Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:12, 19 July 2013 editCorjay (talk | contribs)416 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:54, 18 January 2025 edit undoJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,676 edits →Lead sentence 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}} {{Talk header}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Calm}}
{{not a forum}} {{not a forum}}
{{American English}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR |action1=PR
Line 22: Line 24:
|action3oldid=257166622 |action3oldid=257166622


|action4=GAN | action4 = GAN
|action4date=02:49, 31 July 2011 | action4date = 13:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
|action4link=Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1 | action4link = /GA1
|action4result=listed | action4result = listed
|action4oldid=442290939 | 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 |class=GA |importance=Top {{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=Top|NRM=yes |NRMImp=Top}}
{{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 = 300K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 59 |counter = 67
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d) |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=weeks |search=yes |root=Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses |auto=yes |index=/Archive index}}

== Candace Conti-case ==

The Candace Conti-case was added to the "Handling of sexual abuse cases"-section. I removed the whole thing. It ''could'' be relevant, and an eventually Supreme Court case would out of question make the case on it's own relevant, but the edit didn't include Misplaced Pages standards when listing up sources, used outdated sources (the punitive damages was by the court heavily reduced), failed to mention the case is appealed, and added a conclusion that needs a reference at it's own. ] (]) 08:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
:This case should definitively be there, with the latest news. Could someone put it back and update it? --] (]) 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
::I have restored and cleaned up the paragraph. The court documents are a matter of public record.--] (]) 10:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
:::You did it quickly and well. Thanks! --] (]) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
:I still have doubts this case is relevant to the main article about JW. Despite the media attention: The relevance for the statements is probably limited to a final result in Watchtower Inc's disfavor; otherwise this will just be another failed suit. If the case is settled or ends up in plaintiffs disfavor, it is just one of many cases. Or am I completely wrong? ] (]) 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
::Grrahnbahr, I think it's ok to speak about this case here, as it's quite recent, widely covered by the press and a very good example to illustrate the problem caused by the "internal justice" of the JW. --] (]) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes, was meant as an open question what to be counted as relevant to this topics main article. Actually I disagree on this to be "a very good example to illustrate the problem caused by the 'internal justice' of the JW", because the core in this case is a) weather Watchtower Inc. followed the laws when the molesting found place ''twenty years ago'' (plaintiffs point), and b) whether Watchtower Inc. is responsible for the actions of a random raf-member (defense's point), and not about JW's current practice. The case itself is raising interesting issues, but it is misleading to use the case to prove a vague (and easily disproved) point about criticism of JW's ''current'' practice regarding child sex abuse. ] (]) 18:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
::::This is ]. I am at office and forgot my login, so using a radom username to hide my IP. User:jeffro77 has reverted some of the edits of mine claiming that the amount was reduced based on an appeal. An appeal is only made to a higher court, the verdict was reduced by a motion. A motion is just a legal procedure followed widely in the same court. The initial verdict was given by a jury based on sheet of paper as directed by the Judge. However the Judge is the final authority in a lower court and he did found the amount as too much. Also the reason for giving damage is primarily for WT soceity not disclosing the voluntary confession by the member. The statement added after "or" in that para is not correct, since they are not required to report as per law and its not found in judgment. (This case will turnaround most likely from a legal perspective and plaintiff might need to pay the legal expense at last. Much hype is made by apostates but history says JWs have very few instances of anybody winning a case again them regarding the subject. And the possibility of they losing financially is much less since most corporations take liability insurance.) I am no longer interested in reverting edits but if any honest editors find it useful they can contribute. More information regarding the subject is found at recent argument in Australia. Thanks
:::::I have made a minor change in relation to your objection based on semantics. Your use of the word ''primarily'' is not pertinent, as concerns about disclosure to authorities is an aspect specifically presented in the case. Your speculation about what might happen is irrelevant.--] (]) 14:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::It is not clear how the submission to the ''Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other organisations'' in Australia is relevant to the Conti case, nor does the submission itself contain any conclusions reached by the Australian inquiry.--] (]) 14:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::Your infatuation with the JW buzzword "apostates" is noted, but is irrelevant.--] (]) 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::Your comment about "WT soceity not disclosing the voluntary confession by the member" implies that the finding is a violation of clergy-penitent privilege, however this is misleading for two reasons, both raised in the court case:
:::::#JWs supposedly ''have no clergy class''.
:::::#Confessions by members to 'elders' are '''not''' kept confidential, but are revealed to other elders, and other personnel at Watch Tower headquarters including the Society's lawyers who act in the interests of ''the Watch Tower Society'' and not the ''penitent'' or the ''victim''.
:::::The claim that 'apostates' raise 'hype' is also not supported by the suggestion that JWs have not often been found guilty, which more likely is a factor of information that is withheld by the Watch Tower Society from law enforcement personnel, also borne out by this case.--] (]) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

== Note 2 is a controversial third party critical opinion ==

{{resolved}}
Note 2 is the critical opinion and commentary of a third party. It does not belong on this page as a note or otherwise. It belongs on the page dedicated to the ]. If there is a WTB&TS article to be cited, then cite it, instead of citing a third party's opinion. --] (]) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:Franz cites Watch Tower publications, which form the majority of the 'note'. Additionally, Misplaced Pages articles should not rely on ].--] (]) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::I find this to be biased and inflammatory. Is there nothing against such critical citations as "reliable sources", especially when it comes to disaffected ex-compatriots who are known for twisting the facts to suit their agenda of opposition? The only thing it can be counted on as reliable in regards to is demonstrating that a controversial criticism exists. You might as well include a third-grader's report on the Civil War with dinosaurs and rocket ships.--] (]) 05:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I have simplified the note. Your analogy about a third grader bears no resemblance to a former high-ranking member of an organisation. In any case (and as already stated), the note is (and was) a collection of statements by the Watch Tower Society collated by Franz.--] (]) 05:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Correction, the original note referencing Franz was him providing an inflammatory claim suggesting not only the frequency, but the effect of that frequency. Thank you for the adjustment. --] (]) 05:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

== Note 4 is a controversial third party critical opinion ==

{{resolved}}
As with note 2, this is a third party critical opinion and commentary belonging on the ] page. If there is a WTB&TS article to be cited, then cite it, instead of citing a third party's opinion.--] (]) 05:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:Note 4 is in reference to the ''Failed predictions'' section under ''Criticism''. It is therefore unsurprising that it includes a ''critical opinion''. It is properly cited as such. It is unsurprising that a note about ''criticism'' of JWs does not cite ''a JW publication''.--] (]) 05:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::I just realized this was already posted in the right section. Sorry for the trouble. --] (]) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

