Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 10:36, 26 July 2011 editFakTNeviM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,319 edits →Jesus reference mislead: correction← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:54, 18 January 2025 edit undoJeffro77 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,673 edits →Lead sentence 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|15:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Religion, mysticism and mythology|status=onreview|note=}}

{{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 11: Line 11:
|action1result=reviewed |action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=61091279 |action1oldid=61091279

|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
|action2date=11:18, 6 July 2006 |action2date=11:18, 6 July 2006
Line 16: Line 17:
|action2result=not promoted |action2result=not promoted
|action2oldid=62348431 |action2oldid=62348431

|action3=PR |action3=PR
|action3date=03:55, 11 December 2008 |action3date=03:55, 11 December 2008
Line 21: Line 23:
|action3result=reviewed |action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=257166622 |action3oldid=257166622

|currentstatus=FFAC
| action4 = GAN
| action4date = 13:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
| action4link = /GA1
| action4result = listed
| action4oldid = 442298293

| topic = philrelig
| currentstatus = GA

| small = no
| collapse = no
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=B |importance=Top |jehovah's-witnesses=yes |jehovah's-witnesses-importance=Top |core-topics-work-group = yes |core-topics-importance=Top }} {{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |jehovah's-witnesses=yes |jehovah's-witnesses-importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Religion |class=B |importance=Mid |NRM=yes |NRMImp=High }} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes |NRMImp=Top}}
}}
{{WP1.0 |v0.5=pass |class=B |importance=high |category=Philrelig }}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{annual readership}}
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 28 2014 (24th)}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 300K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 55 |counter = 67
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|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=1 |units=month |search=yes |root=Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses |auto=yes |index=/Archive index}}

== Christians ==

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christians, by definition Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That point has been vigorously discussed in the past and the use of term is the result of consensus based on verifiable sources. JWs, incidentally, do believe in the resurrection of Christ and it's unclear from your comment whose "definition" you refer to here. ] (]) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:What I know, Trinity is not involved in any regular definition of Christianity. Are you for example "]", if you know something about chr. traditions or cogitations? Answer to both questions is: "No. You don´t." If you refer to any specifical definition, some unknown one to nowadays, you´re welcome to place it to talk here. However ] --] (]) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah witnesses are not Christians. Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. Let us first look at the Ressurection: The Watchtower organization says that Jesus did not rise from the dead in the same body he died in (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, p. 143-44). Instead, it says that He rose as a spirit creature and that the material body of Jesus was taken away by God the Father. Therefore, they deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Is this important? Most definitely!
1 Cor. 15:14 says, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." In other words, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a waste of time and we are then still dead in our sins. It is obvious that the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus is a vital and essential element of Christianity. But what of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are they accurate in their assessment of Jesus' resurrection in denying the bodily resurrection but affirming a "spiritual" resurrection? The answer is a definite, "No."It is obvious from Jesus' own words in John 2:19-21 that He would raise Himself from the dead: "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body." They also do not believe in the Trinity which the Bible says "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1. The Bible goes further to state Jesus is the word John 1:1,14.

Please remove the part about JW's being Christians because it is not factual. ] (]) 21:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

:Hysteria2424, please stop your misrepresentation of the Bible verses and misrepresentation of the JW teaching with using trance sentence out of context and modify it to your own understanding. Please stop such despicable approaches. --] (]) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:Your theological opinion is not important here. This issue has been discussed at length previously. Even the ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' says nontrinitarians are Christians.--] (]) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

:"Heretical" Christians are still classifiable as "Christians" for secular purposes, such as Misplaced Pages. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
::<s>They're confused. Let them be confused by themselves. Everybody has a right to their opinion. You can tell by their lack of spelling and grammatical expertise that they're not very intelligent. Report them or not, but don't debate them. It's useless. Gets you nowhere. Update: some of that bad spelling was from a member of our own Wikiproject; but that's okay! He's on our side! They was robbed! Update of update: Oh, simplified English. I got ya.. ]</s> ] ] 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

:::<s> I´m not on "your side". I´m not on side of any man. </s> --] (]) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:::<s> Stupidity, pride and nasty behavior, which you have been shown are particularly clear proofs that you can´t be one of Jehovah´s Witnesses. Sorry for my sincere talk. </s> --] (]) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from Pinas2020, 19 June 2011 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
I want to edit some articles in Jehovah's Witnesses

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

== Unrepentantly practice etc ==

=== Many Brooklyn etc ===
* In various places, I replaced "most" with "many". Editors should feel free to provide references if they feel "most" is well-supported.
* In recent weeks, someone added the idea that the GBJW is "located in Brooklyn"; the article elsewhere states that Brooklyn is the current headquarters and the ref for this three-word addition is dated 1969. These three words have been removed.
* The article formerly stated, "They do not observe holiday celebrations..."; in recent weeks that was changed to "They do not observe celebrations...". The misconception that JWs do not celebrate ANYTHING could be reinforced by that edit, so the former wording has been reinstated ("They do not observe holiday celebrations...").
* I changed "about one in seven Bible Students had chosen to sever ties with the Society rather than accept Rutherford's leadership" to the less-speculative and better-supported "about one in seven Bible Students had ceased their association with the Society". The actual wording of the cited ref has now been quoted with the ref.
* In recent weeks, the section "Life after death" has become oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. The sentence: "Their hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon." has been changed to: "Aside from a "little flock" of a few thousand with a heavenly hope, Witnesses consider themselves among "other sheep" whose hope for life after death involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon."
* The article formerly stated that by their 1931 name change JW's would "distinguish themselves from other groups of Bible Students". In recent weeks someone changed that to the alliterative but unnecessary phrase "distinguish themselves from disassociated groups of dissenting Bible Students". The cited ref states explicitly, "to distinguish...from the other groups". I've reverted to the former neutral wording "other groups of Bible Students"
Also, I plainly have less time than others do to devote to Misplaced Pages, but it seems necessary to revisit the issues discussed ]<br>Contrast the discussion of Russell at with the subsequent <br>
--] (]) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:Are you suggesting the GB and the headquarters are somewhere ''other than Brooklyn''? (''The Watchtower'' 15 July 2006, p. 20: "The ‘faithful slave’ is represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a small group of spirit-anointed men serving at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York.")
:Birthdays are not 'holiday celebrations', which sounds a little redundant anyway. I have simplified the statement in the lead regarding celebrations.
:I've added a {{tl|request quotation}} template "one in seven", which is not clearly supported by the source provided.--] (]) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::I hadn't meant to imply disbelief that the ] ''is'' based in Brooklyn (in 2011); I had removed the factoid only from the ''lede'' (leaving it intact in the body at ]) because it seems not lede-worthy and entirely superfluous in the lede. Stating ''world headquarters'' to be based in Brooklyn is one thing; insisting that the lede enumerate the location of the ''committee leading the world headquarters'' seems pedantic (IMHO). I still feel it's unnecessary to stuff the lede with such a detail, but feel it's unworthy of my time to argue the point.
::I see my other edits above have essentially survived. I still hope to find time to address ], which still hides Russell's intentional establishment of a religious rather than merely publishing organization.--] (]) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

