| Revision as of 03:52, 10 February 2012 editMaunus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,261 edits →RfC: Reinstatement in lead section: no need to compare with Bible belt or any other arbitrarily chosen example← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:23, 23 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,330 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 67) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{controversial}} | {{controversial}} | ||
| {{Calm}} | |||
| {{not a forum}} | {{not a forum}} | ||
| {{American English}} | |||
| {{ArticleHistory | {{ArticleHistory | ||
| |action1=PR | |action1=PR | ||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
| |action3oldid=257166622 | |action3oldid=257166622 | ||
| |action4=GAN | | action4 = GAN | ||
| |action4date= |
| action4date = 13:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| |action4link= |
| action4link = /GA1 | ||
| |action4result=listed | | action4result = listed | ||
| |action4oldid= |
| action4oldid = 442298293 | ||
| | topic = philrelig | |||
| |currentstatus=GA | |||
| | currentstatus = GA | |||
| |topic=philrelig | |||
| | small = no | |||
| | collapse = no | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Christianity | |
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |jehovah's-witnesses=yes |jehovah's-witnesses-importance=Top }} | ||
| {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes |NRMImp=Top}} | |||
| |jehovah's-witnesses=yes |jehovah's-witnesses-importance=Top | |||
| |core-topics-work-group = yes |core-topics-importance=Top | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Religion |class=GA |importance=Mid |NRM=yes |NRMImp=High }} | |||
| {{annual readership}} | |||
| {{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=GA |importance=high |category=Philrelig }} | |||
| {{Top 25 Report|Sep 28 2014 (24th)}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 67 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |search=yes |root=Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses |auto=yes |index=/Archive index}} | |||
| == Final authority == | |||
| == Japan section == | |||
| The lead states that the governing body "exercises the final authority on all doctrinal matters". Use of the word ''final'' here may imply there is some process by which other members submit ideas, which are then decided upon by the GB. However, this is not the case. I would therefore like to remove "the final".--] (]) 00:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :What is the alternative you are thinking of? "exercises authority on all doctrinal matters"? ] (]) 03:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::In cases where the local body of elders may have different opinions on the matter of any particular doctrine, they consult the traveling overseer, and in turn he may consult the branch committee, and in turn they may consult the GB for directions. For example I remember a case where the decision for inviting a disfellowshiped person for the marriage by a close relative was done in a similar manner. Furthermore if some member writes a letter to the GB (with his identity disclosed otherwise it goes to trash) regarding his personnel disagreement or opinion with a doctrine, the GB will reply him personally via the branch committee to convince him the reasoning for the doctrine. One example for this is cited regarding a letter correspondence on the disagreement of blood transfusion. It suggests that they also give ear to the opinion of the members if it sounds reasonable, though they make the final decisions. Another reasoning for the word final is here | |||
| :'''Update''': I believe I have fixed this. ] ] 19:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::"When the time comes to clarify a spiritual matter in our day, holy spirit helps responsible representatives of 'the faithful and discreet slave' at world headquarters to discern deep truths that were not previously understood. The Governing Body as a whole considers adjusted explanations. What they learn, they publish for the benefit of all." - The Watchtower, July 15, 2010, page 23--] (]) 03:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == About all my recent edits == | |||
| :::Andrew Holden (pg 22) writes: "The establishment of doctrines has been very carefully restricted to, and controlled by, the Society's Governing Body," Since there is no formal (or informal) process in which members of the religion can debate and decide on doctrines, after which the GB exercises its ''final authority'', a more accurate statement, cited to Holden as a secondary source, would be that: "They are directed by the Governing Body, a group of elders (etc) that establishes and controls doctrines." ] (]) 04:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fazilfazil's examples are anecdotal at best, and do not indicate that any other members have any ''input'' at all into doctrinal changes anyway. Members may write to the Watch Tower Society, and then the Society tells them what they are expected to believe. From that perspective, there is no alteration at all from my previous position that 'final' does not belong. I don't really see any practical distinction between "establishes and controls" and the more concise "exercises authority".--] (]) 05:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Really? The word "establish" is clear and concise enough, and they alone "control" those doctrines. "Exercise authority" is a very woolly term that allows a whole range of possible activities. It also has the benefit of a source. ] (]) 10:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Don't mind either way. My only real point here is that ''final'' does not belong.--] (]) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The word "Control" is not in a neutral tone. "exercise authority" was a better wording--] (]) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Not neutral? It is hardly bias to say, as many reliable sources have noted, that only the Governing Body has control over doctrines. It controls doctrines. No one else controls them. Members are required to accept them. There is no forum to express disagreement with them. The term is accurate, sourced and editorially neutral. ] (]) 06:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I think "establishes and manages" is better and nuetral--] (]) 19:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think you should think about why you want to use a wordy euphemism instead of the concise and accurate "control". It's not clear how "establishes and manages" is ''better'', and it's not really clear how a doctrine is 'managed'. Religions ''establish'' doctrines, they ''impose'' them, they sometimes ''change'' them, but they don't really 'manage' them.--] (]) 23:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It's a puzzle why Fazilfazil thinks "controls" is "not a neutral tone". I agree that "manages" in this context is meaningless; he seems to be searching a thesaurus to find any option to the obvious, and most accurate, word. No one controls JW doctrines other than the Governing Body, and "control" is precisely what they exercise over them. It's not a pejorative word, it's a simple statement of fact. ] (]) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As an ex-member you and perhaps your usual counterpart might be interested in using the word 'control' everywhere possible. But I just don't understand what is there to "Control" the doctrine. Is the doctrine a thing which unpredictably changes by itself so that someone should control it? Funny--] (]) 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Encouraged == | |||
