Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:49, 6 December 2005 editCentral (talk | contribs)460 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:54, 18 January 2025 edit undoJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,676 edits →Lead sentence 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{JWProject}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{Calm}}
{{not a forum}}
{{American English}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=23:44, 28 June 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jehovah's Witnesses/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=61091279


|action2=FAC
<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 8px 5px;margin:5px;"><center>For older discussion, see '''archives''': ], ], ], ], ], ],
|action2date=11:18, 6 July 2006
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]'''</center></div>
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Jehovah's Witnesses/archive1
|action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=62348431


|action3=PR
<div style="background-color:lightgreen;border: solid 1px green;padding:8px 5px;margin:5px;">
|action3date=03:55, 11 December 2008
<center>'''Talk page guidelines'''</center>
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jehovah's Witnesses/archive2
* Please do not make disparaging remarks about individuals who do not agree with you.
|action3result=reviewed
* Please '''do not post long quotes''' of Jehovah's Witnesses publications here. If long quotes are necessary to support or counter a statement in the JW articles, create a ] for the issue.
|action3oldid=257166622
</div>


| action4 = GAN
== Rapid growth under Rutherford? ==
| action4date = 13:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
| action4link = /GA1
| action4result = listed
| action4oldid = 442298293


| topic = philrelig
Afaik, the growth under Rutherford was very slow. (Especially when you factor in the 1925 fiasco and the massive leaving after that) Knorr was the one who really got things moving. Can this be corrected?
| currentstatus = GA


| small = no
:To be fair, based on the talk "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" which emphasized that the world had ended in 1914 and 1925 would be the year for the return of the "ancient worthies" the growth was incredibly rapid under Rutherford. The "negative growth" was ''far more'' rapid, as Memorial Attendance in 1926 fell back to fewer than attended in 1917. Many decided not to wait on Jehovah, apparently losing confidence in their God's ability to accurately communicate to His servants here on earth. Respectfully, ] 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
| collapse = no
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |jehovah's-witnesses=yes |jehovah's-witnesses-importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes |NRMImp=Top}}
}}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{annual readership}}
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 28 2014 (24th)}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 67
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024 ==
:That wasn't me, it was somebody else. But to respond to the question, I don't have hard statistics in front of me, but didn't something like over 75% of Bible Students leave within a few years of Russell's death and Rutherford's shenanigans and general BS? Even if growth was monumental later, this is enough to warrant at least a qualification on any reports of astounding growth during his rule.] 02:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Jehovah's Witnesses|answered=yes}}
== The problem of finding non-JW, JW Scholars ==
In the first paragraph under "Background" I believe that the statement "the fleshly return of Jesus Christ" should be changed to something more neutral like "the physical return" or "the corporeal return". ] (]) 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
: {{done}} I think all these variations are neutral, but I changed it to "physical return" because that sounds less archaic. ] ] 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


== Japan section ==
Konrad, the problem as I see it is that no one completely removed from Jehovah's Witnesses has ever cared enough to become scholarly and anyone who has ever had dealings with them is considered biased if they say anything negative later.


I asked elsewhere about the content cited to Japanese sources. There's one comment in particular I think should have greater visibility: It looks like this was an internet survey instead of a criminal investigation, which would be important to clarify. Courtesy ping to {{u|Erynamrod}}. ] ] 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, it will be difficult to find a non-JW scholar who cares enough about the religion one way or another to become an authority on the subject, the general public likely won't care and Jehovah's Witnesses won't either. A scholar without an audience or support for his work is a rare thing indeed. The only ones who would care are ex-JWs, and their support will automatically poison Witnesses against them. Respectfully, ] 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


:'''Update''': I believe I have fixed this. ] ] 19:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:The source of something is irrelevant, and it is an ad hominem logical fallacy to even consider that (strictly speaking, not that it can't be wise to not pay attention to some fruitcakes out there). Either you can back it up with good proof or you can't. Assertions that ex-Jehovah's Witnesses' facts are somehow less good than the same facts revealed by somebody else should be just plain ignored. They're the closest thing to non-Jehovah's Witness Jehovah's Witness experts we're gonna find, and have seen everything that active Jehovah's Witnesses have. Claims by active Jehovah's Witnesses of bias in their facts have to be proven with hard proof, not ad hominem attacks and general pissing and moaning about bias.] 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


== HistoricalPisces and the removal of "that" == == About all my recent edits ==


In case anyone is wondering why exactly I have been making a flurry of edits... I've been trying to get this article in the best shape I can before I seek a mentor for the ] process and I guess I've just been extra motivated lately. Courtesy ping to {{u|Vanamonde93}}. I'm not quite there yet, but I've been making progress. My plan is to finish what I've started, then wait a bit to see if anyone has any objections to what I've been doing, and then perform a self-review of sorts. I'll ping you again when I've got all that done. Does that sound like a good plan? ] ] 10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Fellows, something's gotta stop here. I have noticed a trend here where HistoricalPisces basically runs through the article (and other Jehovah's Witness-related ones) and does a 'search and destroy' for all occurrences of the word "that", often rendering sentences grammatically incorrect in the process (in my opinion, e.g., if you change "they believe that Armageddon" to "they believe Armageddon," one might wonder what exactly Armageddon said that they believe). We need to come to some agreement on whether to continue removing perfectly-good instances of the word "that", because what is going on now is just foolishness. I think they should stay, because at the very least they aid readability.] 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


:Kudos to you—great progress! ] ] 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I see that ] just said basically the same thing in the article in the time that it took me to type that, and even put them back in.] 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::It's definitely been time consuming. I think I've spent about twenty hours on this in the past week? ] ] 11:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to {{u|Jeffro77}} as well because you're the main other editor in this topic area and I'd want to make sure you're okay with these changes before I'd go leaping into FAC. I think I've done a lot of good work here, but a second eyes on some of the more complicated theology concepts is always appreciated. I could send a copy of specific pages I'm citing over email if that'd help. Of course you're not obligated to do anything, but I do know that you've been pretty enthusiastic about JW articles for years so I figured you might appreciate the offer. ] ] 04:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Misinformation on "shunning" ==
:I see that my work was noticed in the time it took me to add something to the talk page. It appears that HistoricalPisces may not be intentionally vandalising the article, but may be confused about the correct use of the word 'that' as a conjunction (where, as Tommstein has correctly pointed out, it removes doubt about the subject of the verb), rather than its use as a pronoun.--] 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (Corrected previous edit because I noticed that that had had omitted an 'as' as well. Well...)


"Congregational disciplinary actions include formal expulsion and shunning, for what they consider serious offenses. Baptized people who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Former members may experience significant mental distress as a result of being shunned, and some seek reinstatement to keep contact with their friends and family."
::I was too lazy to do anything about it myself. So thanks Jeffro77! --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


This information is incorrect. I grew up in a JW household where my sister was disfellowshipped not disassociated and where I as an unbaptized JW was able to become "inactive" but not "shunned".
:::I don't understand what all of the hype is about. What is the difference between, "that" and not having that? Seems to me like we are making Much Ado About Nothing! ] (] 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


The correct information is this:
::::When 'that' is removed between a verb and its noun clause, the readability suffers because it is not obvious whether the verb refers to only the immediately following noun or the noun clause, which adds confusion to what follows the noun. Though this might not bother people who are used to writing things like "I luv u 4eva, l8r d00d", in an encyclopedia, it is preferable to maintain correct grammar.
If you are baptized within the organization you are held to the belief that you have committed yourself to Jehovah (God) and therefore any serious transgressions will result in disfellowshipment. This includes; fornication, adultery, thievery, excessive use of alcohol, and prescription drugs or any use of tobacco or narcotics among other things. There are numerous articles on JW.org to explain their belief.
::Excuse me, I'm the editor in question here. I agree with ]. ] should alert me if I've incorrectly edited anything; I just follow the ]'s rule about the word.--] 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that members are disassociated as that is a completely different disciplinary action than disfellowshipping. To be disassociated means that you have confessed to an offense which would likely disfellowship you but have repented and can have limited association with the congregation while you resolve your situation. Disfellowshipment means you have confessed to an offense but do not repent so therefore you are removed from association with the congregation. This is a VERY important distinguishment as well as being Inactive. Inactive members were not baptized and are able to have association with any member of the congregation at any time, including in partaking in meals because they did not commit themselves to God through baptism.


Here is a link to disfellowshipping on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Insight-on-the-Scriptures/Expelling/
:::Note this whole big section ] created entitled "HistoricalPisces and the removal of 'that'" alerting about the issue. If someone said your removal of "that" is correct, I'm pretty sure they shouldn't be writing style manuals.] 21:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Here is a link to disassociating on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/
== There needs to be a scandal section or page ==


Here is a link to inactive members https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201987404?q=inactive&p=doc
ran-cam, un-ngo, pedaphiles, blood, 1975, 1914, 607bce-587bce, docturnal flip flops, and lawsuits
just a small list of things that need to be addressed.--] 04:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


There are many articles on the 'Why" and even though I am not a JW anymore, I respect my family that is and would like to see accurate information on Misplaced Pages, not information from people that have an emotional bias against the religion.
:A lot of that is already mentioned on the various pages. What is ran-cam? The defense contractor they have (had?) stock in?] 07:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{ping|Number1Foodie}} There already is a distinction made between disfellowshipping and diassociation (that's why it says "formally leave", but I realize that this may be unclear so I will change it to "leave voluntarily"). As an encyclopedia, ] sources like jw.org are discouraged. ] that are independent of the religious group are what is meant to be cited, which is what is used here. ]s are also not considered to be reliable. ] ] 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yep --] 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::The ] only summarizes the article as a whole, there's more detail in ]. Your personal experience would match what is described as "fading": {{tq|Some adherents "fade" and stop attending meetings without being subject to the group's disciplinary procedures, although some former members have still experienced shunning through this method}}. There is very limited outside analysis on this phenomenon, which is why there's only the one sentence there. ] ] 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Anyways, I think should resolve your concerns? ] ] 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Also {{tq|to be disassociated means that you have confessed to an offense which would likely disfellowship you but have repented and can have limited association with the congregation while you resolve your situation}} is not how it works. That's marking (which again, is explained in the article already). Disassociation and disfellowshipping are different, but they have the same consequences. ] ] 16:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for taking a look at it and providing edits. ] (]) 00:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:"serious transgressions will result in disfellowshipment. This includes; fornication, adultery, thievery, excessive use of alcohol" Are there any rules against violent crimes and ]? ] (]) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Dimadick}} They consider abortion to be murder and disfellowship people for that, as is already explained in the article (see the list of serious sins in the displinary action section). As for the more accepted definition of murder, that would also get one disfellowshipped, but I need to find a source to add it there because it'd be ] otherwise. I've been trying to read numerous books to flesh out the content in this topic area, but some topics come up less often than others and indexes don't always show what I'm looking for. Generally authors focus on the more common reasons for being disfellowshipped like sexual misconduct or apostasy (disagreeing with official beliefs). ] ] 16:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== An FAQ section? ==
== JW's, Sub-Conscious Inerrancy, and Epistemology ==


Some controversial articles have an FAQ section on the talk page. Maybe we should have one? I haven't been following this article as long as Jeffro77 so I'll wait when they're back from their wikibreak to see if there's many subjects they have seen be discussed on a recurring basis. I'm mostly going off memory in regards to the recent "Jehovah's Witnesses are" vs "Jehovah's Witnesses is" change. It'd be helpful to have links to previous discussions on this sort of thing. ] ] 23:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses, like many other religions, have failed to adequately address the issue of the rationality of non-belief and the nature of the "true" religion. In the book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," the witnesses claim that their religion is the only true religion. Pg 203.


