Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Why do you put only those (Kedar) who are in favour of the NWT?

Benjamin Kedar who are in favour of the Old Testament of the NWT also says the following:

1) A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias.

2) I beg to make clear that I do not feel any sympathy for ANY SECT and this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, my mistrust is not directed against the individual member of such sect but rather against the organisation that manipulates him and puts forward its dogmas and rules as the ultimate truth. It should be conceded, however, that the groups and organisations that fiercely oppose the witnesses do not behave any better. On the whole, synagogue, church and mosque also tend to exhibit dogmatic arrogance coupled with intolerance of and enmity with other confessions.

3)I cannot help expressing my deep conviction that the search for truth will never benefit by linguistic quibble. Whether the author using the word naephaesh denoted 'soul' as opposed to body(Lev 17:11) or meant something else, whether 'almah' means 'virgin' or 'young woman'(Is 7:14) is of great interest to philologists and historians of religion; an argument for or against blood transfusion or the virgin-birth of Jesus respectively, cannot be derived from it.

4)Obviously, it is man's destiny to make the choice of his way a matter of conscience and to the best of his knowledge. There exists no simple set of rules such as could be learned from the mouth of a guru or the pages of an ancient venerable book. Those who pretend to act according to an infallible guide, more often than not interpret the texts in accordance with their preconceived wishes and notions.

- Benjamin Kedar letter.

You should also add that Kedar says that Jehova's witnesss are a sect.

There are a lot of important scholars who are against the NWT bible and it also should be add, for example:

Edmund C. Gruss, Professor of History and Apologetics at Los Angeles Baptist College, offers five main criticisms of the book: 20 a) The use of paraphrasing in contradiction to the stated purpose. b) The unwarranted insertion of words not found in the Greek. Alexander Thomson makes a similar comment in a statement quoted earlier. c) Erroneous rendering of Greek words. d) Deceptive and misleading footnotes and appendix. e) Arbitrary use and misuse of capitals when dealing with the divine name. (For details of criticisms see footnote 20.) Gruss concludes that the New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures, "although outwardly scholarly, is plainly in many cases, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be rejected as a perversion of the Word of God." 21

Ray C. Stedman (internationally known author, Bible teacher, pastor, evangelist)

"A close examination, which gets beneath the outward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of Biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity." 22

Walter Martin and Norman Klann (The late Dr. Martin was a leading Christian apologist, known internationally for his studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups.)

"Once it is perceived that Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly revealed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower translation." 23

These authors claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and, in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty.

Anthony Hoekema:

"Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself." 24

Dr. Hoekema was Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., and the author of one of the most highly regarded reference works on the Jehovah's Witnesses.

F. F. Bruce: (Dr. Bruce is Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis Emeritus, University of Manchester, England. He is a world renowned Biblical exegete who has issued his own translation of the the New Testament, and a number of scholarly works on New Testament themes. The Jehovah's Witnesses have quoted him as an authority on the New Testament on a number of occasions.)

"Some of its distinctive renderings reflect the Biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses....Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good..." 25

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the world's leading authorities on the Greek language, and recognized as such by the Jehovah's Witnesses who quote him on occasion in a favorable way, wrote an article in 1950 pointing out the errors in many Christological passages in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 26

H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. His comments should be compared to those of Dr. Goodspeed quoted earlier:

"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the trans lators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God.... "...this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." 27

21. Gruss, 211

22. Stedman, R.C., "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," Our Hope 50; 34, July, 1953. 30 as quoted in Gruss, 209

23. Martin, W., & Klann, N., Jehovah of the Watchtower, (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1974 161

24. Hoekema, A., The Four Major Cults (Exeter: Paternoster, 1963) 208-9

25. Bruce, F.F., The English Bible: A History of Translations (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961) 184 as quoted in Gruss, 210

26. Metzger, B.M., "The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures" The Bible Translator 15:152, July, 1964

27. Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956 as quoted in Gruss, 213 and "How Not to Translate the Bible," The Expository Times as quoted in Gruss, 212

I would put the following in the article: "On the contrary scholar H. H. Rowley says that:

"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader -if such it finds -and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the trans lators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God.... this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated." - Reference: Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible" The Expository Times 67:107, Jan. 1956 as quoted in Gruss, 213 and "How Not to Translate the Bible," The Expository Times as quoted in Gruss, 212.

--Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources that you have indicated may be suitable critiques of the NWT. However, please note that the section about the NWT at this (the main) JW article is only a summary. Elaboration from a wider range of sources would be more suitable at New World Translation. It's also not necessary to provide every review of the NWT (at either article), but the proportion of negative and positive reviews should reflect the proportion and quality of the sources. Feel free to improve either article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Stipend

I have again removed a tangential source that does not support the sentence it follows.[1] The statement in the article is that volunteers at Watch Tower Society facilities are paid a monthly stipend. Though the disputed source contains the word stipend, nowhere does the source refer to a monthly stipend or any other form of regular payment while employed. Instead it refers to a payout for redundancy, which is not relevant to the article's statement. If there is a statement in some JW-related article about WTS facility staff payments for retrenchment, the disputed source would be fine there. (The source also says nothing about the WTS paying general living expenses; the source only says the WTS paid a particular individual's medical expenses for a specific injury.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Another editor changed the linked term to allowance (money), which has also been reverted. The target article refers to entirely different types of payment (either payments to a child, or payments by an employer for a distinct purpose). The definition in the second sentence at stipend is precisely the type of payment made to JW 'volunteers' at WTS facilities, and it is the term that appears in JW literature. Despite the edit summary provided, the additional sources provided by the the editor indicate that the payment received is more than "a pocket money", and there is no requirement that a stipend be "half of regular pay".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not that different like you said. I just saw some sources using the words similar to 'small stipend'. So I am okay. --RustyStove (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

ex-jw.com is NOT a reliable source

(This is the same talk section I posted on a similar article that uses the same source; sorry for the copy and paste but the same point needs to be made here).

I have no problem with the statement that Jehovah's Witnesses are 'structured hierarchically'. But someone needs to do one of the following: (1) Find a reliable source for that statement; or (2) remove that statement until a reliable source is found.

After I post this talk section, I'll be removing that reference for the third time (while keeping the statement itself). Please don't revert my change until it's been discussed here.

Those who disagree should please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources in WP's guidelines. Nowhere in that document does it allow for editable documents to be hosted as "reliable sources" on personal websites or other questionable media.

To demonstrate this problem, if I want to, I can post that same document, doctored in Photoshop, on my own personal website and then claim "it's ok, it's a reliable source because it comes from a real testimony, etc." In fact, I just took 10 minutes to do just that. Here's a screenshot of the quote. Is this the real quote? It says "We are not a hierarchal religion..." So who do we trust now?

I'm not trying to mock anyone here, but the primary article for a well-known religion or organization shouldn't be using a questionable source.

This change is in accordance with WP's guidelines. Please don't revert this again, whoever it is that's doing that. Discuss the matter here and make changes in accordance with WP's guidelines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisstar (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It is an unremarkable statement found in a court document. The statement is entirely consistent with their actual structure. There is nothing outlandish about the statement, and there is no benefit to be gained by doctoring a picture of the court transcript and recomposing a PDF file. I have already verified that the litigants and case number (CIV508137) are legitimate, and anyone can request a transcript from the San Mateo County Court for a nominal fee at https://www.sanmateocourt.org/online_services/court_reporter_transcripts.php if they believe there is some elaborate conspiracy going on.

Your screenshot 'example' is tedious, and only demonstrates that it would be illogical to doctor the wording in this way, since your modified phrasing makes no sense in context. Further down, Rouse's testimony in the source document states, "We brought our organizational bylaws book, our rule book here, and we are prepared to present witnesses that this is a hierarchical organization. It is governed from the top down." The entire purpose of Rouse's testimony is to establish that the hierarchical nature of the organization prevents the "ex-minister", Cobb, from retaining status as an 'elder'. Cobb argues that the organization is not a hierarchy (for his own reasons), and Rouse states several times (pages 4, 5, 13) that JWs are hierarchically organised. The entire case makes no sense if Rouse really argued that JWs are not a hierarchical organisation. Your argument that the document has been 'doctored' is tendentious.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you've missed the point of my objection to the source. I'm not objecting to the statement itself from that trial. I'm objecting to the use of that website as the source of the document. Obviously, my example "edit" would not be believable since, as you pointed out, it makes no sense. I'm merely demonstrating to the person that kept reverting my change that using some random "ex-jw" URL for a source is not in line with WP's standards. Anyhow, I can see now that the edit has been reverted but without the source URL, which is fine. Again, I was never denying the validity of the claim itself in the trial transcript; I was denying the validity of the source URL. Louisstar (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary detail in lead section

User:Jiohdi has reverted my change when I removed his lengthy addition to the lead section, adding the comment: "if you don't like it, knowing that it is accurate, fix it, do not simply revert to what is actually false." There is nothing false in the original wording, which has existed for some years now. The original wording was more succinct and is quite sufficient. More detail is contained in the main body of the article and the spinoff articles. BlackCab (TALK) 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the additional detail is not necessary in the lead. The subject is covered in the relevant section and spin-out articles. The original text is a brief summary and contains nothing that contradicts what was added by Jiohi.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Are New World critics given here really scholars?

The article reads.

There are some scholars who claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, and, in fact, reflects scholastic dishonesty. Some of them are Edmund C. Gruss[369], Ray C. Stedman[370], Walter Martin and Norman Klann[371], Anthony Hoekema[372], Bruce M. Metzger[373] and H. H. Rowley[374].

The above text is inaccurate to some extend. First of all not all the people mentioned here have claimed that New World lacks scholarship.

1. Scholar and theologian Bruce Metzger admits the presence of scholarship, but he questions certain texts such as John 1:1 which he claims inaccurate.

2. Baptist Bible editor Rowley criticizes the decision of New World translators to follow a very literal translation in Old Testament, which in his opinion is unwarranted.

Secondly, the remaining alleged scholars in the list are not scholars. They are either theologians, pastors or hard-core critics of Jehovah's Witnesses from competing christian groups. For example

1. Edmund Gruss have written atleast four critical books on Jehovah's Witnesses which he calls as a cult similar to Mormon church.

2. Ray Stedman is an evangelical pastor, no details are given on his scholastic credentials.

3. Walter Martin is a well known apologist and critic of Jehovah's Witnesses who authored "Jehovah of the Watchtower" and "The Kingdom of the Cults" on the "cult" teachings of Watchtower.

4. Anthony Hoekema is another theologian and critic who wrote "The four major cults", which includes Jehovah's Witnesses.

I would remove altogether or modify the statement as below and append it to the end of first paragraph.

Critics such as Edmund C. Gruss[369], Ray C. Stedman[370], Walter Martin and Norman Klann[371] claim that the New World Translation lacks scholarship, or that it reflects scholastic dishonesty.

If some one want to really add more criticism just for the sake of it, there are more quality criticism from scholars in the New World Translation article that can be used here instead of cheap comments from competing religious leaders. For example what Samuel Haas wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature is a better criticism from a credible Journal. ShaunRex (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

ShaunRex (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"They believe that ..."

Couple of thoughts here, just FWIW. First, no-one really knows the beliefs of another. We only know for sure what people *say* they believe. Second, it seems in poor taste and in poor logic to talk about the belief of a set of people. Only an individual person can hold a belief. And thirdly, it seems in poor taste to refer to this set of people with the naked "they" rather than giving the set their proper, respectful, name. My fix for all of these issues is to change this (if we're honest) untestable and unprovable assertion to something more along the lines of "The doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization calls for a belief in ...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9F80:7140:D9E2:49C7:15EC:4298 (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

In some instances the article also uses "are told", which is more factual; other possibilities would be "are taught that", "doctrine/the Governing Body asserts", etc. However, "they believe" is not meant to speak about every individual but the group, which seems obvious to me, so I don't consider this a major issue. Varying the formulation also increases readability. —PaleoNeonate – 11:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I provided some comments about this issue that are now in Archive 42 of this Talk page: "There is a certain semantic awkwardness inherent to the way the religion chooses to identify itself. Jehovah's Witnesses (members) are members of Jehovah's Witnesses (religion). Jehovah's Witnesses (religion) teaches Jehovah's Witnesses (members), who teach non-members. Jehovah's Witnesses (religion) publishes materials that publishers (members) distribute. Because of these ambiguities, 'Jehovah's Witnesses believe' may occasionally be preferable, and can be appropriate in a generic sense, even if not all nominal members actually adhere to (or have a full understanding of) a particular belief, especially if there is no specific controversy about a particular belief (e.g. 'JWs believe that the trees at Ezekiel 47:12 represent God's provisions to bring mankind to perfection' would be less controversial (even though more obscure) than 'JWs believe in rejecting blood transfusions'). For readability, some variety in word choice is also advisable. For these reasons, instances should be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than applying a rule dogmatically." If a belief is controversial, it would be best to state that Jehovah's Witnesses are taught; in other cases, either term can be used to avoid reusing the same phrase over and over again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested that this page be protected from anonymous IP edits. I have been away for a week, and in that time there have been nearly 20 edits since I last checked, with no net change to the article at all. Most of the edits introducing changes have been anonymous IP editors. In this round it's mostly been editors trotting out the usual 'cult' buzzword, but edits about the group being 'founded by God' are also frequently introduced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! This should be protected and kept away from bias. It's one thing to write factual info about Rutherford's drinking problem with the proper references, it's something very different and unacceptable to say he was a devil worshiper and then produce no credible references to back it up. (Sinclair 98 luis (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