=== Unrepentantly practice ===
About four months ago, an editor added this sentence:
:"Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"."
The quote from the cited ref shows several sentences (technically, two paragraphs though I've here removed both paragraph breaks) separating the loaded phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" and 'disassociated or disfellowshipped ones':
:"However, he will reject those who unrepentantly practice lawlessness, saying: “Get away from me.” (Matt. 7:21-23) Why such a judgment? Because such individuals dishonor God and cause harm to others by their lawless practices. God’s Word commands that unrepentant sinners be removed from the congregation. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.) This is necessary for at least three reasons: (1) to keep Jehovah’s name free from reproach, (2) to protect the congregation from contamination, and (3) to help the sinner come to repentance if possible. Do we share Jesus’ view of those who have become set in their lawless course? We need to give thought to these questions: ‘Would I choose to associate regularly with someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated himself from the Christian congregation?"
A previous Talk discussion of the matter focussed on whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together, which was never my point. Instead, the newly-added idea is plainly ] because the references don't imply and JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever ''continues'' to "unrepentantly practice" sin (or sin's infrequent and loaded theological synonym "lawlessness"; incidentally, I couldn't find any JW publication which ever put "lawless-" in the same PARAGRAPH as "disassociat-"). The evidence is that JW publications explicitly note ''no human certainty'' regarding the condition of disfellowshipped or disassociated persons; note this:
:''The Watchtower'', December 1, 2001, pages 30-31, "Does this mean that all who are expelled from the Christian congregation for sinning unrepentantly have committed sins that “incur death”...? This would not necessarily be the case because in some instances such transgressions are not sins that incur death. In fact, it is difficult to tell if they are. ...Thus, we should not jump to the conclusion that a person must be guilty of sin that incurs death solely because he is expelled from the congregation. It may take time for the true heart condition of the individual to be revealed. ...Since the person is no longer in the congregation, any change in heart and attitude may be observed first by those close to him, such as a marriage mate or family members. Those observing such changes may conclude that the transgressor did not commit a sin that incurs death. ...While some may be in a position to observe sufficient evidence to believe that the sinner has repented, this may not be the case with the congregation in general."
Thus, the recently-inserted example of ] has been removed--] (]) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
::The issue of whether disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are deemed to be ''continuing forever'' to practise lawlessness or whether JWs think this merits their death is irrelevant. The paragraphs and the question, as discussed ], are plain enough and without synthesis. In the context of a tightly-focused discussion, paragraph 18 of the article reads: "By '''cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one''', you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome." Review question for that paragraph reads: "'''Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness''' gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The descriptions are clearly synonymous. In the case of a person who has chosen to resign membership of the religion, it is their resignation that is deemed to be a sin, or act of lawlessness. There's no hint of any other reason to direct that JWs "hate" that decision and thus shun the person. At the end of that previous lengthy discussion there was no consensus to remove the statement. ] (]) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:It may be correct to say "Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals ''who have no intention to return to the congregation'' are considered to unrepentantly practice lawlessness". Also "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" may be applicable at the time of disfellowshipping. However as user:AuthorityTam pointed out JWs do not assume that an expelled person forever ''continues'' to "unrepentantly practice" sin. I think its a good practice to compare other publication of WT society when a single source is disputed for ].--] (]) 06:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::Fazilfazil, it is of no value to speculate about possible alternative meanings of a clear statement; what the WTS ''might'' have meant or how it ''might'' have expressed the view of the Governing Body. Neither the WT article nor the Misplaced Pages article deals with future, or long-term, treatment of people who are expelled from, or decide to resign from, the religion. The WT article simple uses synonyms to equate the behavior of a disfellowshipped or disassociated person with lawlessness. The Misplaced Pages article then states that published view. ] (]) 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::It is indeed the case that individuals who are expelled are shunned unless eventually 'reinstated', suggesting that their 'practice of lawlessness'&mdash;by the very nature of having left&mdash;continues until such reinstatement, however the suggestion that such individuals 'continue' practicing lawlessness ''in the objection above'' is a red herring, because the article makes no such claim. The source material ('paragraph 18 and its review question') very clearly correlates "disfellowshipped and disassociated" with "practicer of lawlessness"; there is nothing ambiguous or 'synthesised' in regard to the connection. "whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together" is also irrelevant because the source material explicitly refers to both.--] (]) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Okay. I am not endorsing nor opposing the statement.--] (]) 09:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::'''No''', JW publications explicitly state that a person must be repentant ''before'' he can be reinstated; ergo by definition some disfellowshipped/ disassociated persons ''are'' 'repentantly practicing non-lawlessness' (or specifically ''NOT'' "unrepentantly practicing lawlessness").<br>JWs do not shun a former member because they know him to be ''currently practicing lawlessless'' but because they know he was found to have unrepentantly sinned and has not yet been reinstated. At the time his disfellowshipping or disassociation is announced, he ''is'' considered (at that time, by JWs) to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". But&mdash;almost immediately thereafter&mdash;it becomes inappropriate to say that JWs believe a disfellowshipped/ disassociated person ''is'' (rather than ''was'') "unrepentantly practic lawlessness". If the interpretation of BlackCab and Jeffro77 is so iron-clad, why is only one single solitary reference cited for this supposedly article-worthy belief? I have 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' to read 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' --] (]) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm glad we now agree that the WT article does dictate that a person who formally resigned from the religion is to be regarded as someone who committed a lawless act, and that unless they "repent" and return, shunning by their family, friends and former acquaintances is an appropriate response.
::::::A complicating factor in your argument, though, is the subhead on Page 31 of the Feb 15, 2011 WT: "Adopt Jesus' view of those who '''love lawlessness'''." The use of present tense there indicates that the subsequent discussion of how to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals is based on their current status and assumes the "attitudes and actions that led to that outcome" remain. In fact, in the case of a person who quit because they disagreed with a doctrine, they would be deemed to be still "practicing lawlessness" unless they "repented" and returned. Question 18,19 (a) also uses the present tense and could be deemed to assume that a person who resigned is still lawless: "Cutting off contact with a '''practicer''' of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" Though the use of past tense in the sentence you changed may be accurate in cases of disfellowshipping over dishonesty, immorality and certain other behaviors, it is wrong in the case of people who are disfellowshipped for apostasy (which will probably involve ongoing disagreement with a doctrine), and it is also wrong in the case of disassociated individuals. The writers of the Watchtower article know that, and therefore used the present tense in the relevant subhead. ] (]) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::"one single solitary"???&mdash;it's the holy redundant trinity! Anyway... JWs are shunned ''until their reinstatement'', not at some arbitrary point prior to reinstatement; and they are reportedly shunned because JWs are supposedly to 'avoid lawlessness'. If those shunned are no longer 'unrepentantly practicing lawlessness', then there's no 'reason' to continue shunning them. If your position were correct, JWs would be 'allowed' to associate with those 'progressing' toward 'reinstatement'&mdash;if such is not the case, then your position is incorrect.
:::::::I did not add the phrase to the article, and I don't think it's ''absolutely essential'' to include it. But if it ''is'' in the article, I will certainly ensure that it is presented in a manner consistent with the source.--] (]) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The word 'practice' indicates ''ongoing'' action. It doesn't make sense to interpret the source article as meaning that the expelled person ''did'' 'practice' lawlessness in a single instance that resulted in their expulsion. The intent of the source material is clearly to indicate that expelled individuals ''continue'' to be 'practicers of lawlessness'.--] (]) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::'''No.''' The two editors above interpret contrary to the plain meaning of the cited article, differently than seems intended by JWs, and with an interpretation unsupported from decades of available Watch Tower references. If the notable beliefs of JWs include ''this'' (that is, ''all expelled individuals '''continue''' to "'''unrepentantly''' practice lawlessness"''), then the notable belief should be significantly better sourced than a tortured interpretation of a single article. The JW state of 'disfellowshipping' or 'disassociation' would continues until 'reinstatement' is requested and granted; by contrast, a 'disfellowshipped' or 'disassociated' person quite possibly could be repentant (that is, ''not'' unrepentant) for the entire duration of his disfellowshipping or disassociation, but he would not be reinstated without a request.<br>As a parallel point, Christians in general accept that all humans are sinners ({{Bibleverse||James|3:2|1000}}, {{Bibleverse||1John|1:8-9|1000}}); thus since the Bible itself explicitly equates "sin" and "lawlessness" (eg 1 John 3:4), the latter term only ''seems'' notable. The term "lawlessness" is ''not notable'' in this context.
::::::::*NIV: Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*ESV: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*NASB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*ASV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*Darby:Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*ERV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*WEB: Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
::::::::*YLT: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness
::::::::*NWT: Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness.
::::::::Since JWs (indeed all Christians) believe that all humans are sinners, the matter becomes one of degrees; a faithful Christian is a sinner, and a purple Christian, a tall Christian, or an expelled Christian is a sinner (according to Christianity in general). Plainly stated, JWs do not teach that every disfellowshipped/ disassociated person remains forever unrepentant. The matter is so clear that I have no doubt how it would be resolved if escalated. Again, it is wrong to insist that: ''Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".'' If the sentence is to remain, its wording should be less influenced by editors' opinions about JW theology. Until then, --] (]) 19:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Your argument is quite disingenuous and you are grasping at straws. Yes, the article was about "lawlessness", yes, the article does cite the Bible text equating sin with lawlessness and yes, conventional Christian doctrine is that all Christians are inherently sinners. However the article warns JWs about a few narrow areas of what it calls "wicked" and "bad" conduct: heavy drinking, occult practices, immorality, pornography and ... contact with people who have quit or been expelled from the religion. Your argument that since all Christians are sinners (practicers of lawlessness) there is no notability in decribing DFd and DAs JWs as "practicers of lawlessness" renders the point of the article meaningless. A 1952 WT (March 1) referred to the expulsion of "lawless" people; the Feb 15, 2011 WT simply escalates the rhetoric to ensure that those who quit the religion are also demonised and shunned. ] (]) 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:'''Hmm''', that seems a lot like ] to get to that conclusion. I'd appreciate if editors think on this a bit more. JWs do not insist that a disfellowshipped / disassociated person is (by definition) ''forever unrepentant''. If an editor believes that is true and notable, he should provide better references. I hesitate to escalate this matter primarily because it will take time! --] (]) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::It's you, not I, who is introducing the issue of whether they are forever unrepentant. The article discusses current activity ("practicers of lawlessness") rather than future activity. The article directs Witnesses to shun DFd and DAd persons because those people are deemed to be bad and wicked. ] (]) 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with you that terms like "Unrepentantly practice", "practicers of lawlessness", etc. were primarily intended about disfellowshipped and disassocited, including those who formally leave. However, I am not sure if WTBTS think all former members are doers of lawlessness forever, until they will die (their death) or until coming back to congregation with repentant attitude. I don´t know if this is intended in such sense. February 2011 Watchtower just says what is in harmony with clear logic and is reasonably expected. Imagine that absurd situation when an apostate (for some reason) voluntarily leaves before that elders could expelled him/her. Is it normal to expect that such people are still ´good´'and ´well-minded with relation to God´? Of course, not. They are same sort of apostates, perhaps even worse, because they renounce their faith and betray all, Jehovah, Jesus, congregation co-believers. Is it normal deem these people as still accepted persons or even friends and members? They have to be shunned with even stronger contempt than normally. Surprise is only such article was not released until 2011. A catastrophic. How much people could misuse this liberal rule before? As a result, I don´t contest validity of those terms in the article. --] (]) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

