Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Franklin Rutherford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002170539/http://www.seanet.com/~raines/bethshan.html to http://www.seanet.com/~raines/bethshan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I may be in the minority here, but it seems to me that putting "Judge" in quotation marks implies that the sobriquet was in some way false or not legitimate, i.e. he wasn't a "real" judge. Regardless of time spent as a judge (by all accounts a one-time sitting) he was appointed as a judge and did serve in that role. Not even Penton, by no means a fan of Rutherford, calls him "Judge" Rutherford but instead refers to him as simply Judge Rutherford both in text and in the index. I have therefore been WP:BOLD and removed the " " from the two times it was used (and have simply removed the "Judge" part entirely from the picture as it is unnecessary). If anyone disagrees, I'll be happy to discuss it. Vyselink (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. His use of the term was blatantly self-aggrandising, especially given the fact that he sat as a substitute judge possibly on just one occasion in his career, but it's true that when he was called Judge Rutherford by the WTS, it was never with quote marks around. In a very extensive scrapbook of old JW-related news clippings on Archive.com, there are rare uses of quote marks but in the great majority of cases newspapers simply called him Judge Rutherford. BlackCab (TALK) 06:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Rutherford was a "Special Judge", which means he stood in as a judge when no appointed judge was available. He was not a "Sitting Judge", which is a judge in office who is appointed.

Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 67:

Rutherford later served for four years as public prosecutor for Boonville, Missouri. Still later, he served on occasion as a special judge in the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri. That is why he came to be known as “Judge” Rutherford.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The use of quotes in those two WTS references was more of an emphatic device. In almost every other case when he was so-described, it was without the quotes. BlackCab (TALK) 10:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That's also the Proclaimers book, where they would have been attempting to minimize any connection with the secular world. In either case the judge title is one he held, regardless of how long. Putting it in " " makes it sound like a nickname that was unearned. Even Julius Erving, who did not hold an academic PhD, does not have " " around the Dr. J. moniker. Vyselink (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually on Dr. J.'s page in some cases it does in some cases it doesn't. Is there a wp policy that would help define this for us? To me, because it was an actual title (even if for a day) and he was appointed as a special judge (who are not called "special judge" in court) I don't think it should have " ". Vyselink (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not quotes are used, but nor is it a simple case of saying he was or was not a 'real' judge. (The article already stipulates that he was "special judge".)--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

An editor added material in an exposé tone, which has been removed. 'Rev. Edward Lodge Curran', according to Time magazine in 1939, the "florid, bald, horn-voiced, hammer-handed president of the International Catholic Truth Society" is not a remotely neutral source for discussion of Rutherford. The material in the unnecessarily long quote in the citation didn't seem to indicate that Rutherford's position as a lawyer was remarkably different to other lawyers during his early career, instead appealing to comparison with later standards asserted by Curran. It is not necessary for the article to elaborate on things Rutherford didn't do, and the article makes no attempt to claim that Rutherford had any education that he did not have. Similarly, the article already notes that Rutherford sat as a special judge and makes no claim that he was a Judge in a more official sense than was actually the case. His actual role as a 'judge' is quite clearly stated in the Law career subsection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I also just noticed that my mobile device changed "Conley" to "Cobbler" in a previous edit summary. The fact remains that Rutherford was second president of the incorporated Watch Tower Society, which the article directly states.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Vyselink: Regarding , do you think "not a cross" would be sufficient? It wouldn't lead casual readers with the perception that JWs believe Jesus died on a tree. The paragraph is about how Rutherford introduced practices that are fundamental to modern JWs, so I think it's important to be careful with details. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more that we need to be careful with the details Clover, but Rutherford, in that book, used tree 4x on that page alone (I found another one after editing), so the historian in me just knee-jerked it back to "tree". And I don't know if we need to be that specific in the lead. Whether the JW's changed it or not is irrelevant, it's what Rutherford tried to teach, and this article is about Rutherford, not the JW's. The very last sentence of the "Doctrinal Changes" subsection however I believe could be fleshed out to better explain. If we do need to change it, and I'd like to get other opinions, then something like "removed (changed? abolished?) the previous belief that Christ died on the cross". I think we do need to mention that it was in fact a CHANGE in the belief (Russell believed in the cross after all). Quite frankly I may be being too pedantic on it, so as long as the rewording makes sense to me I'll be good. Vyselink (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vyselink: Just making sure you'd be okay with . Let me know if you're not and we need to figure out some other kind of solution. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

That change works for me, as it is both understandable to the casual reader but doesn't claim that Rutherford taught something (straight stake) that he didn't. Vyselink (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor has repeatedly removed information about Rutherford's cause of death, apparently because the editor feels the medical condition described is 'embarrassing'. The article does not state the cause of death in a sensational manner, and Wikipedia is not censored. The sourced information has been restored. The editor's most recent edit summary about removal because there 'isn't a related list article' is bizarre.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)