Christianity: Witnesses B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Relationship with "faithful and discreet slave"

This paragraph has an expose tone to it, rather than a neutral tone. The facts can be presented on this in a more neutral tone. Natural (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural[reply]

This paragraph is not presented correctly, need to see the acutal quotations. What "purge"? Want specifics, not just accusations from already disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witnesses.

this sentence-- It is unclear who is saying this, Franz or Bottings. If it is the Bottings, they had been part of that "purge" movement, so their testimony isn't quite neutral. Agreed?

The Watch Tower Society responded to the crisis with a new, hardened attitude towards the treatment of expelled Witnesses.

Second, that isn't true. After 1980 there was more emphasis on showing mercy towards sinners, not less. So, the Bottings or someone else is rewriting history from their own viewpoint on this matter. I deleted it, until more evidence is provided on this, and until sources are indicated in the main text. If the Bottings or Ray Franz are to be used, then it must be disclosed, that they themselves are disfellowshipped JW, who are making this charge, and also, there needs to be references to Watchtower literature, where references will here be provided, that indicate that this wasn't the case, there was more mercy and more leniency after that time, until today, rather than a hardened attitude towards disf. people. The only case, one case, is one article in the Wa. about disf. people and family, That is the only, one, ref. on disf. people that has any bearing on this comment, other than that, there was more attention to mercy, love, helping disf. ones back from 1980 until now. Evidence will be provided, but I want feedback on this first.

^[1][2][3]

Natural (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Natural[reply]

Sorry, I just can't respond to this because you are quite incoherent and making no sense. BlackCab (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if the Watchtower Society wasn't so secretive about the Magisterium-like quality of the Governing Body, 3rd-party sources wouldn't have to be so relied upon. For many decades, terms like "the anointed" or "faithful and discreet slave" have been used to describe the source of material and doctrine for Jehovah's Witnesses, even though (currently) 7 men - not 11,000+ people - are totally entrusted with every policy decision. The 11k "anointed" have absolutely no input, yet they are invoked in Watchtower materials. Franz' expose book was written nearly 30 years ago and only extremely recently has the Watchtower even begun eluding to a "representative" capacity of the Governing Body. Even lifetime Jehovah's Witnesses, generally, have absolutely no idea of the Watchtower hierarchy - even though most will gladly lay down their life for whatever the current doctrine is - because of the cloak-and-dagger nature of the Governing Body. If you want Watchtower sources of information on the Governing Body and its real position, authority, power, and autonomy, then tell the Watchtower to print some. This organization has a long history of stonewalling and having to have the truth dragged out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeaponGuy (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice for the Watch Tower Society to be more open about their policies. However, wherever possible Wikipedia articles should present information from third-party sources. Of course that doesn't of itself mean that a former member is necessarily the best source, but at least it's a third party source, and from someone who should know. It would be good though if there were additional neutral third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory paragraphs contain descriptions of the Governing Body based mainly on critics of that body and of Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the main sources in Raymond Franz, who ceased to be a member of that body in 1980. Watchtower publications contain a quotation from another member of the Governing Body who served from 1974 (only 3 years after Franz began to serve) until 2006 (26 years after Franz ceased to serve). Would it not increase the neutrality of this introduction if his impressions of Governing Body meetings were included?

The two-thirds rule for making decisions was also revealed by Franz. Would it not be more accurate to say that the two-thirds rule was in force from "1971 to at least 1980", since Franz was no longer privy to Governing Body decisions after 1980? The accuracy of the statement as to the present state of the majority needed for Governing Body decisions is all the more uncertain since none of the present members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses was on the body in 1980. The Governing Body has changed personnel completely since 1994, when its longest-serving member was appointed. Should a Wikipedia article, in the interests of accuracy and neutrality, present such outdated testimony as Raymond Franz's?

My recent edits were an attempt to present to whole picture on the subjects and were immediately suppressed. If Wikipedia is to be truly neutral, should not all verifiable sources be accepted, including those of the Watchtower Society, so that the impartial reader may get a complete picture of this topic?