Page protection

I have requested that this page be protected from anonymous IP edits. I have been away for a week, and in that time there have been nearly 20 edits since I last checked, with no net change to the article at all. Most of the edits introducing changes have been anonymous IP editors. In this round it's mostly been editors trotting out the usual 'cult' buzzword, but edits about the group being 'founded by God' are also frequently introduced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! This should be protected and kept away from bias. It's one thing to write factual info about Rutherford's drinking problem with the proper references, it's something very different and unacceptable to say he was a devil worshiper and then produce no credible references to back it up. (Sinclair 98 luis (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018

EDIT TEXT BETWEEN POUND SIGNS: Jehovah's Witnesses are organized hierarchically, in what the leadership calls a "theocratic organization", reflecting their belief that it is God's "visible organization" on earth.[99][100][101] The organization is led by the Governing Body—an all-male group that varies in size, but since January 2018 has comprised eight members,[102] all of whom profess to be of the "anointed" class with a hope of heavenly life—based in the Watch Tower Society's Warwick headquarters.[103][104] There is no election for membership; ##new members are selected by the existing body.##

EDIT PREVIOUSLY INDICATED TEXT TO: Jehovah's Witnesses are organized hierarchically, in what the leadership calls a "theocratic organization", reflecting their belief that it is God's "visible organization" on earth.[99][100][101] The organization is led by the Governing Body—an all-male group that varies in size, but since January 2018 has comprised eight members,[102] all of whom profess to be of the "anointed" class with a hope of heavenly life—based in the Watch Tower Society's Warwick headquarters.[103][104] There is no election for membership; ##new members are selected by the existing body through a process claimed to aided by divine guidance.## Freghismo (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The requested addition would raise more questions than it answers, and would be unhelpful as no answers exist, since the 'divine guidance' is an arbitrary theological belief that doesn't have any practical application or mechanism (and one that is supposedly distinct in some unspecified manner from being 'inspired', which also has no defined mechanism). You would, of course, also need to provide a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Lies about Jehovah's Witnesses

This page is filled with false information which is why no editing is allowed. Wikiwiki2019 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue with a specific item on the page, bring it up and other editors will respond.Vyselink (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:FIXBIAS on how to proceed. Since this talk page is also not a WP:FORUM, as Vyselink suggested, please be specific. Wikipedia material must be a summary of reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE). Thus, we'd need alternative sources or criticism in relation to specific sources or the way they are summarized. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Cross from page?

If I read the Cross section JWs would object to the use of the Cross as a Pagan symbol. Should the Cross Symbol in the "Part of a series on Christianity" box be removed on this page about JWs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs#Cross

This is part of the template and can't be modified for a single article. Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to modify the template to cater to a small minority of denominations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Then should the Template be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.204.101 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The modern JW's particular thoughts on the use of the cross are irrelevant. They are a christian religion, the box uses the cross, so both it and the box should stay. Also the box's placement is apropos, as it is in the section (founding to the death of Russell) where the movement did in fact use the cross as a symbol. So from a Wikipedia and historical perspective, it makes sense. Vyselink (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree regarding the placement of the box, though it also is not essential that it be placed in a specific section for that reason. Wikipedia is not censored, and it is not necessary to remove relevant content purely on the basis that some might find it objectionable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Practices > Evangelism

One noticeable omission in this article is in the Practices > Evangelism section. It does not explain why JW believe so strongly in door-to-door preaching, only that it is a "biblical command." I remember at one point it was taught that "worldly" individuals existed who did not know about the JW organization and therefore had no method with which to be saved. It was taught that by "going where the need is great," a JW could achieve a crucial step towards Armageddon by reaching that very last individual.

Also related, JW organization had always distanced themselves from televangelists, citing the medium as inappropriate, yet today they stream on just about every video platform available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setheb (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to explain why they believe "so strongly", as this would give the article a preachy tone. Also, this main JW article only provides an overview of their evangelism, with additional detail at Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Even there, it is not necessary to justify or defend their activities.

It is true that in recent years, they have indeed ventured into televangelism, largely because it is not economically viable to remain primarily a publisher of print media. Article content about this would need to be based on suitable secondary sources. Did you have something specific in mind?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that Armageddon is mentioned in the Jehovah's Witnesses practices article Evangelism section. It is worded well enough so the reader can infer the evangelical activity is connected to the wanted onset of Armageddon, if they would like. It would seem on my first post to Wikipedia I have overlooked an entire section on the subject. Thank you for your response.--Setheb (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Even there, it is not necessary to justify or defend their activities."

Explanations are not necessarilly justifications. In this case, the question is more about motivation behind inexplicable activities. Dimadick (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have any problem with the question, but sometimes threads like this start, and other editors take it as an opportunity to unnecessarily expand the subject with content with a defensive tone, adding 'supportive scriptures', etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New World Translation main article should be corrected too

I think is is not neutral, all the article speaks how good is the NWT bible. Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think most of the article speaks how bad NWT is, which would satify most people. I find no problem with it. You in latest version? lol -ShaunRex (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I propose to talk about the New World Translation article in the correct discussion page. Could you please precise where it's not neutral there? Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

New World Translation

An editor have recently removed the statement that some of the critics are from opposing groups. IMO removing the backgroud of those critics would be equal to presenting it as from hebrew/greek scholars, while they are not. I link my reasons from archived content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_66#Are_New_World_critics_given_here_really_scholars?

ShaunRex (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Edmund Gruss is a critic of the JW, because all his books are against JW. But what about the others? I don't think it's justified to put them all in the same basket as Gruss and call them all "critics of the group". Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So in your definition a critic is a critic only if he or she exclusively limits the scope of criticism to one subject. That's not true. A critic can do critical works on multiple subjects. Can you show of these having any articles positive about the group? Its sentiments based on differences in central teachings such as Trinity. ShaunRex (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A "critic" can be called this way if it's main job is to criticize. I don't see any reason to call Stedman, Martin, Klann or Hoekema this way. I'll rephrase to show who each one really is. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If a source is a "critic" only, that is, they have no relevant qualifications and are not generally recognised as authoritative on the subject, they should not appear as a source at all (this does not apply to Gruss, who has written broadly on the subject, is a professor and not 'just a critic', and has also written books on subjects other than JWs though that is not a requirement). If someone's entire relevant field of expertise as it relates to the subject is criticism (e.g. an expert on 'cults'), it may be reasonable to refer to that person as a critic. If a source happens to say something critical about Jehovah's Witnesses but JWs are not the central focus of their work, cite their qualification rather than poisoning the well. If you label everyone who says something negative about JWs as a 'critic' without also disclosing other supportive biases (e.g. 'BeDuhn is a nontrinitarian'), this would not constitute a neutral point of view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with this, and feel your last edit is fine regarding this particular point. However, I'm quite reluctant to conclude with the sentence that scholars such as Metzger "claim that scholarship is evident in the text". The first part clearly shows that Metzger and other scholars strongly disagree with the way some passages are translated. So the last sentence is misleading. Could you please reformulate, or come back closer to the previous version, where the point of view of Metzger was presented in one sentence at the beginning? Another point: who really state that "the New World Translation lacks scholarship", and who state that "it reflects scholastic dishonesty"? Citations in references could help the reader better understand the point of view of each. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As long as the claim that New World Translation lacks scholarship is here, there should be dissenting opinions included when its readily available. Usually those who accuse that NWT lacks scholarship is not from scholarly community but are theologians. Anybody who read the critical notes and footnotes that accompany NWT (as Raymond Franz mentioned) will have to admit the existence of scholarship. Your constant removal of content from BeDuhn is quite frustrating. Please stop this behavior. You have to admit facts even if you hate or like it.ShaunRex (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not contradictory to state that something is biased but that it also shows evidence of scholarship (and Metzger unambiguously says both). When sources of equal weight appear to be contradictory, simply provide both statements. (See also here, under summation conflict.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Citing Thomas Winter in defense of the NWT is misleading for the reader, because he speaks about the KIT. The KIT is sometimes used by critics to show the inconsistencies of the NWT. That's why I've removed this part. The only scholar who finds scholarship in the NWT is Metzger. Its opinion is there, but placed in the same part as its other comments. This is much clearer like that. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Would a professor recommend students to learn Greek from a faulty interlinear? KIT have interlinear + translation (exactly same as NWT reference edition). Intelinear is a stage to translation. Translation helps student to learn the grammar, interlinear helps to learn vocabulary and structure. Your changes such as BeDuhn "admits", removal of "remarkably good" translation does not show any reason or explanation, just blind removal with poor construction. In English "admits" is used when someone is telling him to not admit or he himself do not admit. It is not that he "admits" but he opines or states. ShaunRex (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition I can add more references in support of scholarship. (We already have Metzger and one from respected journal of Biblical Literature). Also you need to mention who "Thomas Howe" is. His book description says its a book focused on rebutting BeDuhn's book. See in AmazonShaunRex (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CLAIM regarding excessive or biased use of words like admit or claim. Though the word claim is not 'forbidden', it should generally be avoided when contrasting views of equal weight, especially if it would give the impression of unsourced editorial support of one view above the other that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

KIT translation is not the same as the NWT's one. You can find both texts online and compare (for example [2] vs [3]). So I suggest removing Thomas Winter's comment here, or at least precise that he's speaking about the KIT and not about the NWT. To avoid an edit war, I'll wait for Jeffro's comments on this. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. It is true that KIT jw.org version don't have the side by side text with original NWT translation. But online library do. If you click the verse in online library it will show translations on side. KIT printed copy which Thomas Winter of course is talking about (1974) has NWT translation exactly as it appears in reference edition on side margin. I have a hard copy. See one scanned copy online. ShaunRex (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see very clearly in your link that the text of the KIT is different than the text of the NWT. So it's not because Winter praises the KIT for being a "highly useful aid" that he would have said the same of the NWT. Moreover, according to a letter he wrote in 1980, Winter regrets that the Watchtower use his sentence to defend its translation, where he finds biais, like many others. We can't use this letter as a source here because it hasn't been published. However, WP should clearly tell who say what, and so we need either to say that its review is about the KIT, or we can just consider it irrelevant here and delete it. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I see very clearly that the text of the right side of KIT (scanned copy) in each page is same as NWT edition of 1961. Are you not seeing it? The sentence is here not to defend NWT on its "bias" but to defend its "scholarship". So whether Winter regrets that WTS uses his quote to defend its "accuracy" is irrelevant. He agrees on "scholarship"; "bias" or "scholarly dishonesty" is a different question. period. Similarly other scholars such as Metzger deny "accuracy" but accepts scholarship. See also my note on your edit in talk page of main article. -ShaunRex (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, Thomas Winter was certainly not saying KIT was just a scholarly dictionary, and students should ignore the non-scholarly translation appearing on the right side margin. More so the translators of both the publications are same. You can't say one work have scholarship and other work doesn't. If Thomas Winter have disavowed his original statements as you claim, you would need to provide Reliable Source that satisfy wiki guidelines. I am sure you are very much aware of RS guidelines since you enthusiastically removed supportive quotes that was here from WTS and self-published authors. —ShaunRex (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but I still think we should clearly state in the article that Winter's review is about the KIT, and also clearly say what it was about. It's the Greek to English part of the KIT that Winter finds useful. Moreover, Winter didn't say anything in him review about the scholarship of the authors. He just says that the translation is accurate and up-to-date. This doesn't require any special scholarship, but only requires having a good Greek-English dictionary. For the other scholars, I agree, like I said in my edits, to show that Metzger defend the scholarship of the NWT itself, as well as MacLean that you have added recently. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The KIT does provide both interlinear text and the NWT text. While probably not usable as a source in the article, it would be helpful to have a link to Winter's 'letter' here at Talk to confirm whether he refers to the interlinear text only or also the NWT translation as "accurate", and also exactly what he might have said about the Watch Tower Society's use of his other statements. There also may be some confusion about reliable sources. If there is reasonable evidence that Winter 'disavowed [or supplemented] his statements' but it doesn't meet the criteria for use as a source in the article, that doesn't mean that is 'must be ignored'. Instead, it should be suitably taken into consideration with regard to how his other sourced statements are used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

According to this site: "on 3 October 1980 he [Winter] wrote, "I am not happy with the use now being made of the review," and he went on to note a few problems, such as Jesus' words in John 8:58 (which NWT translates as "I have been"). Winter commented, "No way to go here but `I am.'". Sorry, I've no better source than this web site. Anyway, I've rephrased the full text in the article and added references to show that in fact many people find scholarship in the NWT, but identified biais as well. Scholarship is not the problem. Scholars and critics agree on this. According to them, the problem is the distortion of the original text to reflect the theology of the group. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The allusion to a letter with fragmentary quotes without full context is not sufficient to confirm anything about Winter's position.