| :Kudos to you—great progress! ] ] 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The article has suffered in the past from overuse of the word "encouraged", which is part of JW jargon. Members are forever being "encouraged" to take some course of action, when the direction from headquarters is commonly much more direct. In the present case, I have replaced the word "encouraged" from the sentence that did read: "Adherents are encouraged to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism over Watchtower teachings ..." The claim cites a 2001 ''Watchtower'' that explains what a member ''must'' do to be deemed a "mature Christian". This explains that such a person ''does not'' insist on personal opinions and ''has'' complete confidence in what the leadership says. It is therefore accurate to say that adherents are told they must have complete confidence. ] (]) 11:08, 29 November 2011 (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) | |||
| :The seriousness of the word "must" depends on the context and can be easily misunderstood by the reader. "must do to be deemed a mature Christian" is different from "must do to be not get disfellowshiped". Can you suggest any article which say that disciplinary action will be taken against to those adherents who don't have "complete confidence"? Having said that "told to" best fits the context.--] (]) 22:10, 29 November 2011 (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) | |||
| ::Again, this fixation with disciplinary action. I know of no article that threatens punishment for anyone who fails to have complete confidence in the Governing Body, and it's a ridiculous suggestion. ] (]) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe "Adherents are told they should have complete confidence ..." overcomes the issue. This gets across the concept of being urged to do something, without suggesting punishment if they fail to do so. ] (]) 23:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Misinformation on "shunning" == | |||
| ::: How about: "Adherents are taught they should have..... ] (]) 02:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Adherents are taught they should have.....Looks good. --] (]) 03:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think they are ''taught'' that at all. They are certainly ''told'' that they must have complete confidence in the GB and obey it, if they are to become a "mature" Christian. I'm not aware of specific structured teaching program that instructs them they should have complete confidence in tbeir leaders. "Taught" is just another one of those fuzzy Watchtower words that avoid stating the obvious. ] (]) 05:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wasn't his resolved years ago with the word "instructed"? --] (]) 16:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| "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." | |||
| == Additions to Criticism == | |||
| 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". | |||
| Re: those who choose to leave the religion "are seldom allowed a dignified exit." | |||
| The correct information is this: | |||
| 1) Holden was talking specifically about those who officially leave the religion and not just anyone walking away.( Thus either disfellowshipped or disassociated) The way it read was misleading. More of the context seems to help. 2) Two scholarly articles were added to support that not all agree with there terminology "totalitarian". If these points were already in the article please dirict attention to them here, because it seemed all one sided POV and not a NPOV. 3) If you do not like the format, could you please be so kind to perhaps fix it instead of deleting it? ] (]) 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| * Jeffro77 Not only did I not break a text from a source I add to it, thus giving more of the quote. Please use talk instead of revert someones work. Thanks ] (]) 05:18, 11 December 2011 (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. | |||
| ** If anything much of this paragraph is already a repeat of the section on "Sociological analysis." It may be well to combine some of this info. ] (]) 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :'See also' templates referring to other articles are not used at article Talk in the manner you used. | |||
| :I think I've fixed your botched (not 'blotched') formatting. When you break up paragraphs mid-sentence, it makes diffs very difficult to compare, meaning your actual point was missed entirely.--] (]) 05:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Here is a link to disfellowshipping on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Insight-on-the-Scriptures/Expelling/ | |||
| Here is the whole Paragraph in quote: | |||
| Here is a link to disassociating on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/ | |||
| Eric went on to explain how all the people with whom he used to go on holiday and out for dinner were Witnesses. He knew that, once he decided to leave, these friendships would be severed and he would be regarded as an apostate. All the former members with whom I spoke told me how they had been cut off by friends and family who refused to visit them, attend their weddings or even acknowledge them in the street.18 This is why defectors who make the smoothest transition are those who have found an alternative belief system or have the support of outsiders who are able to distract them from the milieu of the Society (Holzer 1968). But finding alternatives is far from easy given the years of constraint placed on devotees to limit their contact with the outside world and to refrain from reading apostate literature. Those who do eventually break free are seldom allowed a dignified exit.19 Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’. ] (]) 05:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks--] (]) 05:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Here is a link to inactive members https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201987404?q=inactive&p=doc | |||
| No Problem. Thanks for correcting the paragraph split...didn't see that one. ] (]) 05:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry about the confusion. I was seeing .--] (]) 05:40, 11 December 2011 (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. | |||
| ::I'm doubtful that the view attributed in this article to Garbe in ''Between Resistance and Martyrdom'' is accurate. The Google books preview of Page 518 shows that he did indeed refer to the WTS leadership as "totalitarian", "requir(ing) complete obedience from the members". In his conclusion, on Page 523-524, he asserts that "the totalitarian characteristics in organization and ideology of the IBSA increased the conflict." For reasons I can't discern from that brief excerpt, ''The Routledge History of the Holocaust'' places its own interpretation on that material, deciding that Garbe "pointed out in his study" that the use of the term "was understandable but analytically problematic." I'd suggest deleting Garbe at this point in the article (presented as a dissent to the use of the term "totalitarian") and restrict that protest to the Routledge book. ] (]) 07:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've removed reference to Garbe, along with the source that doesn't mention Lichti. The second-hand source doesn't unambiguously provide Garbe's view. If he specifically says elsewhere that JWs ''are'' totalitarian his comment of 'analytically problematic' needs to be provided in context rather than taken as any kind of clear statement rejecting totalitarianism.--] (]) 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I will concede, since it is not a quote and if someone wants to they can follow up on the footnote in the actual article in the link. However the view attributed to Garbe is indeed very accurate. In order to appreciate this one would have to realize he is not agreeing with ]. He quotes Falk Pingel who also did not agree with Kater and so "expressed reservations" (on the same page mentioned above 518) On Page 520 he clearly shows that what Kater has done is inaccurate, since it puts the ideology (and totalitarianism) of the SS on par with the JW's. And this is Garbe says is not accurate. Thus he agrees in terms of aspects of "totalitarianism" but does not agree as to the application or reference which has Kater did, which can mislead others. ] (]) 14:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Mentally diseased == | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| The section in criticism states "Not only is their disfellowshipping announced from the platform, they are also condemned as ‘mentally diseased’ or ‘apostates’." This seems tweaked and misleading. For one reason ONLY apostates are condemned as those LIKE 'mentally diseased'. Further adding the word 'Not only' could wrongly suggest that the later is also announced in platform. Not all disfellowshiped persons are called as 'apostates'. Most of the time the reason is kept unknown to help the person to return back --] (]) 18:06, 13 December 2011 (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? == | |||
| :This has been discussed several times already. The criticism is about the treatment of those who disassociate from the religion, that is, voluntarily and formally resign. Such persons are publicly named at meetings and then all members are required to shun them. ''The Watchtower'', in the July 15, 2011 edition, says defectors are apostates (pg 15) and that apostates are mentally diseased (pg 16). The point was not lost on several major newspapers recently, which noted the religion's use of the term "mentally diseased" to describe those who choose to exit the religion. Holden's statement is accurate. ] (]) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The text isn't "tweaked". After I queried the additional text added to the quote, the editor who provided the extended quote also provided the original paragraph from the source in the section above. | |||
| ::The conclusion that "the reason is kept unknown ''to help the person to return back''" is fairly subjective; it is just as likely that the reason for not explaining why people left is to reduce the perceived number who leave due to doctrinal concerns.--] (]) 07:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::There could be legal reasons why the perceived cause of the disfellowshipping/disassociation is not identified, in order to avoid any problems of defamation. Generally, I suspect, the absence of a publicly announced reason serves to foster a sense of suspicion and danger surrounding the "sinner" and, possibly more importantly, to reduce the likelihood of people discussing the rightness or wrongness of the decision to disfellowship. In the case of disassociation, the congregation would certainly not be keen to advertise the fact that a person has quit because of doctrinal reasons. The suggestion that by withholding the reason for a defection or expulsion, the individual might be more inclined to return, seems highly speculative and unlikely. ] (]) 10:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Witnesses who are disfellowshiped know their status ahead of time. The elders make the status official for the rest of the congregation during a meeting. They say "so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witness." The details about why a person was disfellowship is NOT disclosed. The details about a person's mental state is NOT disclosed. Any other information about the disfellowshipped person beyond the simple announcement is simply NOT true. — ] (]) 07:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The article does not suggest that a public announcement is made that a person is mentally diseased. That term is applied by the religion's publications against those who choose to defect. The process is calculated to humiliate those who dare to quit and therefore serve as a deterrent for others to leave. ] (]) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Did Holden say about "mentally diseased"? Otherwise you have to mention the reference to the publication and specify that the publications describe those choose to leave as mentally diseased.--] (]) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| I've restored BlackCab's version of the article. Fazil's edit clearly alters quoted text from a RS, and maintains quote marks attributing his new text to the author the RS. There's no way that edit may stand as it is. ] ] ] 04:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy ping to {{u|JethAgape}}. ] ] 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Fazil, yes, the Misplaced Pages article quotes Holden's words. The quotation marks that it is a quote. Why are you continuing to rewrite a quote from a book in an attempt to make it sound as if Holden said something else? ] (]) 05:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Lead image == | ||
| 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) | |||
| I find it hard to believe that Misplaced Pages, a resource dedicated to unbiased information, would not allow bible quotes or scriptural references to show the fundamental reasons for doctrinal claims made by Witnesses. For example two of the primary scriptures they used to justify their famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) preaching activity is Matthew 24:14 and 28:19,20. These two seem to be indicate directives by Christ to go out, preach the good news about God's Kingdom, and to make believers. Jehovah's Witnesses pride themselves on using the bible to back up their doctrines and yet when I read information about who they are on Misplaced Pages without scriptural references it truly sounds like madness. I think it would be advantageous at least to include some scriptures in order to provide a well-rounded article. I am not saying everything needs a scriptural references, but in the interest of Misplaced Pages's unbias and fairness scriptural references should be included for major doctrines. After all Misplaced Pages prides itself on strongly enforced cited sources, should this standard not extend to the bible as the source for the main tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses? — ] (]) 07:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article does contain some scriptural references where they help to explain beliefs or practices of the religion. The guideline ] explains where they are appropriate and how they should be used. They are usually unnecessary, however, and Misplaced Pages certainly does not use scriptures in the same manner Watch Tower Society publications use them, citing a scripture without explanation after making an assertion. If you see any places where the use of a scripture would be of benefit, please say so. ] (]) 07:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: "Do not cite supporting scriptures when explaining doctrines or practices. If discussing the interpretation of a particular passage, quote the passage and then provide the JW interpretation." This makes no sense. This is like asking someone to explain a lawyer's interpretation of a law, but not the law itself or even show that such a law exists. The Bible IS the main source for their tenets, and so everything they teach and believe is from that source. It seems to me that to deny this crucial piece of information does hurts Misplaced Pages's credibility. ] (]) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''"Everything they teach and believe is from that source".'' Not quite. Their prohibition on the medical transfusion of human blood is a contorted interpretation of a temporary scriptural admonition against drinking animal blood. Their prohibition of birthday celebrations is based on the very shaky foundation that two birthdays are portrayed in a "negative" way in the Bible and that celebrations have pagan origins. (Dogs, in contrast, receive a far more negative portrayal in the Bible, yet JWs are allowed to keep dogs; pinatas and wedding rings have pagan origins, yet are deemed acceptable.) But rather than speak in generalities, feel free to identify any specific teachings that suffer through the lack of a scriptural reference. ] (]) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I say "main tenets" I am not referring to blood or birthdays I'm referring to these http://www.watchtower.org/e/201008/article_04.htm Those are the main tenets. At least those are worth scriptural references. If Misplaced Pages cannot allow scriptural references for those main tenets then I really see no reason to continue supporting the Misplaced Pages project financially. ] (]) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Sounds a bit petulant, Gorba. "Let me use scriptures or I won't donate money again." Those 10 tenets at the JW.org website are a perfect example of the lazy use of scriptures to claim biblical support for a dogmatic statement. The fourth point is a good example, in which the WTS dogmatically states God's kingdom will have 144,000 co-rulers. The website cites a clutch of scriptures from Revelation and Daniel with no clear relationship to one another; the WTS decides that the 12,000 members of 12 tribes in Revelation 7 are symbolic (as are most of the numbers in that book, the lake of fire, "days", the dimensions of the holy city Jerusalem), yet that the 144,000 in total is a real number. The 10th point cites a scripture to support its patently false claim that there is no clergy-laity distinction within the religion. I was in the religion long enough to know that elders are viewed as God's police, with the power to interrogate, judge, and punish their "brothers" without recourse. I think Misplaced Pages can do better than this. If it means it loses your donation, so be it. ] (]) 09:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It's interesting that Gorba states that certain (unstated) JW beliefs "truly sounds like madness" when not followed by a cherry-picked scripture (in ''Watchtower'' style, with no regard to context or exposition). However, no one said scriptures ''can't'' be used ''at all'', but that they should only be used when directly discussing that scripture. As has already been pointed out, this is indicated at ].--] (]) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's not childish to request that the treatment other faiths receive in citing scriptures also be extended to article about Jehovah's Witnesses. Since it seems this policy is enforced and unchangeable then I simply have no choice but to deny funds in protest. Name calling won't change my mind. ] (]) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::]. We are not interested in your financial situation and your personal plans ] (]) 09:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Of course not. Thank you for making that crystal clear.] (]) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :] is standard procedure in Christianity. There's nothing special about JW's practicing it. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::This has nothing to do with proselytism. Every Misplaced Pages article, including the Jehovah's Witnesses article, all cite numerous references to verify the source of information presented. This same principle should extend to doctrine and tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses. In other words, "Where did Jehovah's Witnesses get this doctrine? Here's the main scripture they used." You can discuss and debate the accuracy all day long someplace else, but to simply not even disclose the scriptural reference is completely disingenuous to Misplaced Pages's founding principles. ] (]) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have asked you twice to identify sections of the article you think would benefit from having a scripture. You keep speaking about generalities. Be specific or quit complaining. ] (]) 02:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gorba, as you were told before, ''no one said scriptures ''can't'' be used ''at all'', but that they should only be used when directly discussing that scripture. As has already been pointed out, this is indicated at ].'' The '''reason''' that scriptures can't just be given ''Watchtower''-style is that ''scriptures'' can be (''are'') interpreted in '''many''' different ways by different groups. JW doctrines are based on their ''interpretations'' of scriptures, and those ''interpretations'' are found in JW literature as well as other (secondary) sources. It is ''those'' sources that are given as citations for JW beliefs, because they provide the JW interpretation. It would biased in the extreme to just assert that a particular scripture can only be interpreted the JW way.--] (]) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@] 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) | |||
| == 144,000 in lead section == | |||
| ::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 ]. — <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. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Possible options for a lead image === | |||
| I know the article's lead section is already long, but it's just occurred to me that one pretty glaring omission is a reference to the 144,000. It is one of those things, like their opposition to blood transfusions, that people have a vague knowledge of in terms of their distinctive teachings. it could easily be added as a reasonably brief sentence among their central beliefs: ''They believe a heavenly reward is limited to just 144,000 people; most members have the hope of living forever on earth.'' ] (]) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Given the discussion above, I wanted to present some options from what is currently available on ]. | |||
| :Something similar could be added, but it is not neutral to imply that more (any) people 'go to heaven' (outside of JW belief). Because they believe non-JWs who die prior to Armageddon will also be resurrected, it's not accurate to say that their 'hope' of 'living forever' is limited to 'members'. Perhaps ''They believe that exactly 144,000 individuals receive a heavenly reward, and that the hope for others is to live forever on earth.''--] (]) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <gallery mode="packed" heights="300px"> | |||
| :Haven't they revised that in light of the fact they have more than that many members? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 12:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| File:JW Logo.svg|This was used as the lead image for years, a similar choice is made in ] article (option 1) | |||
| ::No, they haven't. They still believe 144,000 go to heaven to rule over the rest living on earth.--] (]) 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| File:Jehova witnesses in Lvov.jpg|An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2) | |||
| :::Citation, please? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| File:Evangelização.jpg|Another door-to-door image (option 3) | |||
| ::::It's a fairly fundamental JW teaching. Here's the first ref I could find, but there are so, so many. ''The Watchtower'' 1 February 2010, page 6: | |||
| File:Jehovah's Witnesses in Esino Lario.jpg|The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4) | |||
| ::::{{blockquote|How many go to heaven? As in any government, the rulers in God’s heavenly Kingdom are few in comparison with all the people who live under its authority. To those who will rule with him, Jesus said: “Have no fear, little flock, because your Father has approved of giving you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32) That “little flock” will finally number 144,000. (Revelation 14:1) That number is small in comparison with the millions who will enjoy endless life on earth as loyal subjects of the Kingdom.—Revelation 21:4.}} | |||
| File:Jehova's Witnesses headquarters IMG 2433 New York Brooklyn.JPG|The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5) | |||
| ::::--] (]) 13:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| File:Picha.jpg|The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6) | |||
| "glaring omission" Ehh Black? Its obvious by your page that you have an enormous Jumbo Tron sized axe to grind here. With your apparent hate for this religion it seems like a conflict of interest for you to have any say about anything in this article whatsoever. --] (]) 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| File:Timsbury Kingdom Hall - geograph.org.uk - 2474467.jpg|A Kingdom Hall (option 7) | |||
| :Do you have anything to say, one way or the other, about the ''merits'' of the suggestion of mentioning the 144,000 doctrine in the lead?? If you have concerns about a ], this isn't the correct venue for discussion.--] (]) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| ::I don't like the religion, it's true. In my two decades in it I saw too much to remain indifferent. I think it benefits the public to be aware of notable information about the religion, including facts the WTS tries to hide. But I have no more a conflict of interest than any JW who wants to edit the page. As long as the information presented is accurate, properly sourced, and written in an editorially neutral way, we can all contribute to the article. I don't see that adding a detail about the distinctive teaching about the 144,000 is in any way a demonstration of hatred. But you're welcome to your opinion. ] (]) 01:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] 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) | |||
| ::] I don't necessarily disagree with you here, as I feel the belief of the 144,000 is notable, but isn't it already contained in the subheading '''God's Kingdom''' ? Maybe it should be expounded on there? I'm not against including it in the lead section, but the lead section is already rather lengthy. ] (]) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] 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 agree that the lead is rather lengthy. Also I feel its not as important as other core beliefs. Similar importance is there for many teachings like destruction of false religion via UN, visible organization, 1914 year, etc. But these are derived teachings of God's kingdom which need some kind of background understanding for the reader. But they are presented nicely in the appropriate subsections.--] (]) 02:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd be okay with image 6. ] ] 01:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The JW's are well-known for believing in the 144,000 thing. That's not at issue. However, it would be interesting to explore what scholars have to say about the significance of that number ''as a number''. The Bible in general, and Revelation in particular, are filled with numbers that appear over and over again - 3's and 7's and 10's and 12's and such as that. Numerology was kind of a quasi-religion in itself, well-known to the Jews and early Christians, and by no means confined to those groups. Surely someone must have done a study on ''why'' the number 144,000 would have conveyed some special meaning to the readers of Revelation? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:06, 31 January 2012 (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) | |||
| == bible students == | |||
| ::@] Much appreciated ] (]) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent edit == | |||
| "Thousands of defections occurred in the first decade of Rutherford's administration, leading to the formation of several Bible Student organizations independent of the Watch Tower Society, many of which still exist. By mid-1919, about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society. One contemporary record claimed that between late 1923 and early 1927, "20,000 to 30,000 Truth people the world over have left the Society." William Schnell, author and former Witness, claimed that three quarters of the Bible Students who had been associating in 1921 had left by 1931. Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large"." | |||
| {{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. | |||
| I don't understand why paster Russel is so desperate in injecting more sentences on the number of people withdrawn from the religion. I don't think such a long explanation is needed at all. Perhaps a single sentence stating that only a few remained and all others left would suffice. I do not think any witness editor would argue against this fact, given many witnesses' are proud that quality is much important than quantity for God. --] (]) 02:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The article certainly should not be used as a soapbox about other groups derived from the Bible Student movement, as such would not be neutral. However, the text you've quoted covers a very significant period of the development of JWs as a unique group following the leadership dispute of the Bible Student movement in 1917. For ''at least'' the last 60 years, JW literature has not even acknowledged that other 'Bible Student' groups still ''exist'', and frequently claims that 'Bible Students' is just a former name used only by JWs—and this, also, is not neutral. I therefore think that the existing text is suitable.--] (]) 09:16, 31 January 2012 (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. | |||
| ::I agree that there is a danger of soapbox creeping in when the point is labored. I have turned P.S.L. Johnson's observations on the comparatively brief 1923-7 period into a footnote, leaving in the main text two better indicators of the levels of defections: (1) the initial 1919 tally, showing the immediate impact of Rutherford's coup and the divisive pamphlet war; and (2) Schnell's figures that cover the entire decade from 1921-31. ] (]) 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I have no issues with the other changes. ] ] 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Still I think its little bit exaggeration (Thousands of defections? ) and more than deserved --] (]) 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are multiple sources that show that tens of thousands left. Why would you suggest it's an exaggeration when you haven't looked at the figures? ] (]) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}}JW statistics in the first half of the 20th century ], but they waxed far more than they waned... It does seem remarkably odd that this article's current section on ]'s ] includes a handful of dramatic claims about so-called "defections" from the religion (JWs ] IBSA) but the section ''never'' mentions that the number of adherents '''''grew six-fold''''' during the same time. I'll try to find time to perform edits which are obviously needed in light of the section's existing imbalance. You know, a related article (]) does a similarly effective job of hiding the fact that the religion's adherent count increased dramatically during Rutherford's tenure, and does its hiding by creatively including only-those-statistics which give the reader a mistaken impression. Here is what it says there: | |||
| <small>Bible Students' yearly Memorial fell sharply again, dropping from 90,434 in 1925 to 17,380 in 1928. Rutherford dismissed their defection as the Lord "shaking out" the unfaithful. ...Under Rutherford, Jehovah's Witnesses grew from about 44,000 in 1928 to about 115,000 at the time of his death on January 8, 1942.</small> | |||
| That makes it ''seem'' as though the article fairmindedly concedes that during Rutherford's tenure the adherent count increased about 260%, while the actual increase is more like 660%. It seems unencylopedic for that article and this to cherry-pick particular years or not-comparable statistics. The actual statistics of IBSA/JW Memorial attendances are 1917:21,274 and 1942:140,450.<br> | |||
| --] (]) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that the article should note the huge increase that took place before Rutherford's death. The sentence ''Rutherford himself stated in 1930 that the number of those who had withdrawn from the Society was "comparatively large"'' is still laboring the point about defections and I'll remove that now. The big increase in adherents is accurately and fairly treated in ] and also appears in the intro at ]. I don't know why you think the article hides the increase in the History article: it's clearly stated. ] (]) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (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. | |||
| == Reinstatement in lead section == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ] has twice inserted the words "and reinstatement" to the section in the lead section that reads "Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning." He explains the addition with the edit summary "highlighting only disfellowshipping is not nuetral". | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Reference to reinstatement in the lead section is unnecessary and to suggest that its absence creates bias is utter nonsense. It is certainly notable that the JWs have an elaborate judicial system to punish members. Their system of organised shunning of former members, including the refusal to speak to family members, has attracted controversy in the media and in published books, so it's appropriate that the article contain reference to it, and that a brief mention of this distinctive feature be included in the lead section. It is not, however, an important feature that in certain circumstances the religion also ''removes'' the punishment it has imposed. The article does note in the body of the text that "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by elders ..." and that is sufficient. It is certainly not so important that it needs coverage in the article summary. | |||
| 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) | |||
| It is also inaccurate and meaningless to say that "congregational discplinary actions include ... reinstatement". Reinstatement is not a disciplinary action. I will remove the words "and reinstatement" again. Please do not reinstate those words again; discuss the issue here first. ] (]) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (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.—] <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">|</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">|</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) | |||
| :As probably a dissasociated former member your bias and discomfort is understandable. It is not correct to say that JW's follow military like discipline. Some dissatisfied apostates of the religion who dedicate their lives to portray disfellowshipping as cruel makes a lot of prejudice on internet. Since JWs are generally not responsive to negative criticism (because they are taught to win evil by their good conduct) this misconception have became widespread. Every new witness have made an informed choice in this regard. They clearly know that they will be disfellowshipped from the congregation if they persistently involve in immoral and unbiblical actions.(according to JWs interpretations). Therefore disfellowshipping is not a surprising thing to them. And witnesses believe that disfellowshipping is a actually a kind of love shown (just like a father disciplines his child) to the unrepentant sinner to help him to come back to senses. Also they are taught that this will help the church clean from immoral influence. However elders do visit yearly the disfellowshipped individuals to help them to come back. An old report (which was before present in this article) showed that about half of the disfellowshipped persons were reinstated later on a particular period. Hence it is an important part of congregational discipline. Therefore highlighting only the one side of the coin at the lead is a clear violation of neutrality. It is also noticeable that the fact JWs are persecuted around the world is also missing in the lead.