Jeffro77 says that the extra edits on the evidence that Governing Body accepts input from its members and that these have influenced changes in policy "have an apologetic tone". Does not the present state of this article, which quotes, by a large majority of its references, published works highly critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, "have an apologetic tone", in the anti-Jehovah's Witness sense? Would it not be fair to say that it even has a polemic tone that is not in harmony with the Wikipedia ideal stated in the Wikipedia:about page:

"Wikipedia is written by open and transparent consensus—an approach that has its pros and cons. Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time. Eventually for most articles, all notable views become fairly described and a neutral point of view reached. In reality, the process of reaching consensus may be long and drawn-out, with articles fluid or changeable for a long time while they find their "neutral approach" that all sides can agree on. Reaching neutrality is occasionally made harder by extreme-viewpoint contributors. Wikipedia operates a full editorial dispute resolution process, one that allows time for discussion and resolution in depth, but one that also permits disagreements to last for months before poor-quality or biased edits are removed. A common conclusion is that Wikipedia is a valuable resource and provides a good reference point on its subjects."

Isn't it time that the views of Jehovah's Witness believers be included, without censorship, on pages dealing with the religion that they love and support? Such views of believers (or supporters, in the case of agnosticism and atheism) are clearly visible and very prominent on the pages describing Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Agnosticism and Atheism. Why is it that the articles on Jehovah's Witnesses feature mainly the views of critics of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Perhaps critics of Jehovah's Witnesses are guilty of exactly the kind of censorship and closed-mindedness that they say the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses carries out against dissenting voices among the faithful.

I personally think that the time for an end to such systematic censorship in this article is long overdue.Wandering-teacher (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only useful element of the quotes is that the closed meetings purportedly involve use of the Bible and include prayers, though that is not unsurprising for a religious body. There is no encyclopaedic value in stating that at some point the GB held meetings on a Wednesday. The second GB quote is little more than a speculative attack on other religions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the significance of your claim that the intro contains descriptions of the Governing Body "based mainly on critics of that body and of Jehovah's Witnesses"? The intro is based on statements in WTS publications as well as those of Franz, Penton and the Bottings, but none of the statements are themselves critical. Your claim that the article is subject to "systematic censorship" is baseless. Notable facts about the Governing Body continue to be added. The article now clearly identifies Franz as the source of the statement about the two-thirds majority required for decisions and there has been no subsequent statement by any source that suggests that's not still the case. Your recent edits were deleted not as a result of censorship, but because they were unnecessary and/or unencyclopedic. The statement about JW leaders is an unnecessary elaboration of existing material and the excerpt from the "Bearing Thorough Witness" book quoting Henschel and Schroeder is simply rhetoric and flattery, adding nothing of encylopedic interest. In January 2010 you added a lengthy section written with an apologetic tone about the Governing Body.[1] That too was unencyclopedic and was removed. Do you include its removal in your claim about "systematic censorship"? BlackCab (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of neutrality of this article is obvious to any unbiased observer. I am a believing Jehovah's Witness, who believes that God and Christ are guiding the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to preach God's message to mankind, guiding them to make gradual but continual improvements to our religion to make it closer to the apostolic model of Christianity, and yes, who allowed the Governing Body to publish incorrect predictions of the year for Armageddon, on several occasions, so that members whose attachment to Jehovah as a person was not pure and unselfish (such as Raymond Franz who was on the Governing Body in the 1975 era) could reveal their true motives (as Franz does in his books, to the careful reader) and leave or be expelled from our community, for the good of the true believers whose dedication to Jehovah was truly made out of love for him and admiration of his sovereignty.

I will no longer try to repost my recent modifications (including the January 2010 one, which I believe is still necessary, since it was clearly the Watchtower Society's answer to one of Raymond Franz's criticisms) to make it unbiased, because the editors who view these pages are their personal property clearly don't like Jehovah's Witnesses and don't want anything positive to be put here, claiming that anything positive is "unencyclopedic".

The above responses to my questions sting because I have revealed their desire that this page in particular continue to paint the Governing Body as proud and power-hungry, when they are humble servants of God who are trying sincerely to do Jehovah's will, as they see it in their study of the Scriptures, and to help the entire household of faith prove loyal to their dedication to Jehovah.