Saying it lacks scholarship is a reasonable paraphrase of a "veneer of scholarship" and "outwardly scholarly"; in contrast, the use of "although outwardly scholarly" (actually a quote from only one of the commentators) may be misleading because it was presented, without quotes, as the view of multiple sources, including sources that are cited but aren't quoted. Also, your previous wording:

the New World Translation, even if it reflects a certain degree of scholarship, is full of scholastic dishonesty in many other places. Scholars including Bruce Metzger ... make similar remarks about the text

grossly misrepresented Metzger's actual statements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel we have come together with a much better summary than before, and I'm safisfied with the current version, including your last edit. Thanks Jeffro for your help. Regards, ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have partially reverted edits by ChercheTrouve, primarily for two reasons: 1) restoring more weight first to what has been said by scholars, with the views of other critics secondary; 2) the summary at this main article doesn't need to specify particular doctrines that are the focus of criticism, which belongs at the more specific articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I usually feel fine with your edits, but I disagree with your last one. 1) The article concludes by saying that "scholarship is evident in the text", when the main purpose of most of the scholars' reviews is to show that "renderings of certain texts are inaccurate and biased in favor of Witness practices and doctrines". 2) We don't explain why the NWT is criticized. Could we try to find a compromise? ChercheTrouve (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:DUE states: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." Hence, the restored wording gives prominence to the scholarly views, with suitable weight also given to other critics. The fact that scholars say the translation contains bias does not at all contradict the fact that they (in some cases the same scholars) also say scholarship is evident in the translation. The second paragraph of the subsection provides a rebuttal directly to the beginning of the second paragraph. It doesn't contradict the first paragraph, and it does not remotely represent anything so dramatic as "the article concludes by saying" anything at all; it doesn't in any way cancel what else is said in the subsection.

Regarding the second point, I'm happy to see what other editors say, though it is likely to become a can of worms that is not necessary at this main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that a lot of content from BeDuhn is unwarranted in main article, a brief summary that NWT have positive reviews on accuracy from minority scholars is appropriate. I collected two from the edit history, who never seem to have disavowed their statements after pressure from majority.ShaunRex (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The only sources for Kedar that specifically said anything about bias in the NWT was hearsay, and it stated that Kedar only considered the Old Testament, which isn't the content usually accused of bias by other commentators. Kedar's statements with reference to the Old Testament are suitable for the main NWT article. The fact that scholars have also indicated that scholarship is evident in the text but that doctrinal bias is also president is an accurate representation of how the translation is generally viewed by scholars.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be informative to add a sentence at the end stating that much of the criticism is focused on New Testament, since its very much true. ShaunRex (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I propose to explain what is criticized in the NWT: insertion of Jehovah in the NT (almost all scholars, including BeDuhn), deny of the deity of Christ (many scholars except non-trinitarians - BeDuhn and Unitarians), etc. ChercheTrouve (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection in principle, but only a brief statement would be necessary at this main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

EDIT INDICATED BY DOUBLE POUND SIGNS The group emerged from the Bible Student movement founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell, who also co-founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881 to organize and print the movement's publications.[2] A leadership dispute after Russell's death resulted in several groups breaking away, with Joseph Franklin Rutherford retaining control of the Watch Tower Society and its properties.[9] Rutherford made significant organizational and doctrinal changes, including adoption of the name ##Jehovah's Witnesses##[note 1] in 1931 to distinguish them from other Bible Student groups and symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions.[10][11][12][13] Freghismo (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Apart from usage in headings, "witnesses" was not capitalised in Watch Tower Society literature until the 1970s.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018

EDIT IS INDICATED BY DOUBLE POUND SIGNS Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.[4] The group reports a worldwide membership of ##8.46## million adherents involved in evangelism and an annual Memorial attendance of around 20 million.[3] Jehovah's Witnesses are directed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders in Warwick, New York, which establishes all doctrines[5] based on its interpretations of the Bible.[6][7] They believe that the destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent## ##and that the establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the only solution for all problems faced by humanity. Freghismo (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary to micromanage this figure every time reported membership changes by 10 thousand people. It is practical to round it to 8.5 million and to indicate that it is approximate. Other editors may have other views, but I don't see that it is necessary to go beyond increments of 0.5 (million). Modifiers such as about or over where appropriate (i.e. 8.4 - 8.6 is about 8.5; 8.7 - 8.8 is more than 8.5; 8.9 - 9.1 is about 9 million etc) can also be used.

The separate clauses are better served here by retaining the Oxford comma.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. A 0.5 million baseline seems appropriate to me as well. Vyselink (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Data Protection

I removed this section [[4]] which I think is cited in a way that may not be conducive to verifiable sources. I could be wrong and I'm not sure how it is handled but if the document is secret and not accessible by the public how can we verify it when the writing itself says it is a secret document and not accessible by anyone except a few? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The section in question had an unsuitable exposé tone, and wasn't based on any secondary sources. In any case, it does not seem suitable for the section to exist at the main JW article. If it can be supported by relevant secondary sources, something about retention of personal details might be suitable at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Date of origin

In this edit an editor has tweaked the data in the "Origin" field of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" infobox, changing it from "1870s" to "1872", in order to allow the template to show the number of elapsed years (in this case "147 years ago.") It looks good, but for the sake of accuracy, "1870s" should remain. The story of how Russell started his Bible Student movement has been told in print many times, but as far as I'm aware no one has objectively, explicitly identified 1872 as the year it began. BlackCab (TALK) 04:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. While personally I set the date at 1879 (when the first WT was published), it can be legitimately argued that he founded it in 1876 when he met Barbour, 1879 (1st WT), or 1881 (ZWT company). 1872 has not been given by Penton, Chryssides, Knox, or any other academic I know of as a starting point for the movement. Indeed, most of them pinpoint his working with Barbour as being the seminal event. Vyselink (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I also think 1879 is the best date, as it's when the WT magazine was first published. ChercheTrouve (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Penton (p.26) says 1879 was also the year Russell and his associates began organising 30 study groups or congregations in the eastern US. BlackCab (TALK) 03:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Jehovah's Witnesses didn't exist at all until 1931, and in principle it began when Rutherford diverged his group from the Bible Student groups that adhered to Russell's teachings. But if we're going with the origins of the group started by Russell, it is not accurate to simply say the group started with the publication of Zion's Watch Tower. It is contradictory to say the movement began only once Russell already had enough followers to form 30 congregations. Development was more gradual than that, but if a specific year is desired, 1876 would be more accurate.--12:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with you Jeffro that the Witnesses should be considered the brainchild of Rutherford rather than Russell (much like you can't say the Bible Students were the brainchild of Barbour or Miller even though Russell used the connections he made on a practical level with Barbour, i.e. Barbours magazine and mailing list, and the theological ones of Miller and his successors.) However, until that becomes the common interpretation (I have yet to either meet or read any academic who doesn't equate the JW's with Russell's founding) Russell obviously stays for now.

However, I do disagree with your statement that "it is contradictory to say the movement began only once Russell already had enough followers to form 30 congregations." Joseph Smith (to use one example) preached for several years before the LDS church came into being, and most will say they were founded in 1830. Similarly with Russell, he may have amassed followers to his basic teachings, but the organization did not yet exist. Indeed, if you take into account the differences in theology espoused between Barbour and Russell, you can't really claim 1876 either, in my opinion. To me, it wasn't until he founded the WT magazine that Russell's more or less loose collection of followers truly became an organization.

All of this is my justification for 1879. I would accept 1876, but personally I think the evidence is far more solid for 1879. Vyselink (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Do any of the relevant sources actually say something to the effect of 'Bible Students were founded in 1879' (or 1876 or some other year), or do they just indicate notable events in various years in the movement's early gradual formation? Unless sources specifically give a year that the group was founded, it is better to just say "1870s".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1870's is best I do believe. I haven't found any sources that will give a date for a specific foundation year bc it is so fluid. Vyselink (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion as a "Christian Denomination"

I know that this statement may not sit well with some, and I don't intend to offend, but I'm not even sure that JWs should be listed as a Christian denomination. There are already almost innumerable differences between their doctrines, beliefs, and interpretations and those held by most of Mainstream Christianity. However, I would submit that the JW's denial of Jesus' Divinity as God, as well as the organization's belief that Jesus was not physically, that is to say "bodily", resurrected, and the denial of Salvation through Jesus for those outside their group, pretty much not only sets them apart, but violates the very definition of the Christian faith and some of the most basic criteria used by academics and theologians to classify a given denomination or religion as part of Christianity. One reason I'm compelled to ask for the opinions of others here, is that it isn't just one or two things, or a bunch of little, marginal things that separates them from the rest of Christianity. There are a large number of differences here. A lot actually. And quite a few of them are VERY substantial. Besides the issues already mentioned, it doesn't help that this group was not simply an offshoot or splinter grouo of an older, larger, established denomination already in existence. This group is pretty much in a class all its own. It has developed and espoused ideas found nowhere else, and did so indepently of even a marginally recognized parent Church, much less the Mainstream Christian movement, using a religious text that is a translation created on their own and meant for their exclusive use. At some point, one must take a step back and see if something truly fits in the same mold anymore. If it helps clarify my way of thinking in this instance, one could see this as akin to the point where Christianity just didn't fit into the category of Judaism anymore. It had diverged and developed substantially enough to have become something so unique and different that it was necessary to be categorized separately and as something else. Thoughts? Thetruchairman (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times. JW are a Christian denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

JW cannot be Christian, as they state that Jesus Christ was only a man. Most Christian religions regard JW as a cult. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:25A3:940B:4DAB:9A57 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually most recognized scholars in the subject would disagree. Remember that every religion has the one true form and all others are heathens and following false gods etc. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Your premise is based on a loaded definition of 'Christian'. Christians are people who purport to follow the teachings of Jesus who they believe to be the 'Christ' (Messiah) promised in the Hebrew Bible. Additions to that definition are subjective theological opinions.

Irrespective of whether JWs are actually a 'cult' (see WP:LABEL), the terms Christian and cult are not mutually exclusive, and the theological opinion of rival denominations is not particularly important here, in the same way that the JWs view that other denominations are not 'true Christians' is also irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this really need to be defended again? "Christian: someone who follows or adheres to Christianity." "Christianity-a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the New Testament. Its adherents, known as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and savior of all people, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament." JW's believe that Christ was the promised Son of God and savior as described in the New Testament, who was prophesied about in the Old Testament. Everything else (hell, Trinity, etc) is individualistic to different denominations. The "their own text" argument also falls flat, as there are something like 400+ translations of the Bible in the english language alone, and everyone chooses their preferred one (KJV, NWT, NSV etc). Done. Vyselink (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

JWs are not a cult, and they are a Christian denomination --XTMontana (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the memorial of Christ's death

Hey- is there any special way that JWs observe the memorial of Christ's death? If there is, add it to the Good Friday page. I already added a sentence with two sources. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses do commemorate Jesus' death, but it very rarely falls on Good Friday. The date they use generally coincides with Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar, though sometimes deviates from the modern Hebrew calendar based on their own determination of how the ancient Hebrew calendar was applied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Witnesses would likely object to any association with good friday and is probably a very inaccurate way to describe their celebration. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Assemblies

"Twice each year, Witnesses from a number of congregations that form a "circuit" gather for a one-day assembly." Is this correct? Aren't they gather once a year for one-day assembly, and once a year for another two-day assembly (or convention)?--Lancet.lancet (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your information may be out of date? There were previously a one-day assembly, a two-day assembly and a three-day convention annually. However, as of around 2014, and attested in their Organized book (2015, pages 63-64), there are two annual one-day assemblies in addition to an annual regional convention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm translating this article into Armenian, as there were not any source, just wanted to clarify.--Lancet.lancet (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for translation efforts. I have added the reference to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019

Please remove this inaccurate information, as there are no "CITATIONS" or evidence of the statements.

"The Watch Tower Society has made various unfulfilled predictions about major biblical events such as Christ's Second Coming, the advent of God's Kingdom, and Armageddon. Their policies for handling cases of child sexual abuse have been the subject of various formal inquiries."

Also, please remove the CROSS image from the page next to the picture of Charles Taze Russell. The CROSS is NOT ASSOCIATED with the Jehovah's Witness faith, and therefore, any and all IMAGES that pertain to any religion should be removed from the page, out of respect for the Jehovah's Witness faith and beliefs.

I am not a formal representative of the organization. But if these changes are not made, Wikipedia will unfortunately come under "SLANDER" accusations.

Thank you in advance for making these changes. Lcakalic (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Luke Cakalic

The citations for that sentence are under the section § Unfulfilled predictions. It's not required to repeat them in the lead, WP:CITELEAD. The image comes from Template:Christianity sidebar, a template which links to used on all Christianity topics and links to other Christianity articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Education

@Salviati64: Per WP:BRD, you should first seek consensus here for your changes as they have been reverted, before restoring them. You claimed that the information about education was not properly sourced, but I added the direct link to that source when restoring what appeared like whitewashing. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"They" vs "the society"

The reason I put "the society" there was because rejection can occur including because of apparent trivial taboos, like celebrations, voting, receiving a necessary medical procedure, "disloyalty to Jehovah's organization", etc. Doctrine being dictated by the Governing Body, it is difficult to draw the line between what "they", the members, believe/accept, versus the code, especially under the pressure of potential rejection and shunning. It's been reverted to "they", so it's my turn to seek consensus. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough from the context in this instance that "they" refers to the official positions of the denomination rather than the views of (possibly dissenting) individual members.

