taken from the English noun "shill" which means, "a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty." A former Jehovah's Witness himself who is close personal friends with others who have also forsaken their JW religion, Shilmer has evidently made it his personal goal to perpetuate as many references to vile anti-writings as he can in as many places as he can. He has turned to Wikipedia to malign decent people because the unsuspecting public sees Wikipedia as non-religious. Shilmer's editorials against Witnesses have been dismissed in official Arbitration, and even then, he has harassed and harangued the Arbitrators. In mediation cases he has provoked, he has taunted and abused the mediators because they didn't side with him. He has created this self-glorifying version so that he doesn't have to work so hard in writing whatever he wants. Quick to use Wikipedia rules to his advantage, twisting words and preferring general policies while ignoring application guidelines that specifically show that his behavior is what not to do, Shilmer once again flagrantly violates the Wikipedia principle and policy that Wikipedia is neither a mirror site nor a personal website medium. -- cfrito (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cfrito: Thank you for sharing your comments and thinking.


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


 * If you want to assault my person and character I woulld prefer you do it on my use talk page so it is easier for other editors to see your handiwork in respect to me.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I am not attacking Shilmer, and I am sorry he feels that way. However, I do believe that Shilmer is erring. Shilmer is competing with the Mediators, and that's the flagrant disregard I'm talking about. I'm not so sure that's what Wikipedia had in mind with personal copy pages, nor what Wikipedia would define as trying to achieve consensus with the other editors through the mediation process. In fact Shilmer has gone to a select group of the editors on the NWT Article and invited them privately to his version of the sandbox I don't think that's in he spirit of the Mediation framework. Probably because on the mediator's edition of the sandbox NWT page, the only edit they've made thus far is to delete one of Shilmer's pet POV's -- cfrito (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cfrito: I informed editors and mediators of my NWT sand box. So what? Editors I invited on user pages are not known for agreeing with me. This is why I invited them. Otherwise I used the NWT article’s talk page to invite any editor interested in continuing to work on this article. Again, so what? Can you please explain how this is “competing with the mediators”? Mediators are working on specific editing issues regarding this article. They are not working on the entire article. You filed the request for mediation yourself. Hence above other editors you should understand this. Otherwise, I have already expressed that my NWT sandbox is not the place to discuss issues mediators are working on. Also, Seddon69 moved my comment on his sandbox talk page to his user talk page. What on earth has you so worked up about a user sandbox page? If you are interested in working toward a consensus, then why not spend your time productively by digging up some sources for your representation on the mediation page? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors: I'm not worked up. Shilmer might be though. I have been trying to improve the content. When I originally reviewed the Article I began working on separating the NWT history from the criticisms, and tried to organize the criticisms into linguistic vs. theological. The Article likes to suggest that the NWT translation is unique in the criticism it garners from the contemporary theological community it exists in, but I added some perspective in a historical sense and it met stiff opposition. So, now, I have focused my efforts on making sure that the phrasing has balance, eliminating loaded words like "many" and "the entire community", and so on, as lead-in's to reference quotes. And if Shilmer was all that interested in my comments he would have invited me too. I have no requiremet t justfy my editorial focus and I could imagine what Shilmer might reply to any suggestions I might make on how he should spend his time. He should imaging similarly. -- cfrito (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cfrito: I did invite you to comment here. The invitation is found on the Wikipedia article's talk page. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

William Cetnar as told by author E. Gruss
“From my observation, N. H. Knorr, born 4/23/1905, baptized Cedar Point, OH, and died 6/5/1977 age 72; F. W. Franz 4th President born 1893, Albert D. Schroeder. G. D. Gangas, and M. Henschel met together in these translation sessions. Aside from Vice-President Franz (and his training was limited), none of the committee members had adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. Franz’s ability to do a scholarly job of translating Hebrew is open to serious question since he never formally studied Hebrew.” (Gruss E, We Left The Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1974, p. 68)

Author Raymond Franz
“The New World Translation bears no translator’s name and is presented as the anonymous work of the “New World Translation Committee.” Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew.” (Franz R, Crisis of Conscience Third Edition, Commentary Press, 2000: 54)

Author Raymond Franz
“Secondly, even if we were to accept the numerous insertions made by the translators (more accurately, the translator, Fred Franz) of the New World Translation of the name “Jehovah” in the Christian Scriptures, we are still faced with the fact that the original writers of those Christian Scriptures referred to the name of God’s Son with far greater frequency.” (Franz R, In Search of Christian Freedom, 1999: 505) --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Author Ron Rhodes
“In view of the broad censure this translation has received from renowned biblical linguistic scholars, it is not surprising tht the Watchtower has always resisted efforts to identity members of the translation committee. The claim was that they preferred to remain anonymous and humble, giving God the glory. However, such anonymity also prevented scholars from checking their credentials.

“When defector Raymond Franz finally revealed the identity of the translators (Nathan Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel), it quickly became apparent that the committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew of Greek training and, in fact, had only a high school education. The fifty—Frederick Franz—claimed to know Hebrew and Greek, but upon examination under oath in a court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland, was found to fail a simple Hebrew test.”. (Rhodes R, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions, The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Zondervan, 2001, p. 94)

Author Walter Martin
“From this pompous pronouncement it is only too evident that the Watchtower considers its “scholars” the superiors of such great scholars as Wycliffe and Tyndale, not to mention the hundreds of brilliant, conscecrated Christian scholars who produced the subsequent orthodox translations. Such a pretext is of course too absurd to merit refutation, but let it be remembered that the New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek of Hebrew exegesis or translation. While the members of the 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). None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree. In fact, Frederick W. Franz, then representing the translation committee and later serving as the Watchtower Society’s fourth president, admitted under oath that he could not translate Genesis 2:4 from the Hebrew.” (Martin W, Kingdom of the Cults, Expanded Anniversary Edition, October 1997, Bethany House Publishers, p. 123)

Author Tony Piper
“The Society states that the names of the translators of the NWT have never been made public to ensure that all the glory goes to God and none to man [Proclaimers p. 608 note]. While this is no doubt most laudable it has two not so laudable riders - (i) that the credentials of the translators can never be checked, and (ii) that there would be nobody to assume responsibility for the translation.