:to BlackCab, ---- cited ---- "and yes, conventional Christian doctrine is that all Christians are inherently sinners.". ---- '''No!''' That is hardly wrong. Christian teaching according to the Bible is all Adam´s offspring (7 billion of his seed recently live in the world) ((7 x 10<sup>9</sup>)) is '''unperfect''', because of '''first sin''' are '''all people''' (includes non-believers, other religions members, christians itself) unperfect (state of imperfection) and due that people do errors, and things like aging and dying. All mankinds is under slavery of ´sin´. Sin does not mean something what man could change. It is genetically degenerated seed. Sin is congenital defect of all people. Like genetically determined error with 100 % of people have that error (in body, in brain, in soul, etc.). 2nd sense of word "sins" means intentional wrong doing to own or to others. Just breaking rules, which Bible clearly stated as laws. Not only advices or recommendations. --] (]) 22:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

::FaktneviM, this is not the place discuss whether JW doctrine is correct or incorrect, so therefore a discussion on whether it is right or wrong to shun some people ("They have to be shunned with even stronger contempt than normally") is inappropriate here. And you have completely misunderstood my point about inherent sin. I am not disputing the point. But I'm glad you accept the truthfulness of the one-sentence statement in the article. So far it remains one user, AuthorityTam, who disputes the issue by introducing straw man arguments about "forever unrepentant". The subject barely requires further discussion. ] (]) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::<s>I wrote it on purpose to upset you. :)) As joke for someone who catch it, you know.</s> I could be very well in POV statements if I would like to. :)) Take it easy. What about reaction to other sentences, please? You claimed, for example, only christians are inherently sinners, what I stated above as wrong. And what about sentences "all former members are doers of lawlessness forever, ....". Should be stated in article this disputed meaning. --] (]) 00:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners". I acknowledged that it is a common church doctrine that ''all'' Christians are sinners. And your challenge about "former members are doers of lawlessness forever" is an act of stupidity that I presume is similarly designed to be provocative. If you have sensible and constructive comments to make, do so. Otherwise don't bother. ] (]) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::FaktneviM, please be aware of the behavioral guideline: ]. Please contribute positively to the discussion or remain silent. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 07:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to stir up the discussion again, but isn't our current text backwards? '''Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness"''' - I thought it was the other way around: people are disfellowshipped ''because'' the elders (and/or the congregation?) believe that they "unrepentantly practice lawlessness". That's what the WTS quotes seem to say, anyways. It makes sense to say that only those who ''continue'' to be considered "unrepentant" are inelegible for reintegration, while those who ''stop'' their "unrepentant" ways are permitted back in. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:It may sound backwards, but it's an accurate representation of their teaching. Someone who, for example, rejects a core teaching of the JWs and is thus brought before a judicial committee, or someone who chooses to write a letter of resignation, is described in The Watchtower as a practicer of lawlessness. Witnesses are told they must have no dealings with, or conversation with, that person because they ''are'' (not just ''were'') therefore a wicked person. The magazine could have given as a reason that they ''committed'' a wrong act by disassociating, but chose instead to refer to them as "practicer of lawlessness" who warrants ongoing shunning. The shunning process can be lifted if a person later "repents" of a sin or, presumably regrets resigning and seeks readmission. ] (]) 08:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@BlackCab: You seem to heavy nervous today. I suppose your motives are not bad, but your uncivil response, with even rejecting answer for my 2 points I mentioned in my last comment, is quite disappointing. You, again, said all Christians are sinners, but this is wrong. NOT ONLY them are sinners. Read it carefully again what really christian teaching is, as in my previous comment as well. You just were feisty and not taking it easy. I apologize if you not catch it as I intended. My second point was referring to the sentence including text from my previous contribution, from which I partially! cited. I suggest you help with Ctrl+F and find such text including related sentences. You probably find my comment in reverse sense, than you realized. --] (]) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

:Answer from BlackCab here.... hopefully
::No, the response below is clearly indicated as ''my'' response, '''not''' an "answer from BlackCab". Do not falsely attribute statements to other editors. ("hopefully" was only added above later.)--] (]) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::<nowiki><blockquote>Answer from BlackCab....</blockquote></nowiki> was intended to show where BlackCab could answer for my comment and finally resolve last 2 issues I mentioned. // Please do not join discussion parts, when is not appropriate to have them joined, because they dealing with non-coherent issues. --] (]) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I will join any discussion at Talk pages as I see fit. Additionally, the placement of your comment was as if to introduce a comment made by me. Do not blame me for the poor placement of your comments. If BlackCab wants to respond to something you've written, he will do so, and does not require your solicitation.--] (]) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Another uncivility. --] (]) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I was direct, but not uncivil. You are achieving nothing. Please restrict your comments to discussion of article content.--] (]) 23:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:Saying "all Christians are sinners" is ''not'' a claim that ''only'' Christian are sinners. This is basic ]. Additionally, BlackCab explicitly stated, ''I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners"''.--] (]) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::But in another comment he again repeat the same wrong understanding. --] (]) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Do not falsely claim editors have contradicted themselves.--] (]) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I am not interested to continue this endless talk. Thanks for understandings. --] (]) 10:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

== Good Article status ==

This article have made a remarkable improvement since the last peer-review. I think it owes at least a good article status. What do other editors think about it? Between I don't know the procedure for nomination :)--] (]) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:done nomination--] (]) 15:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
::Hi Fazilfazil, I saw that and your suggestion is very kind. I have my own view on this propose, but wouldn´t like to prejudice reviewers result. No one of "WP:JW project members", who are "reviewers" concurrently should review this. (some of most active WP:JW members are reviewers) ], ]. Thx for an idea. --] (]) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
:The article is indeed in better condition than I've ever seen in the past. For example, as some may recall, I once wasted a great deal of effort trying to find the original source of the 1975 prediction when it was already cited, because that most relevant citation in the whole paragraph was so corrupted with irrelevant information that I didn't recognize its relevance. When I discovered that, I got so fed up that I left it for someone else fix, for which I now apologize. I'm glad to see that someone has finally corrected that citation, and that the current statements about the 1975 issue are much more concise and coherent!

:However, during my attempts to find the original source, what I found instead were several statements from the Watch Tower Society, from 1966 through 1975, that they did know when Armageddon would happen, and some statements forbidding the membership to predict anything would happen by 1975. (Disobedience to this prohibition appears to have been rampant, or at least received great publicity.) Complete absence of this information continues to give the ] a biased POV. Is this a good time to correct this?

:I also find it ironic that although the Misplaced Pages article on ] observes that the word is a pejorative term, articles such as this seem to have no qualms about using this word almost exclusively in place of terms preferred by each religion to indicate its specific practices. However, I doubt that this irony isn't going to be resolved by work on this article, but would require considering Misplaced Pages's treatment of the word as a whole. ] (]) 05:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

::I don't know if the draft version of edits to that section on your talk page is current, but I would offer two points of criticism if you are still working on it: (a) It is far too long for inclusion in the JW article (the 1975 embarrassment may actually warrant a Misplaced Pages article of its own where the issue could be explored in greater depth) and (b) your edit reads like an apologetic. It has a very defensive tone and therefore casts its own point of view. Your comments re shunning are interesting, but are based on an article written largely without sources cited. Jehovah's Witnesses are, without dispute, directed to shun certain individuals and the term is used by non-Witness authors. The JW publications may try to soften the blow with their own language "disfellowshipping", but the effect and intention of that practice is clear. ] (]) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Disfellowshipping means withdrawal of the community. An individual could be disfellowshipped from the community of coo-believers and from the church. This practice is really common in most of Christian churches, Judaism, Islam, many other religions, including dangerous sects or cults, in which shunning is practiced with much harder and cruel form, than in JW and other Christian churches. // Several other problems within JW related topics is perhaps due emotional interested editors to the topic. (for example bad experience like disfellowshipping took wiki-editors to write rather bad-biased sentences and searching exclusively for bad-sources and references which are rather critical. Despite good endurance are rather negative-biased articles here. --] (]) 10:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

:::I abandoned that project in March 2010, and probably should have deleted it. However, I find myself wishing there was a way that I could memorialize it - and all the revisions I put it through and all the the critique that Jeffro contributed - as an example of wasted effort that can result when WP editors try to make sense of sloppy work done by previous editors.