Separately, when referring to "the society" in JW articles, it is preferable to refer to the "Watch Tower Society" (or if the full term has already been used in the same paragraph, capitalised "Society") so that is clear that the term is not being used in reference to general society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right about "the society" not being specific enough. If this already seems clear than my concerns are met. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Further Reading section

There are a couple of formatting errors in the further reading section - I am not sure what was trying to be accomplished with the "harvid", can someone more familiar with this please adjust as needed? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

* {{cite book |first=George D. |last=Chryssides |authorlink=George Chryssides |title=Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses|publisher=Scarecrow Press|year=2008 |isbn=978-0-8108-6074-2 |ref={{harvid|Chryssides|Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses}}

* {{cite book |last=Holden |first=Andrew |title=Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement |url=https://archive.org/details/jehovahswitnesse00andr |url-access=registration |publisher=Routledge |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-415-26610-9 |ref={{harvid|Holden|2002|Portrait}}

The {{harvid}} template is meant to be paired with the {{sfn}} template providing short-form references in, for example, a Bibliography section. As there are no such templates or relevant section present in the article, those ref parameters served no purpose and have been removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Autotransfusion

I have reverted a recent edit asserting that 'some Jehovah's Witnesses' will accept autotransfusion. Use of the blanket term incorrectly implies that all forms of autotransfusion are permitted by the denomination and that it is simply a 'personal decision'. However, only autologous transfusion—continuously flowing from the body through some form of medical apparatus and back into the body—is deemed a "conscience matter". Other procedures involving the individual's own stored blood are not permitted. Autologous transfer is already mentioned in this article among permitted procedures in the footnote relating to the Watch Tower Society's pre-printed Enduring Power of Attorney forms. Elaboration about such procedures is unnecessary at this more general article, and more information is at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, which already mentions that autotransfusion (of stored blood) is not permitted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and some of the info shared in this article is false. JW.org is the only official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. Elimocha02 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

In the introduction to the religion, the article mentions that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in the imminent destruction of earthly governments however it lacks the emphasis on the earthly paradise the group believes in and focuses heavily on, in all their publications.

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovah-witness-beliefs/

In their “What do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe?” page, there is less emphasis on Armageddon and more on salvation and paradise.

Change “They believe that the destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent, and that the establishment of God's kingdom over the earth is the only solution for all problems faced by humanity.[9]”

To

“They believe that the establishment of true peace can only be achieved after God destroys the present world system and establishes his kingdom over the earth. They believe a chosen group will rule over the earth alongside Jesus Christ in heaven and the rest of humanity will live on earth in paradise.” Solemnic (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is probably suitable to briefly mention their belief in an 'earthly paradise' in the lead, and the existing wording could be modified slightly to include it. However, your proposed wording removes the supposed 'imminence' of the 'end', which would be a less accurate representation of their official beliefs. It is unsurprising that a somewhat more palatable message is found on their public-facing FAQ page, but their literature and talks aimed at current members frequently focus on the supposed 'urgency' before the 'great tribulation' and 'Armageddon', asserting that only baptised members of the denomination will survive. Their beliefs about 'paradise' do seem to be adequately indicated in the body of the article. Happy for other editors to give their thoughts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Handling child abuse cases

An editor attempted to modify the article, claiming that persons accused of sexual abuse without two witnesses would still be handled judicially but that they would not be disfellowshipped. However, the sources do indicate that such cases will not be handled judicially. The cited 2010 source says (as quoted in the article) that the matter would 'be left in Jehovah's hands'. The 2019 version of Shepherd the Flock of God (chapter 12, pages 91-92) drops the euphemism and more directly states: "a judicial committee should not be formed unless the wrongdoing has been established by sufficient evidence ... no action can be taken if there is only one witness ... If the accuser or the accused is unwilling to meet with the elders or if the accused continues to deny the accusation of a single witness and the wrongdoing is not established, the matter cannot be handled judicially." (The only action taken is details are stored in a 'secret envelope') The volume does not give any indication of 'restrictions' being imposed on persons who are accused of sexual abuse but are not handled 'judicially' except (at the discretion of the 'Service Department') if the person has been convicted by secular authorities or is known in the wider community as a pedophile (pages 117-118).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing

I would like to put the following sentence at the end of the belief item.

Relationship with Seventh-day Adventist Church

Charles Russell knew about the Seventh-day Adventist Church before establishing Jehovah's Witnesses. At one point he was studying the teachings of the Adventist Church, and sometimes away from the teachings of the Adventist Church. In doing so, he later grasped the core ideas of his doctrine system. He opposed the teaching of eternal punishment, borrowing the doctrine of "Hell is just a grave" in the Seventh-day Adventist Church book. He denied the existence of "hell" (Mark 9:43-48). (Theory that souls disappear). . Other similar doctrines include the doctrine of "Jesus is the angel Michael" and , "We are the 144,000 elected people of God" and so on. He also predicted the Second Coming of Christ many times and missed it many times. In the end, the act of claiming to be king in heaven is similar to that of the Adventist Church.Tokinokawa (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ーーーーーーーー

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A8%E3%83%9B%E3%83%90%E3%81%AE%E8%A8%BC%E4%BA%BA

I referred to it.Tokinokawa (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The substance of their early connections with Second Adventists is covered well at History of Jehovah's Witnesses; their relationship to Seventh-day Adventists would be better described as parallel with common origins rather than a direct association. The Background section of this article already indicates the doctrines that Russell rejected, though it could be made a little more clear in that section that those who influenced Russell were indeed Adventists (but not Seventh-day Adventists). Saying Russell "knew about" SDAs is fairly mundane and wouldn't really add anything to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.Tokinokawa (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Suggestions for editing

I would like to put the following sentence at the end of the "Organization" item.

Characteristic thoughts on organization

The Bible Study Group, which was an early governing body, made the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses a part of God's organization on the premise that the Bible was "the word of God." An organization is said to consist of all those in heaven and earth, including angels, who work together to do God's will. It is said that Jesus Christ exists above the current governing body and sends various communications only to the governing body. The policy of the governing body and the words of elders are clearly set to be the word of God filled by the Holy Spirit for believers. Therefore, a person who disagrees with him may be expelled (excluded) as a person alienated from God.--Tokinokawa (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The claim that the "Bible Study Group ... was an early governing body" is entirely misleading—they only started using the term "governing body" in the 1940s, and the concept wasn't formalised for another 30 years after that. The suggestion that the group became "part of God's organization" is plainly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The article already states their belief that they are "part of God's organization". The article also already indicates their belief that their teachings are 'guided' by Jesus and the 'holy spirit'. Their practice of shunning is also already covered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.Tokinokawa (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Suggestion for editing

Under Practices > Evangelism, it says "distributing literature published by the Watch Tower Society in 700 languages." This number is since outdated, and (at the time of writing this) is 1,024. The proposed edit is to change the phrase to "more than 1000" instead. The source is on JW.org, where if you try to change the language it shows the total number in the top panel. OrangeCreeper (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(New sections go at the bottom of Talk pages, hence moved.) I have removed the reference to the number of languages from the Evangelism section as it is already covered under Publishing where it is more relevant. The number in the Publishing section does not need to be micro-managed every time a language is added and could be left as 1,000 as a round figure unless/until the number is substantially higher, though it would not be a major issue if it were updated with a suitable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiTree

I have removed a recently added external link to a Jehovah's Witnesses project on WikiTree (a genealogy website Wiki with restricted access). The editor who added the link appears to also be the creator and primary contributor of the linked project, suggesting a conflict of interest and/or self-promotion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

'Some' versus 'many'

Gorba (talk · contribs) changed the article to say that many Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted, and that they are banned in many countries rather than some. However, out of 196 sovereign states, Jehovah's Witnesses openly report activity in 159 countries ('156' noted in edit summary was from memory but have checked the correct figures for here), in addition to 33 other countries where they covertly operate under ban. (They refer to activity in 240 'lands', counting various dependent territories as separate 'lands' but provide no clear definition.) Proportionally, this is about 17% of all sovereign states, which is more accurately described as some countries. Additionally, out of about 8.7 million members, they report about 200,000 members in countries under ban, which is about 2.5%. Consequently, I have changed it back to some.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Although I disagree, I understand your decision. -- Gorba (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Demographic Chart is based on unavailable numbers

A large portion of data on this chart isn't publicly available. The 1992 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses is the first to provide grand totals for 1991. Among the numbers, it includes peak publishers, average publishers, memorial attendance, and memorial partakers worldwide. All yearbooks since 1992 have provided this information. I recommend replacing the chart with the one I've created based on actual numbers beginning with 1991. I wanted to run this request by the editorial body first. -- Gorba (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the layout would need to be cleaned up a bit, probably with the source data below the chart, and without the Excel row and column labels, gridlines, and chart selection anchors shown. Happy to see what other editors think.

The data used for the chart I provided is publicly available, but is not displayed in the image. The data was collated from various separate sources (all official). When I have time, I will compile a list of sources to provide at the information page for the image. The list is too lengthy to provide in a citation in this article or on the image itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. If you could provide the information, I'd be happy to merge it into my chart. I've also updated the layout per your suggestions. -- Gorba (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That looks much better :)

It will take me some time to collate the sources that were used for the 1931-2015 chart, and I will not have time to do so until the weekend.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can also provide a link to download the Excel file, if you'd like to use it. I have a Mediafire account that I use to share resources with people as needed. Either or is fine with me. :) Gorba (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have provided the numerical data and sources at your Talk page, as it is quite lengthy and seems a bit excessive to put here on the main JW article Talk page. In the event that you want to remove the info from your Talk page (understandable due to the length), it can always be accessed from the page history.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I've updated the chart and uploaded it. You can click on the thumbnail to see the revision. It's a tad messy. I also thought about breaking it up into two images: the chart (https://i.imgur.com/Gv74xBB.jpg) and the data (https://i.imgur.com/iIlM8Dj.jpg). I think that's easier on the eyes. What do you think about going with two images? -- Gorba (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it may be better as two separate images. Alternatively, you could text wrap the column headings and make them narrower, and move the block of source data under the chart as two sets of columns (as illustrated in the table below). But you would need to do some of that graphically in an image editor as it would mess up the data source if you do it in Excel. But I think the height of the source data would still detract from the display of the chart.

Year	Average publishers	Peak publishers	Memorial attendance	Partakers		Year	Average publishers	Peak publishers	Memorial attendance	Partakers
1931		39,372				1976	2,138,537	2,248,390	4,972,571	10,187
1932						1977	2,117,194	2,223,538	5,107,518	10,080
...						...

(Chart title should also be updated to reflect the years shown.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of splitting the table into two columns. I've updated the graphic. I've also increased the height of each table cell to make it easier to read the data. https://i.imgur.com/Umgt9KH.jpg I think it works quite well. (Aside: I could change "Memorial Attendance" to "Memorial Sum" or "Memorial" to make the width like the others.) -- Gorba (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I would either truncate it to just "Memorial", or wrap "Memorial Attendance" over two lines. If you turn on wrapping, you could also use the full wording for "Average Publishers", "Peak Publishers" and "Memorial Partakers" too (and still keep the columns narrow), which might be clearer for readers less familiar with the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this look? https://i.imgur.com/He8pKsJ.jpg -- Gorba (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. (I would probably change "Avg Pub" to "Av. Pub." and "Peak Pub" to "Peak Pub.", but not a major issue.) As far as usage, it would probably be suitable to include the list at articles such as Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses. But because it's quite a long list, in other articles I would probably not include it, and instead put a note below the chart image with a link in the caption to the source data, e.g. "Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses according to Watch Tower Society figures." The actual list of sources for the list image should be provided at the details page for the image, (rather than simply saying "own work").--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the work from both of you. But I think the memorial partakers line is a less significant addition to the graph (other than for Jehovah's Witnesses). Also, because of that, we have two different scales on left and right, making it even more confusing to a uninformed readers. Regardless, the new graph posted above looks more pleasing to me visually. Just my opinion. -ShaunRex (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The graph currently in the article (and at right) makes the scales less confusing by providing text labels for the two vertical axes, and shows the text of the Memorial partakers axis and line in a different colour to make it more clear which axis applies. Perhaps something similar could be done for the new proposed image?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

The site currently states that "The governing body" establishes all doctrines based on its interpretation of the bible. This is inaccurate. The governing body does provide guide but the doctrines are established by Christ and Christ based all his instruction on the God's Word. hence the name Christians which means followers of Christ. Christ is the head of the congregation as outlined in Ephesians 5:23

Another point the article currently reads is: Rutherford made significant organizational and doctrinal changes, including adoption of the name Jehovah's witnesses. This is inaccurate as it is not a new doctrinal change. God himself had stated this in Isaiah 43:10. So Jehovah's witnesses have existed on the earth since the first person could give testimony of God (Adam) 73.240.16.126 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please. You know full well there is no such reliable source that supports the change the IP wants made, because for our standards any such source would be unreliable on its face. For the same reasons that we could never say, in Wikivoice, that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus were all Muslims (as the Qoran states). Or that humans were sent to earth by an alien named Zenu. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Firejuggler86, I think you mean Xemu? Also quran, not qoran. Clovermoss (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Is" or "are" debate

The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" is correctly a plural noun, not a singular one, because it refers to a plural number of people. Therefore "are" after it is usually grammatically correct. However, in my view either "is" or "are" can probably be used in the article's opening sentence because the sentence structure can seem to accept either depending on whether you are thinking of them as a group of people (in which case "are" is more appropriate) or as a denomination (in which case "is" can also be acceptable). If the opening sentence started with "The" (which I think it should) then "are" would definitely be more appropriate in my view. As a general rule if a name for a group of people contains a plural then it is usually appropriate to use "are" rather than "is" according to traditional grammar. Anglicanus (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been argued a few times. When referring to the denomination as a whole, the Jehovah's Witnesses name functions as a singular noun, and thus "is" is the correct usage (much like Jeffro's Kellog's Corn Flakes example in his edit summary). When referring to the adherents, "are" would be correct. I.e. "Jehovah's Witnesses is a religion of which Jehovah's Witnesses are members".