“The translators' names, however, have never been a total secret. William Cetnar, who was working in the Brooklyn Bethel (the Society's International Headquarters) in 1950 when the work was first begun, and whose story can be found in Edmond Gruss' book We Left Jehovah's Witnesses, states that the names were well known to be Nathan Homer Knorr (the then president), Frederick William Franz (vice-president and president from 1977), Albert D Schroeder, George D Gangas and Milton G Henschel, all high-ranking Society officials and later members of the Governing Body. It is Cetnar's opinion that no one but Franz, whose training was limited, had had any adequate schooling or background to function as critical Bible translators. The following, cited in We Left Jehovah's Witnesses (pp. 74-5), supports this view.

“From the Scottish Court of Sessions, November 1954:

“(The attorney) Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?

(Franz) A. Yes…

Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?

A. Yes, for use in my biblical work.

Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?

A. Yes. [Pursuer's Proof, p. 7]

Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?

A. I do not speak Hebrew.

Q. You do not?

A. No.

Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?

A. Which?

Q. That fourth verse of second chapter of Genesis?

A. You mean here?

Q. Yes?

A. No. I wouldn't attempt to do that. [Pursuer's Proof, pp.102,103].” (Tony Piper, The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published online by Reachout Trust)

Author James Penton
“On thing which has brought much criticism of the New World Translation is that that New World Translation Committee has refused since 1950 to reveal the names and academic credentials of its members. Of course, this has very little to do with the quality of the translation itself which deserves to be examined on the basis of its own merits rather than on who and what its translators were or were not. It may be, however, that the anonymity for the committee reflects more than a spirit of humility among its members. From page 50 of Crisis of Conscience Raymond Franz states that the members of it were his uncle, Frederick Franz, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and George Gangas. Then he notes: ‘Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt [a] translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati, but was only self taught in Hebrew.’ So to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man—Frederick Franz.” (Penton J, Apocalypse Delayed Second Edition, University of Toronto Press, 1999, p. 173-4)

Author Mike Spencer
“The New World Translation committee consisted of four members of the Jehovah’s Witness religious sect. Their names and scholarly qualifications are as follows: Nathan Knorr: President of the Watchtower Society (no academic training in any Biblical language) Fred Franz: (no academic degree in any Biblical language, though he did study Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati) Albert Schroeder: (no academic training in any Biblical language) George Gangas: (no academic training in any Biblical language)” (Mike Spencer, The New World Translation: God's Word?, published online by Spiritwatch Ministries)

Editor Michael Marlowe
“The publisher of this version has never made public the names of the translators. But former members of the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization have identified the members of the committee as Nathan H. Knorr (President of the organization), Frederick W. Franz (Vice-President), George D. Gangas, and Albert D. Schroeder. According to Raymond V. Franz, the "principal translator of the Society's New World Translation" was Frederick W. Franz. (1) According to M. James Penton, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man, Frederick Franz." (2) Franz afterwards became the President of the organization, from 1977 to 1992, and was responsible for the revisions.” (Michael Marlowe editor, The New World Translation, published online by Bible Research)

Author Tony Wills
“[Frederick] Franz is a language scholar of no mean ability—he supervised the translation of the Bible from the original languages into the New World Translation, completed in 1961.” (Wills T, M.A., A People For His Name – A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and An Evaluation, Second Edition, Lulu, 2006: 253) Originally published in 1967 by Vantage Press. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Author Joseph “Tal” Davis
“In an article on the NWT, one WBTS book states that it is "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah" (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 276).

“One might naturally ask, "If that is so, just who were the translators on the committee who were so qualified to make such an audacious claim to be 'anointed?'" Surprisingly, in the same book, in direct answer to that question, the following statement is made: "When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request" (Reasoning, 277).

“The truth is that nowhere in the NWT or any WBTS literature are the names of the translators revealed; and while it is true that some other Bible translations such as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) do not list their translators in their editions, only the NWT and the WBTS will not send the names to curious inquirers upon written request.

“So, do we know who the NWT translators were? The answer is yes, we do know, despite the WBTS' refusal to release the names. Raymond Franz is a former member of the WBTS Governing Body. In his book, Crisis of Conscience, he states that the translation committee consisted of Governing Body members George Gangas, Albert Schroeder, Fredrick Franz, and then WBTS President, Nathan Knorr.

“‘Fred Franz (Raymond Franz's uncle, who later became WBTS President), however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew’ (Crisis of Conscience, 50).

“The fact is, none of the members of the NWT committee, including Fredrick Franz, were really qualified to make a scholarly translation from the original languages. No one on the committee had more than a rudimentary familiarity with Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. This lack of expertise is clearly revealed in the poor, biased quality of the NWT's renderings of many key biblical passages.” (Davis T, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: The Jehovah's Witnesses Bible, North American Mission Board)

Author M. Kurt Goedelman
“The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has failed both the public and its own followers at this most crucial point, as they refuse to give the names and credentials of the translators of The New World Translation. The Watchtower's Bible subject index handbook, Reasoning from the Scripture, states: "When presenting as a gift the publishing rights to their translation, the New World Bible Translation Committee requested that its members remain anonymous. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania has honored their request" (pg. 277).