== Opinion of Andrew Holden not a fact ==

The words "although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible" is an opinion and may be considered inflammatory. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I most certainly do not give the publications "almost as much weight as the Bible." That may be the view of an outside observer, but it is not fact. It is conjecture not shared by the membership. The membership's sole guiding publication is the Bible itself. We heed the publications of the WTB&TS as coming from shepherds with divine backing, not divine inspiration. I'm fine with the statement being in criticism, but seeing as it is not established as true, it does not belong in the Beliefs section. The publications are published by fallible men with an accounting to God and reflect the errors of men from time to time, if rarely, and the membership is kexpected not to contradict and also to speak in agreement, that does not mean they must always believe every word without question as is implied by the above statement. There are channels for airing disagreements through the elders, or through a letter to the WTB&TS, and we are instructed to wait on Jehovah to correct either us personally or the organization eventually. --] (]) 05:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:The fact that someone can 'air disagreements' is slightly irrelevant when the outcome is that the person must then <s>'wait on Jehovah'</s> accept the current Watch Tower Society teaching anyway. Members may be shunned if they don't shut up after being told to 'wait on Jehovah'.
:JW literature does not endorse members just going directly to the Bible for 'counsel'. Instead, members are told to consult the interpretations provided in publications of the Watch Tower Society (euphemistically identified as the "faithful and discreet slave"). For example:
:*''The Watchtower'', 15 May 2011, page 5: "If you allow your decisions to be guided by what you read in the Scriptures and in publications of “the faithful and discreet slave,” you will experience the refreshing and stabilizing influence of Jehovah’s inspired Word."
:*''The Watchtower'', 15 August 2011, page 30: "Before they make judgments respecting fellow believers, elders need to pray for the help of Jehovah’s spirit and depend on its guidance by consulting God’s Word and the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class."
:*''The Watchtower'', 15 February 2012, page 27: "When facing a challenge, it is important to seek Scriptural counsel from publications of the faithful and discreet slave class and from the elders."
:*''The Watchtower'', 15 April 2012, page 30: "One way we can benefit from Jehovah’s loving direction is through personal study. By means of the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, Jehovah provides a wealth of Scriptural counsel."
:*''The Watchtower'', 15 July 2012, page 26: "Each of us does well to ask himself, ‘Do I immediately apply everything I read in the Bible and in the publications of the faithful and discreet slave class, even when it requires making personal sacrifices?’"
:It is therefore clear that JWs are expected to adhere to what is taught in Watch Tower Society publications, and not just the Bible.--] (]) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::The statement make it clear that it is the observation, and viewpoint, of Holden. Your comments are loaded with JW jargon supporting the unquestioned acceptance of WTS dogma and your viewpoint is no more "fact" than his. He's a ] and his comment is valid. ] (]) 07:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Corjay, you may be one of the very very few that doesn't take an almost dogmatic view of what's in the publications. It's pretty much implied that you have too, I have never rad any publication that implies otherwise. ] (]) 07:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Those quotes only show that we get our direction from the publications. As you say, "adhere to what is taught". None of those claim the publications to be direct extrabiblical inspirations by God, which would be required in order for it to be taken as the "almost equal to the Bible". If a pastor of any religion tells you "The Scripture says...", does that mean the pastor's word is to be taken as the "almost equal to the Bible", or is he simply quoting the Bible and it is the Bible that is looked to as the inspiration? That is all the publications are doing. They are shepherding us by means of them, just as if with a talk. Nothing more. Inspiration can only be determined when a truth, such as the fact that the Bible doesn't teach hellfire or the Trinity, continues to stand tall through increasing understanding. In the far future, it may be determined that this and that publication from the organization proved to be the inspired word of God, but we can't make that claim at this time when we're still in the midst of receiving it. We can only take it as direction, as instruction, as guidance as coming from a shepherd, as from a person giving a talk. --] (]) 08:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

:::::Let me use an example, JW's don't watch rated R movies. It's defacto not allowed, why because of things like "Young People Ask", likewise nothing in the Bible says anything about holidays. Why are these not allowed? Because the society says they aren't, what would happen if one of the congregation members celebrated Thanksgiving, or some other holiday? They would be considered "bad association" and not allowed to take part in certain parts of that organization. I respect the fact that you choose to live by that religion but when the publications say something it is presented as defacto edicts, similar to papal bulls. ] (]) 08:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::(edit conflict) Holden didn't say anything about the publications being "inspired" (an ill-defined and unprovable term) or that the publications are "equal to the Bible". Those are irrelevant conclusions you're making on your own.--] (]) 08:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

::::::I never said he did, but it's required to put our publications on the same footing as the Bible.

::::::All religious organizations have written precepts, without exception. Let's look at the statement "almost equal". It's a writing. It's scriptural. And it's spiritual. Technically any writing that follows that criteria could be called "almost equal to the Bible" because it's using the Bible. But to call it out as if we're somehow unique in that matter is unfair. What religious organization doesn't have writings with the same status that we give to our publications? So to call it out with us and not them is to imply that we are somehow sinning. Why are we somehow special in that regard? --] (]) 08:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm drastically mistaken or missing something, no other religion I'm aware of makes such a wide range and vast publishing efforts that the Watchtower society does. Maybe Scientology, and Mormonism. That makes it pretty unique. ] (]) 08:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024 ==
:Precisely! Do you not think that the sheer volume of our publications demonstrates that we take the medium for granted, not as one would for something as sacred as the Bible? We easily put down and disregard out-of-date publications. I should say that's a clear demonstration that we don't hold our publications in near so comparison to the Bible. --] (]) 09:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::This is also different because when you go door to door, you aren't just taking the bible you are taking a watchtower and awake, tract or special brochure. You will pull a bible out to show some vs but the meat and potatoes is the publications. ] (]) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::You actually think we use the publications that way because we hold them "almost equal to the Bible"? They are preaching tools. Pamphleted sermons. So when someone writes down a sermon it's automatically counted "almost equal to the Bible"? I don't think so. Whether I speak a prepared sermon or hand out a pamphlet with a sermon on it, it's still just a sermon. A sermon that directs the student to the Bible and instructs the student with the Bible and about the Bible, not in the publication itself. --] (]) 09:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Also, the publications aren't the "meat and potatoes". The Bible is the meat and potatoes. The publications are merely the utincils used to cut it up and make it edible in small, digestible bites.


{{edit semi-protected|Jehovah's Witnesses|answered=yes}}
::::I know they are, without a doubt. 1914 is a good example, nothing in the bible says 1914 it says the "end will come as a thief in the night". The publications state it was the date that Christ came back and is taught as ]. ] (]) 09:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
In the first paragraph under "Background" I believe that the statement "the fleshly return of Jesus Christ" should be changed to something more neutral like "the physical return" or "the corporeal return". ] (]) 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
: {{done}} I think all these variations are neutral, but I changed it to "physical return" because that sounds less archaic. ] ] 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


== Japan section ==
:::That's unfair to the onlookers, and you know it. That's well-explained in the publication, Daniel's Prophecy, and it uses ample Scripture references to explain it. We don't just claim "1914" as if we pulled it out of thin air as inspiration from God. We use the Bible to show it and well so. EVERY Christian sect attempts to explain prophecy. There's not one that doesn't. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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)
::::But the key is that the publications are used to state this as fact, therefore any good witness will agree. ] (]) 09:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


:'''Update''': I believe I have fixed this. ] ] 19:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::So now I'm not "a good witness" because you failed to prove your point, and every "good witness" would agree with you because you declare it? I think this discussion is over. --] (]) 09:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


== About all my recent edits ==
:::::I'm sorry what was meant is any good witness ''would'' agree. it's meant to prove a point how it is conveyed in the publications not towards you personally. ] (]) 09:22, 18 July 2013 (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)
::::::There's no difference. The discussion has ended. --] (]) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


