Talk:James Penton

message: The relevance of the lengthy section on a 1976 Toronto Star article is far from clear. The depth of discussion of that article by far outweighs its significance. I'd recommend deleting the lot and noting only that Penton wrote the book the Star article referred to. BlackCab (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Star quote 

message: An image used in this article, File:James Penton portrait.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:James Penton portrait.jpg)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:James Penton portrait.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: This italicized portion of the following sentence in the James Penton article needs a citation. Otherwise, it is hearsay or false opinion: "...talks by the circuit and district overseers in Lethbridge warning that those who opposed the religion’s Governing Body would be destroyed by God." If no corroboration of the content of those talks is provided other than Penton's assertion, it should be viewed as a false statement and that portion deleted. 
Beverley's book on Penton appears to be the basis for much of this article. There's no evidence he would have been present to hear any of the talks. G.Larson (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements are not Penton's assertions, and Beverley makes no claim to having been present at either of the meetings where the statements were made — the Lethbridge Galt Park congregation on 6 January 1980 (by circuit overseer Jack Danley) and a circuit assembly in Lethbridge  on 1 December 1979 (by district overseer Larry Gray). Nor, it seems, was Penton present at either meeting. Beverley presents transcripts from recordings of both talks. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his transcripts. I note that you have made, and then removed, the claim that Beverley "is also an ex-Jehovah's Witness". It's a bizarre, mean-spirited and completely unfounded claim, presumably made with the intent to denigrate Beverley because he criticized the JWs in his book, and implying he had a personal axe to grind. The preface to the book explains clearly the circumstances in which Beverley became interested in the Penton case after he joined the faculty of Atlantic Baptist College. A link here lists Beverley's credentials and his extensive list of published works on world religions. BlackCab (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I, too, think its outrageous and bizarre for a circuit overseer to publicly suggest that a person who questioned the dictates of the Governing Body could be described as "speaking evil against the representatives of Jehovah God" and warned they could "become like Miriam and stricken with leprosy and he might lose his life". Many in the Lethbridge congregation clearly felt the same way and chose to leave the organization. It is in the transcript, however, and the circuit overseer later issued a very qualified apology for other comments he made in that speech. Your disbelief that a circuit overseer could speak like that is no reason to delete the statement, however. It's sourced and verifiable. BlackCab (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Please do not remove properly sourced material just because you don't believe it. Regardless of the language Beverley uses to describe the JWs, he remains a reliable source. Many other academic writers use the same word; it does not disqualify them as a source. BlackCab (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I will reword the sentence to include a quote from one or both the speeches, removing any ambiguity. BlackCab (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I have looked through the Watchtower Library and can find no articles anywhere that claim Miriam's seven-day bout of leprosy is a metaphor for disfellowshipping. That must be your own interpretation. The articles I have located claim the leprosy was a punishment for (a) "murmuring" against Moses and (b) her desire for greater power. The circuit overseer's reference to Miriam and leprosy was logically a response to Penton's criticism of a doctrinal position by the Governing Body. The GB, though just humans like the rest of us, clearly believe they are above criticism and think it is (as he explicitly said) "blasphemous" to question them. (My god, the arrogance!) The circuit overseer has therefore reached into the Bible for an account in which God, having heard Miriam's complaint, has directly, personally intervened to punish her after angrily demanding, "How then have you dared to speak against my servant Moses?" What was intended was an implicit threat that God could also physically punish Penton for his temerity. As far as I know, he is still in good health. BlackCab (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree: it's not worth it. I have quoted the overseer to support the statement in the article and that's about where it ends. BlackCab (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Twenty-two separate edits to arrive at a two-line statement. Please, no more: you've misunderstood the comment anyway. BlackCab (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

text: It suggests indeciseveness and obsessive compulsion. You make a comment, then keep nibbling at it for the next day! BlackCab (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: In his book on the expulsion of Penton, religious professor James Beverley quoted a public address given by a circuit overseer in which a comparison was made between "the man who seeks to destroy this organization" and the divine punishment of leprosy that was delivered to the biblical character of Miriam. User:G.Larson has repeatedly deleted the observation by Beverley that " "It is not often that preachers use the threat of leprosy to keep the flock in line." User:G.Larson has claimed: "Beverley's observation has nothing to do with how the words would have been received by Penton or the audience. Article is about Penton, not about Beverley's personal religious views." . As a religious academic, Beverley is fully justified in making such an observation about a religion's response to dissent within its ranks. And that comment is entirely salient to this article. It is not up to a Wikipedia editor to decide "how the words would have been received by Penton or the audience" and to delete them on that basis. BlackCab (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you are trying to second-guess Beverley's belief set. It is ludicrous to think that a religious academic who, even at that time, specialised in the study of new religious movements, would be unaware of the beliefs of other religions. Indeed an appendix to the book accurately lists a set of beliefs unique to the JWs. He quotes from the tape of the circuit overseer's speech. The threat and warning contained in that speech is crystal clear. Whether the circuit overseer meant it literally or not, he issued that threat. Beverley rightly reflects on that statement. BlackCab (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leprosy 

message: I think "schism" usually implies a division into two groups.  Did those who left the congregation with Dr Penton start a new group?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "schism" 

message: The lead says that his expulsion caused a schism. If one reads more, it only mentions 80 of so members separating. This religion has millions and millions of members, 80 people is nothing. It shouldn’t be mentioned in the lead. By that measure, my family could be considered “a schism in the Catholic Church”. I removed it from the lead. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph in the body says it caused a schism among Lethbridge Witnesses, from which 80 was a significant proportion. But the statement in the lead did imply a much more significant departure from the denomination generally, which was not an accurate summary of the statement in the body. What do the cited sources actually say?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight