Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford

The spacing is off in this section. I'd fix it if I knew how. I just wanted to point it out for whomever might know how to fix it. JMlover 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this not be deleted?

I'll be more specific than I was above. The History section currently starts out with:

Ancient Israelites

Historically, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the first one of Jehovah's Witnesses is Abel.(Heb.11:4) He is called one of "many witnesses" of God.(Heb.12:1) Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph etc. are also referred to as such. Ancient Israelites were a nation dedicated to God, and they were also called Jehovah's witnesses.[13](Isaiah 43:10)

Jesus Christ and Christian

Jesus Christ is called the faithful witness of God in the Bible.(Rev.1:5) During his life, he declared the good news of the kingdom of God. (Luke 4:43) After his death, early Christians became Jesus' witnesses. [14](Acts 1:8) They were also witnesses of God because they witnessed for the glory to God.(Phil. 2:9-11) But in about C.E.56, the apostasy occurred among them, their mind started to be divided.(Acts 20:29, 30) After the death of John, the last apostle, the apostasy had spread.(2 Timothy 2:17) Jehovah's Witnesses believe they dismissed Bible teaching, and they received Greek philosophy and heathen teaching. They believe Apostate Christians formed Chrisendom.

Modern Witnesses

How does this fit into an encyclopedic history of Jehovah's Witnesses? This is a theological interpretation of their history. There are no historical sources that can be cited to show that Jehovah's Witnesses existed as a movement before the times of Barbour and Russell. Theologically, one could argue that they existed before then but that is not what should be the focus of an encyclopedic entry on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses. Should this section not be deleted? Dtbrown 20:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An additional point. The guidelines for writing articles for the JW pages says we should not cite Scripture unless we are explaining how JWs interpret certain passages. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Use_of_scriptures

The section in question clearly violates that policy besides being an unencyclopedic presentation in the History section. Does anyone object if I remove this section? If so, what would be the reasons to retain this section in the history section? Dtbrown 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been several days and no one has indicated they wanted the section to remain, I've gone ahead and deleted it. If anyone feels differently, please speak up. Dtbrown 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Belief & Practices Clean Up

I decided to "be bold" and do some clean up in the Belief and Practices section. It is supposed to explain current JW belief and practices to the average reader without being an apologetic or a critical section. I'm sure it can still use improvement. Project writing goals say not to cite Scripture unless one is explaining how JWs interpret such a passage. So, those have been removed. Also, I removed sections that focused on past teachings or practices as those do not fit here--this section considers current JW beliefs and practices. I also tried to condense somewhat. Any suggestions for improvement are most welcome. Dtbrown 03:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Article length

Hi all interested parties. I wanted to raise the possibility of splitting the article into sub-articles. Suggestions and ideas welcome. The page is very long as it is now and it could benefit from splitting. Could we please have a discussion about this issue? 220.240.24.201 06:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)ppunkgoddess 19 August 2007 16.25pm

It looks like it mostly is; and it's not that long. Most of the physical display length comes from the references — I added a 3rd column to shorten them a bit. Any better? --Haemo 06:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Haemo on this. I suppose we could condense some of the material. We already have sub-articles for most of the topics on the main page and it appears they are rarely visited. I would say that we could develop and expand the sub-articles more for detailed information and then consider some condensation of what is on the main page, but without losing the "meat" of the presentation. Dtbrown 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeahyeah - like this not being mentioned before. The main article has been too many kB for a long period. I have talked about shortening the history section and more. But some obviously have disagreed with me. But check the wikipedia standard. The subarticles should be payed more attention, and the main article can just be cut down to something much smaller. Summer Song 11:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD's

Any body interested? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination) SV 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scripture references in article?

I'm assuming this is still the policy (from the JW Project page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Use_of_scriptures

Use of scriptures Do not cite supporting scriptures when explaining doctrines or practices, unless the issue is the interpretation of a particular passage. In this case, quote the passage in full and then explain the JW interpretation given.

This would seem to be the policy of other encyclopedias as well. I've never seen another encyclopedia cite Scripture verses for documentation. Following the above policy I'm removing Scripture citations that are given as documentation of a belief or position. If others disagree, then perhaps we can re-evaluate the policy. Dtbrown 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses as modern-day Arians

Another editor commented to me that the Jehovah's Witnesses are "modern-day Arians". I confess that I'd never really thought about it but it seems to be an apt description. I'd like to make mention of this point both here and in the article on Arianism but this strikes me as the kind of thing that really needs a citation to keep it from being considered OR. Can anyone help in this regard?

--Richard 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no historical continuity between "Arianism" and modern groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Arian Catholics, Isaac Newton, etc.). Some of the modern groups claim parallels with, inspiration from, or revival of one or another "Arian" theology. This particular link has been made, and removed, before, which is the only reason I watch Jehovah's Witnesses and other modern religious pages.

I believe that the link does far more harm than good. There are major differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Arian theology, and the description of Jehovah's Witnesses as "modern Arians" may lead people to attribute modern Jehovah's Witnesses theology, e.g. dispensationalism, to various fourth-century theologians.

There is no consistent Wikipedia practice on linking modern religious movements with ancient ones. I recommend continuing the discussion on Talk:Arianism, or another suitable place, where people can develop consistent practices regarding other modern-ancient linkings. Jacob Haller 22:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to find the reference, but I know the Watchtower Society has stated they do not feel Jehovah's Witnesses are modern-day Arians. The issue for them is that Arius believed in the personality of the Holy Spirit and the Witnesses do not. Otherwise, I agree with Jacob Haller on this. Dtbrown 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought one of the few parallels was that many Arians didn't, though Arius himself may have. But that involves messy textual interpretation, would be OR without another modern commentary, and would be dubious anyway... Jacob Haller 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me try this one again. Try Googling "Jehovah's Witnesses Arian" and you will come up with a bunch of hits from Christian websites who assert that Jehovah's Witnesses are some variant of the Arian heresy. Thus, it is not OR to assert that "some Christians assert that Jehovah's Witnesses are some variant of the Arian heresy" although it would be better if we could find a Reliable Source who makes this assertion directly or, at least, confirms that this is a sufficiently widespread conception that it is notable and thus worth documenting in Wikipedia.

--Richard 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Controversy section. It's a title they deny, however. That would need to be stated also. Dtbrown 06:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before. No modern religious group follows the teachings or practices of Arius. However most religious groups have belief(s) in common with Arianism. Jehovah's Witnesses believe, as Arius did, that Jesus is not Jehovah. Which is why Witnesses are sometimes, derogatorily, called "Arian" (and or "heretics"). However, Arius also believed (along with Jehovah's Witnesses and modern Christian Orthodoxy) that God had no beginning. Therefore, they must be deemed "Arian" as well, no? Witnesses and Christian Orthodoxy believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, I guess we're all Muslims now too. Duffer 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Spurious