:Kudos to you—great progress! ] ] 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So you are conceding the point you were trying to make? ] (]) 09:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::It's definitely been time consuming. I think I've spent about twenty hours on this in the past week? ] ] 11:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to {{u|Jeffro77}} as well because you're the main other editor in this topic area and I'd want to make sure you're okay with these changes before I'd go leaping into FAC. I think I've done a lot of good work here, but a second eyes on some of the more complicated theology concepts is always appreciated. I could send a copy of specific pages I'm citing over email if that'd help. Of course you're not obligated to do anything, but I do know that you've been pretty enthusiastic about JW articles for years so I figured you might appreciate the offer. ] ] 04:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Misinformation on "shunning" ==
::::::You're dangerously close to harassment. Go any further with it and I'll report you. --] (]) 09:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually this is called discussion but if you feel strongly you can file that report here ], don't forget to notify me when you're done. ] (]) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (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."
:::::::This is not resolved. Please don't put the resolved note on this until it is. --] (]) 09:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::So you are willing to discuss it? ] (]) 09:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


This information is incorrect. I grew up in a JW household where my sister was disfellowshipped not disassociated and where I as an unbaptized JW was able to become "inactive" but not "shunned".
:::::::I never said I wasn't. Just don't pull any of that concession talk again. I've countered every point you made. If you have more, I'm glad to discuss it, as long as you don't rehash old points or harass me with concession talk. --] (]) 09:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Corjay, 1914 is not 'clearly explained from the Bible', nor did you get it "from thin air". It's a convoluted interpretation borrowed and adapted ''from the Millerites'' (mid-19th century) based on a bunch of cherry-picking of unrelated scriptures that can 'only be understood' by 'studying publications from the faithful slave'. In fact, you've had defend it ''by citing a Watch Tower Society publication'', which well demonstrates the point Holden made that you are arguing about..--] (]) 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::And your opinion matters how? Question: Have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever read the publication in question? --] (]) 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::My opinion matters at least as much as yours does, except that your conclusions about Holden's statements are of your own imagination and are not what is stated in the article. Your other questions are irrelevant attempts at ''ad hominem''.--] (]) 09:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Discussion is not harassment, if you quit discussing it, that means that you were conceding that no changes will be made. If you still want to discuss then it isn't resolved. Do you have any sources that can show your point of view? You have countered every argument but without reliable sources it's only opinion. Also to answer your question, yes I was. I have participated in many events and given several talks as well as going out in field service. I even still read the publications and I absolutely love the dramas. I have a lot of respect for the people that choose that lifestyle, it's not an easy one. ] (]) 09:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


The correct information is this:
::::::Actually, Jeffro, they are particularly relevant. First: If you are a disaffected witness, then you are the LAST person that should be editing the Jehovah's Witness page because you CANNOT be objective. Only a person who has NEVER been a Witness and is NOT involved with an organization that opposes Jehovah's Witnesses can actually be objective. Secondly, if you are an ex-Jehovah's Witness or pretending to be a Jehovah's Witnesses, I will refuse to speak with you any further, as you should know, as it is mentioned on the page.
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/
::::::And it is important that if you have a comment on how we explain a prophecy, you need to be familiar with the prophecy. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air that means nothing.


Here is a link to disassociating on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/
::::::Mine are not opinions. Mine is insider knowledge. I AM one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which qualifies me to speak on the matter. You are not.


Here is a link to inactive members https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201987404?q=inactive&p=doc
::::::Hell in a Bucket, I'm not speaking to you any further. That's not concession. That's being worn of you. And since you admit to be an ex-witness, for that reason alone I will not speak to you any further. No concession. --] (]) 09:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not interested in superstitions about JW members being scared of talking to former members. I'm only interested in improving the article.
:::::::If you are a witness, then you are the LAST person that should be editing the Jehovah's Witness page because you CANNOT be objective. Only a person who has NEVER been a Witness and is NOT involved with an organization that supports Jehovah's Witnesses can actually be objective. (See what I did there...)--] (]) 10:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Your statement exemplifies why we can't accept what you are stating. It's Original Research. Your statement also exemplifies why you shouldn't be in this discussion either, you're nuetrality is questionable just as you want to impugn Jeffro's. you can't cherry pick who is acceptable to work here and who isn't ] (]) 10:03, 18 July 2013 (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.
::::::::Jeffro77, I have not been editing the page and will make no attempt to. I am making an appeal for a qualified person to make the edit. You have edited this night. I'm in a discussion on the talk page about editing the page. There is nothing that disqualifies any of us from being able to participate in this discussion. But since Hell in a Basket is an ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, I will speak to him no further. Your refusal to answer the question of whether you are an ex-Jehovah's Witness is to me an answer in the affirmative, therefore, I will cease speaking with you about the organization or spiritual matters as well. (If you have never been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, then we can continue to tal.) That includes any further discussion on this page. Elsewhere about non-spiritual matters affecting a different page is a different story. If you have never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then it is because you hold such strong feelings regarding Jehovah's Witnesses that disqualifies you for lack of objectivity. --] (]) 10:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you. ] (]) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Corjay, you have something of a problem. I'd suggest that most people with sufficient interest to edit and improve this article do so because of an interest in the subject, probably because they are, or were, a JW. I am intensely interested in maintaining the standard of the article as an accurate and reliable information source and I am an ex-JW, and rely on Misplaced Pages policies to protect its integrity. Your religion's edict (found nowhere in the Bible) that JWs should not speak to ex-JWs creates rather a barrier to your interaction on this talk page. ] (]) 10:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Corjay, I will discuss wherever discussion happens to lead. As prevously stated, I'm not remotely interested in superstitions about who you can talk to and about what.--] (]) 10:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


:{{ping|Number1Foodie}} There already is a distinction made between disfellowshipping and diassociation (that's why it says "formally leave", but I realize that this may be unclear so I will change it to "leave voluntarily"). As an encyclopedia, ] sources like jw.org are discouraged. ] that are independent of the religious group are what is meant to be cited, which is what is used here. ]s are also not considered to be reliable. ] ] 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I just have one comment to this case: I've pointed out the initial issue mentioned by ] in an earlier discussion here on the talk page. In the Norwegian article I've included some kind of "rebuff" to the statement, as Rolf J. Furuli, who is a scholar (dr.) and a JW himself, had some interesting and colliding viewpoints, as it is mentioned in "his" section of ''Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie'' ("Jehovas Witnesses - An interdisciplinary study"), edited by Ringnes: "When critics therefore argue that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in 'the Bible and the Watchtower', as if the two were juxtaposed, this shows a lack of knowledge about Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 161, in Norwegian) Furuli spend some room explaining the context between the Bible and Watchtower.
::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? ==
Regarding JWs/ex-JWs participating here, you can't oppose or deny someone in participating here, as long as contribution to the article is the purpose. You can though point out possible biases in this and related articles, like you've done here. ] (]) 12:43, 18 July 2013 (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)
:May I just ask a question? What happens when the Bible says A and the Watchtower's publications say B? In that case, can a Witness go against the Watchtower unbiblical teaching and still be considered a JW? If not, then the WT's publications are really considered as having an equal value as the Bible itself. --] (]) 12:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


:Courtesy ping to {{u|JethAgape}}. ] ] 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::I just reverted the last change that started a new discussion because this is directly related to the about the overall question about the Holden statement. ] (]) 13:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