“The reason cited is because the "translators were not seeking prominence for themselves." However, the fact is that the men who comprised this committee had no adequate schooling or background to function as skilled critical Bible translators.

“The translation committee was headed by (then vice -president of the Jehovah's Witnesses)Frederick W.Franz. Other members included Nathan H. Knorr (then president of the Jehovah's Witnesses),AlbertD. Schroeder, Ceorge D. Gangas and Milton Henschel.

“The information as to the identity of the translation committee was made known by former Jehovah's Witness William Cetnar. (See further, We Left lehovah's Witnesses, A Non-Profit Organization Edmond C. Gruss.) Cetnar was to supply this information as he worked at the International Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses during the time the translation was being prepared.

“In addition, former member of the Watchtower's Governing Body, Raymond V. Franz, in his book, Crisis of Conscience, lists the translators' names as Franz, Knorr, Schroeder and Cangas. His list omits Henschel. Franz further acknowledges his uncle Frederick Franz as the "principal translator of the Society's New World Translation" (Crisis, pg. 50).” (Goedelman M.K., A Critical Look at the Jehovah’s Witness Bible the New World Translation, The Religious Research Project) --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

About Primary and Secondary Source Authors/Editors
Ron Rhodes ThD is President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. He teaches cult apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina, and at Biola University, Le Mirada, California. During the early 1990s Rhodes was associate editor of Christian Research Journal. Rhodes has authored more than 20 books, including two Silver Medallion Award-winners.

James Penton earned his Masters and Doctorate in history. He taught history at the Universidad de Puerto Rico, at Northern Michigan University at Marquette, and the University of Wisconsin - Whitewater. In 1965 he took a position at the University of Calgary in Alberta, and in 1967 began at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta where he taught until 1990. He is now a professor emeritus at the U of L. He is also a past president of the Canadian Society of Church History. Penton was born in 1932 and raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. He wrote a well recieved history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada.[source] He was disfellowshipped (excommunicated) by the Watchtower organization in the early 1980s.

Edmond C. Gruss is professor emeritus at The Master's College, Santa Clara, California. Gruss was born about 1933. He was associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses from age 7 to 17.

Raymond Franz was born in 1922 and raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He graduated from the Watchtower organization’s Bible school of Gilead in 1948 and became an appointed missionary of the organization. From 1949 through 1965 he worked in this missionary capacity, mostly in the Caribbean. From 1965 until 1980 he worked at Watchtower’s world headquarters in its editorial (writing) department. In 1971 he was appointed to the highest ecclesiastical position recognized by the organization, called its Governing Body and made up of about a dozen men. In 1980 he was ousted from this position and removed from headquarters. In 1981 he was disfellowshipped (excommunicated) reportedly for having association with ex-member Peter Gregerson. In his book Crisis of Conscience, Raymond Franz offers documentary evidence in the form of written admissions from the Watchtower organization of how the religion’s Governing Body treated him dishonestly. (pp. 336-341) Raymond Franz’s book, Crisis of Conscience, was published in 1983. This book is currently in its Fourth Edition. In 1999 his book, In Search of Christian Freedom (over 700 pages) was published.

Walter Martin is founder of the Christian Research Institute. He has written extensively on “cults” and new religious movements. In his review of Martin’s book Kingdom of the Cults, Carlton Mitchell (Department of Religion, Wake Forest University) writes, “The book is candid in its apologetic purpose to present the teachings and strategies of the major cults as they contrast with the very conservative Protestant theology of the writer”. (Mitchell C, Review of Religious Research, Summer79, Vol. 20 Issue 3, p372)

Michael Marlowe earned his bachelor's degree in English Literature and his Masters in Biblical Studies.

Tony Wills was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness and entered the ministry in 1957. He has lectured publicly in the United States and abroad. He earned his M.A. and PhD from Stanford University.

Michael Spencer is a magna cum laude graduate of Lee University (B.A. in Biblical Education).

Tony Piper has written several well documented articles on Jehovah’s Witnesses.

William Cetnar is the one quoted in Edmond Gruss’ book We Left the Jehovah’s Witnesses. During the period the NWT Committee prepared and offered its Bible translation for publication the Watchtower organization acknowledges William Cetnar held a special appointment of great responsibility at its world headquarters. (See Watchtower Yearbooks 1952, p. 39 and 1958 p. 49) William Centar was disfellowshipped by the Watchtower organization.

Dr. Tal Davis is Interfaith Coordinator in the People Group/Interfaith Evangelism Team for the North America Mission Board.

Kurt Goedelman is founder and director of Personal Freedom Outreach, A Christian research ministry in St. Louis, Missouri.

Editor Cfrito's Objections/Complaints/Arguments
This Section is to isolate, review and respond to Cfrito's various assertions as to why the names of NWT translators is unreliable and/or irrelevant to the NWT article. The discussion has become terribly distributed over many pages, and editors interested in resolving the current dispute deserve some outline of issues raised.

Primary Sources Differ
Cfrito asserts that because source Cetner and source Ray Franz differ by one name of NWT committee members that this makes the information unreliable. This argument is unsound because it presumes 1) that the NWT committee membership was of necessity constant between when Cetner made his observation and when Ray Franz made his observation, and 2) that both men have expressed a comprehensive list.

When the two sources are consulted one has three names and one has four names. Both men name three names identically. One source (Cetner) includes one additional name (Henschel). Cetner and Ray Franz expressed their firsthand knowledge of NWT translators. Cetner’s firsthand exposure to his information could only have occurred in the 1950s because he left Watchtower in the late 1950s. Ray Franz firsthand exposure to his information was possible from 1965 onward. At no time has Ray Franz suggested that Henschel was not a member of the NWT translation committee. In each case, Cetner and Ray Franz have expressed no more and no less than their personal firsthand knowledge.