I find it interesting that all other religions that I have examined on English Wikipedia present a neutral description of their teachings, and so Wikipedia is an invaluable tool for me in my witnessing work to person of those religions, but that at least certain articles, if not all, about Jehovah's Witnesses, are clearly designed to paint my religion and the religion of my family, (on both my father and mother's sides since the 1920s), as harmful and dishonest. This bothered me enough to want to make the articles present the Watchtower Society's answers to its critics, but now I will simply do nothing, since I now realize that such obvious bias in these articles may perhaps be in harmony with Jehovah's will.

Such bias will likely only increase the curiosity of sincere seekers of truth to find out the other side of the story by asking Jehovah's Witnesses they meet to answer these negative reports in these Wikipedia articles. I think I understand better now why the Governing Body has decided not to answer its critics directly, but indirectly, since not answering directly shows faith that Jehovah will never allow any permanent spiritual harm to sincere persons who love truth and that Jehovah, by his spirit, will attract honest-hearted persons to his organization, no matter what is written by critics. In fact, the criticism actually serves to elicit curiosity, while an open debate, with each side getting more and more heated and more and more irrational, might not.

So at least for awhile, I will no longer even try to edit pages about Jehovah's Witnesses, but just other pages that interest me.Wandering-teacher (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said: The lack of neutrality of this article is obvious to any unbiased observer. I am a believing Jehovah's Witness, who believes that God and Christ are guiding the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to preach God's message to mankind...

That's a fairly humorous juxtaposition. Perhaps you could find an unbiased observer to back you up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the same refrain from several JW editors, Wandering Teacher. It always comes back to the same thing. Wikipedia depends on published reliable sources. This article has them; you simply don't like some of them, so therefore complain the article is biased. I have to say your suggestion that it's God's will that we're all here adding lies about your religion is a novel one. BlackCab (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a humorous juxtaposition. The reason why it is true is that I can imagine myself to be an unbiased observer, a Muslim for example, who has just moved to a new country, met Jehovah's Witnesses and wants to see what Wikipedia says about them. The criticisms written here will probably arouse his curiosity and incite him to talk to Witnesses again to see what they have to say in answer to these criticisms, because he may wonder how such kind people could be directed by a Governing Body who, the critics say here say, are not kind. I meet such unbiased observers regularly when I go to mosques to have discussions with Muslims who have never heard about Jehovah's Witnesses and who ask me for our website so that they can read more about us. I could show them this page on the Governing Body to show what apostates from our faith write about us. That will be interesting, since they know that apostates from Islam who become Christians write very negative things about that religion, and they will be able to compare the two styles of negative criticism.

I don't think the critical quotations should be removed. I think that they will actually increase the curiosity of the unbiased and so I want them to stay, since it will help more become disciples. I just think that if this article is truly to come up to the standards of impartiality of say, the article on the College of Cardinals, quotations from Witness publications, added by JW editors, should be allowed to stay, and not be removed for reasons other than the ones claimed by the censors of this page. Their dislike of my faith is evident to all. Their inability to imagine what an unbiased reader, such as a Muslim, would think, is also evident to all. I think I will use this page on the Governing Body as a resource to Witness to new disciples, so that they are prepared before baptism and cannot say that they had no idea of the criticisms made by apostates.Wandering-teacher (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of whether negative comments about your religion will increase interest in it is irrelevant. This is not a forum. Are you suggesting a change to the article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent collaborative effort to take the Jehovah's Witnesses article to GA status resulted, in part, from the replacement of primary sources (Watch Tower Society publications) with reliable third-party sources. Your suggestion that members of the religion add quotes from WTS publications to improve the article is not terribly helpful. Articles must all be based on reliable sources. Those that don't meet Wikipedia standards will always be removed, regardless of who put them there. BlackCab (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is all very well including factual quotes, but the problem is that they are being chosen in order to deliberately set the tone of the article against Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't think there should be any room for that in an Encyclopedia. When discussing the Governing Body, then what people want to know is what it is, how it operates, how it was established etc... etc... They don't want to be persuaded one way or the other regarding the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses in this article. But that is clearly what is happening here under the *guise* of adding information just because it's 'factual'.

Please, can we leave the religious agenda out?

If the author doesn't like Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and/or practices, then surely an Encyclopedia is not the correct place for them to express that. It is a plain fact that dragging in the odd quote from various publications is hardly able to truly represent the truth. Let's face it, where have quotes been found to show the Governing Body in a positive light? They don't exist in this article because that is not its agenda.