From guidetogrammar.org:

"When a noun names the title of something or is a word being used as a word, it is singular whether the word takes a singular form or not.

Faces is the name of the new restaurant downtown.

Okies, which most people regard as a disparaging word, was first used to describe the residents of Oklahoma during the 1930s.

Chelmsley Brothers is the best moving company in town.

Postcards is my favorite novel.

There are, further, so called collective nouns, which are singular when we think of them as groups and plural when we think of the individuals acting within the whole"

There's more, but I think that is sufficient. Vyselink (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a section at WP:JW#Referring to Jehovah's Witnesses that explains correct usage when referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination, as well as Jehovah's Witness members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It makes good sense. There may be differences between American and British English on some of it. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding a section on how transgender people are viewed

Perhaps under Ethics and Morality something like this could be added,

Transgender people are seen as their birth sex, and as having a mental disorder. It is believed that God only cares about the birth sex and if one went through SRS[[5]] it would be seen as, the ultimate result is either a severely (and irreversibly) mutilated man who resembles a woman, or a severely (and irreversibly) mutilated woman who resembles a man. It is believed that a transgender people would get better if they accepted their birth gender.

Here are other references I am unsure where they would go however

Sorry if I format things incorrectly I am new ElectraInTheVoid (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This degree of detail would not be necessary at the main JW article. A couple of sentences summarising their view could be added in this article and at Jehovah's Witnesses practices. Given the infrequency with which JW literature addresses this issue and an apparent absence of secondary sources discussing JW attitudes towards transgender people, it does not seem that a dedicated paragraph would be warranted at either article.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the changes made at Jehovah's Witnesses practices, however almost all the sources provided were JW primary sources, and the only secondary source that didn't obviously fail Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources didn't say anything specific about JW views of transgender people (except a very general statement that they discriminate against several groups including transgender people). The JW sources were almost entirely general statements about non-JW people and the content has therefore been reduced. I have added content based on the the Watch Tower Society's Correspondence Guidelines (2007).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

I would like to know why the person who wrote this information about the Jehovah witness has spent alot of time on child abuse with in the society but yet when you look at other faiths nothing is mentioned 92.236.92.213 (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Read

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The article includes notable details about Jehovah’s Witnesses’ handling of sexual abuse cases (just as the article about the Catholic Church does), and the material was not added by just one person but has been subject to review and consensus by several editors. If you believe that other articles are missing material supported by reliable sources, you should discuss the issue at those articles’ Talk pages.—Jeffro77 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Is someone really asking why this article about the Jehovah's Witnesses doesn't contain information about sects that are not the Jehovah's Witnesses? Britmax (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New external link

A new external link to an article summarising a Four Corners documentary about Jehovah's Witnesses has been added by another editor without discussion here. I have corrected the title that was erroneously copied from another link in the section. However, the link would probably be better suited at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses as it is more specific than general information about the denomination best suited to the main article. (The BBC link is probably also overly specific for the main JW article.) See also WP:NOTNEWS.

Can other editors give their thoughts?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Link moved to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses after 7 weeks of no response here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

My first edit

Hello. I'm grateful to be here, and even more to see a page about my own religion! But looking at the edit history I think Rainer Clark and Boba43 are doing the right th Jehovah's Servent (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia’s rules about proper use of Talk pages. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Talk pages are not for general discussion and definitely not for promotion of any organisation. WP:FORUM, WP:PROMO. If you want to discuss your preferred religious denomination, you can go to a relevant website or start your own. Deliberate misuse of Wikipedia Talk pages as an avenue to ‘preach’ (as was attempted by the editors you have named) is inappropriate, and deliberately disregarding the rules will not reflect well on your chosen denomination.—Jeffro77 (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification requested: "legal separation"

At the end of the "Ethics and Morality" section it says "... are considered grounds for legal separation." Is this "legal" as in "getting a separation according to the laws of the country", or "valid in the eyes of the JW church"? Thanks. 194.193.150.24 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The statement means that the JW congregation would recognise legal separations in the circumstances indicated. I have linked the term ‘legal separation’, which has a specific meaning beyond simply a separation that is legal.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Demographics

I have removed recently added analysis of JW statistics for 2021. Describing increases during 2021 (where different reporting thresholds were introduced) after decreases during 2020 as being ‘despite the pandemic’ misrepresents the more complex reasons for the reported increase. Citing increases for specific countries (cherry-picking) with an implication of net growth also ignores the fact that the countries had decreases in the previous year under different reporting rules. Any such analysis also requires a more specific source.—Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As previously explained at this page, it is not suitable to say Memorial attendance was ‘the highest ever’. Such phrasing is appropriate when comparing statistics that fluctuate independent of previous values, such as annual rainfall. It is not appropriate for values that routinely increase because they compound on previous values, such as world population. JW Memorial attendance is routinely higher than the previous year.—Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Memorial Attendance has been updated

This video updates the memorial attendance to a record high of 21,367,603

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/LatestVideos/docid-702021088_1_VIDEO

i don't expect much for Wikipedia because i know this page is maintained by opposers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keokistevenson (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss article content, not editors. Citing a whole video for this point isn't great. Stats of this type are generally updated on this article when the annual service report details are released.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

JW Memorial attendance is almost always higher than the previous year, so there isn't much point promoting it as "a record high". Based on what you have provided, this year's figures are a 2.1% increase over the 2019 figures. The figures for 2020 were impacted by the COVID pandemic and not all areas were necessarily able to make alternative arrangements for the 'Memorial', so it would be misleading to cite the rate of increase since last year (a 19.7% increase that followed a 14.7% decrease). However, even then it would be less than the rate of increase for the 1951 Memorial attendance (22%).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Jeffro You are thoroughly full of yourself! Wikipedia only reports what the memorial attendance is. Its nothing to update the number. IT doesn't need all your weird made up logic to justify updating number. You can always come up with some stupid excuse not to do something. It really shows how hate-filled your attitude is towards JWs. You guys pad this article with as many NEGATIVE twists and turns that you can even if they are only ad hominem. Anything remotely positive you what to screen. BUT YOU HAD NO PROBLEM REPORTING THE LOWER NUMBER! AFTER YEARS WE'VE HAD 20 million. BUt the 17 million you had to publish. That was significant. RIDICULOUS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keokistevenson (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsure exactly what the argument here is, as Keokistevenson's yelling isn't very organized (at least I assume that's them, as they forgot to sign their post). It seems like he wants to update the Memorial Attendance numbers, but is using a video to do so? Let's just wait till the service report and then update. Vyselink (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor will be reported to admins if his behaviour does not improve, and the editor should immediately retract their unfounded personal attacks.

Figures for 2020 were added on 14 January 2021 (by Gorba (talk · contribs))[6] after the service report for that year was released by the Watch Tower Society. If the editor believes that edit was motivated by bias, he needs to take that up with Gorba. (Data for 2019 was updated on 11 January 2020 by Per excellence (talk · contribs)[7] and for 2018 on 28 December 2018 by an anonymous editor[8]. Prior to 2018, details were updated when the JW yearbook was released, but the yearbooks were subsequently discontinued.) I see no reason not to provide the 2021 figures when the service report is released as has been done in previous years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wating until publication sounds reasonable. A report will likely be produced in January 2022 or perhaps February if no the end of this year. However, this is not what Jeffro argued. Nor do i find the passive negativity in the main article completely fair. The attack on BeDuhn is ad hominem. It is basically hearsay and is irrelevant. Those statements are clearly there to try to undermine BeDuhn/any positive review of the New World Translation as are other negative viewpoints. I'm not saying that some criticism of JWs is not appropriate. Or that all of it. I'm simply saying its interesting that every small negative statement gets put in when something positive is said about JWs. Enormous pains are taken to infuse the article with less glamorous words.I've learned to sign. I think Thx. Keokistevenson (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That’s probably as close to an apology as I’ll get so it will do I guess. It’s not clear what it is being suggested I alternatively ‘argued’, since updating when the service report is released is precisely what I said.[9] I don’t have time currently to review article content about BeDuhn, but I didn’t add that either.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Vague claims that “Enormous pains are taken to infuse the article with less glamorous words”, are against Wikipedia’s guidelines about civility and assuming good faith. Without elaborating on specific text in the article, it’s not remotely helpful.—Jeffro77 (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have now reviewed this article and found BeDuhn isn't even mentioned in the current version. Neither BeDuhn nor any criticism of him has been included in this article since 2018. The complaining editor will need to be more specific, ideally at the correct article's Talk page. (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses both include a single sentence criticising BeDuhn's review of the NWT; in both cases, it is properly sourced to a book by Thomas Howe, does not include editorial commentary, and cannot in any way be classified as "hearsay". A single sentence with proper sourcing that notes BeDuhn's relevant theological bias in contrast to a mainstream Christian view is not ad hominem.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Keokistevenson, given that you have now accepted my original suggestion of waiting until the service report is published for updating the statistics, it would be preferable if you start a different section if you want to address in more detail what you perceive to be "NEGATIVE twists and turns" in article content. Please restrict your comments to actual article content without any further insults or insinuations about editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As a Jehovah's Witnesses myself I know that on the monthly broadcasting (see www.jw.org for them since March 2014) Around May gives us the exact reported memorial attendance. This year brother Stephen Lett said that it was (rounded) 21,000,500. Thanks Rainer. Rainer Clark (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC

The figures for 2021 have now been released. I currently only have mobile access which is not particularly convenient for updating the articles. I will update figures across all the JW WikiProject articles later in January if the figures are not updated by others sooner.—Jeffro77 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(Someone else updated details on the main JW article, and I have now updated on several other articles including Jehovah's Witnesses by country.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

There is a claim that Jehovah witness are banned in many Muslim countries, the source is not substantiated. There are only two countries that declare to be Islamic states and both of these countries ban any religious group soliciting others to join. Most abhorrent is to define countries issue with them as being referred to under an umbrella term as Muslim. It’s hateful and discriminatory. 2601:403:280:FF30:33:26D5:9F7:1A2 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There was no obvious issue of discrimination, but I have changed the term to "Muslim-majority countries" to avoid possible confusion with terms such as Islamic State (though that is not same thing as an "Islamic state" generically). I have also provided an additional source that includes a map quite clearly showing that Jehovah's Witnesses' activities are banned in many Muslim-majority countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Do Jehovah's Witnesses worship in houses? JWsympathizer (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Christian

Why does the article say Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian religion? Every member I’ve ever met has distinguished themselves and their religion from Christianity—maintaining that they are a separate religion entirely. And every Christian I’ve ever met, when the topic arose, has said Jehovah’s Witnesses (and mormons) are not Christians. But it’s not limited to my own experience. Every published theology book I’ve ever read (many!), in which the topic has been raised, has clearly distinguished the two as separate incompatible religions. I suggest the word Christian be removed. 2600:1007:B002:949:7DEE:CDE4:76BC:8345 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore this article links to the Wikipedia article on Christian denominations in the same breath as saying that it’s beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity. That linked article states: Unlike a cult or sect, a denomination is usually seen as part of the Christian religious mainstream. So this article on Jehovah’s Witnesses calls it a denomination while contradicting its source for what defines a denomination. The fact is, the description of Jehovah’s Witnesses in this article matches the linked article’s definition of a cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B002:949:7DEE:CDE4:76BC:8345 (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your anecdotal experiences are not suitable sources, and Jehovah’s Witnesses has broad legal recognition as a Christian denomination. The terms ‘Christian’ and ‘sect’ or ‘cult’ are not mutually exclusive. There are Christian sects and Christian cults. So whether JWs are a cult (a term that is not well defined) is irrelevant to whether they are Christian. The fact that Christian denominations are “usually” part of the mainstream obviously means they aren’t always. JWs believe they are the ‘only true Christians’ and that it is all the other denominations that aren’t ‘really’ Christian, just as there are various denominations that strongly assert that Catholics are not ‘real’ Christians. The article clearly explains how JWs differ from mainstream Christianity.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity.

The article declares the following: "Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity."

I would like to, and believe it is important to raise concerns regarding the above statement. I will break the sentence down into components and make a comment on each:

"restorationist Christian denomination" Your link for "restorationist", states, "Restorationism (or Christian primitivism) is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church, which restorationists see as the search for a purer and more ancient form of the religion.[1][2][3] Fundamentally, "this vision seeks to correct faults or deficiencies (in the church) by appealing to the primitive church as a normative model."[1]: 635 "

My comment - Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT restoring "along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church" - they state very much the opposite in many areas. FOR EXAMPLE - JWs teach that a person saves themselves through doing deeds/works. The Bible says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

JWs do not believe in the trinity, which is a key Christian doctrine.

JWs believe Jesus was create. The Bible declares that He was there in the beginning and everything was made through Him. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-13)

"Christian denomination" My comment - There is nothing Christian about the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a cult, which by definition declares it to have moved away from the truth in the Bible.

"with nontrinitarian beliefs" My comments - The fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not trinitarian discounts them from being Christians. For something to be classed as Christian, one of the criteria is that it believes in the trinity nature of God, else it is heresy and blasphemy.