This complaint from Cfrito ends up as representing an informal fallacy of logic known as a false dilemma, or false bifurcation. This is the case because Cfrito’s argument depends on membership of the NWT translation committee remaining constant without bothering to prove this membership either had to or did remain constant. Additionally, Cfrito’s argument depends on each man asserting that their lists were comprehensive, yet neither source makes this claim. From a perspective of logical construction, Cfrito’s complaint is without merit; it is unsound.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But the real question is that any attempt to engage in this debate is original research. Are there no secondary sources that express an opinion as to who the translators were?  Is this debate one that is discussed by secondary sources?  I accept neither Shilmer nor Cfrito as authoritative on this kind of question.  Cite secondary sources please, not primary sources.  --Richard (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard: Just above on this page is a boatload of secondary sources.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness and Relevancy
Cfrito asserts that if a list of translators is not comprehensive then the list of translators becomes irrelevant. Cfrito writes:

The fact that neither list is comprehensive reduces its relevance to the article to nothing. The Watchtower organization has come under fire for not proving its assertions that he translators were competent scholars. A partial list cannot be used to disprove this claim, and indeed, as anti-writers both men may have offered a list that would support such an attack. Without documentation, the list is unreliable and including here without exposing this serious bias is dishonest. -- cfrito (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito asserts this as his opinion. He offers no sources (primary or secondary) to support it. Hence, from a Wikipedia perspective Cfrito’s conclusion is original research and, accordingly, should have no influence of whether the information is used as sources present it.

On the other hand, boatloads of secondary sources do in fact use the information of NWT translators’ names. These sources assert use of this information for various reasons. For example, they use this to conclude that despite having names as translators (a comprehensive list or not) these names 1) do not reflect trained expertise in the field of Bible translation and 2) that the list actually shows a decided lack of expertise in the field of Bible translation. These are not my opinions. Rather, these are conclusions offered by a plethora of secondary sources. Additionally, nearly all (if not all) of these sources 1) acknowledge that the publisher has never verified (or challenged) the list of names and that 2) the list may or may not be comprehensive; yet these same sources use the information anyway as relevant to the conclusions they offer.

Hence Cfrito’s objection on this point is unverified opinion, and this opinion is contradicted by a mountain load of sources that demonstrably find the information (the list of names) relevant to the subject of the New World Translation.

Additionally, Cfrito’s stated premise (above) is a false bifurcation because it suggests the list of names is irrelevant unless it can “disprove” a claim. Though this is one possible relevancy of having a list of translators for the New World Translation, it is not the only relevancy. An alternate relevancy is to use a list of names as a measurement of scholarly expertise for whatever the list of names reveals of scholarly expertise, and indeed this is how secondary sources have used the information for the most part. Cfrito’s premise is unsound. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Superior Knowledge and Assumption
Cfrito argues that the superior knowledge Ray Franz had (or should have had) by virtue of his high position (Governing Body member) would have necessitated his list of names mirroring William Cetnar’s list of names if Cetnar’s list of names was reliable. Because Ray Franz’s list of names does not perfectly mirror Cetnar’s list of names Cfrito then concludes Cetnar’s is questionable if not unreliable. Cfrito writes:

Both Cetnar and R Franz worked together with Henschel, a prominent figure. Shilmer has argued that R Franz has superior knowledge because of his position on the Writing Committee and the Governing Body. The fact that Cetnar includes someone that R Franz omits calls into question the reliability of the first list and Cetnar's claim of firsthand knowledge.'' -- cfrito (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito’s argument fails for multiple reasons. In form his argument is unsound because it is built on a premise that Ray Franz’s list of names must mirror Cetnar’s list of names, but Cfrito never proves this is mirroring is essential. Rather, Cfrito opines this and then uses his own conclusion as a premise in an argument favoring his preferential conclusion. In effect, Cfrito has argued 1) I say the lists of names must be exactly the same or else they are unreliable, 2) the lists of names is not exact, hence 3) the lists of names are unreliable. It is circular reasoning. Hence, his argument is fallacy.

Otherwise, the differences between Ray Franz’s list of names and Cetnar’s list of names is addressed in the section above Primary Sources Differ. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary Source Broke a Trust
Cfrito asserts that because source Ray Franz was a Governing Body member that he had a moral duty to maintain confidentiality of NWT translators names because the Watchtower Pennsylvania Corporation’s Board of Directors had a “gentlemen’s agreement” that it would never verify or otherwise disclose the names of the NWT translators.

This argument fails immediately because the Watchtower organization has never verified or otherwise disclosed names of the NWT translators. Hence the actual agreement remains intact; it has not been breached. Frankly, because Ray Franz has no say-so with Watchtower organization decisions (since late 1980) it would be impossible for him to unilaterally breach the agreement for the Watchtower organization to never verify or disclose names of NWT translators.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Cfrito has also failed to demonstrate an express extension of duty from the Watchtower’s Board of Director’s agreement to the Governing Body (which Ray Franz was a member of well after-the-fact) because those two groups are not one and the same. Specifically, Ray Franz has never, ever been on the Watchtower’s Board of Directors (hence under a duty for that reason) and neither has Ray Franz even been a member of the Watchtower corporate membership (hence not under a broad duty).

Something else Cfrito fails to account for is how Ray Franz was treated dishonestly by the Watchtower organization, and particularly by the Governing Body. This dishonest treatment of Ray Franz is fully documented with de facto admission in letters reproduced and published in his book Crisis of Conscience. If it is true that the Watchtower organization breached its trust/duty to Ray Franz by treating him dishonestly, then at the very least this is a mitigation factor, and at the most it represents a release by excommunication.

Cfrito has neither demonstrated an actual breach of the original “gentlemen’s agreement” nor an express duty upon Ray Franz to maintain a agreement made by a body he never belonged to in the first place, even in a broad sense. When it comes to Ray Franz and a conflict of interest due to an alleged duty to maintain confidentiality, Cfrito asserts a circumstantial ad hominem. It is fallacy because it asserts a primary source as unreliable based on circumstances without actually proving the source or the source’s information is unreliable. Cfrito is just attacking the person of Ray Franz. No more. No less. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion sounds like original research on the part of both Shilmer and Cfrito. This is the problem with citing primary sources and then engaging in discussion regarding the reliablity of the source.  The above discussion would be reasonable if and only if secondary sources can be cited who advance either Cfrito's argument or Shilmer's rebuttal thereof.  Otherwise, it would be good to remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.  In short, we don't really care what either Cfrito or Shilmer think (or what I think either).  It's all original research unless it can be cited to a reliable source.  --Richard (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard: This sandbox talk page is to aid in resolving a dispute raised by editor Cfrito. What are you reading in this Section is responses to Cfrito's arguments. I would never suggest using any of this in a Wikipedia article. As you say, it is original research, which by the way is another reason this objection raised by Cfrito is moot.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ray Franz’s Former Position Makes His Information Unreliable
Cfrito argues that by virtue of Ray Franz’s past allegiance and position, Ray Franz’s decision to express names of translators makes his list of names unreliable. Cfrito writes:

R Franz was a member of the Governing Body and of the writing committee, when it published in 1974 its reaffirmation to its agreement with the translators to keep them anonymous, even after their deaths. As a member of that body and key member of the writing committee, he was both bound by the Governing Body's position and knew of it. R Franz did not disclose those names until after he left the JW organization. -- cfrito (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito adds:

Ray Franz was a member of the Governing Body when it reaffirmed publicly its continuing obligation of confidentiality in 1974. The Watchtower Corporation's board was subordinate to the Governing Body, indeed it was a subset, and published the Organization's position on the matter. -- Cfrito (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And Cfrito adds:

One core issue is that we are asked to see R Franz as an honorable reliable and trustworthy man of high integrity, sympathetic because he -- according to his own personal interpretations of matters -- was systematically treated badly by a group: a victim of a conspiracy. And to prove all these things are so, R Franz breaks a confidence to men -- and if his list is to be believed -- men he knew personally, and thus was a bond of trust between individuals in a close personal relationship. And he does so in a for-profit memoir and has never produced a single document supporting these assertions, though he appears to have documents of all sorts otherwise and is not shy to produce them. This makes the list suspect and tests the limits of reliable sources criteria. – Cfrito (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And Cfrito adds:

Again, R Franz was a member of the Governing Body and entrusted with confidential information when it published its obligation to keep these men and their biographical information anonymous and confidential. And the agreement was published as perpetual. R Franz, on the basis of a perceived conspiracy, released himself from that obligation. – Cfrito (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

Cfrito’s argument is a classic circumstantial ad hominem. Whether Ray Franz did or did not break a trust has no bearing on the question of whether what he says is true or false (reliable or unreliable). Ray Franz’s past status compared to present status (an expelled Jehovah’s Witness and expelled Governing Body member) is reason for a reference to provide a statement of disclosure. But assertions/assumptions of a moral flaw are not evidence that specific information from the same source is true or false (reliable or unreliable). Cfrito’s argument is fallacy.

Contrary to Cfrito’s assertions of the reliability of Ray Franz’s information, we find secondary source upon secondary source using the information as reliable. Furthermore, to day Cfrito has yet to offer a single solitary showing of sources that agrees with his opinion that Ray Franz’s list of names for NWT translators is unreliable. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shilmer on this. If Cfrito can offer a single source that argues that Franz's list was unreliable, that assertion can be included in the article.  However, we must avoid giving such assertions undue weight.  --Richard (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Names/Credentials of Translators are Irrelevant
Cfrito argues that the names and/or credentials of NWT translators are irrelevent since “All the language scholars that comment on the NWT texts did so, and continue to do so” despite not having their names/credentials.

The reason this argument from Cfrito fails is because the names and/or credentials are not requested to determine the linguistic merit of the NWT. Rather, the names/credentials are requested to check claims from the Watchtower organization that NWT translators were competent scholars. It is one thing for a researcher to compile a translation using translation tools. It is quite another thing to be an expert (scholar) at translating biblical languages into English. Hence, Cfrito’s assertion above is a strawman. It is fallacy. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unproven Assertions applied by Cfrito in this dispute
There is a growing need to catalogue all the unproven assertions coming from Cfrito for sake of helping him improve his arguments and for sake of readers and reviewers of this dispute that seems to have no end.