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024 ==
:::The ] article is indeed another example of sloppy work - and at least 3 years of neglect. Even so, this article links to that one, and that article does explain some very different religious practices that are frequently stereotyped as "shunning", and identifies which religions practice them. I'm suggesting on its Talk page that it be merged into ], which article shows much better work.


{{edit semi-protected|Jehovah's Witnesses|answered=yes}}
:::Would you write anything less biased? Your tone is just as critical as mine was defensive. However, I was working in reaction to what appeared to be unsourced POV in the article, because up until my very last item of my research, everything I found showed the 1975 prediction to be a product of inept journalism by the news media. I did find enough sourced material that I could have written an entire article about the 1975 issue, but I'm trying to achieve NPOV, not to dig up the past or be critical of the news media. ] (]) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (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)
::'Shun' is the correct generic term; it is used accurately in the article, it is used in other reliable sources, and the term is also occasionally used (in this context) in JW literature. Though the specific term used by the group should be (and is) provided in the article, there is no reason to exclusively employ the jargon term.--] (]) 08:53, 14 July 2011 (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)
:The term shunning means that someone is ignored, not spoken to. Disfellowshipped JW are treatet like that. The Witnesses do not greet them. BUT, if there would be any need for help, (nursing, feeding, help out with personal finance, or working as colleagues) than the Witnesses do talk to them, but just about the basic needs or about the job. That does not fall under the term Shunning.
:Disfellowshiping means (At least on what the witnesses self understand) that do not socially gather, and talk with eachother in terms of friendship.
:In all cases where someone gets disfellowshipped, witnesses will not greet them, sit down with them. If a DFS is in need, he/she approaches the elders, who can point out members to help, or family members can help out with some basic personal need (Finances, Health care, or in case of dissasters, building houses again, etc. Black Cab, being an EX-JW can vouch for this. I myself have worked along side with a DSF JW. We didn't lunch together, but we discussed our work on daily bases. That is allowed. But I would not greet him on the streets.
:The reason is this.. The DSF JW has done something which was against the rules of the bible or the society. He therefore gets punished.


== Japan section ==
:Like a child at school, who had to stand in the corner, faced to the wall. Why? Otherwise the others would get the Idea that it is okay to do something wrong. But when he falls, he would be helped up again. This is the principle which has been practised long before Jehovah's Witnesses existed.


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)
:Shunning is something else. A member of a community, who gets expelled, is neither helped, or spoken to. The community turns their back at this expelled person. The meaning of the word Shunning and Disfellowshipping are quite simular. Never the less, there are differences.


:'''Update''': I believe I have fixed this. ] ] 19:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:I leave it up to you, I am a witness, and therefore deemed to be POV, but I hope that my explanation gives a bit of the Nuance as I feel that shunning is not quite correct. --<font face="Antaviana" size="2"><i>Kind regards, <b>]</b> <b>]</b></i></font> 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


== About all my recent edits ==
::Another special fact is that former JW could "come back". And, for those, who are recently disfellowshipped are no "hard restrictions". Disfelowshipped person still could attend to congregation meetings, read books and magazines in congregation´s library or visit congress, and etc. // The only restrictions for former members are forbid of "public" comments within regular congregation meetings, forbid of public preaching service (((together with other JW, //.... He/She could still preach alone without allowance from organization))). Disfellowshipping is rather term for "lost friends" and "lost of superb privileges". In sense of JW religion practice is disfellowshipping "only very little worse situation", than has non-believers. ((non-believers and purely new visitors could do their public comments in the JW attendance). --] (]) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Despite Rodejong's irrelevant apologetics regarding the JW implementation of shunning&mdash;and his ] fallacy about his opinion of 'real' shunning&mdash; JW literature explicitly refers to their practice of "shunning".--] (]) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I do not dispute wording. I dispute definition and weasel words in relevant shunning articles. Disfellowshipping (or Shunning) is in the case of JW religion different. There is no kill. No forbid of all communication. No lost of all rights. JW shunning is not such asi it stated in relevant articles. --] (]) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::You seem to have a distorted opinion about what 'shunning' is. JWs practice a form of shunning, and it is accurately described in the article.--] (]) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Statements like those from me (in this talk section - about "what is shunning in reality") are not there. There is only information that difellowshipped person could come back to congregation if elders will see repentant. No other "positive", even "objective" information are there. --] (]) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::A person being required to 'repent' for a 'sin' (such as not accepting JW doctrines) so they can avoid being shunned by their family and 'friends' is little more than emotional blackmail. Your claim that 'JW shunning' is "only very little worse situation" is clearly not neutral. You are quite correct that your comments are not "objective". But you don't seem to be suggesting any actual change to the article.--] (]) 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I said that current state of sections about shunning (across whole Misplaced Pages) are not objective. Do not reverse sense of last response. --] (]) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::If you are disputing how the topic of shunning is covered at other articles, discuss at the relevant Talk pages.--] (]) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I apologize again. I didn't mean to start an argument. After reading this one, I'm still sure that this issue won't be resolved by work on this article, or any other single article. The issue isn't about whether "shunning" is the correct word, or whether this religion or that one uses the word, but about how that word is perceived in popular usage, and the stereotyping for which it is manipulated by the same sort of propagandists who scold us for calling this religion or that one, "Christian", or simply vandalize articles with their opinion. Their purpose for the word "shunning", is to make sure that everyone "knows" that all minority religions:


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)
* Require members of a family to alienate a shunned member, forcing him out of the home.
* Require members of a community to refuse to do business with a shunned member, depriving him of the means of life, forcing him out of the community.
* Shun members who did not join the religion of their own will, or join without first learning the religion's requirements or the consequences of failing to meet them.
* Shun members with no opportunity to appeal.
* Shun members who simply stop participating in that religion.


:Kudos to you—great progress! ] ] 11:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Does ANY religion practice ALL of that? I suppose; is Bigotry a religion? ] (]) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::It's definitely been time consuming. I think I've spent about twenty hours on this in the past week? ] ] 11:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
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" ==
:All minority religions don't do those things. The leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses, however, directs that members do many of those things. The article notes that "disfellowshipping" is the ultimate sanction for those who breach organisational and moral requirements, and it is indisputable that the intention of "disfellowshipping" is that members cease almost all contact with those individuals, not even greeting or acknowledging those people. That is, they shun them. The article also notes, with fairness and balance, that critics and sociologists have noted that in a religion that urges members to reduce their circle of friends to only other members, the consequences of being shunned by friends, acquaintances and (as much as it is possible) by family can be traumatic. The fear of being shunned then, serves as a powerful tool to ensure obedience and discourage defection. If you're suggesting a conspiracy by "propagandists" to taint Jehovah's Witnesses on this article because of their shunning policy, you'll have to come up with better evidence. This article discusses the disciplinary policies of only one religion and makes no comparison with other religions. ] (]) 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::Downstrike here uses an association fallacy to attempt to negatively characterise those who correctly employ the word 'shunning'. Whilst it is true that Misplaced Pages should ] ("unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"), the term ''shun'' is not only the correct term, but the term is also used in JW and third-party sources. Additionally, jargon terms such as 'disfellowship' should not be used ''exclusively'' because the term is then being used as a euphemism to ''avoid'' the more 'uncomfortable' word ''shun''. The same Misplaced Pages page that says to avoid contentious terms also says to ]. It probably comforts those who shun former members of their religion to say that there are ''other'' groups (you know, ''those 'crazy' groups'') who practice more extreme forms of shunning, because it minimises the perceived impact of their own behaviour.
::To be clear on the JW attitude toward 'disfellowshipped'...
::* ''The Watchtower'' 15 November 1952: "Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof."
::* An article in the 15 April 1988 ''Watchtower'' (which deals specifically with JWs' legal right in the US of "shunning" former members) stated, "Cutting off from the Christian congregation does not involve immediate death, so family ties continue. Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped or who disassociates himself may still live at home with his Christian wife and faithful children. ... The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum".
::* ''The Watchtower'', 1 November 1994: "For a to “quit mixing in company” with a close friend or relative who has been disfellowshipped can be a real test. In such a case, it is important that one not give in to feelings of pity."
::Ironically, the July 2009 ''Awake!'' stated, in an article about people who face family opposition for ''becoming'' JWs, that "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."--] (]) 08:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Jeffro, I have not, and will not suggest that an article on any religion exclusively use the term that religion prefers. What I find ironic is that such articles almost exclusively use a term, about which the WP article for that term observes that it is a pejorative term. Some kind of balance would be appropriate.