== Lead image ==
:::I've anyway prepared an answear out of the same quote from Ringnes' book and my knowledge about JW. I think it is within this talks scope: ChercheTrouve asks the question like it is A as opposed to B. The example above, about R-rated movies, shows A as an option to B, but unlike neccessery being the opposition. The JW interpretation of this example, is made out of for them a logical line of reasoning, where the Bible says God hates the one who loves violence, and therefor a true servant for God should not be the one who loves violence. If violence and enterteinment is connected, is a comletely other issue, but JW believes the advices given by GB complies to Bible teaching. Whether A is opposing B is more likely a question about what the witnesses believes, rather than doing A in opposition to B. Furuli writes: "Each witness' relation to the Governing Body is comparable to Norwegian citizens relation to the government. The government is obliged to follow Norwegian laws, and when regulations are being issued, we ''expect'' that they comply with the laws. (...) Similarly Jehovah's Witnesses ''expect'' that the Governing Body's organization of the congregations and their teaching program is fully consistent with the Bible and in the best interests for each of the individual members. But in the same way as the Norwegian law is standing over the Norwegian Government, the Bible stands over the Governing Body."


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)
:::That reads like a yes and no answer. Can you be a little more concise or am I just that dense lol? ] (]) 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) Perhaps something has been lost from the translation from Norwegian, but the intended meaning of the claim that 'the Bible and the Watchtower' are not "juxtaposed" is not clear, and doesn't seem directly related to Holden's statement. Watch Tower Society literature provides the JW leaders' ''interpretations of scriptures'', including some abstruse interpretations about matters that are ''not directly mentioned in the Bible''. I already provided quotes above from Watch Tower Society literature that convey the importance with which JWs are told to view Watch Tower Society publications.
::::Regarding ChercheTrouve's question, in most cases it is not as simple as "the Bible says A and the Watchtower's publications say B", but more akin to "the Bible says A and Watchtower's publications conclude that A ''also means'' XYZ." However, there are also cases (as with many religions) that it is more a case of "the Bible says A but the Watchtower says the Bible 'really means' B". In both situations, JWs are expected to accept what is published in Watch Tower Society publications.
::::For example, in 1968, Watch Tower Society literature provided ''interpretations from the Bible'' that organ transplants amount to "cannibalism", and JWs who accepted an organ transplant could be subject to shunning (''Awake!'', June 8, 1968, page 21: "Christian witnesses of Jehovah,... consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism.") In 1980, Watch Tower Society literature again provided ''interpretations from the Bible'' that organ transplants are acceptable, and that equating them with canniablism was only the view of "some Christians" (''The Watchtower'', March 15, 1980, page 31). (The 1 August ''1961'' issue of ''The Watchtower'' had previously also stated that organ transplants ''were permitted'', but did not cite any scriptures for or against the procedure.) Though the Bible says ''nothing at all'' about organ transplants, in each case all JWs were required to accept what was published. Hence Holden's statement about Watch Tower Society publications being given "almost as much weight as the Bible" is accurate.--] (]) 13:32, 18 July 2013 (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)
:::::The answer was already given in the last part of the very first paragraph in this discussion. I said, "the membership is expected not to contradict and also to speak in agreement, that does not mean they must always believe every word without question as is implied by the above statement. There are channels for airing disagreements through the elders, or through a letter to the WTB&TS, and we are instructed to wait on Jehovah to correct either us personally or the organization eventually." I have no problem with that myself. There's no conflict. I have had differing ideas and I eventually was either corrected or the organization corrected itself. There have been many instances where I waited and the organization was corrected. This has the result of strengthening my faith, not weakening it. It also strengthens my faith when I realize I myself was wrong. Jehovah has never failed to answer my prayers or my questions. At this time, every last question I ever had has been answered, and every last thing I disagreed on regarding the organization has been resolved...because I waited on Jehovah. Opposers that are ex-Jehovah's Witnesses are such because they didn't wait on Jehovah. God is not our creation, but we are his. --] (]) 13:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::Your personal experiences about how you believe your prayers have been answered have no bearing on the article, and your statement that JW teachings might be ''changed'' ('corrected') in the future has no bearing on the fact that JWs are told to accept whatever is taught in Watch Tower Society literature ''at the time''. Further, Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate venue to provide your own theological opinions, particularly about the actions or motives of 'opposers', and especially about other editors. The fact remains that Holden's statement is accurate, as has already been demonstrated.--] (]) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (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. ] ] 02:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] Alright, I see. Thanks, Clover ] (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Jeffro77's comment makes it look like the organization contradicted the Bible regarding organ transplants, but it didn't. The organization has left it up to our conscience regarding organ transplants BECAUSE the Bible DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT. That's merely making a statement that it is not their responsibility to restrict it. IF they restricted it, THEN it would be taking responsibility of doctrine. --] (]) 13:55, 18 July 2013 (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)
::::No. That's not what I said at all. Go back and read '''what I actually said'''.
:::::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)
::::And they didn't simply say it was 'up to your conscience'. They said it was okay, then years later they said it was cannibalism, then years later they said it was okay again. All supposedly based on 'scriptural principles', but as you correctly point out, "the Bible DOES NOT SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT".--] (]) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::I tried to find a higher quality image of JWs preaching myself. Surprisingly there's not many options. I would take a photo myself but I feel like that'd be hard to do in my local area for obvious reasons. {{Ping|Rhododendrites}} you're like the best photographer I know and you've taken a lot of photos in places like parks, right? Any chance you've ever run into JWs preaching and snapped a photo before? Or maybe the next time you see a group, you could ask? They're generally pretty friendly to outsiders. ] ] 05:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What do you think about this ] since it's a typical door-to-door preaching of JW, although it was uploaded in 2007 so it does not has the best quality? ] (]) 06:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Clovermoss}} Thanks for the compliment. :) I do take pictures in parks, but rarely of people. I'm fairly certain I've never taken photos of Jehovah's Witnesses. I can't say I've ever seen them going door to door here in NY, but I do see them with literature carts in parks and other areas with a lot of foot traffic. Are you looking for just, like, something similar to the current lead image but a bit better quality? I also know of a Kingdom Hall in Flatbush, though it looks like we ]. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Yeah, a higher quality option would be nice and what I'd be looking for. ] ] 15:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok. Don't know when, but I'll keep it in the back of my head. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 15:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Possible options for a lead image ===
:::::ChercheTrouve can now see that the organization corrected itself. Someone's prayer was answered, and everyone that waited on Jehovah was blessed. --] (]) 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the discussion above, I wanted to present some options from what is currently available on ].
::::::I'm a bit confused about whether the organisation 'corrected itself' in 1961 when transplants were ok, or in 1967 when transplants were prohibited or in 1980 when transplants were okay again. Who knows, maybe it will be 'corrected' again to cannibalism. And at any particular time, whatever is the most current view ''in Watch Tower Society literature'' is what JWs ''must accept'' as 'truth'. This confirms the validity of Holden's point. The claim that a 'prayer was answered' and that 'everyone was blessed' are irrelevant theological opinions, particularly for the people who died waiting.--] (]) 14:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
<gallery mode="packed" heights="300px">
::::My personal experience directly affects the answering of ChercheTrouve's question by giving a demonstration of how it has no negative effect on one following the counsel to wait on Jehovah. --] (]) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
File:JW Logo.svg|This was used as the lead image for years, a similar choice is made in ] article (option 1)
File:Jehova witnesses in Lvov.jpg|An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2)
File:Evangelização.jpg|Another door-to-door image (option 3)
File:Jehovah's Witnesses in Esino Lario.jpg|The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4)
File:Jehova's Witnesses headquarters IMG 2433 New York Brooklyn.JPG|The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5)
File:Picha.jpg|The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6)
File:Timsbury Kingdom Hall - geograph.org.uk - 2474467.jpg|A Kingdom Hall (option 7)
</gallery>
] ] 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Only options 1 and 6 would be properly representative of the denomination as a whole.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The point behind it is at that time they were still expected to tow the line indicated in the publication even if it meant death and not disagree. The fact that it was fixed later is non sequiter it's the statements made in the publication that were expected to be followed. Before you get your panties in a twist I'm not saying right or wrong just the observation about the publication dictated what a "good witness" could do. ] (]) 14:08, 18 July 2013 (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'd be okay with image 6. ] ] 01:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] I see ] (]) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's not my first preference but if it's what we all can agree on then I'm alright with it. ] ] 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to wait a few days for further feedback, but in the meantime options 3, 5, and 7 are incorporated into more relevant sections. ] ] 03:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:I have now implemented option 6. If this ends up being more controversial in the future, a formal RfC could be initiated. ] ] 09:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::At this point it is clear that the discussion has devolved into nitpicking over whether one provides external proofs and picking at straws about this and that. Opposers are just trying to fit in every little question they can. I'm just going to tell you that I have an answer for everything the opposers have to offer and leave it at that, because I've already demonstrated that I do. (And of course one of the opposers is going to pick at that statement as well. What's new.) I'm not trying to convince anyone with proofs because this matter of ChercheTrouve's is completely meaningless to the discussion regarding Holden. The question has been asked and answered.--] (]) 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::@] Much appreciated ] (]) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Recent edit ==
::::::::Clearly you are so very better then the stumbled. Have you ever considered that by not acting with humility and humbleness you help push that person a little further down the line? It really is hateful and hostile that sets a bad example for people that know nothing about the organization to see that. I really hope that you think about that, maybe discuss with your group of elders. Remember Jehovah sometimes acts through the people outside of the organization and this could be your correction for your attitude which is more akin to that of the rude person who berates you for preaching. ] (]) 14:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