(which is more known than disfellowshipping). I am not unreasonable and I would appreciate independent editor comments--] (]) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (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 discussion is not about the rights and wrongs of shunning; nor is your interpretation of the figures on reinstatements correct. Your suggested wording is wrong and there is no need to include in the summary that shunning injunctions are sometimes lifted. ] (]) 01:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fazilfazil's claim that negative comments about disfellowshipping are merely a beat-up by 'apostates' is simply untrue. Various newspapers have reported on articles in JW literature that promote the bizarre practice of shunning. Indeed, even an ''Awake!'' article said that shunning is cruel (when it is done by ''other'' groups), and stated that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." Awake! 2009 July p.29) Additionally, it is not the case that all JW necessarily make a fully reasoned and informed choice before baptism. Many, primarily children of JW parents, feel pressured to get baptised; articles have appeared in Watch Tower Society literature 'encouraging' children of JW parents not to put off baptism, even if they're worried that might subsequently commit a 'serious sin'.--] (]) 03:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Be that as it may, this is not the point of the discussion. Fazilfazil has claimed that without adding that reinstatements sometimes occur, the article is not neutral. (He took that opportunity to make a personal attack, accusing me of bias and "discomfort" as well on the sole basis that I left the religion. I'd prefer he just addressed the content and left his prejudices and assumptions out of this). Using the same logic, the lead section should also say that (a) some JWs decline to do door-to-door preaching because they don't see the point of it and don't like it; (b) many do celebrate birthdays privately in defiance of the official teaching; and (c) some Witnesses do have a wide circle of "worldly" (non-JW) friends despite the warning about the influence of "bad associations". The lead section, or summary, highlights '''in brief''' the most distinctive features of the article's subject. '''Detail''' on the subject is contained further down the article. The practice of punishing and shunning is a '''distinctive trait'''; the fact that they sometimes withdraw that punishment later is a '''detail'''. ] (]) 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I just don't understand why you two editors are zealously opposing a single word ''reinstatement'' in the lead section. My opinions were based on my honest observations and I believe that its not neutral to only highlight shunning in the lead. Please don't take it emotionally. I Suggest the following minor change. {{quote|Congregational discipline include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning, and reinstatement.}} I have raised a RFC --] (]) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (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.) | |||
| ==RfC: Reinstatement in lead section== | |||
| ::::::::'' 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) | |||
| {{rfc|reli|rfcid=3E1ABE9}} | |||
| :::::::::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) | |||
| Please read the above discussion and give your valuable input. Is mentioning the word 'reinstatement' regarding congregational discipline in the lead section relevant to the article? ] (]) 14:49, 6 February 2012 (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". ] ] 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The matter was resolved months ago, so no new comments are really needed. Editors may recall that this article was approaching ] in July 2011, and the lede's discussion of disfellowshipping and reinstatement was a matter than had to be and was resolved ().<br> | |||
| :<small>] include '']'', their term for formal expulsion and ]. Members who formally leave are considered ''disassociated'' and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may eventually be reinstated if they request it.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit|journal=The Watchtower|date=April 15, 1988|page=31}}</ref></small><br> | |||
| :I have --] (]) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi, I'm not familiar with this article, or enormously familiar with JWs. I was attracted here by the ]. But I am staggered that something as banal as excommunication is considered worthy of the lede. Is there '''anything''' distinctive about JW excommunication practices from any other church - RC, Lutheran, etc.- other than this church's terminology is different (as indeed RC differs from Lutheran)? All churches discipline, all churches temporarily exclude from communion, the practice dates from 1 Co 5. None of the, few, WP:RS in this article or the section on JWs in ] demonstrate anything distinctive other than a localised terminology. Remove from lede, not notable/distinctive. ] (]) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::The JWs pride themselves on a strict judicial system aimed at "keeping the congregation clean". I know of no mainstream religion that pursues "wrongdoers", including those who dissent from official teachings, quite as vigorously, to the point that family members are forbidden to speak to the ousted individual -- for life, if they do not "repent". As the article notes, even those who choose to formally resign from the religion are organisationally shunned; this too attracts a lifetime punishment of shunning. The practice of disfellowshipping and shunning has attracted much criticism and is the subject of several sociological studies. It is certainly notable and certainly worth inclusion in the lead. There are multiple sources cited in both the "Disciplinary action" and "Criticism" sections, supporting its notability and distinctiveness. ] (]) 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you haven't tried to convert to a non-islamic religion in Iran, Somalia or rural Afghanistan. Or to JW in Jalisco. Or to any protstant religion in Chamula, Chiapas.]·] 00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, you've got me there, Maunus. So OK, ''excluding'' the hardline Islamists of Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan who cheerfully behead those who stray from their flocks, and the Catholic defenders of Jalisco and Chaula, the JWs are still notable for punishing defectors and "sinners" by refusing to speak to them again (and writing almost dejectedly how the law no longer allows stoning for defectors). Among "Christians", that conduct is certainly unusual. ] (]) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What is "usual"depends on time and place - and it is pretty much universal for communities to practice some kind of punishment of individuals who reject core values of a community (it is also likely universal that minority groups practice a stricter discipline for rejecting core values than majority groups). Think of coming out as gay in a presbyterian family in Alabama, telling your hippie parents that you've decided to become a wall street broker, or your amish community that you liked the city better, or your hassid rabbi that you've decided to get a divorce from your husband to focus n your cown career. All of those actions are bound to have negative social consequences for the indvidual - quite likely including shunning. The reason this is notable for JWs is that it has received a lot of attention in the sources - and because JW gives it a lot of attention themselves in how they formulate their rules. Not because it is inherently unusual for christians. So my point is that it should be mentioned an included - but not exoticized.]