Please, leave the agenda out and provide some good, unbiased reporting of the facts. The physical structure, the development of etc... but not peppered with quotes from known opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to use this article as a propaganda vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galik (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific about what parts of the article are biased. BlackCab (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved (not deleted) some detail from the lead and made some other changes that relate to what likely comes across as biased.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Galik. The difficulty of having a neutral point of view (NPOV) in the Jehovah's Witness English Wikipedia articles strengthens my faith that I have made the correct religious choice for me, even if it was, or is, not a good choice for others.Wandering-teacher (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who spent more than two decades as a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, I sincerely hope that you have made your choice to join this high-control religion on the basis of something more than a perception of negativity in an encyclopedia article. On that basis, membership of Scientology, the National Front and the LaRouche movement must also seem quite attractive. These encylopedia articles are based on reliable published sources, but unfortunately the Watch Tower Society forbids members from reading some of those that contain criticism on the grounds that the authors are former members of the religion. Jehovah's Witness publications foster a belief that criticism from "the world" adds to proof that they alone have the truth. This is a common cultic outlook and most Witnesses accept that; fortunately some are willing to consider that the criticism may actually be accurate, deserved and worth investigating. It's your life, Wandering Teacher, but I wish when the JWs came calling on me in the 1980s that I'd had access to the wealth of information about them that's available now. BlackCab (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the difficulty of having a neutral point of view (NPOV) in these articles strengthens my faith that I have made the correct choice for me. Speaking as someone who has been baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses for 33 years, the reasons for my faith in my religion are many and very motivating. It was the same treatment that early Christianity got from non-Christians in the first centuries, the Jews of Rome telling Paul that "for truly as regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against." (Acts 28:22) and Tacitus, who called Christianity "a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ). Most likely, early Christianity, and the Law of Moses, early Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism, would also have fit the description of a cultic movement, since they were so different from the religious ideas around them.

The Watchtower teaches what the Bible teaches, to avoid those who no longer believe the doctrines of Christianity that they formerly believed in ((Romans 16:17) ". . .Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that YOU have learned, and avoid them." and "(2 John 9-11) . . .Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.")

Despite that, there is a subculture among Jehovah's Witnesses, particularly in North America, who systematically live a "double life". They come to our meetings, but in their private life, they disregard what the Watchtower teaches completely. They live this life for awhile, until it becomes too hard to do anymore. Raymond Franz was one of these. I have read his first book and see how he was an ambitious young man who wanted to reach the same prominence as his uncle, succeeded in reaching the Governing Body, but was frustrated because his ideas were voted down, even though he claims to have discovered the need for a body of elders to make decisions rather than one congregation servant, as was done before the early 1970s. He agreed that majority decisions should be implemented by bodies of elders in the congregations, but was frustrated when the same system was applied to the Governing Body's deliberations. Maybe he wanted the former presidential one-man-decision-making system to be kept, so that he could have one day been President of the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania.

For Witnesses of this subculture, the Watchtower's emphasizing the verses to avoid those who teach other doctrine will have the effect of inciting those who are already doing it in secret to do it more and hence accelerate their exit from the faith. Believers can see in this the wisdom of the faithful and discreet slave, who write the articles, not only for believers, but also for closet apostates who attend the meetings, and evidence that the seraphs are keeping God's organization clean. Wandering-teacher (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum or a soapbox. Are you suggesting a change to the article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since yesterday, editors have repeatedly added 'D. Mark Sanderson' (or some variant of the name) to the list at 'Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses#Current'. Strictly speaking, the inclusion of Sanderson should await a verifiable source, and that will likely take two months waiting for a Watch Tower publication. However, the appointment does seem consistent with GBJW practices. Firstly, as a branch committeeman, Sanderson was already explicitly a Nethinim with the same status as GBJW "helpers".

• The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, "Mark Sanderson, now a member of the Brooklyn Bethel family, gave a report on the Philippines [as he is a] former member of the Branch Committee there"
• The Watchtower, 15 April 1992, "The Nethinim’s added privileges were linked directly to spiritual activities. ...Included in this provision are many hundreds of mature, experienced brothers who share in ‘shepherding the flocks,’ serving as circuit and district overseers and on Branch Committees at the Watch Tower Society’s 98 branches."