{{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.
:::::::::Ta da! --] (]) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Seriously I mean that in total respect for the organization. Please talk about it with your body of elders, show them the thread. Just because I don't actively attend meetings doesn't mean I don't read the publications and occasionally go for a public talk and the memorial. I am also a member at ]. I'm not sanctioned by the Kingdom Hall either through reproof or disfellowshipping. Maybe take a break and calm down a bit. I think you're taking everything that's being said here as against the organization and it's not. It's just a disagreement about how the publications are conveyed. ] (]) 14:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me Corjay, but I don't understand you when you say that you have been "waiting on Jehovah". Do you mean by that that you where waiting on the Watchtower to change some of its teachings? Or do you mean the Bible was not clear enough and it had to be "clarified" by the Watchtower on some points? Can you please explain? --] (]) 14:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Whether by the organization correcting itself, or by my personal study of the Bible, or very often simply in prayer it hits me, or yes, even through a clarification in a publication, or I might simply view an explanation given in a publication in a new light, or in a talk from the platform, or in a discussion with an elder, or any number of ways. But if the organization is the one with the misunderstanding, then clearly I wait until the organization is corrected, but that's not as often as I'm the one in need of the correction. (No one knows everything about the Bible, its prophecies and meanings. Not even Jesus himself. Jehovah is the one who reveals those secrets in His own time.) --] (]) 14:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::And Jehovah reveals his secrets not only from the Bible, but also from the Watchtower. Isn't it? --] (]) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::In essence it's not the watchtower, that's only the vehicle of conveyance the clarification comes from the Faithful and discrete slave. ] (]) 15:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Which is what Holden's statement ''actually says''.--] (]) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(juxtaposed was ment to translate "likestilt", side by side or equally worth, I think it may was better translated in the other tread) This ain't leading somewhere. Furuli's conclusion was, JW consider the Bible above the GB. The whole question whether JW preferes WT or the Bible, is all about interpretation of the Bible. To state that JW follows WT in the same way, or rather than the Bible, it depends of an easy answear what the Bible say or how it is should be interpretated. The core here is whether JW states their ambitions to follow the Bible or WT. Regarding the organs transplantation, it is not mentioned in the Bible, so an easy answear here, is, whatever JW believes regarding organ transplantations, it does not say anything whether they consider the Bible or WT to be the core source for their beliefs. The JWs change of understanding ('doctrine' is may more neutral) regarding this teaching, it is either way an expressed will of following the Bible. ] (]) 15:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:<s>That's what I thought you meant (about 'juxtaposed'). But Holden ''doesn't say'' they're considered ''equal'', so the comparison is not valid.--] (]) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)</s>
:I was considering the statement as presented in the article, not Holden's exact comment in the cited reference. However, aside from the ambiguous term "inspired" (which JWs give special meaning distinct from 'directed' (though they have never actually provided any practical distinction between the two supposed mechanisms), Holden's statement is accurate, and the way it is presented in the article is entirely fair.--] (]) 01:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::"For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial, for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and cuts even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and their marrow, and able to discern thoughts and intentions of heart." (Hebrews 4:12) "But his delight is in the law of Jehovah, And in his law he reads in an undertone day and night. And he will certainly become like a tree planted by streams of water, That gives its own fruit in its season And the foliage of which does not wither, And everything he does will succeed. The wicked are not like that," (Psalm 1:2-4) That's what we follow. I'll leave the interpretation up to you. --] (]) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::If I try to summarize: according to JWs, Jehovah provides direction via two main channels : the Bible and the Faithful and discrete slave (who uses the Watchtower to communicate). The Bible alone is not enough to understand Jehovah's will. It has to be completed by the FDS teaching that - like the Bible - comes from Jehovah. So if it's that way, then I think Holden is right when he says that the publications are '''almost''' as important as the Bible itself. --] (]) 15:24, 18 July 2013 (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.
:::::::::Yes that is very accurate. It is all based off the interpetation of what the bible says and then is communicated to the membership through the Watchtower or other publications. ] (]) 15:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