·] 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I hear you. Hippie parents may well turn their back on their stockbroker son. The critical distinction here is that this is an organisational shunning: members are ''directed'' to shun certain individuals; those who defy the direction are themselves subject to punishment. I'm not sure what exoticizing the issue is, but we agree that it should be mentioned. Which it is. ] (]) 01:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::By exoticizing I mean framing the practice as if it is "exotic" or "unusual" compared to some implicit standard of what is "normal". So yes, mention the practices matter of factly is wht we should aim for - then we can give mre attention to the specific problems of JW shunning practices in the controversy section.]·] 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}}Thanks. Okay, so what, BlackCab, as I understand it, you are saying is that the mechanism of excommunication/restoral may well be exactly the same as other conservative Christian churches, '''but''' there are 3rd NPOV WP:RS which demonstrate that ] is a more systematic practice among JWs than e.g. "treat as a tax collector or publican" etc of Catholics and other Protestants. On the face of it, I'd be prepared to accept this on the basis that some of the refs in the relevant para in this main article and the linkthrough ] article do appear to be NPOV WP:RS. What I'm not sure yet, as I've only glanced at a couple of sources, is whether the NPOV sources really make a good case for JWs being notably distinctive on compared to conservative Bible Belt examples. I'm wondering if ] and ] need to applied more in these sections. Prima facie these sources also show JWs using family members to recover excommunicated members, just as Catholics and other Protestants do. So how strict is this rule not to talk to the excommunicated? ] (]) 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no need to compare to some arbitrarily chosen example or standard (especially not unless we have a very good RS that does that). We should just use RS to describe the practice and any notable criticisms of the practice.]·] 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Note, after writing above I just noticed the quotation marks, " " on ''Among "Christians", that conduct is certainly unusual.'' BlackCab (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC) - that raises my eyebrow. Is the point that JWs are not "Christian" because they practise shunning? Or are the quotation marks because they are already not "Christian" for some other(?) reason? ] (]) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am fairy sure that Blackcab does not oppose defining JW as christin and she meant that most mainstream denominations do not practice regulated shunning as JW do (which of course depends on one's definition of mainstream).]·] 03:52, 10 February 2012 (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.--] <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) | |||
| == JW and homosexuality == | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| According to the section «Ethics and morality» homosexuality is considered as a serious sin. It could be limits in my English knowledges, and the Norwgian article of same subject «Homofili» is fooling me, but I have to make a comment here anyway: I do not have any refs by hand, but as far as I know, JW separates actions from orientation, whitch meens homosexuality is not considered as a sin as far as it isn't practiced. (because homosexuality is or could be the sexual orientation rather than performed action?) ] (]) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (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) | |||
| :You are right that JW do not consider the orientation but the practice to be a sin.]·] 23:59, 9 February 2012 (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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:23, 23 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. |
|
| 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. |
 | Please 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. |
 | Jehovah'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. | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||
| |||
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)
- Also
- Anyways, I think this edit should resolve your concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:21, 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":
- "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)
- @Rhododendrites: Yeah, a higher quality option would be nice and what I'd be looking for. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:18, 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)
- 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 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)
- @Clovermoss Alright, I see. Thanks, Clover Daddynnoob (talk) 02:39, 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)
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)
-
An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2)
-
Another door-to-door image (option 3)
-
The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4)
-
The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5)
-
The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6)
-
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)
- @Clovermoss I see Daddynnoob (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be okay with image 6. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:45, 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'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)
- Are you alright with this change? I'm hoping it'll satisfy us both. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:34, 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 theand 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- I'll reiterate that what I said above:
- 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 asThe 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)
- I used "religious group" because there are varying definitions of what Jehovah's Witnesses are (expanded upon in the history section which says
- 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
- 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.)
- 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
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- GA-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
- Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- GA-Class New religious movements articles
- Top-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report