"distinct from mainstream Christianity" My comment - It is not Christianity at all. 92.40.184.162 (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

As you have provoided no reliable sources for your commentary, WP:RS, I doubt anybody will take any action based on what you have said here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much what Roxy said. You have provided no proposed change, no RS's. This is polemic against the JW's because you disagree with them, nothing more. Vyselink (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"JWs do not believe in the trinity, which is a key Christian doctrine." Per the main article on the Trinity, there is no Trinity doctrine in the New Testament. The term was coined by Theophilus of Antioch in the late 2nd century. Nontrinitarianism has been one of Christianity's strands since the 2nd century, and we list several ancient Christian groups which rejected the Trinity on theological grounds. Including Christian groups which rejected the divinity of Jesus, denied Jesus' supposed virgin birth, or denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. All rather reasonable takes on the Biblical texts. Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor has quoted part of the article that says JWs have "nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity", and then used a lot of words to repeat the same point. Additionally, 'restorationism' doesn't mean that 'restorationist' groups are actually restoring Chrisitianity to its early form, but that such groups believe they are, so the fact that the IP editor disagrees with JW beliefs in this matter is again irrelevant to the definition. Further, the editor's claim that JWs are a 'cult' (itself an ambiguous term) is immaterial to whether they are Christian, as the terms are not mutually exclusive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding link to uncommon term 'restitutionist'

Old version: which combined restitutionist views New version: which combined restitutionist views Joanhello (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Restitution is not the same thing as restorationism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (2)

I suggest to replace the words "secular society" in the following sentence with "society outside the Jehova's Witnesses" because "secular" means non-religious and they even consider all other religions to be morally corrupt. sentence: "They consider secular society to be morally corrupt and under the influence of Satan" Veritasion (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Source in the relevant sentence seems to support the idea presented here, so I've boldly done so. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The change that was made saying they consider "secular societies" to be morally corrupt was not an improvement and has been reverted. They consider society in general to be morally corrupt, not societies in the sense of specific groupings in contrast to the Watch Tower Society, and they do not generally directly contrast society with their own in the manner suggested (though it is implied). I have updated the statement to be more in line with wording that is actually used in their literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the wording adjustment was not to make the word "society" next to "secular" plural but the complete removal of the word "secular" to say they consider societies outside of their own. That said, I still understand that possible confusion could have been derived from that edit, as I was simply not thinking about societies as in "organized groups" at the time of the edit. I appreciate you assistance in having changed it. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

All good. The original request to remove "secular" was the most important correction because it isn't only 'secularism' they're opposed to. In modern usage, they don't often overtly contrast their own movement with general society. In the 1950s their literature very frequently applied the term "New World society" in reference to their own group (not to be confused with their corporate usage of the Watch Tower Society) though the term was used less often in the 1960s, and much less from the late 60s onwards. Use of the phrase is now only occasional, usually in reference to their historical usage of the term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

Chnage

to

. They do not meet the definition of Christian: follower of Christ. They believe that Christ was a prophet, not the Son of God. Even the description later as a nontriune denomination proves that are not followers of Christ. 75.133.53.240 (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also see WP:RS and WP:OR Cannolis (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

JWs do believe Jesus was 'God's son', and they don't believe that he was 'only a prophet'. Non-trinitiarian Christians exist despite the editor's opinion to the contrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

According to their Interactive Bible Course, Enjoy Life Forever!, Jesus is a powerful spirit who lives in Heaven. It also teaches that Jesus is God's "only begotten Son".

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God -- just that he's not "Almighty God", the title that belongs to Jehovah himself. 205.193.216.145 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on Sept 20, 2022

Under the heading of "Separateness" add new citation ate the end of the last sentence "Attending university is discouraged and trade schools are suggested as an alternative." The citation that should be added is to the academic paper "The Educational Identity Formation of Jehovah’s Witnesses" by Carrie Ingersoll-Wood. Link to this paper is: https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2022.2102875 WoodJR-PE (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

The Russia heading under the Opposition section has one to many 's'. 'Russsia' should be change to 'Russia'. 75.145.41.17 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Poisoning the well?

I included the statement removed here [10] because the book (Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction by George Chyrissides) states this on page 67: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim that women are inferior, or that they were cursed by God. According to the book of Genesis, Eve is assigned the role of Adam's 'helper', which they regard as a complementary rather than subordinate role." Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Introducing the suggestion that they do or do not 'view women as inferior', presented as answering a question no one asked, does not convey a neutral tone. Such a statement would require clear attribution, and if included at all, would be most suitable as a response to sourced criticism that they purportedly 'view women as inferior', otherwise it seems superfluous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Society's own publications repeat this information too? There's this from Reasoning in the Scriptures:

"Does the Bible downgrade women or treat them as if they were inferior persons?

Gen. 2:18: “Jehovah God went on to say: ‘It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.’” (The man is not here described by God as being a better person than the woman. Rather, God indicated that woman would possess qualities that would complement those of man within God’s arrangement. A complement is one of two mutually completing parts. Thus women as a group are outstanding in certain qualities and abilities; men, in others. Compare 1 Corinthians 11:11, 12.)" [11]

It seemed important to mention that it isn't an inherent belief that women are considered to be inferior and that they have different roles. I don't agree that it's answering a question no one asked. I don't think this conflicts with WP:NPOV, either, as this isn't the only reliable source to bring this up.

Example 2 from page 284 of Encyclopedia of American Women and religion: "In the 21st century, Jehovah's Witnesses teach that women are not inferior to men. Like the men, all Jehovah's Witness women are deemed preachers or ministers but do not hold leadership roles within the congregation."

It's a verifiable claim and I'm not getting it out of nowhere. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A quote from WP:NPOV and how I think it applies here:

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements

June Benowitz is an associate professor of history [12] and George Chryssides is a religious scholar. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say there was an issue with sourcing, it was about tone and attribution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Clover, it would be, as Jeffro says, a bit superfluous to add your change in, as the article (as it currently sits) already states "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that women were designed by God to perform a complementary role". Although I think "complementary" in this sentence may need to be expanded upon as its normal meaning isn't quite what the JW's believe, so a bit more specificity may be required.

As for poisoning the well, the way you worded it implies, without cause even though it may be correct, that either 1) the JW's have been accused of believing such a thing or that 2) in contrast to another religious belief system they don't believe it to be true. Both of these would be inappropriate here, unless responding to a specific claim made by another RS that is notable. Vyselink (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, understood. I was actually going to say that I thought about it and came to a similar conclusion last night but then I fell asleep. The original phrasing included both statements "women were designed by God to perform a complementary role" and "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe women are inferior". But I can see why it'd be superflurous to say both.

If there's a response to a specific claim made by another RS... "According to x, Jehovah's Witnesses believe y because z. a claims that this analysis is incorrect because b"? would be along the lines of what I should be going for, yes? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Essentially. Though if one author wasn’t directly referring to the other’s analysis (but just the same topic), instead just present both views. "According to x, Jehovah's Witnesses believe y because z. However, a says the practice of … suggests ….”—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Truth about Jehovah’s Witnesses

Recent information about how the Witnesses view Jesus is very wrong. They view him as God’s son and do their best to follow his example, including taking seriously what Jesus said in prayer to his Father that his followers were no part of the world.(John 17:14). 2603:8000:8341:5C00:7C23:7C53:6A8:6F06 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not really clear what 'recent information' you're referring too. Editors do occasionally try to claim here that JWs 'aren't really Christian', but there doesn't seem to be a recent attempt. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, it is not a general forum to offer opinions about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Documentaries to External links

Hello. I would like to add the documentary Crusaders: Ex Jehovah's Witnesses Speak Out (2021) to either the external links or possibly under the sex abuse handling. Please let me know which you prefer. TheRightofHerWay (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reference to that documentary may be more appropriate in the article Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses WoodJR-PE (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad on a mobile device. There is an existing article titled "Criticism of.." WoodJR-PE (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I’m still semi-new to Wikipedia. Can you explain why some content regarding a topic would exist as a related article as opposed to under a related topic covered under the main article ? Just trying to figure out why topics branch off … is it because there is so much content to be covered or it’s too specific under a general topic or is it more so because an author feels it’s needed etc. ? TheRightofHerWay (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheRightofHerWay. I'm not WoodJR-PE, but I can try to answer your question. So in general, WP:POVFORKS are discouraged. My understanding is that "Criticism of" articles are typically created when there's substantial and noteworthy critcism of a subject and including all of that in the main article would make it absolutely huge and difficult to navigate. Other examples of articles like this are: Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of The Da Vinci Code, etc.

A related matter is the addition to external links to articles. This page explains how they should be used within Wikipedia if you're curious. If you were thinking about creating an article about the film, reading this could be helpful. The key is looking for three reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth. Here's 2: [13][14]. I haven't been able to find a third source so I wouldn't advise attempting article creation at this point in time. Yet another option might be considering whether films could be a seperate section under Bibliography of works on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There could be any number of documentaries about Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be impractical to add all to the main article's external links section, and arbitrary to just add this one in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Thanks for saying this. I agree that external links to documentaries don't belong here, I should've focused more on the question at hand. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Hi InedibleHulk. I noticed that you removed a source here due to citation overkill [15]. Specifically, the sfn source. The other sources are primary sources (from the organization itself). Usually when I see people removing sources for citation overkill reasons, it's the other way around. I was wondering why you did it this way? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Like Dio, it was the last in line. If you'd rather clip another, go for it. I'm no expert, not even a student. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: My observation was more about WP:CITETRIM, which offers suggestions about how to deal with citation overkill. As for your edit summary about being a guest, feel free to chip in. More voices are welcome (there's not many people editing JW-related articles anyways). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As to why I stumbled in at all, this page may be featured on the Main Page soon on account of the Hamburg shooting and nobody needs to read "however" (in my expert opinion of English). Just happened to see the clump nearby, I wasn't looking for others, there could be more. Good time to declutter, anyway, for someone interested in making a good first impression on potential new readers. I think you've proven yourself a better trimmer than I. For citations, at least, maybe other words, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I'm actually terrible at being concise. Thanks for your eyes in eliminating unnessecary howevers. I hadn't heard about the Hamburg shooting... that's tragic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Aye, I was surprised to learn that in a city that size, nobody has seemingly been gunmurdered before. Going straight to seven has to suck for the old community spirit. In lighter news, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has a hard time with "unnecessary", such a needlessly complicated word! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the good one, removing the new last in line, something about loyal submission to a faithful slave's direction, hope that's cool, thanks for the tip! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Thanks for restoring the sfn source. If you're wondering what in the world that other source was referencing, see Faithful and discreet slave. I'm not sure we need an entire article about this specific religious term, maybe it'd be better suited merged to Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses or Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe Bible Student movement? I'll defer to you on pretty much anything. Not even sure how my own branch of Catholicism is really organized, much less why. But thanks for the term link, wherever such information truly belongs. I'm about a quarter of the way toward grasping it on some basic level...I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Map of countries that prohibit activity by Jehovah's Witnesses

The map that hows countries where Jehovah's Witnesses' activities are prohibit shows the territory of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. The annexation of Crimea has never been recognized by most UN members and only a handful of Russian cronies, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela have recognized the annexation.

This error should be corrected. Nicki_Toretto (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t create the map, but I believe the intention of including Crimea is to indicate that JW activities are restricted in that area under Russian control. I’m not aware that it was intended as a political statement. It would be probably more relevant to the context to keep it red to indicate restriction of their activities in that region, though I have no strong feeling about it either way.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

I would like to edit the place founded as this was founding in Jesus’ time because he was the founder. 2A02:C7C:A61D:9A00:CCE:5A34:B92D:156A (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cannolis: An IP editor can't request additional user rights anyways. That's something that can only happen if someone has a registered account. In regards to the actual change suggested... I don't see it likely that the edit would stay if it were implemented. If you take a look at articles about other Christian denominations, this is pretty consistent. The purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to imply any one religion is "right". What we currently have in the article is an accurate statement: Jehovah's Witnesses believe their denomination is a restoration of first-century Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree Cannolis (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christian they do not believe the core tenants of Christianity they believe that they become gods to some degree which is fundamentally against Christian doctrine 166.198.251.68 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No true scotsman would make this edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit the "become gods" belief is new to me. Vyselink (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The anonymous editor may be obliquely alluding to the '144,000', though it would still be a misrepresentation of what they believe. (Though it's also possible he's confusing JWs with elements of Mormon belief.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I figured as much. Sarcasm doesn't come across well with typing. Vyselink (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Need to update number of GB members

It’s 9 as of February 2023. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reference formatting

@DayakSibiriak: I admit I don't completely understand the recent changes you've made to the ref formatting, but I'm slightly concerned about one thing. A New Introduction is actually cited as a source (in the gender roles section), so I don't think it should be in further reading. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

If so, to move it to Sources. Thanks. DayakSibiriak (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I was worried that moving it back would somehow mess up your other changes or there was some underlying reason that one source specifically was moved to further reading that I didn't quite get. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wrong description

It’s written here Charles Raderphod is founder of witness . This is totally wrong. Jehovah God is founder of Jehovah’s Witness. Please correct it . Kasmina Jasmin (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No. God being the founder of the JW's is a theological thought, not a fact based on RS's. Vyselink (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

More details about congregation discipline and criticism on first page

I've seen Jeffro77 you reverted my changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=1170658522&oldid=1170575773. Before reverting them again, I want to discuss this with you and the editors. All my changes are properly cited and referenced. If the level of detail is too much for starting the page, I suggest moving them to another section. But I would still suggest to keep basic details about disfellowship doctrine, and prohibition to contact to information against their doctrine here, since it's a big pillar under their doctrine, and similar weight as their other doctrines, like non-trinitary, etc. Natverber (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The level of detail and the tone were not suitable for the lead. But happy to wait for other editors to comment. The article (both the lead and body) already contain details about their 'disfellowshipping' practice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Jeffro about both tone and not necessary in the lead. I don't mind adding the information about the Flock book, but again tone would need to be a bit better and I would put it in the appropriate section ("Disciplinary Action") and not the lead. Vyselink (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I modified the tone as agreed and included the information on different sections. Happy to discuss it again if needed. Natverber (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Dishonest Editors

I've been correcting the false information on the JW page recently and somehow it's always getting reverted by people who themselves aren't JW and don't understand one thing about the religion. So come on people this is getting ridiculous I'm generally trying to make honest edits not dishonest like you lot. I'll keep persisting even if I have to get an admin in on it;) Hulk576 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There were several specific problems with your attempted edit.[16]

• you removed the template indicating that this article is protected from editing by anonymous editors.