Spurious means of a deceitful manner. Did poor old Duffer intent to firmly assert that Jehovah's Witnesses weren't a great organization. Doesn't sound NPOV to me. SV 02:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think Duffer did the right thing in removing the edits. They certainly were out of place. Dtbrown 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How was removing spurious comments (that I personally agree with) NOT neutral? Or are you just given me a hard time? :P Duffer 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just giving you a hard time Duffer. I just don't think the comments were spurious (meaning false). "POV" might have been a better description. Sometimes you gotta joke around. SV 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd never looked up the formal definition before. I've always used it to mean "random" or "out of place". Duffer 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Origin of JWs

since this is the Jehovah's Witnesses article, we need to come to a consensus on what constitutes the "official" origin of Jehovah's Witnesses for the infobox if anything is going to stated there. 1876 won't do by itself, because thats the origin of the Bible Student movement, which was and is quite distinct from the final phenomenon we know today as Jehovah's Witnesses (and although JWs are loathe to admit the difference between the two, the JW perspective is a far cry from NPOV). 1931 by itself wont do either, because it was merely a name change in the distant wake of a series of schisms. the most accurate date would be 1917, when rutherford took the presidency, but i dont even have to mention how controversial that would be. I say we include a number of dates or none at all. --PopeFauveXXIII 07:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A few, but significant doctrinal changes occurred. What did not change from the Bible Student Movement, through to the Witness name change was the rather vocal dissemination of 'truth' (as they knew it) to anyone that would listen. This was something that the (post schism) Bible Students ("Russelites" for clarity) failed to perpetuate (save for one magazine The Herald of Christ's Kingdom which still exists today), as they now no longer had a substantive organization to carry out such work. Even though the 'Russelites' had more in common with original CTR interpretations of prophetic events, it was quite literally the 'Russelites' that broke away from the body of 'Witnesses' and the legal entities of the organization. I suppose it could be said that Witnesses were the ones that "broke away" from a few (but significant) interpretations of biblical prophecy, but that would hardly qualify as being "quite distinct" from the original.

I agree the infobox needs consensus. I do not agree with Dtbrowns edit of the "Branched from" box. Certainly the first groups had Adventist and Millerite influences, but the purpose of the study groups was to read the bible afresh, discuss the glaring holes in current orthodox doctrine, build an entirely new belief system that harmonized doctrinally with the bible, and build an organization that would disseminate that info to anyone that would listen. I think it would be accurate to change "Branched from" to "Early Influences". Technically the Bible Students-Witnesses aren't a branch off of any religion. Duffer 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Millerite & Adventist connection is quite plain in older Watchtower literature. The article already notes the statement in the February 1881 Watch Tower:

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1881FEB.asp

Looking back to 1871, we see that many of our company were what are known as Second Adventists, (Reprints p. 188)

Nelson Barbour was an Adventist. As the article notes, the separation of the Barbour-Russell group from the Second Adventist movement was noted in 1877. After then, the Barbour-Russell group no longer claimed to be Adventist, but they still held William Miller and his movement as being of God. After Russell broke up with Barbour, Russell held that Barbour's work was also of God. See the article "And the Door was Shut" in the October-November 1881 Watchtower:

http://www.mostholyfaith.com/bible/Reprints/Z1881OCT.asp

While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time....

As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother, B__________ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874....

To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it.

Pages 327-329 of The Finished Mystery (published in 1917) relates a dream of William Miller that purports to identify Russell as the one who would clarify Miller's biblical interpretations. The book is online with Google Book Search:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dDQSOQV2RBIC&dq

So, while Russell broke with Barbour and then distanced himself from the Adventist movement, his movement descended from the movements started by Miller and Barbour.

As for the 1917 schism. It happened and Rutherford's impact on the movement metamorphized them in many ways. However, the schism of 1917 was a defection from the mainline movement with some joining dissident groups. The majority at that time remained with Rutherford, however. Rutherford's group experienced great growth until about 1926. Many left after that time due to the doctrinal changes and the failure of the 1925 predictions. Nonetheless, there is a clear historical continuity of the movement from Russell's day until now. Rutherford's impact on the development into what is now known as Jehovah's Witnesses should not be minimized. Nontheless, Rutherford did not organize a new religion. Rutherford's era was a continuation of what Russell had started, not a founding of a new religion. Dtbrown 07:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis was interesting, but i dont find myself any clearer on the issue of what ought to be considered the origin date... what would you suggest? one date, one date with a qualifying phrase, several dates with qualifying phrases, or no date at all? anyone? --PopeFauveXXIII 19:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Im going to be bold and assume that there is a consensus that JW origins are fuzzy, and translate that fuzziness into the infobox data. --PopeFauveXXIII 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your latest edits. I think we can go with 1876 as that was the year that Russell met Barbour and the ministry began. It's good to add 1931 as well. Dtbrown 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of failed prophesies of the end times of 1925 & 1974? It is only obliquely mentioned in the membership decline after 1925. Nothing is mentioned of 1974. Clearly, there is a lalrge amount of references that could be used for these dates and the discussions of them. Tigah Dude 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

JW is not a rligion it is a cult

Do look up the definition of cult - JW fits it perfectly. To say it is a religion is a nonsense. 217.43.222.47 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, there is a sliding scale between religion and cult. It's not an either/or. I would put Jehovah's witnesses 50% of the way between catholics and scientologists. If you really examine what cults are and how they work you quickly realise that all religions are cults to some degree or another. That's not to say you cant draw a fuzzy line across some region and decide to characterise all religions on one side as cults. It's down to where people put that fuzzy line. And just about everyone will put it in a different place, so to call even scientology a cult is POV. All you can do is cite some source that said "X is a cult" and leave it at that. You can't assert culthood since it is entirely subjective. Personally I consider any organised superstition a cult. That pretty much includes ALL religion, but I cant go round asserting that catholicism is a cult as fact, as most people wont agree with me, and would think I was an asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.179.205 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. That's super; now how about providing some reliable sources which attest to the use of such a pejorative before including it in the article? --Haemo 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Cult" is also a WP:WTA, for I think good reason. We simply can't make the characterization in keeping with WP:NPOV. Mackan79 18:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nations, Militaries and major religions also may be made to fit the definition of cult. I think it's very wise to include it in WP:WTA. SV 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you do not have support for you edit from other wikipedians, nor do you have sources. Duffer 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, maybe I don;t have support from those caught up in the cult - it's been reverted a few times by a coupe, of people - I wonder what the wider public feels about JW? Please stick to facts rather than what you'd like to be the case. 217.43.222.47 06:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Cult is a valid and accurate description for organisations such as JW. It is accepted in courts of law, etc. JW is a cult and for WP to state it is a religion is factually inaccurate - maybe those caught up in it would prefer to view it as a religion but, when you look at legal definitions of cult in the USA and UK, fro example, JW is a cult .. To report anything else is unencyclopdic. Can I suggest that this problem is being caused by belivers trying to pretend they follow a real religion when really they are victims of a dangerous and widespread cult? 217.43.222.47 06:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide for us just one encyclopedia that refers to Jehovah's Witnesses as a "cult". The term is most certainly not used in courts, and in nearly every nation on earth Witnesses are recognized legally as a religion. Also note that I am currently the only Jehovah's Witness editor here. The others above who have likewise expressed disapproval with your edits are not Witnesses. Duffer 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's your point of view. You need some reliable sources which attest to it, and then only when it's used in the "X says Y" voice; not in Wikipedia's voice. For instance, the BBC calls them a "religious movement" [1]. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights system determined that JW were a "known religion" in Kokkinakis v. Greece (25 May 1993), while similar rulings also were held up for Austria, Germany, Italy, and Canada. Even the United States upheld their right to be covered by religious protections in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, and they are listed as a religion on the US Census. Even the Brittanica classes them as a religious sect. Not that it matters, but I'm not a JW. --Haemo 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think to say they are a religious organisation, as currently stated, is fair - but, if you do look at the various definitions of cult, it is also fair to say that JW fit just about the lot. The US Census is irrelvant - remember the nonsense with Jedi being put on various censuses. The BBC "religious movement" is also ok but I think there should be a paragraph, or something in the intro, that shows that many people consider JW a cult, and a dangerous one at that. 86.137.231.4 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