:Courtesy ping to {{u|JethAgape}}. ] ] 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the soteriological implications of belief in the one true religion, one would expect to find a logically exhaustive account of what makes any given religion a true religion. Nowhere in the Reasoning book does one find the necessary and sufficient conditions for the true religion. They do not present an exclusive list of all and only true doctrines which make a religion the true religion.


== Lead image ==
Rational minds require a logical rule that would distinguish all cases of true religion from all cases of non-true religion (even hypothetical cases). Without even having the logical criteria for the true religion, it is impossible to decide logically both what the true religion is, and if there is a true religion, which one it is. You cannot distinguish the true and non-true religions unless you have all of the logical criteria for the existence of the true religion. Maybe it's there, hidden away, but they certainly have not done any one else a favor by hidding it. Why isn't it prominantly displayed for all to see?


Courtesy ping to {{u|Daddynnoob}}, who I reverted earlier today . I'm open to having a discussion here on why you think the lead image should be the jw.org logo instead of the Jehovah's Witnesses preaching. I think a logo would make more sense for a business than a religious group. I've taken some time to look at ] to see what the general trend is. It seems like it's usually photographs of important buildings? I don't think we have a photo of the Warwick headquarters. The main exception to this trend appears to the ] which uses their logo. ] ] 23:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This leads to my second point: some people are both rational and do not accept witness doctrine. Because of personal experience, idiosyncrasy, careful deliberation, or anything else, someone can be justified in their denial of witness belief. This is hard for many witnesses to accept. Witnesses cannot accept someone disbelieving on rational grounds. Many witnesses are justified in their beliefs and many non-witnesses are equally justified in their beliefs.


:@] Greetings. My apologies for my mistake, especially the change was based on the LDS church logo on its article, but I'm not aware about how this is not suitable for JW. Btw, besides the preaching image for the lead image, do you think an image of Kingdom Hall is fine for it and putting the JW website logo not as a not lead image? ] (]) 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Why don't witness adopt a more considerate, self-aware approach to those who disagree with certain teachings? If one assumes that the logical criteria for the true religion is not there, and that the criteria that is used is "soft" or "mushy," then one must accept the beliefs of non-witnesses as justified.
::You don't have to apologize, I just think we should discuss it (and wait for other people to chip in too). I thought a photo of JWs was more visually appealing than a logo and a bunch of the sources I've been reading lately have said stuff like "Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for their door-to-door evangelism". Sometimes the phrasing is even stronger than that, like "perhaps best known". So it seemed like a good idea. A Kingdom Hall photo might work, though. If we do go that route, I'd prefer it be the one showing the interior and people worshipping instead of the rather plain exterior. ] ] 02:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Alright, I see. Thanks, Clover ] (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I see that you've replaced the previous preaching image with a new one. While I'm not opposed to a new image, I do think a replacement one should be a relatively high quality photo? To be honest, neither is nessecarily the best one to have, but the one you've replaced it with has some sun glare. ] ] 16:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Most of the pictures I saw related to JW are Kingdom Halls, but sure I can find one that is suitable for you ] (]) 03:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I tried to find a higher quality image of JWs preaching myself. Surprisingly there's not many options. I would take a photo myself but I feel like that'd be hard to do in my local area for obvious reasons. {{Ping|Rhododendrites}} you're like the best photographer I know and you've taken a lot of photos in places like parks, right? Any chance you've ever run into JWs preaching and snapped a photo before? Or maybe the next time you see a group, you could ask? They're generally pretty friendly to outsiders. ] ] 05:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What do you think about this ] since it's a typical door-to-door preaching of JW, although it was uploaded in 2007 so it does not has the best quality? ] (]) 06:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Clovermoss}} Thanks for the compliment. :) I do take pictures in parks, but rarely of people. I'm fairly certain I've never taken photos of Jehovah's Witnesses. I can't say I've ever seen them going door to door here in NY, but I do see them with literature carts in parks and other areas with a lot of foot traffic. Are you looking for just, like, something similar to the current lead image but a bit better quality? I also know of a Kingdom Hall in Flatbush, though it looks like we ]. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Yeah, a higher quality option would be nice and what I'd be looking for. ] ] 15:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok. Don't know when, but I'll keep it in the back of my head. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Possible options for a lead image ===
Some people explain away doxastic differences with the "evil will" arguement. That is, if you disagree with a teaching, you must have an evil will because no rational person can disagree with the "truth." It assumes that the other person actually shares your reasons for belief, but somehow consistently refuses to believe what that one is justified in believing purely on moral grounds. This approach inevitably takes the discussion away from the realm of reason and argumentation and into the realm of moral judgment. It completes the circle back to the witnesses being true in the first place, such that they are able to interpret the moral criteria.
Given the discussion above, I wanted to present some options from what is currently available on ].
<gallery mode="packed" heights="300px">
File:JW Logo.svg|This was used as the lead image for years, a similar choice is made in ] article (option 1)
File:Jehova witnesses in Lvov.jpg|An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2)
File:Evangelização.jpg|Another door-to-door image (option 3)
File:Jehovah's Witnesses in Esino Lario.jpg|The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4)
File:Jehova's Witnesses headquarters IMG 2433 New York Brooklyn.JPG|The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5)
File:Picha.jpg|The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6)
File:Timsbury Kingdom Hall - geograph.org.uk - 2474467.jpg|A Kingdom Hall (option 7)
</gallery>
] ] 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Only options 1 and 6 would be properly representative of the denomination as a whole.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Finally, the witnesses allege that "they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade clear statements of truth." Reasoning from the Scriptures Pg 204. Yet, in the "Creator" book, the writers used at least four or five well known philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God. The statement from the Reasoning book is itself evasive because it does not preclude philosophical arguments, but almost every witness interprets it that way.
::@] I wonder if Hannah is okay with the first option. If still not, then the sixth option is the only one, especially I've been looking for this for a long time ] (]) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd be okay with image 6. ] ] 01:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I see ] (]) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's not my first preference but if it's what we all can agree on then I'm alright with it. ] ] 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a few days for further feedback, but in the meantime options 3, 5, and 7 are incorporated into more relevant sections. ] ] 03:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:I have now implemented option 6. If this ends up being more controversial in the future, a formal RfC could be initiated. ] ] 09:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
When you talk to most witnesses, just the thought of "philosophy" or "accepting other people's views" is almost immediately dismissed out of hand (which is amusing given the "mushy" rationality of the belief)...that is why most are victims of sub-conscious inerrancy.
::@] Much appreciated ] (]) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Recent edit ==
Any answers, or comments? I would appreciate it.


{{ping|Jeffro77}} I disagree that it is "mundane" to clarify that there are varying estimates as to how many Jehovah's Witnesses left during this timeframe. When reliable sources ], all perspectives should be included.
:While you raise some valid points, this isn't really the place for them. The talk page for Misplaced Pages articles is for discussion related to the article itself. Do you want to include some of the things you mentioned in the article? If so, ] and put them in! --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 02:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


I also disagree with the removal of "overlapping generation" from the same edit. I never claimed it was the formal name of the doctrine. The source describes the changes as being part of an "overlapping generation" (specifically, it says this on page 125: "A further clarification was made in 2010, when the word 'generation' was held to denote not only the 1914 generation but also those whose lives overlapped with those who received the heavenly calling and were alive at that date"). I think it's useful context to the average reader because a non-JW would not consider a ] to overlap in that way. I also think the previous phrasing is more true to the source.
It's hard to make rationalist arguments, and then have them posted on the main site, because most people think that if you don't cite some authority, that you have no grounds. I did post a one "Jehovah's witnesses believe that their reilgion is the only true one".


I have no issues with the other changes. ] ] 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages has a ] policy, which does cover some of the things that you mentioned, so they would be excluded from the articles. However, some of the things you said are ], such as what the Reasoning book says about philosophical arguments.


:The fact that there are various views is not in itself mundane, but the fact that different views mean different estimates is mundane. The paragraph doesn't offer any specific number of members that left (only some proportions separately, which do not disagree with each other or with Rogerson), so saying that one source says the numbers are unclear comes across as self-evident.
:Some of the things you said that could be included are (obviously needing copyediting):
:* Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only true religion.
:* They do not cite the necessary and sufficient conditions to uniquely and identify or prove the true religion.
:* They do not present an exclusive list of all and only true doctrines which make a religion the true religion.
:* They claim that "they do not resort to philosophical arguments to evade clear statements of truth." Reasoning from the Scriptures Pg 204.
:* In the "Creator" book, at least four or five philosophical arguments are used to argue for the existence of God.
:All of these statements are verifiable, NPOV and not original research. You can put them in appropriate places if you like. --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 04:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


:The Watch Tower Society never calls it an 'overlapping generation' doctrine either in the source provided here or anywhere else, it is only an ad hoc description of the relatively abstruse change. The official teaching is not that there 'is an overlapping generation' but that 'the generation' broadly includes people where some part of their lifespan overlaps. In conventional terms, it isn't even actually the case that there are 'two consecutive overlapping generations'. Contemporary names of 'generations' vary and are not especially useful here, but the two 'generations' in question would loosely be the 'Lost Generation' and 'Gen X' based on the current actual JW definition of 'generation'. As such, it isn't necessary for the main JW article to get 'lost in the weeds' about it.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 04:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::How does using philosophical arguments for the existence of God go counter to what they said about not using them "to evade clear statements of truth?" Arguing for God's existence is clearly not evading the Bible. Unless the point is their double standard, the ignoring of philosophy when it's inconvenient and the usage of it when it's convenient. But the way I have seen this stuff expressed, it seems as if the main point is them doing what they said they don't (which is what I don't think they're guilty of in this case), as opposed to just having a double standard.] 05:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::I still disagree with you about Rogerson's claim because he doesn't think a clear estimate can even be made. Immediately afterwards, there's estimates in the text (although the order of this should probably be rearranged). Since all the cited sources are reliable, all of these positions should be represented.
:: As for {{tq|The official teaching is not that there 'is an overlapping generation' but that 'the generation' broadly includes people where some part of their lifespan overlaps}}, yes that's why I think the previous phrasing is important because it makes that slightly clearer. It doesn't matter to the average reader what the teaching's official name is, just what it means. While contemporary generation ranges vary, anyone who isn't a JW (or former JW) wouldn't label a whole century of individuals together as a single generation. ] ] 05:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Are you alright with ? I'm hoping it'll satisfy us both. ] ] 10:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No problem with that change. Thanks.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Lead sentence ==
:::First, there are many interpretations of that statement, one of which precludes the use of philosophical arguments. Many people interpret the statement to mean that they do not use philosophical arguments. The subheading defines the meaning of the statement. The subheading is "How do we arrive at our explanation of the bible?" Now, the meaning atomist might argue that the statement in question means that the witnesses only use philosophical arguments when they agree with the meaning of the bible, and do not use them when they disagree. I think this atomistic interpretation of the text is one possible understanding of it. But if you "factor in" many other presuppositions, including the subheading, and the common belief of the audience, you will usually find that the statement means that JW's do not use philosophical arguments.


I'm starting a discussion per . I'll also note that most sources tend to establish Jehovah's Witnesses connection with the Bible Students before talking about other labels. Courtesy pings to {{u|Levivich}} (who was involved in the original discussion) and {{u|Jeffro77}}. I have since self-reverted because the text was not added a few months ago, but on December 12 in . I still think that edit is a much better lead in line with ] and just generally what a lead should be. ] ] 09:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Meaning holism is true. What you bring into the text determines what you get out of the text. Most interpreters do not see the linguistic atoms, they see the holistic meaning flash in their heads. But all things considered, i agree with you, you've spotted an alternative interpretation.
:The suggested alternative is not a better first sentence, for a few reasons. MOS:FIRST recommends that the first sentence be a direct statement about what the article subject is—a Christian denomination—rather than starting with elaboration about its historical development. Secondly, the alternative lead employed weasily phrasing about what the denomination is ‘considered to be’. Thirdly, the edit reintroduced incorrect grammar that does not reflect that the name of the denomination is properly a singular compound proper noun. Further (and related), despite the fact that JWs might favour a public perception that they are autonomously-minded individuals who are each ‘witnesses of Jehovah’ (a theological claim and not a neutral point of view) who make up ‘a group of Christians’, it is in reality a highly regulated hierarchical denomination.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'll reiterate that what I said above: {{tq| most sources tend to establish Jehovah's Witnesses connection with the Bible Students before talking about other labels}}. The historical development is '''crucial''' to understanding what Jehovah's Witnesses are and is much more useful context to the reader than a ] full of other labels. That's why I placed them at the end of the first paragraph. ] ] 12:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Presentation of information on Misplaced Pages isn’t governed by how other sources treat subjects. The reasons I have already given are sound.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] '''] Response:''' After reviewing this, as well as the previous relevant discussion, I think there's a slight misinterpretation of what ] says. {{tq|The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is}}, with the operative phrasing here being "nonspecialist reader", is the relevant part. The rewrite of the first sentence I think is better for nonspecialist readers, as well as the {{tq|and often when or where}} part of MOS:FIRST, as it plainly describes when the religious movement started. The diff it was changed from does neither of these things, and would still be fine in the lede, just not as the first sentence. ] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> ] 05:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|SmittenGalaxy}} Just to clarify, when you mean rewrite, do you mean (which I think gives a much better overview to a nonspecialist reader) or the current state of the lead? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting your third opinion right and that the current first sentence could be moved to the end of the first paragraph again. ] ] 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Clovermoss}} Sorry for being a little late here. But yes, both that edit and the one you self-reverted last week; mostly just because I think that first sentence fits better than the one currently in the article. I'm not particularly picky in regards to where ''it'' will go in the lede, but it should still be there in my opinion. Whether that's directly after the first sentence or anywhere after that I don't think is of great importance, but it probably shouldn't be the very first sentence. ] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> ] 08:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


::::::I have no qualms about removing the 'sea of blue' from the first sentence, nor for the first sentence retaining that it grew out of the Bible Student movement. However, the vague notion that JWs are just 'a religious group' misrepresents the actually highly structured nature of the denomination, and therefore does not adhere well to the recommendation in ] that the first sentence clearly say what the article subject is. Nor should the article endorse the non-neutral trend of dismissing that JWs are 'really' Christians. I would support {{tq|Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.}} The later sentence in the article could then be re-phrased as {{tq|The denomination is generally classified as ], ] and ].}}--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 05:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I used "religious group" because there are varying definitions of what Jehovah's Witnesses are (expanded upon in the history section which says {{tq|The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}}) Religious group seemed like a neutral enough term to me that didn't nessecarily conflict with terms like "Christian" or "denomination". Adding "Christian denomination" to the middle of the first sentence sounds a bit awkward when read aloud but if your objection is to the term "religious group", that term could just be omitted. What do you think of the proposed rewrite being reinstated with that change? The latter issue would be "are considered to be" part. I added that to clarify that they aren't universally recognized as such in reliable sources. Maybe something like "are generally recognized as" would work better? ] ] 06:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


::::::::My problem with "religious group" (especially with the incorrect verb ''are''), as already stated, is that it falsely conveys that they're just a loosely organised group of individuals who are each 'witnesses of/for Jehovah'—a theological claim that is neither accurate nor neutral. For that reason, it is better to clearly state that it is a ''denomination''. I don't see any awkwardness with the expression "Christian denomination" in the sentence, and using the term ''denomination'' is wholly consistent with the statement in the body that {{tq|'''The denomination''' has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}}. (Encyclopedias of religion routinely classify JWs as Christian, and the fact that many people don't consider JWs 'Christian' should hold as much weight as the fact that JWs don't consider any other denominations to be 'Christian'—that is to say, none.)
::::My opinion the average jw or religious persons wants someone to tell them what is the truth, and what the facts are. They either do not want to find out what the facts are, or can't find out for one reason or another. Anything there leader says is truth because their leader knows better in their opinion. Meanwhile the rest of the world looks to the facts to find truth, not a leader.
By the way this is not limited to religion look at the iraq war contraversy.--] 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


::::::::'' recognized as'' does sound less weasily than ''considered to be'', but '' classified as'' would be a better level of formality.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think "religious group" implies anything about how Jehovah's Witnesses are structurally organized, just that they're a group with shared religious beliefs. I'm okay with the "generally classified" phrasing later on. ] ] 06:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The implication that they're just "a group with shared religious beliefs" ''is the problem''. It is a highly regulated hierarchical denomination, not just 'a group of people with shared beliefs'. That is the problem with ambiguity of "group".--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Od}}
I disagree with you on that. Multiple things can be true at the same time. ] is highly regulated and hierarchical, but the first sentence of that article states that it is a "shared set of beliefs and practices". While I think inserting "Christian denomination" halfway through sounds awkward, that's somewhat subjective and I can understand why you disagree with me on that aspect. I suppose my other concern is that it gives that classification a sort of unquestioned status, even if that's what Jehovah's Witnesses are generally classified as. I think that there's enough arguing about classification in reliable sources to make such a distinction nessecary. ] ] 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:The wording in the Scientology article is not analogous (and doesn't say "shared"). It doesn't say "Scientology are a group that believes..." or anything similar. I'm not sure you're suggesting we change the first sentence to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is a set of beliefs invented by..."--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 07:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Let me just say this, as a witness, as a person who is fully aware of the fallicious nature in which the "society" and the "organization" perpetrate(sp?) there beliefs, i have this one thing to say, every religion has it's faults, i get more confllcit over my religion than any thing else, but you don't see a devout catholic getting critisized for, his or her beliefs however illogical or unscriptually founded they are, but i have accepted this, i have my own reasons for believing what i believe, and it's not because i'm a lap dog that constant performs fellacio for my congregations elder body, just like a mormon would not be able to despute the fact that the first version of the "Book of mormon" gave a loose geographical location for the occurence of the majority of the events in the old testament as being jackson county, missouri, i can't refute some of the obnoxious gapping holes in my beliefs. but i can deal with it, the simple fact being, most anybody who chooses close association with any form of organized religion, is being mislead, religion is a system of control, that has been honed and mastered throughout the ages and nothing will be able the change that. the fact that some of you here tend to brand all witnesses as closed minded fools is rather offensive to me simply because i was expecting a more openminded view towards things, but looks like i was diappointed again. but anyways i have this to say, you say that were ignorant, that we have no comprehension of what is going on in our organization, thats false, alot of witnesses do, and they accept it. think about this, witnesses apparently are so very inflexible and closed minded
::No, but I made the comparison because your position seems to be that "a group with shared religious beliefs" is inherently contradictory with "highly regulated" and "hierarchical". I really don't think "shared religious beliefs" implies anything about said group being "loosely organised". ] ] 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
however i lost some of my good non-witness friends because there pastor/priest/father encouraged them to cut off all contact with me, it wasn't like i wanted them to become witnesses, i liked them because of there personality, there individuality, you say witnesses are manipulated and controlled, i say thats simply because we are not in the mainstream of things, because everybody in the majority of religions today are manipulated and controlled. like i stated earlier all religion is a from of control, and a effective religion concerned with growth would be very stupid to allow it's members (who are obviously lacking intelligence themselves) to go about freely with out trying to safe guard there aquisitions( the members ) they would not keep there members very long now woold they? especially a repressive religion that holds ever so closely to traditional beliefs in this day and age(ie; Jehovah's Witnesses) all i'm saying is before you pull out that pirated version of the elders book, organized to do jehovah's will, and the reasoning book, go ask an elder how he'd feel if a witness get D'fed, or disassociated himself, then go ask a your near church pastor that same question, you might be surprised at the answer.
btw tommstein, i'd love for you to tell my elders that i've been around some apostates, might finally get me that MS position i've been bucking for.........
.--]


:::Those two phrases ("a group with shared religious beliefs" and "highly regulated") aren't ''inherently contradictory'' on their own, but referring to the denomination as "a group" ''is'' misleading because the name of the denomination is also used as a way as referring collectively to a group of individual members. The ambiguity doesn't exist with most denominations because the name of the denomination is not usually also the demonym. We wouldn't just say "The Catholic Church is a group with shared beliefs", and we certainly also wouldn't say "Catholics are a group with shared beliefs", and it would be even more confusing if the same term were used to refer to both.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 07:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:What the hell was this? Paragraphs and proper capitalization, spelling, and grammar (or something approaching it) go a long way.... I know, we don't need perfect, professionally-edited stuff here, but Jesus. I'm not just saying this because I disagreed with what you said, because, well, I'm not actually sure what exactly your point was in there.] 07:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::I don't think referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a ] is misleading. If you google "what is a religious group?", you'll get results . ] ] 07:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have already explained the context in which it’s misleading, and the wikilink for ] itself demonstrates the ambiguity, providing separate definitions including “a group of people with similar religious beliefs” (e.g. a group of JW members) as distinct from a religious denomination.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 08:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Most of what ] said doesn't make any sense at all. To admit to being aware of the "repressive religion's" "fallicious" nature with doctrinal "obnoxious gaping holes" and to stick with it suggests an arrangement of convenience rather than devotion. If most of his congregation read what he posted, I doubt they would be too openminded about the things said. He states that he didn't want his friends to become Witnesses, so either he expects that they are going to die at Armageddon, or doesn't really believe Armageddon will happen, so isn't really a genuine Witness by their own tenets. Either he is baiting readers for a response, is lacking the spine to leave the JW organization despite his true feelings, or has a cunning and devious plan to infiltrate the organization at its highest echalons (mwa ha ha ha haaaaa)--] 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::It appears we're at an impasse, then. If we can't find a workable compromise, the dispute resolution noticeboard is probably the next best step. I personally doubt someone reading an article on Jehovah's Witnesses is going to read that sentence and think "Jehovah's Witnesses are a group of individual Jehovah's Witnesses". It's clearly meant to have overlap with the meaning of ] without running into the issues that come with using that narrower classification without question. ] ] 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Though they would phrase it more like ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are a group of individual Christians’, that ''is'' essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public (but not for purposes such as legal registration or how it is actually run)—always framed as ‘who they are’ rather than ‘what it is’, so the ambiguity is demonstrable and non-trivial.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 08:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::This section is a polemic against the rationality of religious exclusivism. If your an apologist of religious exclusivism, and more narrowly, JW exclusivism, then state the reasons that support an exclusivist worldview. Emotions rarely change the beliefs of others, but reasoning can and often does very well at altering belief. Allreligion, you must state your reasons, and exclude the rest of the chaff, if you want anyone to listen to you.
::::::::I don't think we should be basing our lead sentence out of a desire to debunk how you think Jehovah's Witnesses market themselves. I don't think it's that deep. I also doubt that religious group can be equated with "group of individual Christians" because not all religious groups are Christian. Anyways, I'm heading to bed. It's 4 am in my timezone. ] ] 09:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It isn’t a matter of ‘debunking’ anything (which could be interpreted as an assumption of bad faith). It is a matter of presenting information unambiguously, particularly where notable ambiguity exists. ''JWs'' are Christian and the fact that ‘not all religious groups are Christian’ is irrelevant.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 09:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
== Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments and Tomm ==

Read the sentence man, it just doesn't make any damned sense at all: "''While advocating freedoms of expression by religions as organizations'', Jehovah's Witnesses view baptized members who freely express religious views that conflict with those they promote as being apostate and to be avoided/shunned... One minute it's talking about advocation of freedom of expression as religious organizations and all of a sudden it's talking about baptized Jehovah's Witnesses. I removed the untruthful parts of the original paragraph, when I did this, the paragraph no longer made any sense. So I deleted the first line "advocating freedoms.." and moved the rest of the paragraph. Why do you keep changing it back? Not only does it not make any sense, it's reduntant as one editor accuratly pointed out, see the final two points in '''Beliefs and practices that can be said to be distinctive of Jehovah's Witnesses include:''' under the heading '''Beliefs and Doctrines'''. --Duff

:What do you mean it doesn't make sense? It's a compare-and-contrast of their attitudes towards freedom of expression for religious organizations versus for their own members. Is there some fine subtle point in there you don't get?

:P.S. To sign posts, type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of them.] 07:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

::Advocation of "freedoms of expression by ''RELIGIONS AS ORGANIZATIONS''" has absolutely nothing to do with baptized members. There's no compare/contrast, it's an unintelligible sentence. You could have it say: "While advocating freedom of expression, Jehovah's Witnesses view baptized members...", but then it would become a misleading sentence as we don't really advocate freedom of expression. We certainly don't emphasize it in any way. On top of that, expression of contrary views by baptised members is already on the page under the "Beliefs and Practices" heading. ] 22:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

:::Oh boy, the question at the end of my last post was supposed to be rhetorical.... I'm glad you could make up a completely different sentence that would be misleading, but no one is advocating for the sentence you just made up out of the blue. If you think they don't emphasize freedom of religion for organizations, you must have missed the latest 'look at all we've done at the Supreme Court' rah rah session. The mention under Beliefs and Practices isn't contrasting their attitudes towards organizations versus individuals.] 06:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Fighting to survive as a fringe religion in a predominately (and often hostile) evangelical nation forced upon us the need for litigation and certain guarantees to religious freedom. That is our "attitude towards organizations" (in case you missed any one of our meetings). That, in no way, is tantamount to advocation of other religious organisations. We advocate freedom of religion for '''OUR''' right to worship as we choose. In essence the paragraph is saying: ''We defended our civil rights in courts around the globe thus ensuring religious freedom, contrary to that, we shun baptized members who continuously seek to teach a contrary view.'' There's no sense in that sentence, there's no congruity, there's no relevance. Besides, how can you equate freedom of expression as an organisation, to freedom of expression of an individual? Especially since the individual '''FREELY CHOOSES''' to be part of said religion? It doesn't make any sense. And really, how is that relevant to the 'Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments' section? ] 11:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

::::::Freely chooses? What a joke. People are talked into believing the religion by coercion and false promises. They are not free to leave without unfavourable consequences and so they feel like prisoners once they are made aware of the false teachings, such as 607BC. Therefore, it is not a free choice. In any case, the baptism question indicating recognition of the Society's supposed authority is invalid because there is no evidence of "God's spirit" directing the organization. It is an abuse of human rights the way former members are treated for refusing to live a lie.

:::::::If you can't play by the rules of the club, then get out. How is that not a free choice? "..coercion and false promises.." Sorry little Timmy, God took your daddy because he needed in him heaven, as for your mommy, she's going to hell because she was so grief stricken that she took her own life. She'll be punished there for all eternity in fire and brimstone, here's a complimentary bible, please drive through. "..unfavourable consequences", like what? You lose association with people who you no longer agree with anyways? If you call that an abuse of human rights then you better re-read your bible (2 Thess 3:36, 11, 13-15; 1 cor. 5:5, 11, 13; 2 John 9-11). Excuse us for creating a worldwide society based on biblical principles, rules, and guidelines to keep itself, and ourselves, morally clean (Catholicism anyone?). ] 10:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Knowing that something simply isn't true isn't quite the same as "not playing by the rules". (And throwing in some lame argument about how some other religion is also wrong (poor little Timmy) does not diminish any wrongdoing of the Witnesses and is just pathetic.) In the normal people world, people who don't share the same religious beliefs can still be friends, and are not faced with being ostracized by their family and supposed friends. None of the scriptures referred to have any relevance to a person who realises that there are errors in JW teachings, yet they are ostracized all the same, often by family members who are guilted by the organization into not talking to them.

:::::::::How is following biblical guidelines and principles "pathetic" and "wrong", when a person knows full well what's what at baptism. The above scriptures are in regards to those worthy of excommunication, would you like me to post scriptures related to those who doubt their faith? Actually, yes those passages are directly related to ostracising excommunicated members (how could 2 Thess 3:13-15 be any clearer?). JWs have friends who hold differing religious views, however, the bible is very specific about people who have known the truth, then turned away from it. "..guilted by the organization.." to do what? Follow biblical guidelines? It is the biblically prescribed method of discipline, as a society that unflinchingly adheres to the guidelines, principles, rules set forth in the bible, we follow this one as well (obviously), lest we be hypocrites. ] 13:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::This discussion is getting off topic. Regardless of our individual views on how great/awful JW doctrine/practices are, this isn't the place to discuss it. Let's focus on improving the articles. Thanks! --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 14:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::I agree, but I won't stop defending my faith regardless of venue. ] 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::Look at the bright side, you're creating more opportunities to defend your faith by causing people to ignore you for becoming a known spammer.] 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That's more absurd than your paragraph. Since I was the one defending against provocation, what would that make Jeffro? ] 17:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I was clearly referring to your chest-thumping assertion that you "won't stop" in response to ]'s request to stop, not what you did before that. Please cease constructing straw men and insulting other users, it is wasteful of everyone's time.] 18:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Bravado was not my intent; you have a peculiar way of reading intent into what I type. And I was clearly referring to your grammar: "you're creating more opportunities to defend your faithby causing people to ignore you.." makes as little sense as the paragraph you so adamantly defend(ed?). It would properly read something like: "You're ''losing'' more oppurtunities to defend your faith...", saying you were "clearly referring" to something, isn't exactly true. That's not a straw-man. Ironically, you accuse me of spamming (when I did nothing more than defend against an absurd, off-topic, allegation, (as I am right now.. again..) then you accuse me of being insulting to others. ] 18:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Again, please take up any reading comprehension problems elsewhere.] 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::What ever happened to: "Please cease constructing straw men and insulting other users, it is wasteful of everyone's time."? I'm requesting arbitration, this war is counterproductive, and outright rediculous.] 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::*Update*, apparently I am unable to request arbitration as it's the final option in conflict resolution, other options must be exhausted first. We need to avoid eachother, conduct a survey, get 3rd party input, request advocacy, request mediation, then finally, request arbitration. For the sake of accuracy and truth I would persure all of the above options if I had the time. My internet is getting shut off tomarrow. I hope you, Tomm, can come to some form of civility and reasonableness. Also, reverting more than 3 times within a 24 hour period (edit waring) is an officially bannable offense, something we are both guilty of. ] 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Again, please cease the slandering and insulting of other users.] 19:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::In your latest revision: "(please address any literacy deficiencies you may have elsewhere;[REDACTED] cannot, and should not, be written at a third-grade level for the benefit of those who read at said level)". You are unbelievable man. ] 19:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Note both that I referred to any deficiencies "you may have," not that "you do have," and that the statements regarding being unable to read the sentence emanated from you yourself, not me.] 19:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::There, I clarified that they only believe in freedom for themselves. Happy?] 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::This is an encyclopedia Tom. Your newest addition is more misleading and inane than the original; and in no way fixes the substantial problems with the paragraph. You are not being reasonable or objective. ] 06:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::You spent pretty much an entire paragraph above complaining that "We advocate freedom of religion for OUR right to worship as we choose," no one else's, and then, when that is inserted into the article, you complain that it is even worse? The only difference between the previous version and my newly-amended version is the insertion of that fact that you so adamantly complained about like three paragraphs up. You need to make up your mind. You can't have your cake and eat it too, at least around here.] 14:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::You specifically stated: "If you think they don't emphasize freedom of religion for organizations.." that is a far cry from the generalized "freedom of religion" (which we do advocate). I was merely rebutting your rediculous bluster by pointing out to you we litigate in our behalf, we advocate religious freedom, we do NOT advocate other religious organizations. Now address the specifics of why I delete your paragraph:

::::::::1 - The first sentence is literally unintelligible (your latest version, and the original).
::::::::2 - The remainder of the paragraph can be found under the "Beliefs and Practices" heading. It is redundant and unnecessary.
::::::::3 - Not a single part of the paragraph has anything at all to do with the "Jehovah's Witnesses and Governments" topic.

::::::::] 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::So, you advocate "generalized 'freedom of religion'," but not freedom for other organizations? Pray tell, who exactly do you envision as recipients of this "generalized 'freedom of religion'," single Martians? Nevertheless, regardless of how bogus your story there is, I still changed the paragraph to reflect just what you said, that you advocate it for yourselves and yourselves alone. And now you still complain. Tough. Make up your mind. And again, this compare-and-contrast cannot be found elsewhere in the article. If you can think of a better section to put it in, tell us. If not, quit complaining about the section it's in. At present you're just flinging crap all over the walls, hoping something sticks, and complaining when something sticks somewhere you were really hoping it wouldn't.

:::::::::Oh yeah, and it was probably wise of you to belatedly delete that "What's the matter with you?" remark.] 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::I removed it to avoid further provocation of an unreasonable person. Don't put this on me, i've explained several times, in great detail, why this paragraph needs deletion. Two other wikipedians agree with me, yes they are JWs as well, but i'm certain any objective wikipedian, JW or not, would agree with me too. This is not a "make up your mind" scenario. I have not contradicted myself, there is nothing to make up my mind about. You've thrown up a smokescreen of obfuscation to circumlocute my rather valid points for deletion (is this what you tell yourself in your mind to validate your unreasonableness?). Any non-JW here care to set Tomm straight? ] 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::When you find it within yourself to respond to my points instead of engaging in name-calling and waving your arms around incoherently I might respond.] 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::Absolutely amazing Tomm. Since you've given up on defending your position, here, I hope you will likewise abandon your defence of unintelligible grammar and redundancy on the main article. ] 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Please take up any reading comprehension problems elsewhere.] 18:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

::Agreeing with Duffer on all three points. The first sentence is a mess and is misleading. JWs advocate religious freedom from governments, not other peoples' religious views. That distinction should be simple and clear but is totally obfuscated by that paragraph. Furthermore the paragraph is in the wrong place and is already covered elsewhere in the article. I agree that it should be removed. -- ] 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Who could have foreseen that the Jehovah's Witness contingent would agree with itself that an unflattering comparison has to go. What's next, KKK members being unanimous that black people suck? Five in five NAMBLA members condemning a condemnation of boy love? For a more substantial reply to things I have already replied to, read around the page.] 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I concur with ] and ]. The statement presents selected facts and utilizes sentence structure in such as way as to suggest a factual statement, when in reality it is comparing two realms of influence that are essentially exclusive. Baptized Jehovah's Witnesses volutarily accept the way in which the organization conducts itself internally, including the discipline and/or removal of members for violations they may commit. As an organization, Witnesses will fight for and defend their right to conduct themselves in this manner among voluntary participants. Witnesses do not attempt to impose legal sanctions on those not accepting their views; such a concept would be illegal in most countries, and likewise violate the Witness principle of separation from political entities. The terms of full membership are clear. Furthermore, religious and legal/civil views are separate, and especially so in the minds of Witnesses. Therefore, ]'s statement cannot be viewed as a neutral point of view OR factually accurate. - ] 17:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Rarely have so many words been expended in saying so little of actual relevance. About the only thing I could gather that matters is that the two things are different. Well, who would have ever thought that when you compare and contrast two different things, the things would be different? I personally find comparing and contrasting the exact same thing with itself much funner. Apparently the compare-and-contrast is a literary technique that few Jehovah's Witnesses have ever come across in whatever reading they do.] 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::I am going to put in my two pence worth. I have kept out of this one, but I can see both points. If your grumble is with the wording/grammar style of Tom's paragraph, then why are you not just correcting it as you see, instead of deleting it altogether? The points he is trying to make, as I see it, is the hypocritical situation where the Watch Tower Society demands its rights to function, criticise, say and do as it pleases with all its freedoms intact, and no punitive or legislative restrictions on these "religious freedoms" put in place. The second even the smallest restriction appears they cry "persecution", but at the same time they strip their members of a large body of their human rights, and freedoms (members are not warned or aware of this at their naïve baptismal stage), the same rights the Watch Tower and JWs in general would term "persecution" if its done to them as a body by some government. This demand for "freedom of speech" at the same time of totally denying it for their own members is something hypocritical and deserves to have a mention, as it is a problem that ruins some lives, and breaks up family units, friendships, and has a massive impact on individuals, also the way the Watch Tower does this has little or no scriptural backing.

:::::I hear people saying, "but they can just leave the religion", but you all know well this is not the case (and it's a straw man). To leave is to have half their life messed up, and if all their friends and relatives are JWs, this can be an isolating and devastating situation. I know a few JWs who do not believe in the Watch Tower's doctrines anymore, but they stay just to keep their families and loved ones together. If someone said to JWs in a hostile country, "well this is the law of the land, if you don't like it then you know where the airport is!" All the JWs here would protest the unreasonableness of that advice, but then blindly fail to see the same situation in their own religion, and the terrible things they do to each other fooling themselves "it's for Jehovah", when in fact, it's not a Biblical requirement to follow the unsubstantiated doctrines of the New York book publishing religious group, and therefore not for Jehovah at all. This one rule for the group's freedoms and another for the individual's is neither scriptural or reasonable, and should have a mention, as it is a major criticism of the religion, especially the slanderous way it deals with ex-members, but then it hypocritical screams martyrdom when any government or body dares to say the slightest non-flattering thing about JWs, or their Watch Tower Society. The paragraph could be like the one I have written below. Anyway, I've said my bit, I'm sure you can all deride it now, or pretend you didn't even see it.

:::::"While Jehovah's Witnesses demand and defend well their freedom to preach, teach, and spread their doctrines throughout the countries of the world without persecution, or any kind of restrictions to personal liberties and human rights, this freedom is not equalled in their treatment of their own individual members' rights. Individuals who openly ask too many questions, who do not conform, or who disbelieve any of the accepted doctrines of the religion, often find their rights and freedom of speech are highly restricted, often with a real thread of excommunication and shunning by family and friends hanging over them if their choose to exercise their freedom of speech, or freedom of thought by not submissively conforming to the groups strict allegiance to officially accepted doctrinal interpretations. This has often lead to criticisms of hypocrisy in the religion, especially from members who have left, due to their ostracized and often slandered experiences and personal restrictive treatment from the religion, this in direct opposite contrast to what the religion demands are "its right and freedoms" as a body to say and believe as they wish, and fight for in the legal courts of the world to preserve these freedoms." ] 16:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Well said Central. As this issue won't die, I'm going to put my two cents in too. As Central mentioned, if a passage is disputed, the best way to resolve it is to rewrite it, not delete it. As uberpenguin mentioned, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to highlight irony or hypocrisy. However, as Central wrote in his suggested paragraph, ex-members and critics do claim the JW are hypocrtical. That is an encyclopedic fact that should be in the article. The matter really is how to word it.
:::::::A lot more progress would be made if the antagonism between active JWs and ex-JWs was put aside. Everyone, please assume good faith and work on rewriting, not stubbornly deleting or leaving in a disputed passage. --] <small>AKA</small> <small>''']'''</small> 03:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::That paragraph looks fine to me, factually. Heck, I didn't write the paragraph in question, so I don't really care how it says what it says, I just had a problem with the comparison being removed, for ostensibly some of the most idiotic reasons and non-reasons ever beheld by man, woman, animal, or house plant. The problem I think your version has, though, is that it does actually seem to delve more into what the current version was accused of, of repeating too much stuff regarding their disfellowshipping policies that is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Just my opinion, of course.] 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Hi Tom, feel free to improve it, and then post it up if you want to, as long as it states the double standards that's fine by me.

:::::::I also noticed someone (IP 70.120.194.51) has done a cheeky edit and removed the tax-free status paragraph of the Watch Tower, did everyone else miss that? It would also be improved if it stated that the Watch Tower is being prosecuted over its tax evasion in France, which's yet another double standard. They as a group try to dodge "paying Caesar's things to Caesar" at every opportunity and evade contributing to the community with needed taxes, but would hypocritically excommunicate members if they did the same as individuals. One other point in regards to taxes that is ironic, is that governments of the world according to JW doctrine are "allowed their place by decreed of Jehovah are used to merit out justice on his behalf", the rest of the world is satanic and not supposedly used by Jehovah. We have the situation in France where the Watch Tower have been done for tax evasion by "Jehovah's duly allowed governments", and they are running to Satan's European court of Human Rights, to do battle with God over His taxes! "Please help us Satan, as Jehovah is taxing us though his appointed governments, as we don't want to pay Him!" Regards. ] 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::I noticed that edit, but I wasn't sure what to make of it, since I don't know much about the subject. I figured someone who knows more about it than me would come by and fix whatever needed fixing, but apparently either it doesn't need fixing or no one wants to do it.] 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::One of the issues here is that the paragraph makes a big deal about something that is typical of almost every Christian denomination. I pose the question to you, what does, for example, the Catholic Church historically call any member who openly disagrees with their core doctrines and the direction of the Papacy? What notable Christian denominations allow their adherents to believe and preach whatever they want in opposition to the Church's doctrine, while still calling themselves adherents to that particular religion?

::::::Making statements about the personal feelings of those who have been disfellowshiped for one reason or another is certainly a point of view and doesn't fall into line with Misplaced Pages's editing policy of using a "hopefully optimistic" tone, therefore I don't feel your paragraph is really an improvement over what is already being contested. This sort of thing would be tantamount to visiting the article on Catholicism and starting to add text explaining why some of those who have left that particular denomination believe the Church is hypocritical. I seriously doubt that would go over very well with the editors of that particular article, so why should it be considered here? I do apologise for using Catholicism as an example, and I appreciate your useful input so far. -- ] 20:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::: Thanks for the reply. You made a point about Catholics. They (individual Catholics) would not be excommunicated for merely discussing, or even doubting some of the accepted doctrines of the Church. I know a few Catholics, and have met many more over the years who have all manner of beliefs, questions and opinions that are not church doctrines, and I have never heard any of them say they have been excommunicated, or even threatened with it for questioning or disagreeing on any particular church teaching. The Catholic Church allows free debate and doubt, without abusing the rights of members to think, question, doubt and make up their own minds, if they feel there is not enough evidence to back a particular teaching. That is in stark contrast to the Watch Tower Society, as you are well aware, and is reinforced with their latest mags for January about reading or seeing any material that is not from the Watch Tower is "of the devil and apostate", and must not even be considered, let alone read and discussed. Can you imagine how the Watch Tower Society would react if some government said that about them and their literature! The freedoms the Watch Tower demands are not the freedom they give, and that is grossly hypocritical, especially when they make such a big noise about how they have brought about this or that change for free speech. As for your comment on "personal feelings", you are creating a red-herring, as you are well aware of the facts of what happens to members who do not accept all the JW doctrines, and that many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation. How members feel about this does not change the facts of how their rights are dealt with, viewed, and treated.

::::::: The most sincere Christians have been disfellowshipped and shunned for merely having private conversations about dates like 1914, the number 144,000 etc., and as you are aware this kind of mind control, and punishment is not found in the vast majority of Christendom (or the Bible), to use them as you brought them up, and this is not a "personal opinion" but factual. And since when do JWs mimic what other religions do as an acceptable norm? Regardless of personal feelings, the facts remain that there is a broad dichotomy of what Jehovah's Witnesses demand as "their human rights", and how they view those same rights for individual members. This is a major point that stands out all the more than most religions, especially due to the obsessing jumping to call on 'Satan's Worldly courts' to help them every two minutes when they feel they have had some real or imaginary restriction placed on their ability to vend their literature and spread their doctrines. Unfortunately the same freedoms and openness are hypocritically removed from individual members' rights, and this is a major point that deserves some publicity, and has massive personal consequences on members' lives and families, and also on JWs as a religion, with them often being labelled high control, manipulative, and cult-like in behaviour because of the way they treat their members. ] 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::You raise a good point that the number of excommunications by the Catholic church in later days is low, probably oustandingly low. Let's be honest though, the number of JW disfellowshippings due to direct conflicts in doctrines and Biblical interpretation is also comparitively low. Of course it's unlikely that any person expressing doubt or discontent about some Catholic view would be excommunicated on the spot, and the same goes for JWs. Simply expressing doubt or a differing point of view isn't an instant disfellowshipping offense; it only becomes one when someone is continually teaching doctrine to other JWs that is in conflict with the WBTS. Again using the Catholic example, if a member of the Church disagreed with the authority of the Vatican or perhaps some core Catholic tradition and began to express his/her views to others in his Church and try to sway them to their point of view, would there be absolutely no reprocussions for him? Would the local priests sit by and tolerate that person's directly contradicting some of the Church's teachings? I'd imagine not. Religion is in itself a forfeit of some rights; you can't rightly call something 'worship' if it requires absolutely no changes in your actions. However, that's obviously not the point here. The point is that it isn't this article's job to attempt to point out the hypocrisy you perceive in JW practises. Making factual statements like "JWs who teach doctrine that conflict with that of the WBTS are disfellowshipped" is fine, making a statement like (if I may quote you), "... many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation" is not acceptable since it is your own point of view. To directly address that point for just a moment, the entire principle of disfellowshipping those who go against God's established authority has plenty of scriptural prescent according to JWs; the story of Korah's rebellion in this context is often cited by JW literature and talks. I don't mean to digress, but the point is that JWs certainly DO find a scriptural backup in this principle, and I'd appreciate it if you would be more careful to stick to the matter at hand rather than going into asides about doctrines that you don't perceive as being Bible based.