List is not comprehensive
Regarding the list of translator names, Cfrito asserts, “Shilmer agrees the list is not comprehensive.” I have not agreed the list is “not comprehensive” because I have not asserted the list is not comprehensive. I have asserted (or tried to assert) that neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar have asserted that their list is comprehensive. But, and read this closely, to not assert a list is comprehensive is not the equivalent of asserting the list is not comprehensive. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito responds by writing:

"So, Shilmer, are you saying the list is, or is not comprehensive? You seem to be saying both. Please answer the question and then answer why Henschel is present in one listing and not in the other, even though Henschel was contemporary to both Cetnar and R Franz. -- cfrito (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC"

I am saying what I can prove from sources. I am saying that neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar asserted that their list of names is comprehensive.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ray Franz works as a Bible translator
Cfrito asserts that Ray Franz should be included with any list of NWT translators because, as he says, “[Ray Franz] was assigned to look up certain terms with respect to their use in the NWT.” Cfrito cites published material from Editor Michael Marlowe in support of this assertion. However, Marlowe does not assert that Ray Franz was assigned to look up certain terms with respect to their use in the NWT. Rather, quoting directly from Ray Franz’s book Crisis of Conscience, the article by Marlowe shows that Ray Franz was assigned to look up certain terms with respect how those terms should be used/portrayed/elucidated/accounted for in a completely separate publication intended to be a biblical encyclopedia to be released under the name Aid To Bible Understanding. At no time does Ray Franz or Michael Marlowe suggest that Ray Franz was assigned any responsibilities specific to influencing translation (or revisions) of the NWT. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito responds by writing:

“Actually, my original rebuttal clearly showed that Fred Franz instructed R Franz to look further into the matter and that resulted in a change in the NWT. It is clearly evident that R Franz was free to influence the translated verses in the NWT, and it was something R Franz sought specifically to do with a goal to specifically accomplish with regard to the NWT rendering. But if Shilmer prefers, let us set the standard for any person to be listed as a translator, or as a possible translator, to their own admission that they were specifically assigned to translating exact NWT verses by Fred Franz. Either way, it's fine with me -- but not one standard for R Franz and another for everyone else.-- cfrito (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)”

The source you cite does not say Ray Franz was working on the NWT itself or otherwise was influential in future revisions of the NWT. Your argument form on this issue is called a non causa pro causa. That is, you identify Ray Franz as the cause of a text revision without actually showing Ray Franz was the cause of the text revision. You assume, and then assert it as a conclusion. It is fallacy. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer demonizes me
Cfrito asserts that I demonized him by my use of the term “evil” on the talk page for the NWT. I have attempted to explain this to Cfrito, including why the statement was not any demonizing, but he apparently disbelieves me for reasons he knows and I can only wonder about.

The sentences I wrote that Cfrito finds demonizing states:

“The sub-userpage I have created is purely so I can carry on working on the article even though there is an edit war going on, and even though the version on the top is "the evil one favoured by the other side in the dispute". Please have a beer and take a look at my editing and feel free to voice approval or objection, to grant it sainthood or demonize it. But please, above all, offer affirmative suggestions for improvement.”

Just in case my recommendation to “have a beer” was not understood to express the levity I was suggesting, I took time to include the hyperlink I did in the very sentence quoting the words "the evil one favoured by the other side in the dispute." Cfrito has several times used these words asserting that I was denigrating him. In fact I was only quoting the humor expressed in WP:BETTER. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito responds by writing:

Oh yeah, sure you did. Okay, I'll assume good faith. -- cfrito (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The hyperlinked sentence and quotation marks speak for themselves. I was not calling you evil. I was trying to add some levity. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer Won’t Allow Fred Franz’s Autobiographical Account
Of me, Cfrito asserts, “He won't even allow Fred's own words in from his autobiographical account about his very own background”.

Contrary to this assertion, I have never resisted using Fred Franz’s autobiographical material. In fact it is just the opposite. I am the editor that first referenced Franz’s autobiographical account in the May 1987 Watchtower journal. Cfrito subsequently removed the reference to Franz’s autobiography.

I am also the first editor who began citing Fred Franz’s words from his autobiographical account. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfrito responds by writing:

The trouble with Shilmer's representation above is this: 22:57, 2008 January 19 Marvin Shilmer (Talk | contribs) (36,540 bytes) (→Translators and Editor: Deleted false information. F Franz DID NOT turn down a Rhodes scholarship. READ what your source ACTUALLY says, Cfrito. You have already been told this is false info!)

You see, dear readers, Shilmer tied me up previously in using this information, and then used it himself as his own innovation. When I caught him doing it, I felt free to add additional information from the same reference. Then he berated me, and reverted my edit as shown above. Then he added exactly the same source information to his own sandbox version of the article. You decide. -- cfrito (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not said or suggested that Fred Franz turned down a Rhodes scholarship, because the source does not say this. Hence my editing remark that “F Franz DID NOT turn down a Rhodes scholarship. READ what your source ACTUALLY says, Cfrito.”

Fred Franz’s autobiographical account supports a statement that Fred Franz says that he was told he had been selected to receive a Rhodes scholarship. At no point does Fred Franz’s biographical account remotely suggest that Fred Franz was actually offered a Rhodes scholarship and that he turned down the offer. He was never offered a Rhodes scholarship. According to Fred Franz, he was told he had been chosen to receive one.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred Franz and Hebrew
Immediately after citing author James Penton, of Fred Franz Cfrito asserts, “we only know his background in Greek and Latin, not Hebrew or Aramaic”.

The very author Cfrito cites (Penton) does speak to Fred Franz’s background in Hebrew when he writes that Fred Franz was “self taught in Hebrew”.

Another author Cfrito is familiar with is A. H. Macmillan, who says Fred Franz was “a scholar of Hebrew”. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Until Now, Shilmer has only accepted Franz’s published transcript
Cfrito writes:

“Well, up until now, Shlmer has only accepted published transcripts regarding scholarship. I guess now he's accepting assertions of self-taught scholarship. Interesting.... Since Fred Franz is self-admitted as the editor and is a competent scholar in all the necessary languages by both Penton and Macmillan, there seems to be no need for any other names at all. I move that we add this language to the article: "Both A.H. Macmillan and James Penton testify to the scholarly ability of Fred Franz in Hebrew thereby silencing critics claims regarding the anonimity and veracity of the WTS's claims." and cite Penton and Macmillan. -- cfrito (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)”

What Cfrito writes is patently false. This is demonstrated from even a cursory review of my sandbox NWT article, including a look at the page’s history. This is also evident from the NWT article page’s history.