To say that some people believe the Witnesses to be a 'cult' would be WP:NPOV#Undue weight given to the viewpoint of a small group of individuals, when nearly every nation on the planet recognizes Jehovah's Witnesses legally as a religion. Duffer 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But that simply isn't true. Very few countries recognise any religion in that way - including JW. Most nations consider JW a sect, at best (not a full religion) - how about "a religious organisation with many characteristics of a cult" perhaps? You might not like it but it would be accurate. 86.137.231.4 12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty available to supprt the claim that JW is a cult - from mainstream Christians and non-Christians, by those who have been damaged by JW, etc.: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/jw.htm http://www.eaec.org/cults/jehovahswitness.htm http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j02.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.231.4 (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS#What is a reliable source?. What are the characteristics of a "cult"? The following of directions of a leader? Drinking tainted coolaid? Reciting the same prayer endlessly at the behest of a man who claims to offer absolution? This can of worms is the highly subjective, viewpoint of a very small group of individual people (be they ex-members, or simply misinformed dissenters). Whether you like it or not, Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion have gained legal status in most countries. Again, find me one dictionary/encyclopedia that uses the term "cult" anywhere, in any context, in any Jehovah's Witness, or Jehovah's Witness related article. Duffer 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong idea of what a cult it - take a look at, even, WP's own page about cults.... JW is a cult, it is very simple. 86.137.231.4 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies and WP:WTA addresses this. I'm not a JW - I oppose Darbyite dispensationalism and disagree with their interpretation of Christian history - but I won't slur people just because I disagree with them. Jacob Haller 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of slurring them - it's a case of reporting what is accurate. Surely WP should be consistent and WP's definition of a cult absolutely fits JW. 86.137.231.4 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, and that the problem. By offering your opinion as an entry to the article your introducing unwanted POV to the article. Jamie 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with opinion - it's fact. Are the JW apologists scared of facts? 86.137.231.4 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me SV 03:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like apologists and cult members to me. Just take a look at the definitions of cult, and then read about the beliefs and practises of JW. There can be no doubt and if you do a Google search of the two there are many, many references to JW as a cult. For this not to be in the article is ridiculous - in fact it is unencyclopedic and amounts to censorship and control (one of the things which cults like JW are particularly fond of). 86.137.231.4 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "cult" is too ambiguous (see Cult, Cult (religious practice)), and should be avoided in this and similar articles unless the context of the intended usage is both clearly established and accurate.--Jeffro77 13:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

discussion of cults is absolutely ridiculous in a specific sense and when you are trying to have a dialog with members of the group concerned. from my point of view, all religions are cults (especially when they form, usually on the basis of a few people's vehement assertions), but I would NEVER have the disrespect of trying to make that the basis of an argument when I'm making trouble arguing with people of various persuasions. If you spend enough time talking to different religious people, you'll find that the only universal definition of cult is "other peoples' religion". If you don't want to WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME stick to well defined concepts ... if you wanted to argue, say, that the JWs are a tad controlling, for example, state exactly in which way you are talking about, and provide good documentation. That way, people can make progress towards relatively agreed conclusions, rather than pointless generalizations. For all their faults, JWs tend to be devoted to the idea that they are on the side of rightness and goodness, and even if you want to disparage them you at least owe them the courtesy of progressing via chains of well established meaningful facts. 131.172.99.15 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

This discussion has been made a lot in archived discussions. I'll just repeat what I've said before... According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed. a cult is "a system of religious worship or ritual or a quasi religious group, often living in a colony, with a charismatic leader who indoctrinates members with unorthodox or extremist views, practices, or beliefs. " By the first part, I would consider Catholics more of a cult because of the somewhat ritualistic things they do during worship. This is my 2 cents. Dannery4 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

cruft

this article is bloated. a lot of work has been done on establishing subarticles for the JW series, and we ought to focus on getting all the sections down to very brief summaries of their main articles, particularly the beliefs and practices section. i would like to start working on this, but i wanted to declare my intentions before making any major changes as i am unfamiliar with the evolution of this issue thought the articles development. anybody else have any ideas or concerns regarding this? --PopeFauveXXIII 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some reduction is in order, but I cringe at the thought of "very brief summaries." The article should have some meat and if it's just brief summaries it would quickly become superfluous. I'm not sure the belief and practices section on the main page needs much reduction (it is already much smaller than the main article). I plan on enlarging the side history article. (I've been working on the side eschatology article for a few months already.) The section on congregational discipline seems overdone for a main page article. Perhaps we could start with condesning that, but without neutering it of substance? Thoughts? Dtbrown 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

By the beliefs and practices section, i also meant the blood and congregational discipline sections which used to be subsections of B&P. B&P has been cut down a lot recently, but both blood and discipline have their own articles and get way too much treatment in this article, IMO. i think they should both be pared down to a short paragraph or two, and now that youve mentioned it, i think eschatology merits its own subsection under B&P too. --PopeFauveXXIII 00:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I still get nervous with "short paragraph or two." I think blood deserves more space than discipline, though it could be trimmed some. Eschatology has been a subset of the History section for quite awhile. I think that is a proper placement as the history of the Witnesses' view of eschatology is intimately connected to the history of the movement. Dtbrown 01:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

what about an eschatology subsection that covers the current views and expectations of Armageddon thoroughly? Harder to cover that in a historical context... --PopeFauveXXIII 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be interesting. Is there that much to cover for the current belief? The current Belief and Practices section on the main page covers things pretty much already, doesn't it? I suppose we could expand that, but that would add more to the page. Dtbrown 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1975

I don't think it's fair that they put 1975 under possible time for the Great Tribulation. It wasn't the group as a whole, only individuals, many of whom later left the religon. Everestgirl 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)everestgirlEverestgirl 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The documentation for the expectations regarding 1975 can be seen here [2] Dtbrown 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One likely interpretation is that by 1975 the Witnesses had been severely burned by making specific and documented predictions; so while printed material was only heavily suggestive, the fact that so many lesser leaders were insisting 1975 was definite prophecy indicates that this was considered fact at the highest level. The point here is that WBTS seems to enforce a higher level of theological consistency than any similarly sized religious group, so it's very hard for breakaway groups to entertain unofficial beliefs. However, given the lack of smoking gun documentation, this is a topic that requires the most careful, rigorous, and cautious investigation before speaking with too much certainty. As an aside on this issue, the graph showing the historical JW membership seems to have less of a dip at 1975 than I've been led to understand from some sources. 131.172.99.15 13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

Bibelforscher & the "Purple Triangle"

How are you all today? Please consider my most humble explanation as to why I think you data on the "Jehovah Witnesses" and "Purple Triangle" web pages are incorrect.

I'm concerned about your postings regarding the "Purple Triangle"; a badge that was placed upon bible researchers during the Nazi war era/holocaust.

You're stating that the triangle was used only to denote Jehovah Witnesses, which is not true. The term Bibelforscher (German) means bible researcher (English). I think it's unfair that you post that it is only to denote Jehovah Witnesses, which is not true. I added that it also denotes other bible researchers, not only those that are Jehovah Witnesses (whom are bible researchers also).

I'm not going to make anymore changes and will hope that you make that change. I will also report this as your information is misleading to those that may wish to have accurate information; not mere speculation porported by one religious group.

September 9, 2007

Girraud 71.204.8.54 01:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the Talk:Purple triangle for information. Duffer 03:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that only JWs wore the purple triangle. It just says that JWs wore a purple triangle. I think it's unnecessary to go into detail on the purple triangle in this article. Dtbrown 07:56, [10 September 2007] (UTC)

Opening sentence

The current opening sentence of the article is POV and may be viewed as antagonistic. While the religion does reject several beliefs of other Christian religions, it is not what defines it. It is a bit like defining hunters as people who reject anti-gun laws. While it should be mentioned in the article that JWs reject the beliefs of other religions, it does not belong in the opening sentence which should present the reader with a basic neutral definition.--Jeffro77 10:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Side note: if you're commenting on how a particular sentence is worded, it would be helpful if you quoted it here on the Talk page so people coming here later (like myself) wouldn't have to search through the history comparing change timestamps to your comment timestamp to figure out exactly what you're objecting to. It doesn't work for paragraphs or larger sections of course, but for something both short and important, like any article's opening sentence, it's often helpful. Thanks. :-) Wesley 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite right; sorry about that. The objectionable opening sentence at the time was:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international religious organization that rejects much of contemporary Christian faith in favour of what they believe to be a restored form of first-century Christianity.

I assume I don't need to explain again why this is inappropriate in the opening sentence.--Jeffro77 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree partly with what you wrote above. In particular, I am surprised that I didn't notice and object to the text "rejects much of contemporary Christian faith". Trinitarianism may be considered a fundamental belief by many Christians but it's reaching a bit far to claim that JWs "reject much of Christian faith". Let's be more precise in characterizing the difference. I would say that JWs match most of the core beliefs of most Christians with certain important differences.

I do think the differences between JWs and "contemporary Christianity" should be mentioned in the intro but not necessarily in the opening sentence.

How about this as a replacement?

Jehovah’s Witnesses are an international religious organization which, like other Christian religions, claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, because they reject certain beliefs which other Christians hold to be fundamental, some Christians consider JWs to be heretical or even non-Christian. JWs claim that it is the rest of Christianity, which they style as Christendom, that has abandoned the true teaching. JWs claim that their religion is a restored form of first-century Christianity.

I'm not thrilled that the paragraph above uses "claim" three times. However, let's hash out the key ideas first and then wordsmith later.

--Richard 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr... your suggestion above is actually worse than what was there previously. As stated before, the immediate introduction is to be neutral. "claims to follow... However... they reject..." This is not neutral language. I would be very, very surprised to see articles on other Christian religions that say they "claim" to be Christian in the opening sentence.--Jeffro77 21:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro, good point! Dtbrown 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I just noticed that you (Jeffro77) already fixed the intro. If anything of what I wrote is useful, please use it. Otherwise, I'm OK with your fix. If anything of what I wrote is off-the-mark, please feel free to explain either here or on my Talk Page. --Richard 16:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses are"

I am going to fix this problem throughout the article (along with a number of biased problems that have crept up) as I have time. Where "Jehovah's Witnesses" refers to the following, then "Jehovah's Witnesses is" is the correct usage:

the organisation

its official teachings

Where "Jehovah's Witnesses" refers to the following, then "Jehovah's Witnesses are" is the correct usage:

members of the religion

those who are taught by the organization

those who believe what the religion teaches

the members who teach outsiders

That is English. If you don't understand, don't change it. If you disagree, or if you think it reads awkwardly, you need to learn about collective nouns functioning in the singular. A simple parallel that might help you is that correct usage is "Dell Computers is a company", not "Dell Computers are a company".--Jeffro77 10:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the official organisation is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and in ordinary English the teaching would be mentioned something like, "Jehovah's Witness teaching is".

We don't say "Catholics is", but "the Holy See is". A.J.A. 15:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Members of the religion never state their religion to be "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society"; they say their religion is "Jehovah's Witnesses". Of course we don't say "Catholics is"; but we do say "Catholicism is", or "the Roman Catholic Church is". The fact that the name of the religion, "Jehovah's Witnesses", happens to be the same as the plural form of its members, "Jehovah's Witnesses", does not change the rules of grammar when referring to the religion, though they have created ambiguity in using the same name for both. In your example of "Jehovah's Witness teaching", the term "Jehovah's Witness" functions as an adjective modifying the noun "teaching", and is not relevant to this discussion, however such wording can be used if it avoids ambiguity.--Jeffro77 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times before. The last time was at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/archive_25#.22is.22_vs_.22are.22

There has never been a consensus to go with "Jehovah's Witnesses is..."

The question I have is this: Is there a consensus of sources which follows the usage Jeffro wants this article to employ? Jeffro, can you cite other encyclopedias which do this when discussing Jehovah's Witnesses? (As I recall, the World Book Encylcopedia uses "are.") If memory serves. the standard usage among JWs themselves is to use "are." If other sources use "are" and not "is" in this situation I vote we follow conventional practice on this. Dtbrown 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of other sources available to me. What I do have is knowledge of the English language. If an organisation is discussed, than the grammar of any sentence should be consistent with how the sentence would appear if the name of the organisation were replaced with "it". Whether other sources get it wrong does not justify getting it wrong here.--Jeffro77 21:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. I would be more comfortable going with the consensus of other sources' usage regarding this ("Jehovah's Witnesses is" or "Jehovah's Witnesses are") than an independent view. There are always exceptions to rules of grammar and we should follow the conventional usage. Dtbrown 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It are a shame that you disagree. But a suitable compromise, and probably more appropriate anyway, would be to use the full official title in the introduction: "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is..." (Note that this usage is found in JW publications, and the lowercase 'c' - as used in JW publications to refer to the religion (see w96 11/15 p 27) - sets it apart from the corporation of the same name.)--Jeffro77 08:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Watchtower organization has applied the lowercase C. However, this is not the official title of the religion. Officially the religion is Jehovah’s Witnesses. Note that the Watchtower organization has also applied a lowercase W to its membership by using the phrase Jehovah’s witnesses. But when referring to the official title it applies the upper case W; hence Jehovah’s Witnesses. The usage of Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses with the lowercase C is a reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the phrase Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the official title. Jehovah’s Witnesses is the official title of the religion. If we are going to use the phrase Christian c/Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and tag it as “the full official title” then we are forced to use the uppercase C since this is the official title as applied to the organization set up by the Watchtower Society. Either this or go back to using Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is in reality “the official title”. Frankly, it is telling that Wikipedia editors are willing to compromise the actual facts of a matter to settle an otherwise secondary issue. That is, if editors are willing to toy around with the actual title of a religious body then how much confidence should the rest of the information inspire? -- Marvin Shilmer 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Several details above are incorrect. JW publications almost always capitalise the W, and they are referring to the members most of the time when they do so. The w is almost never in lowercase, and never in reference to members of the religion in the sense of the religion's title. The ambiguity betweeen the full title of the religion as used in their publications and a corporation they happen to use does not invalidate the appropriateness of referring to them by that full title, being "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". We are not "forced" to capitalise a letter AT ALL, and claiming such in order to enforce your view through ambiguity with the related corporation name is childish.--Jeffro77 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is confusing for another reason, too. It represents a corporation unique to the United States, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses (the official title) represents an international affiliation. Also, the phrase Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (lowercase) is a doctrinal declaration representing the Watchtower organization's assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses is/are "the" Christian congregation. Declaratory language like this is fine if representing what it is, an assertion. But to present is as a factual statement is to rip it from context and, worse, substitute it for the actual title of the religion. -- Marvin Shilmer 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect again. There are various religions that say they are Christian congregations, and it has no impact whatsoever on the validity of any other religion claiming to be Christian, such as the Congregation of Christian Brothers or the Christian Congregation of Brazil. JW publications do use the title, therefore it is an official title.--Jeffro77 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, I agree with you that using "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" as the name of the religion would not be correct. I don't think the concern about grammar here is necessary. Conventional usage allows for what we've had on this page for a long time: "Jehovah's Witnesses are..." Other encyclopedias don't have this problem. For example, the World Book Encyclopedia has:

Jehovah's Witnesses are members of...

Note that there is no problem at all with the grammar above.--Jeffro77 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian Encyclopedia has:

Jehovah's Witnesses are a religious denomination, known for their door-to-door canvassing.

The grammar above is incorrect.--Jeffro77 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0004118

Having a short opening sentence such as "The religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is international" seems a rather weak trade-off just to observe some strict observance of grammar that is not followed by other encyclopedias. Why should we do this? Dtbrown 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The current introduction, "The religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is international." reads like something a seven-year-old might write. Whoever made that edit should be ashamed of themself.--Jeffro77 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, Tradeoff? What tradeoff? Your preference is for conventional usage, and the edit in question supplies conventional usage. Do you consider it a tradeoff to apply what you prefer? It is also factual/verifiable, and to the point. It presents no POV other than cold hard information. This is why we should do this. --Marvin Shilmer 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an opening sentence like "The religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is international" is weak. The article for the LDS Church [3] gives an excellent opening sentence for its article, for example. Why should we have such a terse opening sentence? Dtbrown 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

DtBrown, Are you editing an article to present a religion, or people of a religion? If the former (a religion), then why your characterization of “weak” and “terse”? We should focus on presenting sound information. Whether a presentation (even a single sentence!) is “weak” or otherwise inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry has everything to do with soundness and hardly anything to do with personal opinion. If the information is factual/verifiable then it is strong, for purposes of an encyclopedic entry.

You have offered a personal opinion. That is weak. As is the opening remarks are verifiable—sound. If you are editing this article to present the people of a religion then you have the wrong article. This one is about the religion. Not the people. How people react and interact with this religion is important to the topic. But factual/verifiable information about the religion remains the same regardless of how people react or interact with it.

As for the Wiki article on Mormons, the opening sentence contains atrocious grammar. I hope such an example does not stir your juices. – Marvin Shilmer 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, that was overkill. I expressed an opinion (which you characterized as weak). I am entitled to my opinion as you are yours. Let's see what other editors think. Dtbrown 02:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, you stated: "If you are editing this article to present the people of a religion then you have the wrong article. This one is about the religion. Not the people." To begin with, I think this page is about both the religion and the people. But, why tell me I have the wrong article? You and I can approach this page from different viewpoints, can't we? Dtbrown 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, Opinions are weak in relation to verifiable statements. This is the point. If we get mired in opinions at the expense of presenting verifiable information then we have crossed a line into writing an editorial.

I do not disagree that an encyclopedic article about a religion can, and should, discuss the religion and its community of affiliates. But it should not overlap these two subjects as though they are one and the same. This would obfuscate which is being discussed for informational purposes. If any given sentence is addressing a religion rather than its adherents (and vice versa) then it should be written with sufficient clarity so one is not easily confused as the other. The point of consternation is that the term “Jehovah’s Witnesses” happens to be the common (and official) means of identifying both the religion and the religion’s community of affiliates. Hence the need for careful use of language so the two are not confused for informational purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin Shilmer (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Marvin has shown us a distinction that we have perhaps overlooked. Witnesses as the people, and Witnesses as the religion. Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a Christian religion, also called Jehovah's Witnesses. I think we can avoid the rather unusual intro (currently: "The religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is international. Adherents believe..") by immediately clarifying what the religion is called, and what the adherents are called. Catholics are members of a religion known as Catholicism. etc.. Duffer 06:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A valid reason for not using "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is..." is yet to be presented.--Jeffro77 08:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as Mormons are members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of the "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". It is a fact, it is used by their own publications, and it resolves the issues of problematic grammar. The only (alleged) reason not to use the name is because they happen to have a corporation of the same name. This does not invalidate use of the full title in the opening paragraph.--Jeffro77 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, 1) “The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is…” is a doctrinal declaration rather than a statement of information. It declares the doctrinal position of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses (GBJW) that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Though I happen to affiliate myself with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and though I happen to believe there are Christians among Jehovah’s Witnesses, it nevertheless remains that this is a belief (doctrinal position) and not a pure assertion of information. Encyclopedic entries are for statements of information; not for doctrinal declarations. 2) The article is about the religion known as and officially titled Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses” is not the name/title of the religion. (See Amended and Restated Charter Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., dated April 8, 2003) It is ridiculous to suggest an encyclopedic entry should resolve a dispute over grammar by removing the official title of the subject and replacing it with a theological declaration cloaked as the official title. In common terms this is called cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

Regarding your analogy that “Just as Mormons are members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of the "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,” it is fatally flawed for multiple reasons. 1) “Mormons” is not the official name of a religion whereas “Jehovah’s Witnesses” is the official name of a religion. 2) “Mormons” is specifically a reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is, “Mormons” represents the people of a religion and not the religion itself. On the other hand, and to everyone’s consternation, officially “Jehovah’s Witnesses” can and does refer to both the membership of a religion and the religion itself. So you analogy fails in this second instance because it attempts to equate “Xs are members of Y” with “Xs are members of Z” when Y is an official title of a religion and Z is not. For your analogy to work the part related to Jehovah’s Witnesses would have to read, “Jehovah’s Witnesses (X) are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Y)”. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The flawed attempt at contradicting my analogy contradicts itself. Claiming that "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of the Jehovah's Witnesses indicates that "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the second instance is not referring to the name of an organisation by reason of grammar. It is like saying "the Microsoft".--Jeffro77 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, Thanks for sharing your opinion. I am glad you have one, and I am glad you felt comfortable sharing it with me.

You complain about the grammar “Jehovah’s Witnesses are” (in respect to the religion) and respond by applying as a title of the religion something other than the actual title of the religion. You rationalize this based on the Watchtower using the same phrase. You promote a phrase that is not a title as a title on the basis that the same organization uses the phrase. Yet in doing this you relegate the same organization’s express statements that the name of the religion is “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. If your rationalization of usage is correct then you should be equally accepting of “Jehovah’s Witnesses are” (in respect to the religion) because the religion uses this phrase over and over again (in respect to the religion). I’m editing the opening sentence back to where there was actually a consensus among editors. Please do not continue in your unilateral attempt to re-title a religion. -- Marvin Shilmer 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see previous comment at bottom of this section that you conveniently ignored which shows your position to be in error.--Jeffro77 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I read it. It did not deserve response. But now that you request a response, out of respect for a fellow editor I will comment.

