Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

An editor has tried to reinstate a claim implying that convention attendance at JW conventions is routinely in the hundreds of thousands. However, the sources provided have only established attendance figures above 200,000 for one convention in 1958. Until sources for multiple conventions with attendance of 200,000 or more are provided, there is no basis for the claim that some conventions have attendance in the hundreds of thousands. Additionally, the sources stating that the 1958 convention had the 'largest ever' attendance of a JW gathering are fairly dated, and cannot reasonably be accepted as a basis for the claim that it remains the largest ever JW convention attendance. The 1 June 2001 issue of The Watchtower also mentions the factoid about the 1958 convention attendance, but only states that it was the highest attendance that a JW convention "had ever had" (formatting added), with no indication that it had not since been superseded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is more than somewhat dishonest of you to imply that the edit claimed that " convention attendance at JW conventions is routinely in the hundreds of thousands" as the edit does not state such information. The statement is below

The attendance of some of these International conventions numbers into the hundreds of thousands, with the largest-ever gathering of Jehovah's Witnesses being held in New York in 1958 at Yankee Stadium and Polo Grounds with a peak attendance exceeding 253,000.

Clearly the indication that Some are in the hundreds of thousands does not imply a routine occurrence, The reference material indicates an attendance in 1950, 1953 and 1958 that are over 100k . If you have a reference that a larger attendance has occurred since the 1958 attendance of 253,922 at the Yankee Stadium/Polo Grounds venue I would love to see it, however, I think to the best of my knowledge, that record attendance has yet to be broken, still, if you can find a source that indicates that it has, please feel free to include it. The cited reference includes all the information you objected to in your previous revert, yet you are still not satisfied, can you be? Again, at issue is yet another preexisting statement to which I have only added the source requested by another editor, and yet again, you suddenly take issue with material that has been in place for who knows how long. I know you claim you do not have an axe to grind, but all I see is a editor standing over the grinding wheel with an axe in their hand, creating matters, regardless of how insignificant, to take issue with. Please in the future, refrain from reverting my edits simply because I made them. Willietell (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hundreds of thousands" means at least 200,000 (and the misleading implication of "hundreds of thousands" suggests a figure greater than around the minimum to fit the definition). The sources do not support that multiple conventions have had attendance in the hundreds of thousands, nor do they indicate there have not since been attendance in the 100s of thousands. The available sources only indicate that one convention in 1958 had an attendance in the hundreds of thousands. I have therefore restored text supported by the available sources. And yes, saying attendance of some conventions numbers (present indicative verb) into the hundreds of thousands certainly implies that it is routine—that is, typical or unsurprising—for that to occur. I was not "dishonest", and nor did I say the edit "claimed" that such was routine, instead I correctly alluded to the implication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely incidental that your unrelated minor edit drew my attention to the error. I will correct errors where I see fit, and will not avoid correcting errors merely because an over-sensitive editor made a nearby edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