I have no issues with the other changes. ] ] 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
"True, some are preaching the Christ through envy and rivalry, but others also through goodwill. The latter are publicizing the Christ out of love, for they know I am set here for the defense of the good news; but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are supposing to stir up tribulation in my bonds. What then, except that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being publicized, and in this I rejoice." --Philippians 1:15-18 --] (]) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:As that previously called for uninvolved editor, I would like to suggest that about 90% of this discussion is inappropriate. This is not the place to argue theology. This is, and must be, only a place to discuss improvements to the article. When we decide whether or not to include the Holden, the question is not "is Holden accurate"--the question is, "Is Holden a person of sufficient expertise and importance that his opinions meet ] and thus should be included in the article?" So confine the discussion to Holden's status, to whether or not he's cited by other authors, by where the statement was originally published, etc. That's how you determine what goes in the article. ] (]) 22:14, 18 July 2013 (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.
::I'm afraid that would be a lopsided battle. Jehovah's Witnesses don't have as many opposers as the presence of their opposers on the net would indicate. However, to try to find even a single page owned by one of Jehovah's Witness or a dispassionate reviewer of their religion that says Jehovah's Witnesses "do not believe that the WTB&TS publications are almost equal to the Bible" is pretty slim, and to find such a statement from an independent scholar is even slimmer, considering that scholars aren't typically interested in such an issue unless they're opposed. I've written substantially on the organization in the last 16 years and this is the first discussion I've ever had on the subject. Yet you will find a couple of thousand opposer web pages that say that we hold the publications "almost equal to the Bible" or even "equal to the Bible" or "greater than the Bible". But perhaps that's the key. ''To demonstrate that opposers are not agreed upon which statement is true?'' '''By demonstrating a division of thought on the matter, the stand will be disqualified?''' ''Would that be possible?'' <br /><br />(I removed the "resolved" sign because Qwyrxian apparently wishes to get a definitive dispassionate answer.) --] (]) 22:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
:::I think it's a rather fair statement, it gives that Jw's say that the bible is the final authority in all things but that academics specifically Holden disagree. Both are presented in a neutral tone. ] (]) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::The JW editors here have agreed that 'clarification' of scriptures is provided by the 'faithful slave' in Watch Tower Society publications, and those 'clarifications' must be accepted by members. Holden's statement is accurate and is presented in a neutral manner.--] (]) 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Corjay is still going on about a 'battle' and 'opposers'. The discussion is (or at least, ''should be'') about the statement by Holden. The statement is accurate. Supposed 'battles' with 'opposers' are irrelevant.--] (]) 01:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::There's a significant difference between my statement above and the ones prior to it. Before, I was talking about the opposers on this page. Now I am talking about the opposers in general regarding the subject at hand, not regarding this discussion itself. My statement was not ad hominem as Jeffro77's is. --] (]) 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::The distinction you're attempting to make about ''various'' alleged 'opposers' is irrelevant. The discussion isn't about ''any'' 'opposers'. It's about ''sources''. And your accusation about ''ad hominem'' is ridiculous in view of the fact of your previous 'demands' in order to 'determine' who you're 'allowed' to talk to. Please stick to the topic of ''sources'' or leave the discussion.--] (]) 01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:Picking at straws is really tiresome. The red herrings are making me dizzy. Can we stick to the subject at hand, please? --] (]) 01:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::The subject at hand is ''Holden's statement''. The statement is accurate, as has been demonstrated.--] (]) 01:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


:The Watch Tower Society never calls it an 'overlapping generation' doctrine either in the source provided here or anywhere else, it is only an ad hoc description of the relatively abstruse change. The official teaching is not that there 'is an overlapping generation' but that 'the generation' broadly includes people where some part of their lifespan overlaps. In conventional terms, it isn't even actually the case that there are 'two consecutive overlapping generations'. Contemporary names of 'generations' vary and are not especially useful here, but the two 'generations' in question would loosely be the 'Lost Generation' and 'Gen X' based on the current actual JW definition of 'generation'. As such, it isn't necessary for the main JW article to get 'lost in the weeds' about it.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 04:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As has been asserted, opinions do not matter. Just as it is my opniion that it has not been demonstrated to be accurate. As Qwyrxian rightly pointed out, it is not about whether it is "accurate", (as it is subject to viewpoint) but whether it has substantial enough support to be included in the body of the Beliefs section. As to the reference to "opposers", the matter of opposers is significant to the discussion, because they represent an extremely biased viewpoint, but whether the statements of those opposers can be taken as significant is dependent upon the demonstration that their viewpoint is accepted by a majority or by a significant enough minority to contend for acceptance. --] (]) 01:35, 19 July 2013 (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.
::::It is semantically redundant that ''opposers'' are ''biased'', but JWs are also ''biased'' about JWs, and the argument is entirely irrelevant to the subject, unless you are claiming that ''Holden'' is an ''opposer''. And even then, any ''other'' 'opposers' are still unrelated to the discussion at hand. So, if you like, you can provide ''sources'' stating that Holden is ''biased'', otherwise the discussion should be closed.--] (]) 01:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Incidentally, if you search Misplaced Pages for the word ''opposers'', two of the results on the first page of results are for JW-related articles, and for article Talk pages, it's six on the first page of results. JWs clearly have a penchant for the word ''opposers''.--] (]) 01:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC) :: 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)
I think if he wants to call us opposers, go ahead it doesnt make it true. What he fails to understand is that it doesn't further his rationale in the slightest, it just sets a bad example for the organization and doesn't accomplish anything other then vague ranting. I don't see one shred of support for the viewpoint he's putting forward so frankly it doesn't matter. We guide it by consensus and consensus is clear here. This is HiaB BTW 8) ] (]) 02:07, 19 July 2013 (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)
:A search for "Andrew Holden" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" on Google scholar provides a substantial number of academic journals that have cited his book. I think his integrity is fairly clearly demonstrated. ] (]) 02:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