You are correct that “The Church of Christ” is a theological declaration. But—and here comes the point—unlike “The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses” the phrase “The Church of Christ” is a title of record for a religion (or religions). Hence to write an encyclopedic presentation on a religion titled “The Church of Christ” we have no choice but to include this no matter whether it asserts a theological declaration. But “The Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses” is not the title of record for the religion we are presenting in this article. The title of record for this religion is “Jehovah’s Witnesses”. That title too presents a theological declaration. But since that is the religion’s title then we have no choice but to use it. --Marvin Shilmer 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The reply above does not make reference to the comment in question, specifically that the Italian Ministry of the Interior recognises the organisation as the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses".--Jeffro77 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have since edited the article to remove the grammatical error, using the same phraseology as is used by both the World Book Encyclopaedia and Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, there is no need to revert to the incorrect grammar. Thank you for your patience.--Jeffro77 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I only suggested "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" as a concession for the supposed problem people seem to have with "Jehovah's Witnesses is" in relation to the organisation, which is correct English grammar when referring to the organisation. A year ago, I had put in "are members of" (the same used by the World Book Encyclopaedia), but people objected to that as well, which was why I tried suggesting "CCOJW" instead. Then I was forced to defend the validity of that statement. I have put back in correct grammar that other encyclopadeic works use, and hopefully this time people will accept it.--Jeffro77 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JW publications almost always adjust the grammar of "Jehovah's Witnesses are" in such a way to indicate a reference to the collective of the members rather than the title of the religion. Additionally, their public affairs website says that "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a[n unnamed] worldwide Christian religion..." rather than stating that the religion itself is simply called "Jehovah's Witnesses". The point is that even they avoid the ambiguity of saying that "Jehovah's Witnesses are" in relation to the religion's name rather than its collective members. Show me any other singular proper noun after which it is appropriate to use a plural verb.--Jeffro77 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, You and I do not disagree on the grammatical perspective. But it remains the case that “Jehovah’s Witnesses” is the title of record for the religion we are discussing. It also remains the case that Watchtower publications use this title on occasion in a way that violates conventional grammatical construction in the English language. Have you ever read the Watchtower’s Standards Manual for its editors? It provides examples to show its acceptable usage. One of these examples states: “Some opposers charge that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a “Devil inspired” religion”. Now this usage may violate our training in English grammar. But the Watchtower organization uses such language as an internal standard when it comes to the title of the religion. I do not like this. I think it absurd. But the Watchtower does this regardless.

Not to be lost in this discussion is that the Watchtower organization has expressly stated, and repeated, that it desires its religion to be “known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah’s witnesses.” (See: How We Came To Be Known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1993 p 156) Current usage of the Watchtower organization is also to capitalize the W in Witnesses. This is explained in the Watchtower’s Standards Manual, and it found in Watchtower usage since the mid-1970s. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that in making the comment, "to wit, Jehovah's witnesses", they were referring to their alleged supposition that they are literally witnesses of Jehovah in the literal sense of the word, as in, 'to bear witness', rather than as a title. Note also that the Proclaimers Book section mentioned by your reference above states: "It was not the name of a group that was under consideration but the work that they were to do." However, their own inconsistency and the lack of skill on the part of their editors does not invalidate the basic rules of grammar. And as previously stated, adding "CCOJW" to the article was a concession for those editors who do not understand proper grammar, however hopefully the current wording will be sufficient for them. --Jeffro77 08:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: "Those editors" mentioned above refers to those Wikipedia editors who had problem with the Wikipedia article, not the editors of JW publications mentioned in the previous sentence.--Jeffro77 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I can note anything anyone wants me to note. But the fact remains that “Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses” is not the title of record for the religion. Another fact remains that the Watchtower organization’s Standards Manual demonstrates an intentional (though grammatically mangled) use of “Jehovah’s Witnesses are” when speaking of the religion (rather than the membership). The title of record is something we must accept. The mangled grammar used by the Watchtower in relation to the name of its religion is present. Though I agree the grammar is bad, I disagree that the solution is to suggest an official title of the religion that is something other than the officially declared title. In particular I disagree with this when it has the affect of presenting a theological declaration as a matter-of-fact. I will add that your recent edit is acceptable, and consistent with previous consensus. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You've done a lot to argue your point, but you didn't do a great deal to resolve the dispute. I am glad that you accept the current wording. Unfortunately there were some last time, about a year ago, who also objected to that wording, for no good reason. It is good to know that you support the current wording and will hopefully display the same tenacity if others dispute it that you have shown here.--Jeffro77 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As Marvin pointed out above the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is US based Corp in use by Jehovah's Witnesses and does not represent the international Christian religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. I very much so agree that Christian should be in the first or second sentence of the intro, but to avoid ambiguity I don't believe it should be used as "Christian Congregation of JWs". I like the intro on the JW-Media website http://www.jw-media.org/people/who.htm, I believe some variant could be adopted for this article. I think we all agree that "...is international" is a major step backwards, no? Duffer 12:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Duffer, Jeffro77 makes a valid distinction between using the uppercase C versus the lowercase C in “Christian c/Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses”. The uppercase C refers to a corporation whereas the lowercase C refers to a community. The lowercase phrase also represents a doctrinal assertion, and is not the official title of the religion in question.

The problem with the introduction from jw-media is its theological declaration. Though it is appropriate for a religion (or any entity) to profess of itself whatever it wants, whether that declaration is a verifiable piece of information is another matter. Encyclopedic entries must be verifiable in terms of informational value. We can verify that a religion professes Christianity. Whether a religion is Christian is an ongoing, and seemingly unending, debate. To present a self-professed status of a religion clearly as a doctrinal position of that religion is to provide verifiable information. To assert with declaratory language a self-professed status as fact is editorial. The former is useful analytical information. The latter is rhetoric. One belongs in a encyclopedic reference; the other does not. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of the title on the basis of the claim that it is a theological declaration is absurd. The Church of Christ is the name of a religion, and the fact that there are other 'Churches' that are "of Christ", or that the name implies some theological claim, is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, can you document that "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is the normative name of the religion? Dtbrown 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, Jeffro77 can show where the Watchtower organization has applied the term Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to the religion and its membership. He is unable to show where the Watchtower organization has applied the same term to express the title of record of the religion because it has already expressed the title as Jehovah’s Witnesses. (See Amended and Restated Charter Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., dated April 8, 2003) Is Jeffro77 going to argue one religion has two official titles? If so, then we have another set of problems the article will have to satisfy. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Italian Ministry of the Interior recognises Jehovah's Witnesses as "Congregazione Cristiana dei Testimoni di Geova" (Literally "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses") (w02 1/15 p. 32). The corporation of the same name is a separate United States corporation, and was therefore not the group referred to, therefore such usage indicates the religion is not only known by that name, but recognised by external governments as having that name.--Jeffro77 09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77, Religions title themselves. Hence if we want to know what is the title of record for any given religion we have to examine what that religion titles itself. The citation you provide makes reference to a regional legal identity. It does not reflect the name of record for the international religion we are discussing. In every sovereign state where the Watchtower organization operates we will find various legal identifications. But the religion is Jehovah’s Witnesses. -- Marvin Shilmer 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm astounded at how many electrons are being wasted on this discussion. In common usage, academic and popular, they're known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. This apellation is clearly not offensive or disagreeable to members of the religion themselves. Go with that, it's more informative and less controversial than any alternative I've seen suggested here. The place for any official incorporated names would be in the sub-sub-section discussing their legal organizational form(s), if it needs to be included at all. Wesley 03:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether the title "Jehovah's Witnesses" is appropriate is not the point being discussed. The point is using that title in a sense that does not violate the rules of grammar.--Jeffro77 07:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Russell's expectations