Secondly, editors have consistently cited 'an announcement yesterday at Brooklyn Bethel breakfast', which is precisely how new GBJW members have been announced: at a Wednesday Brooklyn Bethel breakfast about September 1.

• "New Members of the Governing Body", The Watchtower, March 15, 2006, "On Wednesday morning, August 24, 2005, the United States and Canada Bethel families, connected by video, heard an exciting announcement. Effective September 1, 2005, two new members—Geoffrey W. Jackson and Anthony Morris III—would be added to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
  

Wikipedia's guidelines plainly insist upon verifiable sources, and none has yet been cited. Personally, I will not remove the factoid, but it's beyond obvious that the burden remains on the editor posting it, and any editor can remove it until it's properly cited. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 20:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a search, this rumour seems to be floating around on ex/JW discussion boards (not endorsed by the JWs). Though the report may indeed be true, there could be any number of people who know the 'procedure' for such announcements. It shouldn't be added here until we have a better source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soon there should be verification from another source, but here is one of the better pages. The info about Brother Sanderson's appointment in buried just over halfway down. -- Glenn L (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that some of the names under the "Deceased" and "Resigned" section of "Governing Body Members" are italicized while others are not. Any particular reason for this? Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NVM. I was right. Being stupid. Didn't see the explanation at the top of the section. Vyselink (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since september 2014 all elders and ministerial servants are appointed by the circuit overseer in accordance with Titus 1:5-9 and James 3:17, 18 not by the branch office [2]

And by the way (may concern to other places in the article]: The office of District Overseer has been abolish Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's certainly no need for Wikipedia to include claims that their administrative decisions are 'in accordance with any particular scripture'. I will add the meaningful part to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Was not trying to claim scriptural basics of anything, was just shortly phrasing why and how this was changed in a way understood by bible scholars (even half educated ones like me) Was eating in front of the computer when asked on my talkpage to do so and didnt have time to write much. All "claims" on Wikipedia must always be a reliable source. I haven't been editing any of these kinds of articles so I don't know if the Watchtower (and other publication on JW.org) is considered Primary or Secondary sources? I guess many information would be difficult to get another source on - I mean who really cares about how Jehovahs Wittnesses appoint there own people. Except for Wikipedians, who cares about everything :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the 'scriptural support' goes, Titus 1:5 has been available for quite some time, but the introduction of the colon at the end of Titus 1:5 is merely an editorial decision by the translators of the 2013 revision of the New World Translation, and not an absolute basis for the change in procedure. Some translations have a colon at the end of this verse and others have a full-stop or a semi-colon. It is subject to interpretation whether the list of 'qualifications' are the instructions, or whether they are supplementary to separate instructions to appoint specific individuals. The verse could be used to support either method. It is more likely that the change in procedure was made because it is administratively convenient.

Watch Tower Society publications are a primary source for subjects relating to Jehovah's Witnesses, and are suitable as sources for presenting a) what JWs officially believe, and b) their own organisational procedures. (Watch Tower Society literature is not suitable as a primary or secondary source for subjects not directly related to Jehovah's Witnesses.)

When stating what they (or any religion) believes, it should be done in such a way that it is clearly their view rather than Wikipedia asserting it as a fact. Where there is some crossover between JW organisational procedures and their beliefs about those procedures, it is not necessary to discuss the belief in articles/sections that are simply about the procedure.

Where available, secondary sources are preferred for statements about JWs, particularly for anything other than their beliefs about themselves. Where secondary sources are not available, such as in this case, inclusion essentially comes down to consensus among editors about whether the information in the primary source is significant enough to merit attention in the article. In some cases, information that is only found in the primary sources may be deemed of little encyclopedic interest and subsequently removed. In this case, it's my view at least that there is a legitimate interest in how religious groups appoint their personnel.

More generally, if you tag an article with a template, you should start a corresponding section at the article's Talk page, otherwise there is no guarantee that anyone will know why it's there, and it may be removed without notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor keeps changing the article but is refusing to provide any explanation for their edits. The changes misrepresent various sources, as well as other less serious matters such as wordiness. I will therefore restore the previous stable version.

The IP editor is welcome to discuss their preferred changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please list why you prefer each of your proposed changes. I would be pleased to offer the advice you seek. 2601:7:1980:5B5:A043:438A:8C83:9FB0 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]