• You changed 'adherents' to the jargon term 'publishers'. This is Wikipedia, not JW.org. Wikipedia articles use terms in common usage rather than deferring to jargon terms.

• Saying 'publishers involved in evangelising' is a tautology as the jargon term 'publishers' means 'adherents involved in evangelising'.

• You replaced the average publisher values from 2022 with the peak publisher figures from 2022, claiming you were 'updating' to the '2022' figures. The 'peak' figures are less reliable as they can include individuals more than once due to late reports, as stated in The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, page 22: "“Peak publishers” is the highest number reporting for any one month of the service year and may include late reports that were not added to the preceding month’s report. In this way some publishers may be counted twice." This is why the average is used instead.

• You changed quoted text to a form not present in the original quote. This is highly inappropriate. It is easy to verify that the original wording is that in the quoted source.

• You falsely claimed in your edit summary that you 'fixed tampering with the article', whereas you introduced problems yourself, including a dishonest change to quoted text.

Do not continue trying to reintroduce incorrect or inappropriate information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

As the editor who reverted your last contribution to this article, I want to clarify that I have no personal opinion on this topic, and that my reversion was more concerned with basic principles of how any Wikipedia contributions are treated, such as not editing quoted text. And regarding your thoughts about getting admins involved— I'm confident that whatever happens, this discussion will be viewed through the lens of our editing guidelines. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Look thank you for the reply I just infuriated by the whole thing. Hulk576 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong figures for the JW page

The "peak" publishers on the "2022 Grand Totals" represent the total number of Jehovah's witnesses in the organization. While you believe that the average publishers preaching per month are the actual figures your not taking into account that in the organization there are people who unable or can't go door-to-door preaching, so that's where your figures are wrong. If you know the organization you'd understand that. Hulk576 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, page 22: "“Peak publishers” is the highest number reporting for any one month of the service year and may include late reports that were not added to the preceding month’s report. In this way some publishers may be counted twice." The article uses the average figure because it is more reliable for the reason given in The Watchtower. It is also worth pointing out that the percentage increase given in the figures published by the Watch Tower Society are based on the average publisher figures, not the peak figures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you have again restored the less reliable figure, and also restored the tautological and jargonistic use of 'publishers involved in evangelism'. However, I will wait until other editors have commented before reverting your continued inappropriate behaviour. And I suppose that's as close as I'll get to an apology from you for your false claim that 'my figures' are 'incorrect'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User has left a vile message on my talk page and added back the term "publishers" I await admin action on edit warring and personal attacks. Theroadislong (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

|}

Protestant descriptor

Obscurasky has claimed that this "claim is disputed" and requires a citation. [17] However, they were undoing an edit that did have a citation. From the outside looking in, it seems like they should provide support for their argument that Jehovah's Witnesses are somehow not Protestant, instead of just claiming this to be the case. A talk page discussion seems warranted given that they have reinstated their removal of the content twice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I support your reversion and agree that it's odd to remove a sourced claim and then demand a citation. I checked the cited source and it I don't see any issues, but I'm not an expert; if an editor has a problem with the source, then a discussion about the source should be opened. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As a Restorationist denomination, it is certainly the case that Jehovah's Witnesses do not identify as Protestants (believing instead that they are uniquely the only true Christians, specially selected by Jesus). However, their polity and doctrines are a form of Protestantism at their foundation, specifically from the Adventist branch. The distinction that Jehovah's Witnesses are nontrinitarian does not mean they are not Protestants, and although the vast majority of Protestant denominations are Trinitarian, modern nontrinitarianism itself originates with the Protestant Reformation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the claim is disputed - 8.5 million JWs dispute it for a start (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-protestants/). And, yes it does have a citation, but many, many, citations also exist to say the opposite. It's simply not encyclopaedic to state something as a fact when there is no consensus for the claim, and particularly in this case, when the JW church itself says the opposite.

The claim needs to be removed from the lead, although I would support the inclusion of a section, within the main body of the article, which explains both sides of the argument.

Please could you remove it. Obscurasky (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I already noted that as restorationists, they inherently do not identify as Protestants. The JW link you posted (which was written by the Watch Tower Society without any consultation of most of the ‘8.5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses’) is obviously not neutral. But more specifically, the first ‘reason’ they give is a fallacy of composition (‘we don’t believe everything that most Protestants believe so we’re not really Protestants’), but various Adventist denominations do not believe in the Trinity but are a branch of Protestantism, and various Protestant denominations do not believe in hellfire, variously opting for other beliefs such as annihilationism or other concepts of hell simply being ‘separation from God’. The second ‘reason’ is a false equivalence because ‘Protestantism’ has not simply been about ‘protesting the Catholic Church’ for many, many years. Aside from that, their development from Adventism via the Bible Student movement identifies the denomination within the overarching category of Protestantism. But you’re welcome to provide more objective sources (e.g., sociologists of religion or other scholarly sources, not JWs and not other denominations saying ’JWs aren’t real Christians’) that classify the denomination.—Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A religion being born from another religious belief is nothing new, but when a religion begins to differ in major ways a distinction must be made from acknowledging the roots of that and still calling it a part of that religion. My argument against using "Protestant" as a descriptor for the JW's is that by using that term, rather than simply acknowledging the historical development, people may get confused and consider them to be part of a belief system that they are really not. While I am not able to find any academic source that can state (nor would a proper academic state) that JW's are definitively NOT Protestant, some sources do make clear the divide.

Zoe Knox, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World", page 11: "The efforts of amateur historians B.W. Schulz and Rachael de Vienne to uncover the origins of the Bitble Students and trace their tansition to a distinctive community revealed not Russell's radical departure from the Protestant dissenters of the day but, on the contrary, many shared positions, at least initially, and a more organic process of community formation that previously appreciated. It was during the Rutherford era that the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses became further removed, indeed irrevocably separated, from other premillennial groups."

George D. Chryssides, "Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction". Chryssides makes a few references to the differences between Protestants and JW's throughout the work, although his main focus is on their history as branching off from Adventists. For brevity, from pages 128-130 he goes over several major differences between the two (briefly, as it is a very small book) such as: Christ's atonement can not be by faith alone (sola fide, P) but must be accompanied by good works (JW) (pg 129); belief in the trinity (P) as compared to Christ as a created being/angel (JW) (pg 129); bodily/physical resurrection of Christ after his death (P) as compared to a spiritual one only (JW); and life in heaven (P) as compared to a restored paradisical Earth (JW) (pg 130).

Both works mention the disbelief in a literal hell as well, which I don't think I need to provide evidence for atm as it's pretty well known to most here. As I only had these two books at hand that's all I can provide for now. But I think at the least that those two RS's (both academic non JW-sources) should at least put a bit of a damper on the "definitely Protestant" conviction for now. I would prefer the term not be put in until some sort of conclusion (with academic sources) can be reached either way, but as I have already reverted such a change once, I will hold off. Vyselink (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

” It was during the Rutherford era that the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses became further removed, indeed irrevocably separated, from other premillennial groups.” Premillennialism isn’t another word for Protestantism. Not all Protestants are Premillennialists. Jehovah’s Witnesses is one denomination whereas Protestantism is a major branch of Christianity encompassing thousands of denominations so a simplistic assessment of ‘differences between the two’ is a bit misleading. Christadelphians share many beliefs with JWs, and, like other Adventist groups, also come under Protestantism.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The assertion that JWs have a view distinct from sola fide is also incorrect. JWs believe that 'true faith' will be 'demonstrated' by 'works', but they do not say that salvation is obtained through the works. Their book, Reasoning From the Scriptures (page 359) says, "The entire provision for salvation is an expression of God’s undeserved kindness. There is no way that a descendant of Adam can gain salvation on his own, no matter how noble his works are. Salvation is a gift from God given to those who put faith in the sin-atoning value of the sacrifice of his Son. ... Obedience simply demonstrates that their faith is genuine. ... A person does not earn salvation by his works. But anyone who has genuine faith will have works to go with it—works of obedience to the commands of God and Christ, works that demonstrate his faith and love. Without such works, his faith is dead."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be getting bogged down in argument and fine detail when the key-point here is that there's clearly not consensus for including the descriptor. I'll leave it for a day or two, in the hope that someone will come up with an acceptable compromise edit, but it can't remain in its current format. Obscurasky (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

But it can't remain in its current format? That's your opinion. I'm open to discussing things but the way to make changes isn't to insist that you will let anyone do anything. I'm concerned that you keep saying that a sourced descriptor needs to be removed. Maybe it's just your phrasing, but please keep in mind that no one individual is in control over what an article should or should not contain. Consesus can change, but the way to do that is seeking broader impartial participation like an RfC. Otherwise it's edit warring to get your way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're missing the point. I am trying to promote a neutral pov - I'm not advocating the article should say JWs are 'not' Protestant, and I'm certainly not trying to take control over what an article should or should not contain. It's nothing to do with what I (or you) believe, it's about what the consensus is. Please read this article. WP:CON. Obscurasky (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impresssion that "protestant" was in the article for longer than it was and that it was the removal of the text that was new. So my perspective on the flowchart was a bit different and that the status quo should be held until there was a consensus for removal. Taking a look at the page history again, I think I get what you're getting at. I'll remove it until there is a better consensus for or against the text's inclusion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The denomination certainly does fall within a branch of Protestantism (and the suggestion below that compares minor denominations with major branches of a religion is fallacious). But the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses is in the Adventist branch of Protestantism could probably be addressed in the body rather than just overtly stated in the lead without elaboration.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In response to Jeffro's above: differences between the two are how we determine whether something is correctly called by a name. Otherwise we should call Protestants "Catholics", as they broke from Catholicism over major differences in beliefs, but if you look at what they do/do not believe, the two have far more in common than they do differences. The argument could be made they fall under the umbrella of Catholicism, and therefore should be called Catholic, and I would say that it is just as wrong. JW's have a shared history, some shared beliefs, and were heavily influenced by Protestantism, but that does not make them Protestants. Similarly, the Protestants have shared beliefs, were heavily influenced by, and have a shared history with Catholicism, but that doesn't make them Catholics.

As for the descriptor source, Bergman's article, I wonder if anyone has actually read it (I did just now) or if they just saw the title, as other than the title it doesn't appear to actually call the Witnesses "Protestants". Indeed, his writings on the Witnesses are rather perfunctory, giving just a basic history really. He seems to pay more attention to the Seventh Day Adventists, and compares the SDA's and JW's most often with each other, and as breakoff's from Miller's Adventist movement, and almost never with Protestant's specifically. The one example I found was the following line, about the SDA's not the JW's: "Although the Seventh-Day Adventist theology is a blend of liberal Protestantism, fundamentalism, and the unique elements added by the Millerite movement..." (page 43). The source link is missing a few pages (37, 39 & 44, which may have a more direct comparison with the JW's, I just don't know) but I have ordered the book and should have it within a week or so, so I will be able to more fully research it when I have it in hand and don't have to read a truncated version online. However, as of now, it doesn't appear, past the title, to actually call JW's Protestants. Vyselink (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is culturally popular to exclude JWs as a Protestant denomination because mainstream Protestants (and Christians generally) object to JWs' rejection of the Trinity (though other Adventist nontrinitarian denominations also fall under Protestantism), and JWs themselves object to being called Protestants (such as on their PR FAQ page, which contains misleading details, as do their FAQs about whether JWs shun and whether JWs are creationists; the existence of the FAQ page is ostensibly because JWs are actually a denomination within Protestantism but want to appear separate).

The suggestion that 'maybe Bergman doesn't really call JWs Protestants" is misleading at best. The chapter title unambiguously refers to JWs as a "branch of Protestantism", which isn't some play on words. The purpose of the chapter is not to argue that JWs are or are not Protestants (but rather, to discuss the denominations in the context of the book's title, "America's Alternative Religions"), and it is evident from the context that the author plainly considers them to be a branch of Protestantism. I don't have access to the full text, but JWs are given more than a perfunctory consideration. Of the chapter in question (pages 33-44, all but 3 pages of which are available in the Google Books preview), in which SDAs and JWs are given fairly equal consideration.

George D. Chryssides also classifies JWs as Protestants. His Christians in the Twenty-First Century includes JWs in the chapter on Protestantism. I do not have access to the full text (only a Google Books preview), but the "Conclusion" section of chapter 11 (i.e. the chapter specifically about Protestants), alludes to JWs among Protestant denominations discussed and suggests that there is more discussion of the denomination in that chapter (not available in the extract). Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (for which I can't access the full text) also alludes to JWs as a Protestant denomination.