A statement of Russell's that his predictions were not "prophecy" and not infallible is in the article, however his other statements that his dates were "God's dates" and that they 'couldn't be changed even if he wanted to' are not presented. The implication given in the article is therefore dishonest and unbalanced in favour of JWs. The article is to be neutral.--Jeffro77 01:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I think we should provide both statements. Dtbrown 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Discipline section

There is a footnote at the beginning of one of the paragraphs. The text before the footnote has been deleted at some point. Rather than deleting the orphaned footnote, the deleted information should be reviewed and reinserted if appropriate.--Jeffro77 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other sites section

I suggest reorganizing the “Other sites” section by separating out the “con” viewpoints into a “Critical resources” section, which would make it a little less confusing. The “Critical resources” section would include the current links "JW Files," "Watchtower Information Service," and "Witnesses of Jehovah," plus add the following: "*SoundWitness.orgReaching out to Jehovah’s Witnesses & examining the Watchtower" Anyone have objections? This re-organization seems to make it easier to “navigate.” --Sdiekmann 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We've had them divided before and there was continual debate as to some resources as to whether they were "critical" or "neutral." It seemed easier to just put them alphabetical and let the readers decide for themselves." As for the resource you suggest--it looks interesting but not noteworthy enough to add to the list here, IMO. Dtbrown 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the language in the intro

"The central theme of their preaching is the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of His sovereignty by means of His Kingdom, with Jesus Christ as its Ruler. The Witnesses believe that the reign of Jesus began with the Second Coming or presence of Christ. Originally, this was believed to have occurred invisibly in 1874, but this date was later revised to 1914.[11]

Other Witness teachings include the use of a personal name for God, Jehovah, and the belief that making this name known to others is an important part of worship. They believe that Jesus' death was necessary to atone for the sin brought into the world by the first man, Adam, opening the way for the hope of everlasting life for mankind, and that 144,000 people will receive immortal life in heaven as co-rulers with Christ, guiding the rest of mankind to perfection during the Millennium. Witnesses believe that during the imminent war of Armageddon, the wicked will be destroyed, and survivors, along with millions of others who will be resurrected, will form a new earthly society ruled by a heavenly government and have the possibility of living forever in an earthly paradise."

I'm a former Jehovah's witness and this seems like something that was pulled directly out of their manuals. The language is too euphemistic and poetic and should be simplified to something more precise and concise.As the glorious weep 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but haven't been sure how to approach changing it. It is full of JW-speak; the first sentence of the first paragraph above is pretty much verbatim from Watchtower publications, and should probably be removed altogether. Originally, it was even worse, conveniently ignoring 1874 altogether. I'll give it some thought.--Jeffro77 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Noting controversial issues is good, where appropriate. Naming them in the opening paragraph is irresponsible. Duffer 09:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you propose? I'm not sure what to do with it, though I have a few ideas on what not to.--Jeffro77 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

meetings or annual memorial observance?

i see that for the second time, Marvin Shilmer has reverted my edit, changing

Jehovah’s Witnesses count as adherents the number attending their annual memorial observance, which as of 2006 is about 16.5 million.

TO

Jehovah’s Witnesses count as adherents the number attending their meetings, which as of 2006 is about 16.5 million.

i am changing it back, and here is my rationale. my version of the statement is based on information from the most official source possible, and it is available online here. the numbers are the same, which leads me to believe that Marvin Shilmer's source is making the same statement with less specific language. his first source is not strictly official, and neither of the sources is available online. the statement as he makes it is misleading, as the numbers do not reflect average attendance at meeting(s) but rather a single, annual meeting. That's a big enough difference to be picky about in the lead. --PopeFauveXXIII 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PopefauveXXIII, It is unfortunate you are, apparently, willing to edit based on a lack of access to referenced material.

The assertion of who Jehovah’s Witnesses view as “adherents” is not found in primary Watchtower literature. Rather, the assertion of who Jehovah’s Witnesses view as “adherents” is found in the secondary, and vetted, source of Journal of Church and State (June 2001, p. 582) in the article by Carolyn Wah titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Responsibility of Religious Freedom: The European Experience. Carolyn Wah is an associate general counsel for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the chief and oldest corporate entity recognized by Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is in her official capacity representing the Watch Tower Corporation that she asserts who Jehovah’s Witnesses view as “adherents” compared to who they view as “members”. Wah writes:

“Based on annual statistics, meetings are attended by some 14 million adherents, including approximately 5.8 million members.”

Wah’s statement is from year 2001. The annual memorial attendance published for 2001 indicates 14,872,086 present for this particular meeting. Wah may or may not have based her statement on this statistic. We do not know because she does not say. But we do know what she wrote in plain black and white. Her statement is based on “annual statistics”, not “annual published statistics”. The Watchtower organization maintains a wide range of annual statistics that it never publishes, and in this case Wah does not cite any published source for the statistic she cites though she could have had this been her point of reference. Two sentences and one cited source later in the same paragraph she references the Watchtower’s 2001 published statistics. But, again, in the sentence in question she offers no reference for her statistically based remark. The sentence is question is not a statement of how many attend “the memorial”. The sentence in question is a statement of who the religion looks upon as “adherents” compared to who it looks upon as “members”.

Accordingly, to avoid stating more than we can verify, academic rigor requires we refrain from original research by presenting what we can verify rather than what we imply from what we verify. That Watch Tower associate general counsel asserts “adherent” status based on “meetings are attended” is verifiable. But it is a deduction to assert the particular meeting she refers is “the memorial”.

The unverified statement is hereby deleted and the verified statement is reinstated. My request is that editors refrain from editing based on a lack of access to information. In such a case an editor is better advised to discuss their concern on the talk page prior to making a change for which they lack information. -- Marvin Shilmer 00:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PopefauveXXIII, Something else you should take care to note is Wah’s reference to plural “meetings” rather than a singular meeting, as though her remark is strictly based on attendance of the single annual memorial event. -- Marvin Shilmer 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that im a little confused. If there is no direct correlation between what Wah claimed as "14 million adherents" and the 14 million tallied in attendence at the memorial that year, then on what basis do you make the statement that "Jehovah’s Witnesses count as adherents the number attending their meetings, which as of 2006 is some 16 million"? Sounds to me like your statement is based on as much or more implication than mine was. unless you can produce a direct reference to a particular number of adherents for 2006 or 2007, we'll either have to state that "as of 2001 there were 14 million adherents" or remove the reference to adherents entirely.

Re: meetingS (plural); her statement is vague enough that it could be interpreted as meaning the memorial of that year at different kingdom halls. i see no justification for the claim that there is even an official definition of an adherent, and even less that it should be worded in such a way that suggests 16 million+ people attend more than one meeting a year. --PopeFauveXXIII 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PopefauveXXIII, Usage applied by an associate general counsel to the Watchtower organization who is writing in her official capacity and for a vetted journal should not be misconstrued as “unofficial”. Under such conditions what is written is specifically for the record, which makes it official academically, and an encyclopedic reference is for academic purposes of education and information sharing.