"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."
:::Considering that LDS, 7DA, Christadelphians, Churches of God, some Pentecostals, and various minority religions use "disfellowship", I'm not sure why you call it "jargon". ] (]) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
::::The jargon term ''disfellowship'' as used by LDS (and some of the others you've listed) is an entirely different meaning to the term used by JWs. They do not employ it to refer to systematic shunning, for which they use the term ''excommunication''. The LDS jargon term ''disfellowship'' is similar to what JWs call ''restrictions''. Such ambiguity demonstrates further that it is better to use the generic term.--] (]) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I am not able to see any ´real´ difference in those terms. Shunning, Disfellowshiping, Excommunication, are clear synonyms in most of existing religions. Especially in sense of JW, all 3 terms lead members to same ´results´ in access to former-members. --] (]) 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I ''just said'' above that the other religions mentioned above '''do not''' use the term "disfellowship" to refer to ''shunning''. It is not possible to make it any clearer.--] (]) 13:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I see. // Is there any reason have 3 wiki articles? How about merging? // Is there specific reason to use term "shunning" in case of JW, while disfellowshiping is more accurate and comprehensible? // Those terms simply mean all the same. = Dismissal of communion with coo-believers. That´s all. --] (]) 13:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Since the term ''disfellowship'' is used quite differently by other groups, it is clearly not more comprehensible to use that term in a general sense. Most religions that ''excommunicate'' don't ''shun''. The context of ''communion'' is different among various religious groups.--] (]) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::The statement in the ] article that the term is used as a pejorative is '''unsourced''', as is much of the article. Additionally, Misplaced Pages articles cannot be used a source for other Misplaced Pages articles. Much of the article you refer to needs to be rewritten and properly sourced.--] (]) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::I agree, and you and I already discuss that on that article's talk page. ] (]) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::BlackCab, if I were suggesting that the use of "shunning" reflected a conspiracy in this article, I would stop saying that the issue isn't going to be resolved by work on this article. However, thank you for asserting that Jehovah's Witnesses practice many of the things I listed. ] (]) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
:::If you are ''not'' suggesting a problem regarding the use of "shunning" ''in this article'', then you are at ''the wrong Talk page''.--] (]) 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
::::It's still ironic, and could be relevant to whether this article obtains "Good" status. That's what this section is about. However, there may very well be considerable irrelevant discussion in this section. ] (]) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Let's not second-guess the reviewers.--] (]) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (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".
== Verifying Jehovah's True Words! ==


The correct information is this:
Would it be alright to submit in chronological order the print by print verification from the source themselves perhaps from 1870's til' present all of which is in dispute? No one should dispute that it would be a tell all experience! --] (]) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If you are baptized within the organization you are held to the belief that you have committed yourself to Jehovah (God) and therefore any serious transgressions will result in disfellowshipment. This includes; fornication, adultery, thievery, excessive use of alcohol, and prescription drugs or any use of tobacco or narcotics among other things. There are numerous articles on JW.org to explain their belief.
:Verification of what? The article is already comprehensively sourced, so you'll have to explain more what your intention is. It's also unclear whether you're employing sarcasm in referring to "Jehovah's true words", but Watch Tower publications were all written by humans, without any evidence of divine inspiration. ] (]) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say that members are disassociated as that is a completely different disciplinary action than disfellowshipping. To be disassociated means that you have confessed to an offense which would likely disfellowship you but have repented and can have limited association with the congregation while you resolve your situation. Disfellowshipment means you have confessed to an offense but do not repent so therefore you are removed from association with the congregation. This is a VERY important distinguishment as well as being Inactive. Inactive members were not baptized and are able to have association with any member of the congregation at any time, including in partaking in meals because they did not commit themselves to God through baptism.
::I read it as requesting whether or not it would be proper to give a chronological listing of the doctrinal contradictions and changes from the days of Russell to the present time. (e.g. a "truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935). I would suggest that this would not be proper because it would be highly subjective, and violate neutrality. We aren't trying to demonstrate whether JWs are a true or false religion, nor that their doctrines are valid or invalid. There are already articles on the development of their doctrines, and there is a detailed outline of the administrative and doctrinal changes instituted between 1917-1942 in the JFR article. ] (]) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Exactly! (''"truth" from 1917 was subsequently called "false doctrine" in 1935"'') Many times I read specific claims from "Bible Students´s era" and from "JW´s era", that believers recognize their beliefs as ''"present truth"''. (e.g. book "Jehovah´s Witnesses - Proclaimers of God´s Kingdom" explicitly cited some of such claims). Many knows that doctrines could changes in future. Those sincere ones did not apostate in hard times. Those lofty and foolish one rather fully stop their believe in God and Christ. --] (]) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::::'sincere'? 'foolish'? All very subjective, and nothing to do with article content. ]!--] (]) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::You react neither to Newbndreamz´s ask, nor mine and Pastorrussell´s confirmation about "present truth" views, Instead of it, you are feisty and react to less significant end of the sentence. --] (]) 11:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Without knowing what ] is requesting, any discussion here is pointless. ] (]) 12:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Newbndreamz´s request is very hard to understand. (Even for me!). Pastorrussell and me think he request chronological order of doctrine changes since the very early beginning to nowadays. Phrases like "present truth", "present light", "present understandings", which they changed over time specifically assume that no people (even with divine leading) can´t know right it all. Understandings is changing and is still better. But not perfect and probably contains some faults. Due this reason is chronology needed, because "previous truth" is not relevant to nowadays teaching. --] (]) 12:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The claim that JWs' current teachings are 'better' than previous ones is subjective and irrelevant.
::::::::Chronological discussion of JW beliefs is dealt with at ], ] and ].--] (]) 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
:The request is simple. What did Jehovah's Witnesses believe in a period of time ?
:Make a chronic time line with what doctrines changed through the years.
:I suggest that it is written in a separate article, like ] or something similar. He want's to use the old publications as sources for that time line.--<font face="Antaviana" size="2"><i>Kind regards, <b>]</b> <b>]</b></i></font> 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::The information is already contained in ] and the preceding section of that article dealing with Russell's initial ]. ] (]) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Here is a link to disfellowshipping on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Insight-on-the-Scriptures/Expelling/
== Friendly communication requested ==
:I've tried to read back the talk page.. How about quitting to batter your co-writers, and start talking friendly?
:I gave my opinion in a friendly way, and although you may not agree with me, show some respect. I don't trash your comments in to the ground, and neither do I have to accept that my comments are treated the same way.
:But it is very obvious that some people here like to set the ''moral standard'', which I will label as ]. It's often suggested that Jehovah's Witnesses are Fanatics, and that is everyone's good right, but when I read the messages here on this talk page, than I can only come to the conclusion that the Fanatics are those who keep battering others, with ''I am right, and You are wrong''. Such a childish way to communicate.
:I request a pause for all to settle down, and find a way to be friendly while disagreeing. --<font face="Antaviana" size="2"><i>Kind regards, <b>]</b> <b>]</b></i></font> 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Here is a link to disassociating on JW.org https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/
::I agree with all you just described. However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this . It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that. Some kind of balance, however, would be appropriate. --] (]) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Here is a link to inactive members https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/201987404?q=inactive&p=doc
::Problem which you described is perhaps more deep inside. Not only about content of discussion, but due the fact the major editor is fanatic non-believer and if we sometimes touch with some believer meaning (like argue with Bible verses or mentioning something about most important beliefs), he just kill the talk with saying that is "irrelevant" or "take you off" - mostly to other talk page. He, as an atheist, is very useful in most of cases (((and we are glad to have him in our project))), especially with editing controversial religious topics. When you want to have really good article, meaning fully objective (not rather negative-biased), however, this cause problem. Dominance and control over articles lead to sort of censorship with no chance to have better (less-biased) topics. I don´t know if other former JW editors have some rest of faith or not, but generally saying, disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Misplaced Pages see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it. // For easing of it read this. {{]}} --] (]) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Love to all :)
:::In regard to the statement above: "However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this . It does mean very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope for that." This very biased demonstration of bad faith is quite disappointing. Please leave your religious bias at the door and focus on facts.--] (]) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Your typical response! You don´t even accept some problems exist. You just "trash out our comments in to the ground" as Rodejong quite preciously described. --] (]) 08:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC) With love from my side
:::::If someone claims that 2 + 2 = 5, I'm not going to say "well isn't that a nice opinion," I'm going to say, "well, no, that's wrong." If someone says 2 + 2 = 4, I'm not going to say "Oh, you're a great person, thanks for saying that," because the statement is obviously correct and doesn't need my endorsement. If you believe that JWs can't have a reasonable exchange of ideas with "unbelievers" because of your own assumption of bad faith, well that's your problem. It was ''you'' who compared non-JW editors to 'lawlessness, darkness, and ]' in contrast to the JW editors as 'righteousness, light, and Christ' (1 Corinthians 6:14-15). So, again, please leave your religious bias at the door.--] (]) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I do not interpret all people are bad and have bad motives. Such interpreting would be wrong. I have many relationships with people, who are non-believers. Moreover, I communicate with other beliefs people. However, as a statistic result (in math sense), values of those ´friends´ are often hugely differ from mine. Relationship could continue with them, but can´t be so deep. If you look to my user page, common sense (2+2=4) is one of my most important viewpoints. --] (]) 08:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Please stop misinterpret what I´d like to intent. No righteousness and lawlessness was thought by me. I just simply stated a fact, that full understandings between us is not able. I do not say, you are evil or whatever you maybe think about I think of you. Stop be feisty and emotional, please. --] (]) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I have close friendships with people who have very different religious and philosophical beliefs to myself. I feel sorry for you for your belief that whilst you may have distant relationships with other people, that "very close friendship or even mutual understanding is probably out of hope" just because they don't accept your religious beliefs.--] (]) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::First sentence answer = Me too. // Last sentence answer = I don´t think so, but statistics is clear. // Closest relationships are not based only on e.g same sport-interests, sexual attraction, social interactions or long-terming relationships e.g. from schools and works. These all could continue, (if is there both-sided interest for), but are they really close? No! It´s only public greetings, few words, talking about life-experiences in a pub with drinking beer, and some others person who I met within philosophy, education, sport-based relations, etc. Question is, if (you and me) considering those people as "friends". I think they are rather "acquaintances". Friendship is not depending on belief or non-belief of each other, but if other one share your values (e.g. beliefs - but not only), chance for long-lasting friendship is higher. Other relationships are firm in rare cases, indeed. That´s not bias, it´s only a statement of fact according statistics. --] (]) 09:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Friendships that are conditional on sharing certain beliefs are tenuous and easy to lose if beliefs change. Real friendships are not so fragile. Which statistics?--] (]) 09:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::My own personal stats from my life ( = experience = empiric science ). Your appendix is also wise and truthful. I suggest we should stop talking about terms like friendship and do something for GA status (]). :)) --] (]) 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Subjective personal opinion is not "statistics", and citing them as such is misleading. I've commented in ''this'' section based on the context in which this section was started. However, I have also responded in the other section about changes required for GA status.--] (]) 10:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have re-read the current talk page. I see a robust discussion; I don't see anyone trashing anyone else and I don't see incivility. ] claims ''disfellowshipping articles were written by disfellowshipped JW. That is surely not ideal. Jehovah´s witnesses outside of Wiki who read Misplaced Pages see this bad-biased situation here, but they can´t "break the wall" in our project to change it.'' I don't know which "disfellowshipped JW" he refers to and I don't see that a person's status within or outside the organisation has any bearing on their work as an editor. Misplaced Pages has clear policies on balance, sources and accuracy. I have butted heads in the past with JWs who edit this article because they don't accept the basic rules of Misplaced Pages about verifiable sources. Many come from an unfortunate situation in which they live within an organisation where information is tightly controlled, so they have a very narrow, blinkered outlook. Many of those JW editors have since quit editing, in a couple of cases asserting that God is somehow controlling the content here and "permitting" falsehood as a witness to the nations.
::::::::::::The current hot topic here is coverage of Watchtower dictates on shunning people who have been expelled, or formally resigned from, the religion. The subject can adequately be covered with the multiplicity of sources available, including those from the Watchtower and non-JW academics. I'd contend that the article is so far accurate and balanced. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to bring additional sources to the discussion page. In the meantime, speculation about the ''motives'' of editors is unhelpful. Please stick to content. ] (]) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::* Thx for your insight as well. You expressed situation much better than I was able to. However, I disagree with statements like blinkered outlook, dictates, tightly controlled information, unfortunate situation and similar ongoing weasel words, which are unlikely and impossible in 2011. I am not interested to comment that at all, but I feel it as unfair.
:::::::::::::* I am just curious. If you were not disfellowshipped, you probably "formally leave". '''?'''
:::::::::::::* I don´t know what rules are applied for those formally leaving. They have perhaps same status as "people from world". (better than those excommunicated). '''?'''
:::::::::::::* I used that Bible verse to prove that deep relationship with non-co-believers could be potentially dangerous. Not because organization said so, but because Bible itself guide us in such cases. However, this shouldn´t be taken dogmatic and literally. (in is clearly stated in verse 10 that shunning is relative! Can´t be absolute! <nowiki><blockquote>Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.</blockquote></nowiki> (= Which is not able = leave out the world in absolute sense). Should be also stated that another type of access is also practiced to "inactive" and "irregular" publishers (both terms are differ). They are not considered as "apostates" and are not dissfellowshipped if there is not other huge rationale for that. '''?'''
:::::::::::::* Much more information about how to access with disfellowshipped members is in other sources. Did you also checked "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will", "Shepherd the Flock of God", "The Watchtower - Study Edition", "Our Kingdom Ministry bulletins", etc. whereas are continuously written new attitudes '''?'''
:::::::::::::--] (]) 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
How I left the Jehovah's Witnesses has no bearing on this article. The issue of how those who formally leave, that is announce verbally or in writing that they no longer wish to be members of the religion ("disassociation" in the JW jargon), is contained in the article. The WTS directs that such individuals "practice lawlessness" and therefore are to be shunned. They are not treated as "people of the world", they are treated as worse, and therefore must not even be greeted or acknowledged by friends and congregation members and, as far as is possible, by family members. Your use of Bible verses to indicate your views isn't welcome or appropriate on this talk page. This is a secular encyclopedia and your use of Watchtower interpretations of scriptures in explaining your thinking is irrelevant. ] (]) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
: I used scriptures with my own understanding of those verses. My interpretation could be, and in many cases probably is, likely rebellious and often innovatory attitude in meaning.
: Is the Bible irrelevant source for you?
: ] (]) 22:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::I think you all are getting a little off topic here. As noted at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jehovah's Witnesses article." Let's stick to discussing article edits. Thanks, ] (]) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