== Lead sentence ==
::Here is proof that authorities cannot agree on the viewpoint of whether Jehovah's Witnesses view their literature as "almost equal to", "equal to" or "superior to" the Bible:
* '''Equal.''' European-American Evangelistic Crusades claims that we believe our literature to be exactly equal to the Bible: http://www.eaec.org/cults/jw/jw2.htm
* '''Lesser.''' Dr. Paul P. Coulter claims that Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Bible as the only source of doctrine, and though claiming us to be a cult, and even highlighting that many cults claim their literature to be equal to or superior to the Bible, and giving negative opinions on other matters, he makes no attempt to contradict the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on this stand: http://www.paulcoulter.net/Writing/Cults.pdf
* '''Superior.''' The following book, edited by Rick Miesel, claims that we hold our literature as "normative", and implies that we do not hold the Bible as such, thereby implying that we hold our literature as superior: http://obinfonet.ro/docs/nmr/nmres/textb/cults <br /><br />
::As an aside, by way of correcting something I said earlier, I just saw where I did indeed write on this subject. It was in regard to claims that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. (We don't need to branch off into that subject here.) I wrote: 'What about the publications themselves? Do Jehovah's Witnesses hold the Watch Tower Society's (This is merely a legal entity) publications equal to or near equal to the Bible as some claim? No. The Bible is the ultimate authority to Jehovah's Witnesses. But Jehovah's Witnesses take seriously the mandate to 'speak in agreement'. (1 Corinthians 1:10) The publications help keep our members on the same page, so-to-speak and well-informed of current understanding, and have proven to be an excellent means of promoting unity to a degree not seen in other religions. Do they replace the Bible or promote ideas outside the Bible? No. Just like any sermon given by a pastor, they contain ample Scripture references (I just opened one Watchtower and it had 44 Scripture references in a single five-page article; you will not get that in any sermon) and a discussion of Bible subjects. (Opposers quote our literature more than we do. We quote the Bible more than anyone else.) On the job, I had to listen to a Christian radio station, and you would be shocked to hear more than two Scripture references in any sermon.' Yes, it's my opinion, but I find it a fitting statement. --] (]) 02:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Nothing you've provided says anything about Holden, and the only source you claimed supports your view is from an article that calls JWs a cult, and that source doesn't actually say what you're inferring. The word "only" does not appear at all in reference to Coulter's examination of JW's view of the Bible.
:::Holden's statement doesn't say or imply that JW publications ''replace'' the Bible.--] (]) 02:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::Also, Coulter doesn't simply say that cults "claim ''their literature'' to be equal to or suprior to the Bible". Coulter ''actually'' says, "All cults have a source of authority other than Scripture&mdash;many cults have a source of authority that is equal to the Bible or even greater than it. This maybe the authority of tradition, '''the organization''', an individual or another book."
:::::My point was to show that Holden's viewpoint is not significant enough, being countered by others. --] (]) 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::None of the sources you provided counters Holden's point, either explicitly or by implication. In fact, all three support Holden's statement.--] (]) 08:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Corjay, none of those three references would meet Misplaced Pages criteria for ]. ] (]) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::I understand, but I am not trying to provide an entry in the article, therefore those guidelines don't apply. I'm trying to demonstrate that there are countering viewpoints among academics. (Published or not. Dr. Coulter's report is a dissertation.) I can also demonstrate that two of those viewpoints are pervasive. --] (]) 02:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::By the way, the Rick Miesel book is a published work.--] (]) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::Of course there will be a range of opinions. Christian bookshops are probably full of self-published books dumping on the JWs, but those opinions are irrelevant in this context. The opinion of a sociologist who has written widely on religions, however, and particularly when he explicitly addresses the issue of the source of JW doctrines, is relevant. I think your efforts are a little futile. The article fairly states Holden's significant view. I don't think you've yet made any comments about the issue on the specific page that's been set up to address the issue of the inclusion of Holden's comment. Will you be doing that? It may be the best way of overcoming this impasse and will bring in further outside comment. It's at ]. ] (]) 03:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I don't care for maintaining multiple pages concerning one discussion. I have enough on my plate just addressing this discussion. Feel free to make me look as bad as you like on that page. --] (]) 03:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I am seeing a lot of assumptions of bad faith here on the part of Corjay. I am asking that you remember ]. ] (]) 03:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:If I were acting in bad faith, I would have simply made the edit myself. You are actually acting contrary to the page you cite, because it says to "assume good faith", which you yourself are not doing. You are assuming bad faith on my part. I have no such bad faith. I wish only to make the page objective, and I don't think Holden's comment is objective. He is not just a researcher. He is opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses as his many, many publications specifically written about us establishes. That's certainly not objective. That's a poison pen. No objective academic, in his right mind, would take Holden seriously. Also, according to the criteria mentioned about published sources, Holden is self-published, not through an academic peer-reviewed publication, which makes him a lesser source, not so well-established as some have claimed.--] (]) 03:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:If you are saying that I am assuming bad faith on the part of others, then not overtly so. Yes, I believe several here are opposers to my faith, but I believe they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of the article. But I believe their bias invalidates their claims and their efforts. So I assume good faith on their part, but with bad motivations rather than bad intentions. I also felt I had ample evidence toward their bad treatment of me, such as Hell in a Basket's trying to force me to accept concession. Bad faith toward me, but not bad faith toward the article. --] (]) 03:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, you're grasping at straws. Holden's book was published by Routledge, a major publisher and clearly qualifies as a RS. I have already said he is widely cited by other academics. I have never before heard him described as opposed to the JWs and your view that "no objective academic would take him seriously", simply because you disagree with one of his conclusions, is childish. If you don't wish to address the very point you're raising at the best place, you seem to be wasting everyone's time. ] (]) 03:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:you apparently missed the part where I said I am Hiab or Hell in a BUCKET, I am assuming English isn't your first language since you can't seem to get the username right. If you refuse to discuss the issue by our standards that is concession, if you notice I haven't brought that up because you are discussion it now. Huge difference. ] (]) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


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)
::Can we forgo the insults, please. I have done none myself. As for my assumption, I couldn't find a publisher associated with his book. But okay, looking at Routledge and Google, we find out things about Holden. In a Google search, we find he has seven or more published papers through Lancaster University that make every effort to highlight every mistake made by Jehovah's Witnesses and giving very little respect to them as a religious organization. In fact, such are the ONLY things he has published in his position as Sociologist there. (Doesn't sound like he's doing much with his job other than obsessing over Jehovah's Witnesses.) He has no published works on any other religion. He authors books about tourism at Routledge. So how is it that a travel researcher comes to only publish about Jehovah's Witnesses and no other religion? Clearly, he has a point to make, showing a clear bias. If he were not so heavily biased, he would write more objectively and about other religions than just Jehovah's Witnesses. Can someone tell me what his qualifications are? I can't find ANY, anywhere, about his degrees and qualifications.--] (]) 04:13, 19 July 2013 (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)
::By the way, as someone critical of Jehovah's Witnesses, he is outstanding. I'm not slighting him that. But that's exactly where his comments belong BECAUSE he is a ''critic'' with a clear ''bias'' (And I think I can safely say, a "vendetta",) against Jehovah's Witnesses, not an objective researcher. --] (]) 04:21, 19 July 2013 (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)
::As far as I can tell, Andrew Holden is no more qualified than the sources I cited. --] (]) 04:39, 19 July 2013 (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)
::I must make one correction. Andrew Holden has written one book favorable toward Muslims based on a paper he wrote about their religious tolerance and cohesion. In it, he does not provide any of the venom toward Muslims that he does toward Jehovah's Witnesses. So one has to ask, what's the motive? Yes, there's a motive. Lancaster University initiated what they call the "Burnley Project", which is an interfaith initiative. Who are two of the members of the board of this project? Andrew Holden and Hamid Qureshi. Thus, it's his job. He wouldn't write about it if it weren't part of his role on this committee. If given a choice, I think he would rather have written another caustic piece on how evil Jehovah's Witnesses are.--] (]) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
::::] '''] Response:''' After reviewing this, as well as the previous relevant discussion, I think there's a slight misinterpretation of what ] says. {{tq|The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is}}, with the operative phrasing here being "nonspecialist reader", is the relevant part. The rewrite of the first sentence I think is better for nonspecialist readers, as well as the {{tq|and often when or where}} part of MOS:FIRST, as it plainly describes when the religious movement started. The diff it was changed from does neither of these things, and would still be fine in the lede, just not as the first sentence. ] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> ] 05:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|SmittenGalaxy}} Just to clarify, when you mean rewrite, do you mean (which I think gives a much better overview to a nonspecialist reader) or the current state of the lead? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting your third opinion right and that the current first sentence could be moved to the end of the first paragraph again. ] ] 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Clovermoss}} Sorry for being a little late here. But yes, both that edit and the one you self-reverted last week; mostly just because I think that first sentence fits better than the one currently in the article. I'm not particularly picky in regards to where ''it'' will go in the lede, but it should still be there in my opinion. Whether that's directly after the first sentence or anywhere after that I don't think is of great importance, but it probably shouldn't be the very first sentence. ] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> ] 08:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