The Encyclopedia of Protestantism (Hans J. Hillerbrand) also includes JWs among Protestant denominations; I do not have access to the text but its index indicates more than a passing mention (pages 977-982).

Alec Ryrie's Protestants: The Faith That Made the Modern World says in its introduction, "So in this book "Protestant" includes those who are often shut out of the party, such as Anabaptists, Quakers, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Pentacostals." Later in the book, it refers to "the one major Protestant group that openly defied the Nazi state: the Jehovah's Witnesses." I can't preview more than snippets, but it unambiguously considers JWs to be Protestant.

Of course, none of them claim JWs are 'mainstream' or 'typical' Protestants, which is not in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Many books identify JWs as a “Protestant sect”. [18].—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If we end up putting Protestant in so be it. But identifying another religion as a "sect" is pejorative, typically implying that the group has committed some sort of heresy, so sources that name them a "Protestant sect" rather than as a denomination, or heck even just as Protestant, raises a red flag for me. Also, after a quick look at the list provided (not an exhaustive look I'll grant you) many of these seem to be by people who are not scholars of new religions. Natalie Goldstein appears to be a science textbook writer. Marley Cole has a few issues, notably their works are from the 1950's and therefore highly outdated. Pavel Polian is a geographer and historian of forced migration. William Rubenstein is a legitimate historian, but not of new religions. Donna Faulkner is a competent biographer. Alan Irwin is a sociologist.... What I'm getting at is many if not most of these are simply repeating the same things that have been said. They seem to be following received wisdom, rather than making informed and educated decisions on their own. Just because something gets repeated ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

That being said, the Chryssides, Ryrie and Hillerbrand references in your previous post do hold quite a bit of weight. I will have to give that some thought. Vyselink (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest that this article call them a ‘sect’ (though it is not the case that ‘sect’ Is always pejorative, or that the sources in the search result all use the term pejoratively). I demonstrated that many books call JWs ‘Protestant’. The more specific phrase (“Protestant sect”) simply makes it easier to show relevant search results, excluding results that might separately contain the terms ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’ and ‘Protestant’.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

My intent was was to question sources that use the term, as few of what I would consider RS's (scholars/academics) would use the term in that manner. As a historian however I can tell you that its primary usage has been as a pejorative, regardless of its intentions by a few or its technical meaning (see the first sentence). Some people also don't use cult pejoratively, but it's primary usage has always been as such.

But to be unambiguously clear, if I in any way implied that you were being pejorative Jeffro I apologize as it was not my intent nor is it my belief, as you and I have edited a few things over the years and I have always found you to be professional even when we disagree, and I in no way thought you were suggesting that we insert 'sect' into the definition. Vyselink (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be described as Protestant?

• Option A: Yes
• Option B: No

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• No: In my considerable experience, Protestant would refer to Trinitarian churches/denominations which accept the Œcumenical creeds and understand themselves as part of the church catholic (but not of any Catholic Church!). DBD 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, except the question is malformed. Jehovah’s Witnesses as a denomination is routinely classified as a Protestant denomination by scholars and sociologists, and it is an intrinsic aspect of their historical development, polity and eschatology (Adventist). The real issue is whether the article should say it is a Protestant denomination (and also how it should be presented) because various groups don’t like calling them Protestants (employing various ‘No true Scotsman’ and other equivocation fallacies). But Wikipedia is not censored.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC question was posed within a Wikipedia-specific context, I was trying to be concise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Protestants are those Christian groups who do not recognise Papal supremacy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• No Jehovah's Witnesses are as protestant as LDS, which is not at all. Just because a church does not recognise the authority of Rome that does not make them protestant. AlanS^talk 02:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, they're as Protestant as other Adventist denominations, including non-trinitarian Adventist denominations. Unlike LDS, JWs regard only the Protestant canon as scripture.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• No , but nor should they be described as 'not protestant'. There's widespread disagreement on this and the inclusion of a paragraph explaining both sides may be helpful. Obscurasky (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, my reasons are given in the above discussion. Explaining the Protestant background/shared history is something that should definitely be done, but defining them as Protestant is incorrect, imo. Vyselink (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (Summoned by bot) – Providing only yes/no options needlessly straitjackets the possible outcomes here. In fact, tertiary sources don't all agree on the definition of Protestant, and some include multiple meanings, a narrower one, and a looser one, like Collins, which includes this one: "Protestant (in American English) : 2.b. Loosely – any Christian not belonging to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church". Per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and WP:DUE explains how to do that. Limiting choices in the Rfc to only two may lead to an outcome that violates WP:NPOV, and if that is the case, the result here would be void, as consensus cannot overrule NPOV. To avoid this possibility, you should add a third option above ("both, in proportion", or something). Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. The edit that kick-started all this discussion was this one. If no one can agree on what Protestant means, your answer seems like a shade of no to me, so I don't think this straitjackets the discussion. I'd just consider your !vote to be like Vyselink's, give some brief context about the JWs ties to other religious movements in the background subsection of history. If people agreed with your interpretation (which I'm not sure is so clear cut), many other articles that simply use Protestant as a descriptor would need to be discussed as well. Maybe it'd be something to clarify at Village Pump/Policy? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, it is a shade of no, but not a pure no, so maybe like Vyselink or Obscurasky. As far as other articles, I don't think other articles that include Protestant as a descriptor would be affected, but some that exclude it might. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  It sounds a lot like what I said in the section above that it should not be just stated without elaboration, but nor should it be omitted altogether. The lead sentence is not necessarily the place for it though.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment for some perspective here's what the JW's have to say about the matter. I think a lot of protestants would agree with them that they are not protestants. I grew up a protestant and I don't believe them to be protestants. AlanS^talk 12:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  When push comes to shove, while a religion's thoughts on itself should be at least acknowledged, in the end they are irrelevant when confronted with the facts. While I believe that Protestant should not be used as a descriptor, it is based on RS's and academic work. Were the JW's definitely Protestant and the RS's said as much, I would not have voted no, regardless of what the JW's or other religions thought. Vyselink (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: coming in from RFC/A, so I don't know the background of this discussion, but... why can't we do what we usually do: say what reliable sources say on the matter. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Edward-Woodrow: If I had to sum up why the RfC is started... I'd say that some reliable sources do say that Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant, others omit the descriptor but also don't say they aren't, and officially JWs themselves don't consider themselves to be Protestant. So there's a disagreement about whether the word 'Protestant' should be used in the lead like it was before a few reverts back and forth or if there needs to be more nuance than that further in the article. Or you could read some of the above discussion and come to your own conclusions. There's not a lot of people active in this topic so I was kind of hoping greater participation might help? Two heads are better than one and ten are better than three. I'd like to think it'd make for a stronger consensus, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Then why not something like:

  Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian millenarian restorationist Christian denomination. It is considered by some sources to be a protestant group, but it officially does not consider itself protestant.

  Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  That strikes me as so much worse. It's not necessary to have "Protestant" in the lead at all. Being in the body should be sufficient. Vyselink (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Question: When does the RFC end? It's been 20 days but I'm unsure how long these things usually run for. Right now it stands at 4 No's and 2 Yes's, but personally I'd like to see it get a few more votes. Vyselink (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong no - the lead sentence should be reduced to a single descriptor, like maybe "restorationist". MOS:FIRST: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: I would say "restorationist Christian denomination." Vyselink (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Kasmina Jasmin (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Some information is totally wrong Kasmina Jasmin (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

*Changing "Adherents" to something else.*

Hatting as resolved. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So, First off I want to understand why it is that you went with the word "Adherents" Definition:Merriam-Webster's definition of "adherents": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adherents When there are better words that substitute it like for Example; Witnesses, Publishers, Members, yet you chose "Adherents". Why? When you have the Lds church referred to as "Members". The Catholic Church as "Baptized Members". But Jehovah's witnesses are referred to as "Adherents". Hulk576 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC) The Merriam-Webster's definition of "adherents" states "a believer in or advocate especially of a particular idea or church" which seems correct? Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC) The article uses the term ‘members’ dozens of times but ‘adherents’ is also a perfectly suitable term, and using a variety of words makes the article nicer to read. However, use of jargon terms such as ‘publishers’, except in quotations or for explaining their usage of the term, is not suitable. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society has, since about 2020, been avoiding use of the term ‘members’ (due to legal issues related to an implication of corporation membership), including issuing reprints of publications (e.g., Pure Worship, Organized to do Jehovah’s Will) to remove the term, replacing with wording such as ‘those in the congregation’.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC) I would like you to cite your source pertaining to the legal issues about the term 'members' plz. Hulk576 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I don’t need to cite sources at Talk for a side point that isn’t being introduced as article content, and I’m on mobile so it’s not really worth the effort. There were issues about Kingdom Hall ownership in the US that ultimately resulted in the Watch Tower Society removing references to ordinary JWs as ‘members’. It was ultimately triggered by the Jose Lopez sexual abuse trial.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Pointless argument. Adherents is a perfectly acceptable term to use to refer to the members of a religion, and as has been said, using a variety of terms makes for a better reading experience. As for Hulk576's "LDS says members" and "Catholic Church says baptized members" argument, a quick CTRL+F search of both of those religion's main pages finds that "adherents" is used 6 times in the LDS page, and twice in the Catholic Church page, with the JW page (i.e. this one) using it 4 times in the main (once in the Notes). So I'd say it's pretty much average. Vyselink (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC) I'd thought, it would be unique to interject the terminology witnesses use to describe themselves in the opener rather than just use the word "adherents". It's something that should be respected twords each religion as it's their "identity" Just as much as we throw the words "Jew" and "Muslim" which is respecting their own respective religions. That's all🤷‍♂️ Hulk576 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC) The words I wanted to substitute with were publisher, witnesses which I thought would be better suited in aligning with the topic. Hulk576 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC) This has nothing to do with alignment or identity. It's fine for the article to mention that the Watch Tower Society uses certain terms to describe their members, but that's just unique to them. Wikipedia has no business referring to them by jargon terms in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Instead we use what secondary independent sources report, which is either adherents or members. "Adherents" is an objectively precise and accurate term to describe any follower of a religion. It's certainly neutral, unlike terms such as "zealots", which are also likely to be found in independent sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC) @Hulk576: I'd like to echo Anachronist. I couldn't really say it better. The article does already use publishers in this section, explaining the jargon and the surrounding context. I agree that the usage of adherents everywhere else is perfectly acceptable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Agreed!, I specified only in the opening paragraph of article which is really what 90-99% of people look at the first thing they go on wikipedia; It's that impactful! And for now it's not really that big of a deal it was just something I thought that could add flair to the opening of the article. Hulk576 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with 1.3 billion baptized Catholics worldwide as of 2019.[4][7] It is among the world's oldest and largest international institutions, and has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.[8][9][10][11] The church consists of 24 sui iuris churches, including the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches, which comprise almost 3,500[12] dioceses and eparchies located around the world. The pope, who is the bishop of Rome, is the chief pastor of the church.[13] The bishopric of Rome, known as the Holy See, is the central governing authority of the church. The administrative body of the Holy See, the Roman Curia, has its principal offices in Vatican City, a small enclave of the Italian city of Rome, of which the pope is head of state. Hulk576 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination belonging to Mormonism. The church is headquartered in the United States in Salt Lake City, Utah and has established congregations and built temples worldwide. According to the church, it has over 17 million members and 62,544 full-time volunteer missionaries.[3] Based on these numbers, the church is the fourth-largest Christian denomination in the United States as of 2012,[9] and reported over 6.8 million US members as of 2022.[10 Hulk576 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Just posting the two points that made early in the discussion, So you could see what my point was. 1.1.3 billion baptized Catholics 2.17 million members Why don't you change that to Adherents? Hulk576 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC) There is no reason this article would need to exactly replicate specific wording in other articles for specific sentences. This article already uses the term ‘members’ many times, and your suggestion that there is some underhanded reason for occasionally using other words is demonstrably wrong. You are being disruptive and will be reported soon if you continue.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Sad! You're threatening me because your not getting your way. You know you're wrong and your too proud to admit it so instead you keep playing these mind games back and forth for no reason by having a nonsensical debate while I've been working hard to disprove everything you've said was wrong and I'M GONNA GET PUNISHED! no siree that's not gonna happen. If anything you're in the wrong for not citing 1 dam source throughout the whole argument. Hulk576 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Don't start treating Wikipedia as a battleground. That's sure to get you blocked. If you want to change a few instances of "adherents" to "members", I doubt anyone would object. You'd meet objections if you tried to change the words to WT jargon. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC) I really don't want to itchange anymore, But I do want to ask this you said I could change "Adherents" to "Members" would "witnesses" be alright or no? Also Wikipedia is not a battleground ok that I understand, But that does not excuse disinformation/misinformation. Obviously I'm not referring to the "Adherents" debate, But more so in general. Hulk576 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) You were specifically advised to use a generic term, but you changed it to "witnesses", which effectively said that Jehovah's Witnesses are comprised of witnesses, which is a tautology. I have restored the original wording, though there isn't any glaring reason why another suitable generic term such as 'members' can't be used there instead (provided you let go of the unfounded claim that there is something inappropriate about the equally valid term adherents).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Can't use "Members" can't use "Publishers" can't use "witnesses" even tho that's a more form fitting word than adherents and Jehovah's witnesses do refer to themselves as "witnesses" Hulk576 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC) You still aren't listening. I have simplified the sentence to make 'members' not awkward.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC) I accept the tochange to members and I'll refrain from discussion about it. Hulk576 (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC) I'll refrain from further discussion about this topic. Hulk576 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)