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


Thank you. ] (]) 21:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In other words, Is Bible verse reliable source as reference or at least note for explaining beliefs and practices of JW? Could be Bible (or several other ´sacred texts´) used in religious articles like this? --] (]) 00:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::The Bible is considered a primary source and should be used with care on Misplaced Pages because it can be interpreted in many ways. I recommend you find a secondary source that can explain the beliefs and practices. Check out ] for more information on appropriate sources. Good luck, ] (]) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::See also ].--] (]) 07:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I must have missed something. When and where was there a discussion about the use of scriptures as a source in this article? The article already has a sparing use of scriptures where they are needed to explain the basis of a JW belief. I haven't seen any discussion suggesting more be included. ] (]) 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::FaktneviM inquired about use of scriptures for article sources in his most recent comment above, after 72Dino requested that discussion here be relevant to the article. It was indeed a non-sequitur to his previous use of scriptures at Talk.--] (]) 08:24, 19 July 2011 (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)
'''Note:''' We already have had with Jeffro77 some talk about using scriptures and other issues. (= No result)
::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)
* ]<br />
:::Anyways, I think should resolve your concerns? ] ] 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]<br />
::::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? ==
* {{]}}<br />
* {{]}}<br />


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)
--] (]) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


:Courtesy ping to {{u|JethAgape}}. ] ] 23:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:FaktneviM, I still don't know what it is you're proposing. What do you want to discuss? ] (]) 11:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::Just read those ´blue links´ named "Watchlist and RC" and "To do". Later just express your ideas about such issues. --] (]) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


== Lead image ==
== Suggestions for cleanup pre GA Review ==


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)
Hi guys; I've just been going through this article inserting non-breaking spaces as and where advisable according to the MOS. It was hard! Enormous amounts of prose included within refs, which (while I understand the desire to provide as many refs as possible) isn't really best practice. Also, I noticed with the refs that there seems to be no standardisation of ref format, which (if I were reviewing this) I would require to be addressed before passing it. So this is maybe something that you could work on while waiting for a reviewer, so that once the review process gets started the review itself will take less time and flow more smoothly. It ''is'' possible to have "too many citations" - many of those given are really surplus to requirements; the majority of statements really only need one citation unless very, very contentious - and if they're contentious, the citations would have to come from very different types of source - so providing three citations all from Witnesses' own publications, for example, for one statement, doesn't bolster up a statement more than one single citation from own publications. I suggest you go through pruning out multiple citations wherever possible - just keep the 'best' one for the statement.