::::::I have no qualms about removing the 'sea of blue' from the first sentence, nor for the first sentence retaining that it grew out of the Bible Student movement. However, the vague notion that JWs are just 'a religious group' misrepresents the actually highly structured nature of the denomination, and therefore does not adhere well to the recommendation in ] that the first sentence clearly say what the article subject is. Nor should the article endorse the non-neutral trend of dismissing that JWs are 'really' Christians. I would support {{tq|Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.}} The later sentence in the article could then be re-phrased as {{tq|The denomination is generally classified as ], ] and ].}}--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 05:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would like to take a moment to explain why I can talk to the ex-Jehovah's Witnesses here about Holden. Once Qwyrxian turned the discussion towards Holden's qualifications and the qualifications of his works, it was no longer a religious matter. As long as we do not discuss spiritual matters, or the organization itself, or get cozy, I can speak to them. Keep it professional-like and it's fine. --] (]) 04:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I used "religious group" because there are varying definitions of what Jehovah's Witnesses are (expanded upon in the history section which says {{tq|The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}}) Religious group seemed like a neutral enough term to me that didn't nessecarily conflict with terms like "Christian" or "denomination". Adding "Christian denomination" to the middle of the first sentence sounds a bit awkward when read aloud but if your objection is to the term "religious group", that term could just be omitted. What do you think of the proposed rewrite being reinstated with that change? The latter issue would be "are considered to be" part. I added that to clarify that they aren't universally recognized as such in reliable sources. Maybe something like "are generally recognized as" would work better? ] ] 06:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


::::::::My problem with "religious group" (especially with the incorrect verb ''are''), as already stated, is that it falsely conveys that they're just a loosely organised group of individuals who are each 'witnesses of/for Jehovah'—a theological claim that is neither accurate nor neutral. For that reason, it is better to clearly state that it is a ''denomination''. I don't see any awkwardness with the expression "Christian denomination" in the sentence, and using the term ''denomination'' is wholly consistent with the statement in the body that {{tq|'''The denomination''' has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}}. (Encyclopedias of religion routinely classify JWs as Christian, and the fact that many people don't consider JWs 'Christian' should hold as much weight as the fact that JWs don't consider any other denominations to be 'Christian'—that is to say, none.)
If I understand correctly your spoke objection is that you consider it critical? How does citing both not keep a NPOV it States JWs believe the Bible is the authority, an expert doesn't. ] (]) 06:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


::::::::'' recognized as'' does sound less weasily than ''considered to be'', but '' classified as'' would be a better level of formality.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:The statement about the organization's doctrine is a factual statement, not an assessment. It's not the critical analysis so much as the source. Andrew Holden is an outright opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses as his writings bear out. That's not just critical. According to WP:NPOV#Religion, such statements are done as "critical historical treatment". Someone who is opposed is not providing a "historical treatment", but is providing an attack. There's a gulf of difference. The very purpose of "NPOV" is that the article accomplishes a pure neutrality. You cannot accomplish a pure neutrality if you are providing an opposer's negative assessment without also providing a positive assessment from someone else not associated with the religion. So unless you can provide that, his statement should not be included. But if anyone can't provide a positive viewpoint of a third party to counter the opposer's assessment, the opposer's assessment must be removed to achieve NPOV, because, as stated earlier in this BOOK (I speak of the discussion) by one of the wikipedians, The religion's own assessment of itself, or the assessment of it by one of its members, cannot be included, which is fair, because it wouldn't carry any weight anyway. So a third party assessment is needed. It's not my responsibility to provide that third party assessment. I only need to challenge the right to include the opposer's viewpoint on account of the fact that the third party positive assessment is missing. If someone else wants to provide the third party positive assessment, then this discussion will be finally over.--] (]) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think "religious group" implies anything about how Jehovah's Witnesses are structurally organized, just that they're a group with shared religious beliefs. I'm okay with the "generally classified" phrasing later on. ] ] 06:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Holden is not an "opposer", but a sociologist. He has never been JW, and his POV on them is accurate and neutral. When JW deal with blood transfusions, for example, they rely on what the Watchtower say, not on what the Bible say (because the Bible writers never heard about blood transfusions). So this is absolutely true to say that the WT teaching has almost the same (if not exactly the same) value as the Bible. JW are ready to die for something that is not clearly stated in the Bible, but only clearly stated in the publications, and changes over time when the WT's understanding change. --] (]) 08:16, 19 July 2013 (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)
:::How do you know he has never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses? An "opposer" doesn't have to be an ex-Witness, but I strongly suspect he is an ex-Jehovah's Witness just because of his obsession, which is a tendency of many ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. (This is because of a failure of such one's to seek out new relationships and new beliefs. Even Holden highlights that much in one of his conclusive rants.) Does this statement sound neutral to you? "Ethnographic analysis reveals the ''dependency'' of this '''quasi-totalitarian''' movement ''on the very physical and cultural resources it condemns.'' The paper concludes that the Witnesses’ anti-mystical faith is both an '''inverted form of corporate ‘branding’''' and an '''anti-modern quest for certainty in a hostile world of relativism.'''" Does this article title sound neutral to you? "Cavorting With the Devil: Jehovah’s Witnesses Who Abandon Their Faith"; Or how about these chapter headings: "Private beliefs and public disapproval", "Stretching the boundaries: tension within the family and marriage", "suppressing ambivalence". Does this sound neutral to you? "'''I have argued''' that ''Watch Tower rhetoric'' cannot always override the individual’s sense of duty towards those with whom they have long been bonded or for whose welfare they are responsible." That's more than opinion. The paper was for the purpose of proving a point. Or how about this one: "At present, the movement shows few signs either of relaxing its quasi-totalitarian doctrines or of slowing down its evangelistic mission. In the end, if devotees and their unbelieving relatives wish to live amicably together, they may be forced to do tolerance." Really? So tolerance is a bad thing? As demonstrated in that statement, throughout the article he lays the fault of a family's intolerance on the Witnesses, not the family. His persistent use of such terms as "quasi-totalitarian" and "Watchtower regime". Whenever he talks about Jehovah's Witness beliefs, he does not use clinical descriptions, but imbues the description with the darkest language he can conceive of.
::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)


:::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)
:::Does he provide any objective viewpoint about Jehovah's Witnesses having positive impacts on those around them or law or anything else? No. His articles don't provide any positive viewpoints. He highlights every negative he can find, such as discrepancies between the viewpoints of various Jehovah's Witnesses, or between their beliefs and how they execute those beliefs privately. All he is doing is highlighting the negatives of human nature within the organization, without ever talking about ANY positive aspects or coming to any conclusions that indicate anything positive. He's a doomsayer in everything he writes about the organization and only focuses on their mistakes as an organization or the mistakes of individual members. I'd call that opposition. In one article, he sets out to highlight the division Jehovah's Witnesses cause in family. In another, he sets out to His focus is very clearly to make Jehovah's Witnesses look bad under the pretense of objectivity. Objectivity anyone can achieve through the use of a neutral tone. But a neutral tone does not mean a neutral stand.
::::I don't think referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a ] is misleading. If you google "what is a religious group?", you'll get results . ] ] 07:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have already explained the context in which it’s misleading, and the wikilink for ] itself demonstrates the ambiguity, providing separate definitions including “a group of people with similar religious beliefs” (e.g. a group of JW members) as distinct from a religious denomination.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 08:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::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 09:54, 18 January 2025

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

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

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

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

Japan section

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

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

About all my recent edits

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

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

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

Misinformation on "shunning"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An FAQ section?

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

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

Lead image

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

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

Possible options for a lead image

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edit

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

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

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

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

Lead sentence

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

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

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

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