My editing has offered several sources beyond Fred Franz’s university transcript. This is nothing new.

Regarding his scholastic achievements, and aside from the university transcript of Fred Franz, in various edits I have included statements from 1) Fred Franz’s autobiographical account, 2) James Penton’s book Apocalypse Delayed, 3) Tony Wills book A People For His Name, 4) A. H. McMillan’s book Faith on the March, and 5) Ron Rhodes’ book The Challenge of Cults and New Religions.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer supports names as “apparent fact”
Of identities presented by sources as NWT translators, Cfrito asserts that “the alleged names in question had been marked as speculation for quite some time and were only recently elevated to "apparent fact" which is supported by Marvin Shilmer.”

I have never asserted the identities offered as NWT translators as fact, or as “apparent fact”. I have presented this information as statements from sources. I also took the precaution of adding a disclosure statement regarding the sources that these are ex’s. Cfrito’s statement is patently false. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer has tested the WP:3RR rule many times
Cfrito asserts of me that I have “tested the WP:3RR rule many times when any editor dares oppose” me.

Not one time have I performed more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a twenty four hour period. And, frankly, when I edited requests for citations into the article rather than deleting Cfrito’s edits, it was editor Jeffro77 who then deleted Cfrito’s edits; not me. To this day I still do not believe Cfrito realizes this. Cftito’s assertion of me is false. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer is a Plagiarist
On multiple occasions editor Cfrito has charged me with plagiarism. He also offers that he has documented this plagiarism.

Cfrito’s accusation of plagiarism began when he read a comment I made to Seddon69 where I said, “The reason I moved the information you cite from the criticism section and placed it in the history section is precisely for the reasons you cite.”

My response to Seddon69 was in response to his recommendation that the information about the NWT’s Editor and translators deserved its own section, and that he recommended the same information be removed from the Criticism Section. I responded that I agreed, and then cited an edit I had made demonstrating my agreement. That is, of my own volition, and prior to Seddon69’s comments, I had already concluded as had he. This was not any taking of credit away from Cfrito, or from Seddon69 for recommending as he did. Rather, I was expressing agreement and showing a manifestation of that agreement.

Furthermore, my remark to Seddon69 had to do with his recommendation for information about the NWT’s Editor and the translators. When Cfrito removed “the information” from the Criticism Section and placed it into the History Section, he deleted “the information” about the translators and only inserted into the History Section the information about the NWT’s Editor. However, when I moved information into the History Section I included “the information” of the NWT’s Editor and the translators . Hence, my remark to Seddon69 was not to take credit for Cfrito’s editing move. Rather, my remark stood to 1) demonstrate an agreement with Seddon69 and 2) to reflect a move to the History Section of information of the NWT’s Editor and translators. To this day I have no idea why or how Cfrito thinks I tried to take credit for anything he did, or said. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, puhleeez. You guys are arguing about who gets credit for an edit that moved text from one section to another? Such an argument would be questionable enough if it was about who wrote the text. If you're talking about who moved the text, nobody really gives a flip. Tracking who made an edit is most valuable for knowing who was responsible for doing something deleterious to the project. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter whose name is on the edit. No one gets credit for anything that's written here because it's almost impossible to trace who actually wrote a sentence or paragraph once it has been "edited mercilessly" by subsequent editors. Get a life, please. --Richard (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Richard: Thank you for your comments. You got it all wrong. I am not arguing over who gets credit, as though I care. Cfrito is the one who has complained and complained that, somehow, I was taking credit for something he did first, or that was his idea rather than mine, or something to that effect. I agree. The notion is absurd. This kind of banter is inconsequential to me. What bothers me about this particular event is that Cfrito used it to level an accusation against me of plagiarism . Not just once, but three times . As an academic, an accusation of plagiarism is something I take very seriously. I have colleagues who read and contribute here! --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer Refused to Answer Any Questions About His Bias
Cfrito asserts,

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=190531523 “''For the record, Shilmer repeatedly refused to answer any questions about his bias (i.e., his standing as a JW or as an apostate JW) and I took his silence and the other articles written under this pseudonym as his apostasy. He could have, early on, cleared this up with his statement below. He chose to let it take the path it took''.”]

In Cfrito’s response he states that early on I could have “cleared this up” with my “statement below”. The statement he alludes is my statement that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Here are the facts:

Very early in our dialogue editor Cfrito asked me, “Oh yeah, been meaning to ask, is this your handiwork: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood vs. Justification and Responsibility?

My response was, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=180431339 ''Yes. I wrote the article published online by BMJ titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood vs. Justification and Responsibility''.]

Cfrito claims I have refused to answer any questions about biases I may hold. My response to his question refutes that accusation.

Additionally, Cfrito calls attention to the letter published by me in a British Medical Journal publication as “your handiwork”. To me, this says Cfrito had read the article. In that article, the very first sentence reads, “I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Present as Presented I
Cfrito believes that should the article include the information of translators’ names that it should be presented as the source(s) present it. I agree. Specifically Cfrito believes that should “the names” be included the information should be presented so readers know that neither Ray Franz nor William Cetnar have asserted their lists of names are comprehensive. I agree. In both instances these recommendations are keeping with Wikipedia policy, and I have never disagreed with this.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Present as Presented II
Cfrito believes that should “the names” be used in the NWT article that it should be presented as the word of the sources (i.e., Ray Franz or William Cetnar, or both) and not asserted as fact. I completely agree with this. At all times information should be presented as the source presents it.