:@] 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)
Anyhoo, those are just my thoughts - hopefully they'll be helpful in getting this article quickly up to GA standard. I have to say that, as it stands at the moment, without these issues being addressed, I would personally fail it if I were the reviewer - but these are easy fixes, and just "stuff I noticed" while doing gnomish work on non-breaking spaces. ] (] …]) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (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)
:Thanks for your comments. I've attempted to trim prose from within refs in the past, and advised the editors involved that only a brief relevant excerpt is required, if at all. The refs certainly need a lot of cleanup for consistent presentation too.
:::@] Alright, I see. Thanks, Clover ] (]) 02:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:In regard to multiple JW citations, I'm not aware which in particular you're referring to. However, there has in the past occasionally been a need for more than one JW citation where, for example, it may be disputed whether JW publications ''really'' said such-and-such or where the context of a single statement might be disputed.
:When I have time, I'll take a closer look at the refs, though probably not until at least the weekend. Of course, if someone does it before I get the chance, that's even better.--] (]) 10:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ::::I see that you've replaced the previous preaching image with a new one. While I'm not opposed to a new image, I do think a replacement one should be a relatively high quality photo? To be honest, neither is nessecarily the best one to have, but the one you've replaced it with has some sun glare. ] ] 16:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Most of the pictures I saw related to JW are Kingdom Halls, but sure I can find one that is suitable for you ] (]) 03:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::The problem has often been in the past that JW editors have claimed that the article unfairly applies certain Watchtower statements and that the publications ''really weren't saying that''. The surest response has been to add another one or two Watchtower quotes to emphasise that the statements weren't isolated or taken out of context. This has been particularly important given that all Watchtower statements cited are primary sources and thus theoretically subject to interpretation by the Misplaced Pages editor using them. Adding another one or two uses of the sources helps to overcome that argument. ] (]) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (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 ===
{{Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1}}
Given the discussion above, I wanted to present some options from what is currently available on ].
<gallery mode="packed" heights="300px">
File:JW Logo.svg|This was used as the lead image for years, a similar choice is made in ] article (option 1)
File:Jehova witnesses in Lvov.jpg|An image of Jehovah's Witnesses preaching door-to-door (option 2)
File:Evangelização.jpg|Another door-to-door image (option 3)
File:Jehovah's Witnesses in Esino Lario.jpg|The current lead image for the past week or so (option 4)
File:Jehova's Witnesses headquarters IMG 2433 New York Brooklyn.JPG|The former world headquarters in Brooklyn (option 5)
File:Picha.jpg|The current world headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses in Warwick (option 6)
File:Timsbury Kingdom Hall - geograph.org.uk - 2474467.jpg|A Kingdom Hall (option 7)
</gallery>
] ] 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Only options 1 and 6 would be properly representative of the denomination as a whole.--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Response to GA1 'First reading' ==
::@] 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)
# There was (is?) an ''informal'' minimum of 6 months of expulsion. I'm not sure if this can be reliably sourced. More generally, ''eventually'' was inserted because expelled individuals in any case cannot be reinstated in a particularly brief period, such as a few days or weeks. ] ].
::@] Much appreciated ] (]) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
# The serial comma is used in the second instance to separate the listed ''phrases'' rather than the first instance which separates only single words. If consistency is preferred here, it is more important that the phrases are unambiguously offset, such that it would also be preferable to add a serial comma after ''doctrines''. '''Fixed'''
# '''Fixed'''
# It won't be a simple task to pare down the references, as some care should be taken to retain the most direct citations. The style of citations also needs to be made consistent. I have separated the obvious 'footnotes' from the 'references'.
# I'm not sure that the broader context of the main JW article requires mention of 'quick builds'. The 'quick build' process is addressed at ].--] (]) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with My76Strat (the GA editor): the article ''should'' mention the association between JWs and "quickly built" construction. In many countries, JWs are as notable for this as for preaching and there are literally thousands of references available. To the section ], I've added this sentence: ''Branch offices appoint local elders and ministerial servants, and may appoint regional committees for matters such as involving quickly built Kingdom Halls or disaster relief.''<br>--] (]) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


=== Eventually be reinstated === == Recent edit ==


{{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.
# There was (is?) an ''informal'' minimum of 6 months of expulsion. I'm not sure if this can be reliably sourced. More generally, ''eventually'' was inserted because expelled individuals in any case cannot be reinstated in a particularly brief period, such as a few days or weeks.--] (]) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (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.
::Point 2) "Imitate Jehovah’s Mercy" article from (w98 10/1)
::<blockquote>Although it seems that the wrongdoer in Corinth was reinstated within a relatively short period of time, this is not to be used as a standard for all disfellowshippings. Each case is different. Some wrongdoers begin to manifest genuine repentance almost immediately after being expelled. With others, it is quite some time before such an attitude is evident. In all cases, however, those who are reinstated must first show evidence of godly sadness and, where possible, must manifest works befitting repentance.—Acts 26:20; 2 Corinthians 7:11
</blockquote>
::So, the answer how long should lasts time for penitence is really individual. No time limit. Someone who sin, is NOT automatically expelled. It depends on own´s approach. If regret breaking Bible´s rule or not. In most cases, expelling is not needed. In such case is not needed even reinstatements, becuase expelling were not done. Prayers and acknowledge of mistakes is mostly enough. .
::Further reading with "Expelling" (dx 30-85) and (dx 86-10). See also terms "Disfellowshipping" and "Reinstatement" etc. --] (]) 13:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, this was point 1. It is not necessary here for you to attempt to ''justify'' or ''minimise'' the JW practice of shunning. Cases where persons ''are not'' expelled at all are not relevant to the point discussed.--] (]) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::In the article sentence "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders." could be without any adjective there. Word ´eventually´ is not needed for proper sense of sentence. --] (]) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::The ''adverb'' "eventually" is present in the sentence to (correctly) indicate that reinstatement does not occur ''shortly'' (hours, days or weeks) after expulsion, but rather, after months or years, if ever.--] (]) 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, but from prison is also not exemption next day. It will be unpractical and fruitless. Those processes normally haven´t so fast progress. Month or few weeks should be viewed as ´very soon´. It doesn´t depends on ´speed of elders´, but on ´approach those who expelled´ instead. --] (]) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::''Shepherd the Flock of God'' (Watch Tower Society), page 119: "The committee should be careful to allow sufficient time, perhaps many months, a year, or even longer, for the disfellowshipped person to prove that his profession of repentance is genuine."--] (]) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::This mean elders shouldn´t be overly optimistic, but rather carefully identify if repentance is sincere or feigned. Not claiming any rigid limit for reinstatement. --] (]) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Currently, the whole paragraph at issue is too wordy for the lede. So I'd replace:
:::::::<small>Baptized members who violate the organization's moral code or who dispute doctrinal matters may be subject to disciplinary action including expulsion and shunning, which they refer to as disfellowshipping. Members who formally leave the religion are also shunned. Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders.</small>
:::::::with this:
:::::::<small>Congregational discipline may include ''disfellowshipping'', their term for expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered ''disassociated'' and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may request reinstatement.</small>
:::::::Although published refs support "''perhaps'' many months", it ''is possible'' for reinstatement to take weeks rather than months.--] (]) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::The reviewer has already indicated that the discussion at Talk indicates that the use of the word 'eventually' is justified. The ''recommended'' action of JW 'judicial committees' is to take a long time ("many months, a year, or longer"). It is misleading to omit that recommendation, and the suggested replacement text is less informative.--] (]) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but AuthorityTam´s text is more sensible. For non-native-English readers, even for English-born, his ´version´ is much more comprehensible. Your version includes several different terms what are hard to explain. Fewer words is sometimes better as well. Do not take it personally. Or you could try to invent some compromise, hopefully better, version. :)) --] (]) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::The original text was not 'my version'.--] (]) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Eventually" is accurate. ] (]) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes. We are not dealing with word "eventually" anymore. It was accepted by all. In this we tried to find better formulation in the lead section. This is already done as well. --] (]) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


I have no issues with the other changes. ] ] 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Response to GA1 'Second reading' ==


: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.
Regarding the statement, ''For a better rendering of the lead, I suggest you remove all inline citations which occur within the lead ensuring that they are included where these facts occur in the body.'' - There have been attempts in the past to reduce the number of references in the lead, and this rapidly resulted in complaints that 'contentious' statements in the lead were not properly sourced. While it's possible that many could be removed, some will need to remain. Per ], "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." If no one else gets to it, I'll see what I can do about reducing the citations in the lead when I get time.--] (]) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
:One way to reduce the visual clutter in the lede would be to save footnote markers for the end of the sentence, or if possible, the end of the paragraph. So instead of "millenarian restorationist Christian denomination, blah blah." it would be "millenarian restorationist Christian denomination, blah blah.". The footnote for the new would be longer, containing multiple references as needed. <small title="Click the F">...comments?</small> ~]'']]'' 23:01, 20 July 2011 (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)
== Jesus reference mislead ==
::I still disagree with you about Rogerson's claim because he doesn't think a clear estimate can even be made. Immediately afterwards, there's estimates in the text (although the order of this should probably be rearranged). Since all the cited sources are reliable, all of these positions should be represented.
:: As for {{tq|The official teaching is not that there 'is an overlapping generation' but that 'the generation' broadly includes people where some part of their lifespan overlaps}}, yes that's why I think the previous phrasing is important because it makes that slightly clearer. It doesn't matter to the average reader what the teaching's official name is, just what it means. While contemporary generation ranges vary, anyone who isn't a JW (or former JW) wouldn't label a whole century of individuals together as a single generation. ] ] 05:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Are you alright with ? I'm hoping it'll satisfy us both. ] ] 10:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No problem with that change. Thanks.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 10:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Lead sentence ==