So basically, what you are saying here is that, first and foremost, you are bad at math. Then let me explain to you how math works: "into the hundreds of thousands" indicates that the figure contains 100 at least a thousand times, thus being 100 x 1000= 100000 plus any additional number in attendance. The source in question indicates attendance of 120k plus in 1950, does not state the attendance in 1953, but leaves the reader to the right conclusion that it increased over the course of time, (which it did, the 1953 attendance was 165829 cite Watchtower July 15, 2012) then shows the 1958 attendance of 253922. Additionally, you could add the 1969 International convention in Nuremberg, Germany with an attendance of 150k+ (cite Watchtower April 1, 2005). However, such large conventions are not "common" because the venues to hold such large gatherings are very limited in availability and a series of smaller conventions is preferred. Nowhere in the edit does it indicate that such conventions are "routine" and you supposition that this is the case is a fault of your own and not the edit. I am open to re-wording the information to one that doesn't make you "feel" like it is stating such attendance numbers are "routine", but this whole argument is just bordering on silly, and over well established facts that you cannot, no matter how much you may want to, change. Willietell (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I will choose to ignore your idiotic patronising tone and your erroneously referring to semantics about numbers as 'math'. Colloquially, when the plural of a number is specified for countable nouns, it refers to a multiple of that number. For example, if someone says there were dozens of people in attendance, they don't mean 12, they mean at least 24, but usually an implication of a few dozen. The phrase isn't typically used to refer to something that just scrapes over the singular amount. I have already reworded the statement to accurately reflect what the sources actually say. Since attendance per the sources has occasionally—but not recently—been over 100,000 and has only once been over 200,000, it would be more representative to indicate attendances over 100,000, perhaps retaining the mention of the single instance over 200,000. Additionally, if attendances can't be demonstrated to have been in the 'hundred' of thousands for over 45 years, it's not clear why you feel the need to make such a big point about it. It's also odd that you assert that it is reasonable to assume that attendance increased over time, but also assert that 1958 had the highest ever attendance (which is not supported by any recent source).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this because for the most part I've been busy, but at this point I think a third editor besides Jeffro77 and Willietell should make an appearance. Willietell, the phrase "some of these international conventions numbers into the hundreds of thousands" is incorrect from a factual standpoint. "Hundreds of thousands" means 200K+, just like "hundreds" means 200+. It is pluralized, and thus at least doubled. Further, the phrase also implies (by the use of "some" in connection with the "hundreds of thousands") that at least two conventions numbered over 200K. As Jeffro77 has already stated, only one convention (not "some" i.e. more than one) achieved that number.

However, Jeffro77, I would also state that I think the information itself is relevant, and should not be deleted wholesale. Also I believe that your "only largest ever until 1984" because of the source argument is off-point and a bit ridiculous. While the source may only go to 1984, it is quite clearly the largest ever, as conventions have become far more spread out. Were we required to have an absolutely up to the year source for everything the vast majority of this article would be deleted. Unless you can find a source that specifically states that a larger one has been held since 1984, it is correct to leave it in.

With that said, I suggest the following compromise:

"The attendance of several of these international conventions reached over one-hundred thousand, with the largest-ever gathering of Jehovah's Witnesses being held in New York in 1958 at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds with a peak attendance exceeding 253,000".

As no other convention has ever had more than 200K, this statement (accompanied by the appropriate source) is both accurate and not misleading/open to interpretation. Vyselink (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted my suggested wording. Hopefully this ends this. Vyselink (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I for one, am fine with the new wording, hopefully Jeffro77 has no objections. Willietell (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made a slight modification, but the suggested wording is substantially what I suggested ("it would be more representative to indicate attendances over 100,000, perhaps retaining the mention of the single instance over 200,000"). Whilst it is not necessary to have 'up-to-the-minute' sources to be reasonably sure that something is the 'highest ever', a source that is over 30 years old is not especially helpful. The statement in the 1 June 2001 issue (page 19) of The Watchtower that "in 1958, New York City saw the largest convention that Jehovah's Witnesses had ever had, the Divine Will International Assembly, with a peak attendance of 253,922" (formatting added) casts doubt on the claim that there has not been a higher attendance anywhere since, and in the absence of an explicit source that it remains the highest ever, the claim should be omitted. It would be good if there were secondary sources for the point made, as self-reported primary sources are not ideal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you on the self-reporting sources, but in the case of the JW's I don't see it as a large issue. While she was commenting specifically on adherent/member numbers reported in the yearbook, Dr. Zoe Knox has stated that "Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly defined, and transparently calculated" ("Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011 pg. 166). JW's statistics on themselves are usually pretty accurate, so historians give them a lot of credit. Vyselink (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily questioning the accuracy of the statistics. Wikipedia in general prefers secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Penton, on page 116 of the 2015 edition of his book could also be used, if you want a secondary source. He himself is quoting primary sources, but it's there if you want it. Vyselink (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Penton is certainly a reasonable source. Penton has written at least 3 books about Jehovah's Witnesses. Can you add the ref to the article or clarify the intended source?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Although you might want to check the formatting, I'm never sure if I did it correctly for WP as I'm used to doing it for my dissertation etc. Vyselink (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The citation you provided was okay, but I have replaced it with a Wikipedia citation template anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if obits count, but here's one from the NY Times from when Fred Franz passed. Vyselink (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

An obituary might be a reasonable source for an uncontested point about the individual who is the subject of the obituary. Beyond that, probably not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)