::::::::So I'll do the same and stick to the point at hand. It is again, not the place of this article to make statements or collect things together in such a way as to point out what you perceive as hypocrisy. The article already states how JWs label apostates, and it also states how JWs defend their rights as an organization in court. That is sufficient and factual. It is not appropriate to try to show some contrast or irony in these two facts; the reader can draw their own conclusions. Our issue here hasn't been that the information isn't factual, but that it subdly suggests to the reader that there is some hypocrisy present, and that the text is out of place and redundant in the scope of the article.

::::::::As for the matter of 'mind control' that often comes up when we discuss things here, that is neither something that could be proved nor agreed upon. Obviously the JW editors here would object wholeheartedly to being labeled this way, and obviously you and other editors feel strongly about this. I would ask that you please don't keep trying to bring this up. We are all reasonable adults here, we all spend a lot of time watching and editing this and other articles, and I'm sure we'd all appreciate leaving labels and name calling out of this. I'm probably guilty of the same thing, and I'll do my best to do the same that I ask. '''Edit''' Note that I didn't quote you because I thought you might include that sentence in the article, and I realize that POV is fair game on talk pages. I was merely citing an example of the kind of verbiage that is unacceptable in the article. -- ] 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::::::: You said: "Let's be honest though, the number of JW disfellowshippings due to direct conflicts in doctrines and Biblical interpretation is also comparitively low." Yes, they are low due to the massive and crushing oppression that having all your family and friends turned against you, and labelled as a "wicked apostate", for daring to think for yourself. The Watch Tower's high control and devastating consequences are very real, just as they were in many communist countries (and still are in North Korea). One thought out of line and off you went to the Gulag concentration camp (if you were lucky), or shot in the head as an example if you were not so lucky. You made an incorrect statement by saying: "Simply expressing doubt or a differing point of view isn't an instant disfellowshipping offense; it only becomes one when someone is continually teaching doctrine to other JWs that is in conflict with the WBTS." This is not the case at all. One only has to '''believe''' something that is not in line with the interpretations and doctrines of the Watch Tower and this is enough to be labelled apostate and disfellowshipped if not immediately reversed. They do not have to teach or spread a non-subservient thought or belief. As the Governing Body states in their letter to district and circuit overseers: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as '''presented by the faithful and discreet slave''', and persist in '''believing''' other doctrines, . . .then he is '''apostatizing'''."-1 September 1980, letter to all Circuit and District overseers. As for your next point about the word, 'hypocrisy', are you saying it should be banned? It's just a word describing a situation where one thing is stated, and another contrary thing is practiced. It is a neutral and factual word you have already admitted is JW policy in regard to member's treatment compared to the group's demands: "Religion is in itself a forfeit of some rights" to quote you. Just because you do not like a word, does not make it POV. Murder, rape, and torture are all words, be they unpleasant, but that does not remove their usage if they are factually correct, nor make them POV.

::::::::: You make another point: "the entire principle of disfellowshipping those who go against God's established authority has plenty of scriptural prescent according to JWs". The glaring mistake you have made is the fact that there is '''no established scriptural authority''' of the Watch Tower Society, they merely presumptuously claim authority as "God's mouthpiece", if they don't actually act as if they are God Himself. The scriptures speak of rebellion of Christ and God, not the unique and often contradictory doctrines of the New York publishing company. The precedent you speak of is not found anywhere in scriptures, as the Bible gives zero authority or loyalty to the opinions, prophecies and doctrines of men and their organizations over those of God and Christ. You go on: "It is not appropriate to try to show some contrast or irony in these two facts; the reader can draw their own conclusions." How can the reader draw a conclusion when the facts are missing? There are three paragraphs trumpeting the rights of JWs and their court battles, where is the balance? They make a very big noise and seek publicity in this regard, there should also be a clear section of information (not hidden in another section) demonstrating that although they have gained many freedoms, they refuse to give the same freedoms and treatment to their members, even seeking to control and litigate against freedom of thought, which by any standard is extremely cult-like and stinks of mind control, especially where the excommunication for a non-conforming thought can lead to the destruction of whole families, and lead in some cases to serve depression, nervous breakdowns and even suicide. If the way they treat the freedoms and rights of their members should be hidden (as you desire) then so should all this pile of information about their court battles, and trumpet blowing.
::::::::: You say: "... 'many of the doctrines have little or no scriptural backup or validation' is not acceptable since it is your own point of view." Can you give some examples of where these dates and their meaning 1799, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, 1994 are found in scriptures? Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation. Many excommunications were carried out due to Witnesses not believing many of the woolly teachings that have no scholarly backup, like the authority of an organization claiming to be a unique channel of God, 144,000/great crowd, two classes, and when the last days began etc., and yet not accepting the "unique doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses" will and does lead to expulsions, so please don't do down that road!

::::::::: If the main article is to have three paragraphs on governments, and court battle for freedom of speech, then at least one paragraph of those should show the double standard, that they demand one set of "freedoms" (claiming its persecution and abuse of Human rights not have them) and then deny the very same things to their own members, this is not POV, but a fact based in their practices and doctrines. ] 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


:::::::The way Jehovah's Witnesses treat ex-members, be they family, lifelong friends, or anything else, just might have something to do with why this aspect isn't treated like it is with less-extreme religions.] 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think it is a '''very strong POV''' to compare socialization restrictions within a ''nonviolent'' religious group to MURDER, RAPE, TORTURE and other atrocities committed by dictatorial and communist political regimes.

:], you said, "Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation." '''Horsehockey!''' That is the biggest presumption of fact I've heard yet. I have two words for that: PROVE IT.

::Here's two words for you. FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE.

:This environment is an academic one; this is not a place for you to assume a stance based on opinions for which you have no facts. The only people claiming that JWs are a more extreme organization are those who cannot accept the terms of membership. You say so many are pressured by social forces to remain compliant; I say so many more are attracted by what they see as Biblical truth. But NEITHER opinion belongs in this article if they are not presented as facts. Are you suggesting that a signifcant percentage of the global, or even American, congregation secretly dissents? Baloney. When they joined, many of them distanced themselves from family, friends, and so forth. They felt the need based on their newfound faith. So now you say they have to go through it again because they no longer accept that faith? I say it stands to reason that if they felt so strongly in converting themselves the first time, little to nothing prevents them from repeating the process for something they feel more strongly about. Your arguments holds little weight, insomuch as you do not have a good read on the minds of every member of the congregations worldwide. You presume that those with whom you speak represent a greater number than you know for certain, either through their suggestion or your assumption. Misplaced Pages is not the place for that. Certainly it is factual to represent thier views, but it is not fair to suggest by means of precise or clever wording that one set of views is more prevalent when you do not have facts to support it. - ] 16:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::Hello ], I will address some of your many Straw men and red herrings in your post. First you bring up a Straw man: "I think it is a very strong POV to compare socialization restrictions within a nonviolent religious group to MURDER, RAPE, TORTURE. . ." Where you have gone off on a Straw man tangent is clear, and what is "socialization restrictions" supposed to mean in your JW double speak? The subject was '''the religion's demands for its rights as a group, and another contrasting treatment it merits out to its individual members and their rights'''. Why you have to bring in the red-herring about "murder, rape and torture" I do not know. I imagine you misread the other paragraph about using a simple word not being POV, even if it were an unpleasant word, and you confused it in your mind with the later paragraph about communist oppression and thought control/punishment. I suggest you re-read the whole section, and stop mixing your metaphors and protesting things that were not said. You also seem to be saying that oppressive abuse of Human Rights and Freedoms is ok as long as it's non-violent?

::You go on: "Central, you said, 'Many have been expelled for just questioning these dates, or not believing in them due to their lack of a scriptural foundation.' Horsehockey! That is the biggest presumption of fact I've heard yet. I have two words for that: PROVE IT." Well I know of one person disfellowshipped, and others who have been severely disciplined and threatened for just discussing the lack of evidence for 1914 being a special year, and there were several leading members of the Watch Tower Society in 1980 that were expelled for just that, they being Cris Sánchez, and his wife Nestor Kuilan who were long time members Bethel, and René Vázques (he worked many years on the Service Department) and his wife were also disfellowshipped for alleged "apostasy" for private conversations. Why don't you write to the Watch Tower Society and ask them if its okay to not believe that 1914 has any relevance at all, or that God does not use organizations, or that the last days began in 33AD, not 1914, and see what their reply is. Then there is also the letter they sent to all circuit and district overseers stating one only had to believe something different from the "faithful and indiscreet slave" class to be guilty of apostasy. If you reject their words on the matter, then whose words do you accept? The proof is in the pudding. Write to them if you think you have such freedom to think for yourself and disbelieve what you choose with Christian Freedom.
::You go on: "Here's two words for you. FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE." Yes, I have some, I already said I know several JW who do not accept many of the Watch Tower's interpretations, but they keep quite as they know the consequences from daring to think for themselves as free Christians. They love their family more than the Watch Tower, so keep quite to preserve their loved ones from the persecution, slander and family break-up that often occurs when JWs do not conform to all the Watch Tower's doctrines, many doctrines whose flimsy foundation they were not informed about their before they got baptized. You said: "You say so many are pressured by social forces to remain compliant; I say so many more are attracted by what they see as Biblical truth." You are saying two different things! Being initially attracted to something, is not the same as finding out that you have been duped, and feeling pressure to keep quite as you know you will be severly punished if you don't. New members are not told about all the controversy, and are never given any detailed or accurate history of the organisation they are being drawn into. If you feel they all stay because they think it's "The Truth©", then remove any consequences for not believing X, or Y, and see how many still believe all the weaker doctrines that most Bible scholars just laugh at. Mind you, you are just bringing all this up to distract the main point of the '''Watch Tower's double standards''', trying to justify them does not remove them from existing, and yet that is what you appear to be trying to do. The rest of what you come out with is just hot air, pure and simple. An example here: "Are you suggesting that a significant percentage of the global, or even American, congregation secretly dissents?" It's irrelevant! Why are you making this stuff up? Who cares, the policy is of one rule for the Organization, and another for the individual, and all the other stuff you come out with is totally off topic and just a smoke screen to blur the real issue, and you do it in typical JW reality-dodging fashion.

::Your next Straw Man: "When they joined, many of them distanced themselves from family, friends, and so forth. They felt the need based on their newfound faith. So now you say they have to go through it again because they no longer accept that faith? I say it stands to reason that if they felt so strongly in converting themselves the first time, little to nothing prevents them from repeating the process for something they feel more strongly about." Besides your point being totally off topic, and irrelevant, you make an extremely bad argument. You unknowingly or willing appear to not care if something is based on free will, or oppressive pressure, persecution, and punishment. Those who '''choose''' to leave some friends for the sake of the Watch Tower's wishes, have '''chosen''' that, understand? Those who find out more about the Watch Tower organization and feel they have been conned, lied to, and tricked, are '''not''' choosing to destroy their family and friends, they are having that oppressive force put on them as a manipulative control measure. It's as different as someone jumping or being pushed, one is suicide, the other is murder, they are not the same thing! Choosing to leave someone or not the same as someone making them leave you by threats, abuse, punishment, slander and intimidation. It's very interesting you cannot see the difference, which again is cult-like. But I bet you will magically see the difference if your religion were treated this way by some government, it would be all too clear and instantly classed as "persecution, oppression, and abuse of our Human Rights and Freedoms".

::You then say: "you do not have a good read on the minds of every member of the congregations worldwide" 1. It's irrelevant and a straw man, and 2. I never said I did, and 3. Neither do you! Then you say even more hot air: "You presume that those with whom you speak represent a greater number than you know for certain, either through their suggestion or your assumption". I presume nothing, it's you who is making all this stuff up, and doing all the presumption/fantasy, and again, it's irrelevant, and makes no difference to '''the Watch Tower's treatment of individuals freedoms compared their own demanded freedoms as an organization'''. Again, ], you really need to learn to stick to the subject, but I also understand that diversion, smoke screens, Straw men are a profession pastime of the religion you follow, so they can hide their true motives, doctrines and history. So, I will forgive you this time and not take offence, as I see you are a victim of the system you were seduced into. Please note, 99% of your above comments have no impact at all one the doctrinal reality of the '''Watch Tower's treatment of its individual member's freedoms compared the Watch Tower Society's demands for its own freedoms as an organization''', that is the point, please learn to stick to it! ] 11:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:On a completely different note, I have a question for ]. I recall you said about 7 – 8 weeks ago, that you were going to write to the Watch Tower Society in regard to the debate here about who will be spared at Armageddon. Did you get a reply from them, and if yes, what did it specifically say in regard to the subject? ] 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::If I remember correctly, the consensus was that even a direct response from the WBTS wouldn't change the positions of the other editors, so I have not written. I still can if the response could potentially make a difference in others' minds. -- ] 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I wasn't asking in regard to the debate's conclusion changing, I was just interested in how they would respond, and I'm surprised you didn't write anyway, for your own peace of mind. I know I would have if I had your doubts. Where better to go than "the channel of God" directly! ] 21:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

::::If you're interested in knowing how they would respond, you ought to write them yourself. If you write in a clear and non-argumentitive manner you have as much chance of getting a response as do I. As for my own peace of mind, I will probably get around to writing eventually as a matter of interest, though the answer wouldn't change any of my personal feelings, just my factual knowledge of current JW doctrine. -- ] 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:54, 18 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jehovah's Witnesses at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articleJehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 6, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChristianity: Witnesses Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph under "Background" I believe that the statement "the fleshly return of Jesus Christ" should be changed to something more neutral like "the physical return" or "the corporeal return". Blind-Guard04 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done I think all these variations are neutral, but I changed it to "physical return" because that sounds less archaic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Japan section

I asked elsewhere about the content cited to Japanese sources. There's one comment in particular I think should have greater visibility: It looks like this was an internet survey instead of a criminal investigation, which would be important to clarify. Courtesy ping to Erynamrod. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: I believe I have fixed this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

About all my recent edits

In case anyone is wondering why exactly I have been making a flurry of edits... I've been trying to get this article in the best shape I can before I seek a mentor for the WP:FAC process and I guess I've just been extra motivated lately. Courtesy ping to Vanamonde93. I'm not quite there yet, but I've been making progress. My plan is to finish what I've started, then wait a bit to see if anyone has any objections to what I've been doing, and then perform a self-review of sorts. I'll ping you again when I've got all that done. Does that sound like a good plan? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Kudos to you—great progress! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It's definitely been time consuming. I think I've spent about twenty hours on this in the past week? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Jeffro77 as well because you're the main other editor in this topic area and I'd want to make sure you're okay with these changes before I'd go leaping into FAC. I think I've done a lot of good work here, but a second eyes on some of the more complicated theology concepts is always appreciated. I could send a copy of specific pages I'm citing over email if that'd help. Of course you're not obligated to do anything, but I do know that you've been pretty enthusiastic about JW articles for years so I figured you might appreciate the offer. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation on "shunning"

"Congregational disciplinary actions include formal expulsion and shunning, for what they consider serious offenses. Baptized people who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Former members may experience significant mental distress as a result of being shunned, and some seek reinstatement to keep contact with their friends and family."

This information is incorrect. I grew up in a JW household where my sister was disfellowshipped not disassociated and where I as an unbaptized JW was able to become "inactive" but not "shunned".

The correct information is this: If you are baptized within the organization you are held to the belief that you have committed yourself to Jehovah (God) and therefore any serious transgressions will result in disfellowshipment. This includes; fornication, adultery, thievery, excessive use of alcohol, and prescription drugs or any use of tobacco or narcotics among other things. There are numerous articles on JW.org to explain their belief. It is incorrect to say that members are disassociated as that is a completely different disciplinary action than disfellowshipping. To be disassociated means that you have confessed to an offense which would likely disfellowship you but have repented and can have limited association with the congregation while you resolve your situation. Disfellowshipment means you have confessed to an offense but do not repent so therefore you are removed from association with the congregation. This is a VERY important distinguishment as well as being Inactive. Inactive members were not baptized and are able to have association with any member of the congregation at any time, including in partaking in meals because they did not commit themselves to God through baptism.

Here is a link to disfellowshipping on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Insight-on-the-Scriptures/Expelling/

Here is a link to disassociating on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/

Here is a link to inactive members https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201987404?q=inactive&p=doc

There are many articles on the 'Why" and even though I am not a JW anymore, I respect my family that is and would like to see accurate information on Misplaced Pages, not information from people that have an emotional bias against the religion.

Thank you. Number1Foodie (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Number1Foodie: There already is a distinction made between disfellowshipping and diassociation (that's why it says "formally leave", but I realize that this may be unclear so I will change it to "leave voluntarily"). As an encyclopedia, primary sources like jw.org are discouraged. Reliable sources that are independent of the religious group are what is meant to be cited, which is what is used here. Anecdotal experiences are also not considered to be reliable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The lead only summarizes the article as a whole, there's more detail in Jehovah's Witnesses#Disciplinary action. Your personal experience would match what is described as "fading": Some adherents "fade" and stop attending meetings without being subject to the group's disciplinary procedures, although some former members have still experienced shunning through this method. There is very limited outside analysis on this phenomenon, which is why there's only the one sentence there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyways, I think this edit should resolve your concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Also to be disassociated means that you have confessed to an offense which would likely disfellowship you but have repented and can have limited association with the congregation while you resolve your situation is not how it works. That's marking (which again, is explained in the article already). Disassociation and disfellowshipping are different, but they have the same consequences. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at it and providing edits. 74.205.137.214 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
"serious transgressions will result in disfellowshipment. This includes; fornication, adultery, thievery, excessive use of alcohol" Are there any rules against violent crimes and extrajudicial killing? Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dimadick: They consider abortion to be murder and disfellowship people for that, as is already explained in the article (see the list of serious sins in the displinary action section). As for the more accepted definition of murder, that would also get one disfellowshipped, but I need to find a source to add it there because it'd be original research otherwise. I've been trying to read numerous books to flesh out the content in this topic area, but some topics come up less often than others and indexes don't always show what I'm looking for. Generally authors focus on the more common reasons for being disfellowshipped like sexual misconduct or apostasy (disagreeing with official beliefs). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

An FAQ section?

Some controversial articles have an FAQ section on the talk page. Maybe we should have one? I haven't been following this article as long as Jeffro77 so I'll wait when they're back from their wikibreak to see if there's many subjects they have seen be discussed on a recurring basis. I'm mostly going off memory in regards to the recent "Jehovah's Witnesses are" vs "Jehovah's Witnesses is" change. It'd be helpful to have links to previous discussions on this sort of thing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to JethAgape. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead image

Courtesy ping to Daddynnoob, who I reverted earlier today . I'm open to having a discussion here on why you think the lead image should be the jw.org logo instead of the Jehovah's Witnesses preaching. I think a logo would make more sense for a business than a religious group. I've taken some time to look at List of Christian denominations to see what the general trend is. It seems like it's usually photographs of important buildings? I don't think we have a photo of the Warwick headquarters. The main exception to this trend appears to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which uses their logo. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Greetings. My apologies for my mistake, especially the change was based on the LDS church logo on its article, but I'm not aware about how this is not suitable for JW. Btw, besides the preaching image for the lead image, do you think an image of Kingdom Hall is fine for it and putting the JW website logo not as a not lead image? Daddynnoob (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't have to apologize, I just think we should discuss it (and wait for other people to chip in too). I thought a photo of JWs was more visually appealing than a logo and a bunch of the sources I've been reading lately have said stuff like "Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for their door-to-door evangelism". Sometimes the phrasing is even stronger than that, like "perhaps best known". So it seemed like a good idea. A Kingdom Hall photo might work, though. If we do go that route, I'd prefer it be the one showing the interior and people worshipping instead of the rather plain exterior. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss Alright, I see. Thanks, Clover Daddynnoob (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I see that you've replaced the previous preaching image with a new one. While I'm not opposed to a new image, I do think a replacement one should be a relatively high quality photo? To be honest, neither is nessecarily the best one to have, but the one you've replaced it with has some sun glare. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Most of the pictures I saw related to JW are Kingdom Halls, but sure I can find one that is suitable for you Daddynnoob (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I tried to find a higher quality image of JWs preaching myself. Surprisingly there's not many options. I would take a photo myself but I feel like that'd be hard to do in my local area for obvious reasons. @Rhododendrites: you're like the best photographer I know and you've taken a lot of photos in places like parks, right? Any chance you've ever run into JWs preaching and snapped a photo before? Or maybe the next time you see a group, you could ask? They're generally pretty friendly to outsiders. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
What do you think about this picture since it's a typical door-to-door preaching of JW, although it was uploaded in 2007 so it does not has the best quality? Daddynnoob (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: Thanks for the compliment. :) I do take pictures in parks, but rarely of people. I'm fairly certain I've never taken photos of Jehovah's Witnesses. I can't say I've ever seen them going door to door here in NY, but I do see them with literature carts in parks and other areas with a lot of foot traffic. Are you looking for just, like, something similar to the current lead image but a bit better quality? I also know of a Kingdom Hall in Flatbush, though it looks like we have a decent picture of that already. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Yeah, a higher quality option would be nice and what I'd be looking for. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Don't know when, but I'll keep it in the back of my head. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible options for a lead image

Given the discussion above, I wanted to present some options from what is currently available on Wikimedia Commons.