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


::::::I have no qualms about removing the 'sea of blue' from the first sentence, nor for the first sentence retaining that it grew out of the Bible Student movement. However, the vague notion that JWs are just 'a religious group' misrepresents the actually highly structured nature of the denomination, and therefore does not adhere well to the recommendation in ] that the first sentence clearly say what the article subject is. Nor should the article endorse the non-neutral trend of dismissing that JWs are 'really' Christians. I would support {{tq|Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.}} The later sentence in the article could then be re-phrased as {{tq|The denomination is generally classified as ], ] and ].}}--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 05:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
"They believe that references in the Bible to the ]<nowiki><!-- former, pre-human existence --></nowiki>, ] (a.k.a. ])<nowiki><!-- fully nonsense, or refer to future role in Armageddon battle --></nowiki>, and ]<nowiki><!-- former pre-being existence, - even before Michael being --></nowiki> all refer to Jesus."
:::::::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.)
Here, in this sentence, is no mention about which roles has Jesus nowadays. JW believe, He, since his resurrection in 33 CE, and now, 2000 years later, He still has some important roles. There is no mention about what really JW think about Jesus.


::::::::'' 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)
(a) Change the wording of whole sentence, (b) Delete nonsense refer to appollyon and better describe his role as Logos and Michael, (c) In any case, do not revert me in hard way, but change smoothly revision with applying my suggestions here.
:::::::::I don't think "religious group" implies anything about how Jehovah's Witnesses are structurally organized, just that they're a group with shared religious beliefs. I'm okay with the "generally classified" phrasing later on. ] ] 06:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The implication that they're just "a group with shared religious beliefs" ''is the problem''. It is a highly regulated hierarchical denomination, not just 'a group of people with shared beliefs'. That is the problem with ambiguity of "group".--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Od}}
I disagree with you on that. Multiple things can be true at the same time. ] is highly regulated and hierarchical, but the first sentence of that article states that it is a "shared set of beliefs and practices". While I think inserting "Christian denomination" halfway through sounds awkward, that's somewhat subjective and I can understand why you disagree with me on that aspect. I suppose my other concern is that it gives that classification a sort of unquestioned status, even if that's what Jehovah's Witnesses are generally classified as. I think that there's enough arguing about classification in reliable sources to make such a distinction nessecary. ] ] 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


:The wording in the Scientology article is not analogous (and doesn't say "shared"). It doesn't say "Scientology are a group that believes..." or anything similar. I'm not sure you're suggesting we change the first sentence to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is a set of beliefs invented by..."--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 07:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
--] (]) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::No, but I made the comparison because your position seems to be that "a group with shared religious beliefs" is inherently contradictory with "highly regulated" and "hierarchical". I really don't think "shared religious beliefs" implies anything about said group being "loosely organised". ] ] 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:The sentence is entirely accurate. JW literature states that all those names refer to Jesus. That small section within the article is a ''summary'' of ], which provides much the same information, with the additional statement that after his resurrection he "then ascended into heaven to sit at Jehovah's right hand until he would become the promised king of God's heavenly kingdom". Your claim that the identification of Abaddon and Apollyon is "fully nonsense" is simply wrong. See "Apollyon" and "Abaddon" in the Insight book. ] (]) 08:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::Accurate is part "They believe that ---references in the Bible--- to the Archangel Michael, Abaddon, and the Logos, all refer to Jesus." .... But he haven´t all such roles simultaneously. It is due ´past-recent-future´ time-line in the Bible, but should be stated there, that He is not all in the same time. And mention about "King of God´s Kingdom" since 1914 (okay, this could be disputed by many scholars), "Leader -not only one- of great army in the Armageddon" (= this is probably intended with terms Abbadon and Apollyon, which I never heard, neither in English, nor in Czech). And moreover, in the article is no mention about "what Jesus did" (since 33 to 1914), nor since 1914 to today. --] (]) 08:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The summary in this article does not need to go into excessive detail about JW's theological speculations about what Jesus has been up to since 33CE. The article outlines the basic JW beliefs about Jesus as co-creator, redeemer and king, and then ''briefly'' presents the other names in the Bible with which JWs associate Jesus. Abaddon and Apollyon are at Revelation 9:11; JW literature unambiguously claims both names refer to Jesus.---] (]) 08:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I just read it and seems to me this clearly refer to Satan according to context of other close verses in the chapter. I have heavy doubts about this could be ´speculated´ (your idiom), for Jesus. In any case, this is one of the most meaningless! information, and it´s not needed to have such info in ´the main article´ with GA nommination. --] (]) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is true that most Christian religions associate Apollyon/Abaddon with Satan. However, JWs do not. ''Revelation&mdash;Its Grand Climax at Hand'', chap. 22 p. 148 par. 20: "'''''“They have over them a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon ''''' ''''', but in Greek he has the name Apollyon''''' '''''.” ''(''Revelation 9:11'')''' As “angel of the abyss” and “Destroyer,” Jesus had truly released a plaguing woe on Christendom." (formatting and bracketed text from original). It is a little disappointing that you need non-members to tell you the beliefs of your own religion.--] (]) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is a fairly notable contrast to most Christian religions that JWs use those terms to refer to Jesus. The fact that you, a JW, were not aware of this JW teaching also demonstrates that the information is of educational value.--] (]) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::I known also English variaton of that verse. // In any case, those ´destroyer´ roles refer to future events, and shouldn´t be linked explicitly, because we can´t be sure how future preciously will happen. For main article is meaningless information, if special more explanation is not in the lead possible. --] (]) 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::It is a plain statement of fact about what JWs believe. The JW ''teaching'' about those names is ''current''. It is not relevant whether the supposed 'role' is in the 'future' (and it is even more disappointing that I need to tell you that JWs believe that scripture was fulfilled in 1919, not "the future".) More information about the names is available from the linked articles.--] (]) 09:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Another sarcasm coming? Okay! ´The fact that you, an atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, or whatever ´xxxxx´ you are, also demonstrates that you should learn much more´. (((By the way. I read book ´Relevation-Grand Climax´ as well, but don accept it as immutable truth or even as ´right´ present truth teaching))). I still think, this is not needed for main article. Could be there only with more explanation of that. --] (]) 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Whether it is ''true'' (or the JW jargon 'present truth'), or whether you ''believe'' it is irrelevant. It is the current JW teaching, and that is all that matters here. Your suggestions regarding my own theological positions are not relevant here. I have not claimed that JWs believe anything other than their official teachings.--] (]) 09:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::If that was fulfilled in 1919, I probably something missed. Oh well, present world order is still here. :) False denominations of Christendom still prosper and the entire World is still in state of imperfection. There are only 2 possibilities. First, you wrongly understood content of Grand Climax book. Second, WTBTS something miss. Or both. I´ll take a look in the book again. However, this is not important part of belief evidence for me at all. And, at least is not in TOP 10 teachings for other JW. In any case. This, (= sth. called Apollyon and Abddon), without additional details and further explanation is inappropriate there. ( I remember few years ago when I read this article, I mistook it as ]. :-D ) --] (]) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not going to sit here and explain JW beliefs to a JW. If you don't know your own religion's teachings, that's your problem. I have correctly provided JW beliefs on the matter, with a source. You are welcome to provide additional sources.--] (]) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Another one! I want it. Some kind of ] ]. Please! --] (]) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::Do not use revert function to me, but normal edit next time, please. --] (]) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:::FaktneviM, it is irrelevant what ''you'' think about the use of the names. The article is about the official teaching of the JWs. The references are clear and explicit that JW teaching is that those names refer to Jesus. The article does not claim that Jesus is all those biblical characters at once. It does, however, make the point that JW teaching is that those names refer to Jesus. ] (]) 09:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::It is irrelevant to complain that 'Jesus isn't all of those names at once'. JWs believe the Bible uses those names to refer to Jesus ''when the Bible uses those names''.--] (]) 09:25, 26 July 2011 (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)
::::@BlackCab. Main difference is, when you say too little information, many readers could be mislead about JW teachings, because in the article is not available intended meaning. Pure facts cited on Misplaced Pages are sometimes very confusing, because reader often knows only "a", but don´t know "b" and "c". I am sure, that refer in the article could be written more clearer and comprehensible. --] (]) 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't think referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a ] is misleading. If you google "what is a religious group?", you'll get results . ] ] 07:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I have already explained the context in which it’s misleading, and the wikilink for ] itself demonstrates the ambiguity, providing separate definitions including “a group of people with similar religious beliefs” (e.g. a group of JW members) as distinct from a religious denomination.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 08:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::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