The Controversies
Cfrito believes [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13_New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures#Task_2:_A_complete_overhaul_of_the_article “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.”]

I agree the main controversies/criticisms all swirl around theology, prose and anonymity. I would, however, add that some rather blunt criticisms have occurred over linguistic issues, too.

That the NWT translators’ published request for anonymity from their publisher has aroused and resulted in so much controversy and criticism is one reason why information about these translators has a place in the NWT article. It is part of the Bible version’s history and controversies. Part of this information happens to come from sources who were formerly in high positions within the Watchtower organization.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Holding Bin for Cfrito's comments on this talk page
NOTE: Cfrito I welcome your contributions on this talk page. However I am trying to keep information here in some semblance of order for readers and reviewers. Accordingly I ask that you place your remarks here in this section, under this single header, rather than slicing and dicing remarks throughout the page.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shilmer agrees the list is not comprehensive. Therefore it is completely inadequate to make this assessment, or even to aid in making it in any partially meaningful way. Publishing it in the NWT article without this express disclosure that it is wholly unfit for this purpose is negligent and misleading. How can anyone judge competence of unknown people? Indeed, under such circumstances, under the cloud of suspicion on moral grounds, on the grounds that it is recollections published in memoirs, on the grounds that are no published documents substantiating the names factually, on the grounds that two men with supposed first-hand knowledge can't between them agree if it was four people or five -- when both knew well personally all the parties, on the grounds that several other sources claim it was only one man, on the grounds that R Franz suggests he was the victim of a conspiracy, on the grounds that the lists are at best only partial lists: this data cannot be offered in support of its apparent purpose. This makes the information, at best, trivia, and at worst, the perpetuating of false and misleading information.

And according to R Franz himself -- he was assigned to look up certain terms with respect to their use in the NWT, and offered an alternative reading, and that reading was adopted in the next edition of the NWT clearly identifies R Franz as a translator himself but he omits himself in his own list. Here are the relevant parts of a single paragraph from Franz's book, A Crisis of Conscience (copied from Marlowe's website):

"'When the subjects of 'Older Man [Elder]' and 'Overseer' were assigned to me, research into the Scriptures themselves soon made evident that the congregational form of supervision employed by us did not conform to the first-century arrangements ...Somewhat disturbed, I approached my uncle with the evidence...that the Society's New World Translation rendering of Acts, chapter fourteen, verse 23, evidently inserted the words 'to office' in connection with the appointment of elders and that this somewhat altered the sense, he said, 'Why don't you check it in some other translations that may not be as biased.' [ Later editions of the New World Translation dropped the added phrase ...' (underlines added)"

Notice that R Franz's uncle is Fred Franz, apparently still the Editor of the NWT. R Franz approached with the results of his assignment, presented those results, Fred assigned him further work comparing other translations, and then later changed the NWT accordingly. True, R Franz doesn't say that he got out a typewriter himself, nor does he say that working on the NWT was his assignment, but clearly his statement reveals that he looked into the original languages (as a matter of course) and other source material for the NWT as a primary task, as part of a specific assignment, and then was asked to review comparatively other works with specific regard to Acts 14:23, and then the verse was changed according to R Franz's rendering. It is not surprising given the circumstances under which R Franz released his list of alleged translators he would leave himself off. It is incredible to believe that with R Franz's position as a Governing Body member, member of the writing committee, and his charge to produce a Bible dictionary as a companion guide to the NWT itself, that this situation was a one-off. And if we are to accept Shilmer's posit that based on time and position that R Franz 'must have known who the translators were', then certainly based on this far more solid evidence, he materially influenced the English renderings contained in the NWT -- in short, as a de facto translator. Therefore the only two that can be conclusively identified as such are Fred Franz (by virtue of his role as editor) and R Franz by virtue of his admitted influence above. -- cfrito (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shame on Shilmer

Editor Shilmer accused without allowing a proper rebuttal, then reframed my comments and redistributed them, and then edited their presentation. He now complains that the discussion spans multiple pages when it is Shilmer himself.who caused this to happen. Shame on Shilmer. -- cfrito (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who cares to review a clean synopsis of my position on this mediation issue, sans all the fog and misdirection Shilmer has piled on over the past several weeks, please see the RfC on the proper mediation talk page -- cfrito (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cfrito:


 * I have not reframed your comments. I used your statements in whole, and responded accordingly.


 * I asked politely that you use a designated place on this page to place your comments . If you do not like this then the answer is as simple as refraining from this page.


 * I am trying to keep some semblance of order to issues raised and assertions made in this dispute. Formatting is critical to this, and so is keeping to the point.


 * PLEASE place any comments you wish to make in the place designated for you on this, my, talk page. --Marvin Shilmer (talk)

NWT userpage article
User subpages should not be used to present alternative versions of articles, especially for extended periods. If you are still working on this article to merge changes into the real article, you should at the very least remove the categories from your copy of the article. If you are not still working on changes for the article, the subpage should be deleted. Please see [].

(I am placing this statement on all user Talk pages with NWT subpages and am not specifically targetting you.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind your own freaking business, Jeffro77.


 * For anyone whose business it is, this sandbox is a work in progress as I watch the bloodbath going on at the Wiki article page. When the bloodbath is over then I'll resume editing the main article. Until that time this page exists for the purpose of maintaining sources and information for the NWT article.


 * Jeffro77is not welcome to post on this talk page. He takes it upon himself to assassinate my character over and over again, while engaging himself in the very conduct he accuses me of.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)