  • This was used as the lead image for years, a similar choice is made in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article (option 1) This was used as the lead image for years, a similar choice is made in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article (option 1)
  • An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2) An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2)
  • Another door-to-door image (option 3) Another door-to-door image (option 3)
  • The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4) The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4)
  • The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5) The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5)
  • The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6) The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6)
  • A Kingdom Hall (option 7) A Kingdom Hall (option 7)

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Only options 1 and 6 would be properly representative of the denomination as a whole.--Jeffro77 Talk 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeffro77 I wonder if Hannah is okay with the first option. If still not, then the sixth option is the only one, especially I've been looking for this for a long time Daddynnoob (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd be okay with image 6. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Clovermoss I see Daddynnoob (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not my first preference but if it's what we all can agree on then I'm alright with it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a few days for further feedback, but in the meantime options 3, 5, and 7 are incorporated into more relevant sections. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I have now implemented option 6. If this ends up being more controversial in the future, a formal RfC could be initiated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Clovermoss Much appreciated Daddynnoob (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Jeffro77: I disagree that it is "mundane" to clarify that there are varying estimates as to how many Jehovah's Witnesses left during this timeframe. When reliable sources disagree, all perspectives should be included.

I also disagree with the removal of "overlapping generation" from the same edit. I never claimed it was the formal name of the doctrine. The source describes the changes as being part of an "overlapping generation" (specifically, it says this on page 125: "A further clarification was made in 2010, when the word 'generation' was held to denote not only the 1914 generation but also those whose lives overlapped with those who received the heavenly calling and were alive at that date"). I think it's useful context to the average reader because a non-JW would not consider a generation to overlap in that way. I also think the previous phrasing is more true to the source.

I have no issues with the other changes. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that there are various views is not in itself mundane, but the fact that different views mean different estimates is mundane. The paragraph doesn't offer any specific number of members that left (only some proportions separately, which do not disagree with each other or with Rogerson), so saying that one source says the numbers are unclear comes across as self-evident.
The Watch Tower Society never calls it an 'overlapping generation' doctrine either in the source provided here or anywhere else, it is only an ad hoc description of the relatively abstruse change. The official teaching is not that there 'is an overlapping generation' but that 'the generation' broadly includes people where some part of their lifespan overlaps. In conventional terms, it isn't even actually the case that there are 'two consecutive overlapping generations'. Contemporary names of 'generations' vary and are not especially useful here, but the two 'generations' in question would loosely be the 'Lost Generation' and 'Gen X' based on the current actual JW definition of 'generation'. As such, it isn't necessary for the main JW article to get 'lost in the weeds' about it.--Jeffro77 Talk 04:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I still disagree with you about Rogerson's claim because he doesn't think a clear estimate can even be made. Immediately afterwards, there's estimates in the text (although the order of this should probably be rearranged). Since all the cited sources are reliable, all of these positions should be represented.
As for The official teaching is not that there 'is an overlapping generation' but that 'the generation' broadly includes people where some part of their lifespan overlaps, yes that's why I think the previous phrasing is important because it makes that slightly clearer. It doesn't matter to the average reader what the teaching's official name is, just what it means. While contemporary generation ranges vary, anyone who isn't a JW (or former JW) wouldn't label a whole century of individuals together as a single generation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Are you alright with this change? I'm hoping it'll satisfy us both. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
No problem with that change. Thanks.—Jeffro77 Talk 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I'm starting a discussion per this edit. I'll also note that most sources tend to establish Jehovah's Witnesses connection with the Bible Students before talking about other labels. Courtesy pings to Levivich (who was involved in the original discussion) and Jeffro77. I have since self-reverted because the text was not added a few months ago, but on December 12 in this edit. I still think that edit is a much better lead in line with MOS:FIRST and just generally what a lead should be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The suggested alternative is not a better first sentence, for a few reasons. MOS:FIRST recommends that the first sentence be a direct statement about what the article subject is—a Christian denomination—rather than starting with elaboration about its historical development. Secondly, the alternative lead employed weasily phrasing about what the denomination is ‘considered to be’. Thirdly, the edit reintroduced incorrect grammar that does not reflect that the name of the denomination is properly a singular compound proper noun. Further (and related), despite the fact that JWs might favour a public perception that they are autonomously-minded individuals who are each ‘witnesses of Jehovah’ (a theological claim and not a neutral point of view) who make up ‘a group of Christians’, it is in reality a highly regulated hierarchical denomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that what I said above: most sources tend to establish Jehovah's Witnesses connection with the Bible Students before talking about other labels. The historical development is crucial to understanding what Jehovah's Witnesses are and is much more useful context to the reader than a WP:LEADLINK full of other labels. That's why I placed them at the end of the first paragraph. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Presentation of information on Misplaced Pages isn’t governed by how other sources treat subjects. The reasons I have already given are sound.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)—Jeffro77 Talk 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
3O Response: After reviewing this, as well as the previous relevant discussion, I think there's a slight misinterpretation of what MOS:FIRST says. The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, with the operative phrasing here being "nonspecialist reader", is the relevant part. The rewrite of the first sentence I think is better for nonspecialist readers, as well as the and often when or where part of MOS:FIRST, as it plainly describes when the religious movement started. The diff it was changed from does neither of these things, and would still be fine in the lede, just not as the first sentence. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 05:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@SmittenGalaxy: Just to clarify, when you mean rewrite, do you mean this edit (which I think gives a much better overview to a nonspecialist reader) or the current state of the lead? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting your third opinion right and that the current first sentence could be moved to the end of the first paragraph again. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: Sorry for being a little late here. But yes, both that edit and the one you self-reverted last week; mostly just because I think that first sentence fits better than the one currently in the article. I'm not particularly picky in regards to where it will go in the lede, but it should still be there in my opinion. Whether that's directly after the first sentence or anywhere after that I don't think is of great importance, but it probably shouldn't be the very first sentence. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I have no qualms about removing the 'sea of blue' from the first sentence, nor for the first sentence retaining that it grew out of the Bible Student movement. However, the vague notion that JWs are just 'a religious group' misrepresents the actually highly structured nature of the denomination, and therefore does not adhere well to the recommendation in MOS:FIRST that the first sentence clearly say what the article subject is. Nor should the article endorse the non-neutral trend of dismissing that JWs are 'really' Christians. I would support Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century. The later sentence in the article could then be re-phrased as The denomination is generally classified as nontrinitarian, millenarian and restorationist.--Jeffro77 Talk 05:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I used "religious group" because there are varying definitions of what Jehovah's Witnesses are (expanded upon in the history section which says The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.) Religious group seemed like a neutral enough term to me that didn't nessecarily conflict with terms like "Christian" or "denomination". Adding "Christian denomination" to the middle of the first sentence sounds a bit awkward when read aloud but if your objection is to the term "religious group", that term could just be omitted. What do you think of the proposed rewrite being reinstated with that change? The latter issue would be "are considered to be" part. I added that to clarify that they aren't universally recognized as such in reliable sources. Maybe something like "are generally recognized as" would work better? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
My problem with "religious group" (especially with the incorrect verb are), as already stated, is that it falsely conveys that they're just a loosely organised group of individuals who are each 'witnesses of/for Jehovah'—a theological claim that is neither accurate nor neutral. For that reason, it is better to clearly state that it is a denomination. I don't see any awkwardness with the expression "Christian denomination" in the sentence, and using the term denomination is wholly consistent with the statement in the body that The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.. (Encyclopedias of religion routinely classify JWs as Christian, and the fact that many people don't consider JWs 'Christian' should hold as much weight as the fact that JWs don't consider any other denominations to be 'Christian'—that is to say, none.)
recognized as does sound less weasily than considered to be, but classified as would be a better level of formality.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think "religious group" implies anything about how Jehovah's Witnesses are structurally organized, just that they're a group with shared religious beliefs. I'm okay with the "generally classified" phrasing later on. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The implication that they're just "a group with shared religious beliefs" is the problem. It is a highly regulated hierarchical denomination, not just 'a group of people with shared beliefs'. That is the problem with ambiguity of "group".--Jeffro77 Talk 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with you on that. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Scientology is highly regulated and hierarchical, but the first sentence of that article states that it is a "shared set of beliefs and practices". While I think inserting "Christian denomination" halfway through sounds awkward, that's somewhat subjective and I can understand why you disagree with me on that aspect. I suppose my other concern is that it gives that classification a sort of unquestioned status, even if that's what Jehovah's Witnesses are generally classified as. I think that there's enough arguing about classification in reliable sources to make such a distinction nessecary. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The wording in the Scientology article is not analogous (and doesn't say "shared"). It doesn't say "Scientology are a group that believes..." or anything similar. I'm not sure you're suggesting we change the first sentence to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is a set of beliefs invented by..."--Jeffro77 Talk 07:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
No, but I made the comparison because your position seems to be that "a group with shared religious beliefs" is inherently contradictory with "highly regulated" and "hierarchical". I really don't think "shared religious beliefs" implies anything about said group being "loosely organised". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Those two phrases ("a group with shared religious beliefs" and "highly regulated") aren't inherently contradictory on their own, but referring to the denomination as "a group" is misleading because the name of the denomination is also used as a way as referring collectively to a group of individual members. The ambiguity doesn't exist with most denominations because the name of the denomination is not usually also the demonym. We wouldn't just say "The Catholic Church is a group with shared beliefs", and we certainly also wouldn't say "Catholics are a group with shared beliefs", and it would be even more confusing if the same term were used to refer to both.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious group is misleading. If you google "what is a religious group?", you'll get results like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I have already explained the context in which it’s misleading, and the wikilink for religious group itself demonstrates the ambiguity, providing separate definitions including “a group of people with similar religious beliefs” (e.g. a group of JW members) as distinct from a religious denomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 08:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It appears we're at an impasse, then. If we can't find a workable compromise, the dispute resolution noticeboard is probably the next best step. I personally doubt someone reading an article on Jehovah's Witnesses is going to read that sentence and think "Jehovah's Witnesses are a group of individual Jehovah's Witnesses". It's clearly meant to have overlap with the meaning of religious denomination without running into the issues that come with using that narrower classification without question. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Though they would phrase it more like ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are a group of individual Christians’, that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public (but not for purposes such as legal registration or how it is actually run)—always framed as ‘who they are’ rather than ‘what it is’, so the ambiguity is demonstrable and non-trivial.—Jeffro77 Talk 08:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we should be basing our lead sentence out of a desire to debunk how you think Jehovah's Witnesses market themselves. I don't think it's that deep. I also doubt that religious group can be equated with "group of individual Christians" because not all religious groups are Christian. Anyways, I'm heading to bed. It's 4 am in my timezone. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It isn’t a matter of ‘debunking’ anything (which could be interpreted as an assumption of bad faith). It is a matter of presenting information unambiguously, particularly where notable ambiguity exists. JWs are Christian and the fact that ‘not all religious groups are Christian’ is irrelevant.—Jeffro77 Talk 09:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses: Difference between revisions Add topic