As for the quantification “some 16 million,” Wah is not the only Watchtower writer who has applied a statistical corollary of distinction between “members” and meeting attendees based on approximate meeting attendance that happens to run parallel--but not at--the published annual statistic of memorial attendance. Watchtower officials Richard Bailey and Tomonori Ariga make the same correlation writing for Artificial Cells, Blood Substitutes, and Immobilization Biotechnology in the article titled The View of Jehovah’s Witnesses on Blood Substitutes (1998). Because multiple Watchtower officials have drawn the same corollary in different vetted journals in different years then the corollary is not mine—not original—but rather of the Watchtower.

Perhaps confusion would be lessened if you expanded your reading resources. Unfortunately there is a commonly held myth that official Watchtower policies, usages and statements are found only in its self-published materials and not elsewhere. Reality is the Watchtower organization has had several staffers submit articles for various outside publishers, and in these we also find Watchtower sanctioned position statements and usages. All materials I have provided as references to the article's main text--or otherwise referred to--are available through any moderately staffed and funded library in the developed world.

As for vagueness in Wah’s statement, she is not vague about who are the “adherents”. She is vague about the precise basis of her statistical benchmark. But we are not left in doubt to imagine (imply) a consistent corollary because, again, other Watchtower writers have made the same assertion. On the other hand, not a single one of these has every suggested that the religion considers specifically the attendees of the annual memorial event as “adherents”. I’ve undone your deletion of material verified by vetted secondary source. I advise against editing statements based on references you have not taken time to examine in whole and firsthand. -- Marvin Shilmer 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the reference that establishes 16+ million as adherents, then? you are accusing me of deduction, and then providing outdated sources as references. please provide a link more recent than 2001 unless you change the statement to reflect the 2001 numbers. --PopeFauveXXIII 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PopeFauveXXIII, The quantification “some 16 million” is, strictly speaking, the current statistical figure of the same correlation consistently applied by Watchtower sanctioned authors, Carolyn Wah, Richard Bailey and Tomonori Ariga in different vetted journals written at different times. Another Watchtower sanctioned author making the same distinction with the same corollary is Donald Ridley, also an associate general counsel for the Watch Tower Pennsylvania Corporation. (See article Honoring Jehovah’s Witnesses Advance Directives, Academic Emergency Medicine, 1998) I have not altered the statistical corollary used by all these Watchtower sanctioned authors. I have merely applied it to contemporary published figures as demonstrated in each of these written presentations sanctioned by Watchtower representatives writing in their capacity of representation. The result is “some 16 million”. The corollary is not mine. It is purely the presentation of Watchtower sanctioned authors.

I have no intention to engage an edit war based on speculative and/or personal opinion. For now, I am leaving it to you to undo your deletion of perfectly good information that is verified by vetted secondary source material. If you fail to make this edit on your own then unfortunately I am compelled to make it for you. In the meantime I continue to recommend you visit this subject at a reasonably staffed and funded library where you can personally engage the specific subject in much more depth than previously. -- Marvin Shilmer 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a recent statement from Witness representatives as to the current number of adherents? If not, perhaps we should leave this out. Dtbrown 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, A statement of position is current until it is altered. The referenced 2001 statement of record by a Watch Tower associate general counsel is a statement of position based on the relationship of the author to the subject. There is no position alteration of record. None. Furthermore, a position documented as recently as six years is by no means dated. The only thing changed in respect to “adherents” among Jehovah’s Witnesses is the number. The consistent correlation applied by Watchtower representatives prior to and as of 2001 demonstrates an increase.

What is frustrating on this subject is what appears to be an attack on a fundamental criterion for Wikipedia entries; namely, verifiability. Particularly that which is verified by secondary source material, and vetted no less. When verifiability is provided it is confounding to see editors manifest willingness to 1) reject reputable and vetted secondary sources containing explicit statements, 2) edit based on a lack of access to information and 3) edit based on a resulting academic ignorance. – Marvin Shilmer 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what i find frustrating. you wanna say it one way, i wanna say it another. i use one rationale to make a statement, and you turn around and use the exact same rationale as your argument. if the correlation between the numbers is a leap worth making, then its worth portraying it accurately. thats all im saying. --PopeFauveXXIII 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current edit. --PopeFauveXXIII 03:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The only editor who has made an issue about this is Marvin. What do other editors think? Dtbrown 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, “The only editor who has made an issue about this”? Please take care with accusations, particularly when these lack merit. What I have done is perform research and provide verifiable information about Jehovah’s Witnesses into a supposedly encyclopedic article discussing/presenting Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is the charge of editors working on the Wikipedia article on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Acting as charged is not ‘making an issue”. It is doing one’s job.

It is other editors who have questioned the information of record, none of which editors have had access to or read the referenced material prior to editing out verified information. I have responded by offering time, further information and editing.-- Marvin Shilmer 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvin, thank you for your explanation of your perspective and your view of the other editors. Dtbrown 04:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dtbrown, My perspectives are shared because I care about my work, and subjects I take time to address. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to alter the work of someone else has an ethical and academic duty to act responsibly, in this case by undertaking to access the information in question in order to consider its veracity and authenticity. Marvin Shilmer 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

technically, the other editors do have access to said materials, as you have posted the pertinent passage in this talk page discussion. --PopeFauveXXIII 07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PopeFauveXXIII, No. You are wrong. Technically and academically, what you have depicted is called “taking my word for it.” Until you pick up the real thing and read it firsthand you have not accessed the information.-- Marvin Shilmer 23:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Shilmer, No. You are wrong. --PopeFauveXXIII 05:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is part of Wikiproject Christianity?

I notice at the top of this talk page there is the following notice about this article (which I'll quote in part):

Jehovah's Witnesses is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia.

I have no problem with the statment. Funny how the talk page can refer to JWs as a subset of Christianity, yet how many electrons were wasted in discussions on this earlier! Dtbrown 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles about legal instruments

Should the articles Legal instruments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, International Bible Students Association and Watchtower Society be merged? They are mostly short and are actually covering facts that could be put together. Summer Song 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Shylev33's edit

Shylev33 inserted the following text:

The Date in which the turn of the End of the Gentile times was announced in 1874, to happen and occur a change sometime in the year 1914, the exact date was unknown. Although in turn the Heavens was cleansed of Satan and all the Demons ( the fallen Angels ) and thrown to the Earth as prophesied in Revelation 12:12,13. The Start of the New Heavens as Jesus Christ as the Newly appointed King by his Heavenly Father, God Almighty Jehovah ( YHWH )

I removed it for the following reasons:

The grammar is appalling. ("to happen and occur", "The Date in which the turn of the", "the Heavens was cleansed".)
Rediculous capitalisation.
Stating beliefs as if factual ("heavens was cleansed of Satan...") is POV.
"sometime" is not a word.
It misleads the reader by omitting expectations of events supposed to occur in 1874. (jv chap. 28 pp. 631-632: "Calculations based on this cycle of years led to the conclusion that perhaps a greater Jubilee for all the earth had begun in the autumn of 1874, that evidently the Lord had returned in that year and was invisibly present, and that “the times of restitution of all things” had arrived.")
It misleads the reader by omitting that events were supposed to occur in or after October of 1914 rather than an unknown date. (w5/15, 1911: "Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914.")

Shylev33, please verify your changes before claiming they are "True Correct" edits.--Jeffro77 08:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)