Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 26 July 2011

Jehovah's Witnesses is currently a Religion, mysticism and mythology good article nominee. Nominated by Fazilfazil (talk) at 15:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

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.

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.

	Jehovah's Witnesses is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Witnesses Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Template:WP1.0

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, 67

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Christians

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christians, by definition Christians believe in the Resurection of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.49.229 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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. BlackCab (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What I know, Trinity is not involved in any regular definition of Christianity. Are you for example "Cultural Christian", 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 WP:NOTFORUM --FaktneviM (talk) 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. Hysteria2424 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Heretical" Christians are still classifiable as "Christians" for secular purposes, such as Misplaced Pages. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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.. Lighthead 22:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I´m not on "your side". I´m not on side of any man. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pinas2020, 19 June 2011

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

I want to edit some articles in Jehovah's Witnesses

Pinas2020 (talk) 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 here.
Contrast the discussion of Russell at 22:52, 11 February 2011 with the subsequent edit.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 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 {{request quotation}} template "one in seven", which is not clearly supported by the source provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't meant to imply disbelief that the GBJW is based in Brooklyn (in 2011); I had removed the factoid only from the lede (leaving it intact in the body at Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organization) 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 Jehovah's_Witnesses#Background (1870–1916), which still hides Russell's intentional establishment of a religious rather than merely publishing organization.--AuthorityTam (talk) 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 here focussed on whether disfellowshipped and disassociated could be lumped together, which was never my point. Instead, the newly-added idea is plainly WP:SYNTH 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 WP:SYNTH has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 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 here, 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. BlackCab (talk) 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 WP:SYNTH.--Fazilfazil (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 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'—by the very nature of having left—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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I am not endorsing nor opposing the statement.--Fazilfazil (talk) 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").
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—almost immediately thereafter—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 edited 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' to read 'Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to have "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".' --AuthorityTam (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"one single solitary"???—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'—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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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.
As a parallel point, Christians in general accept that all humans are sinners (James 3:2, 1John 1:8–9); 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, I've removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems a lot like WP:SYNTH 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! --AuthorityTam (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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)) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote it on purpose to upset you. :)) As joke for someone who catch it, you know. 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, please be aware of the behavioral guideline: do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Please contribute positively to the discussion or remain silent. ...comments? ~BFizz 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. ...comments? ~BFizz 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. BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

<blockquote>Answer from BlackCab....</blockquote> 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another uncivility. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "all Christians are sinners" is not a claim that only Christian are sinners. This is basic set theory. Additionally, BlackCab explicitly stated, I didn't state that "only Christians are inherent sinners".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But in another comment he again repeat the same wrong understanding. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not falsely claim editors have contradicted themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested to continue this endless talk. Thanks for understandings. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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 :)--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

done nomination--Fazilfazil (talk) 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) Misplaced Pages:Reviewing, Misplaced Pages:Peer review. Thx for an idea. --FaktneviM (talk) 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 paragraph about 1975 a biased POV. Is this a good time to correct this?

I also find it ironic that although the Misplaced Pages article on shunning 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. Downstrike (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.

The Shunning 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 Excommunication, which article shows much better work.

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. Downstrike (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2011 (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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2011 (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.

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.

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.

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. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite Rodejong's irrelevant apologetics regarding the JW implementation of shunning—and his no true Scotsman fallacy about his opinion of 'real' shunning— JW literature explicitly refers to their practice of "shunning".--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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:

• 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.

Does ANY religion practice ALL of that? I suppose; is Bigotry a religion? Downstrike (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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. BlackCab (talk) 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 avoid contentious terms ("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 avoid euphemisms. 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."--Jeffro77 (talk) 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.

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". Downstrike (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the Shunning 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and you and I already discuss that on that article's talk page. Downstrike (talk) 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. Downstrike (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. Downstrike (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not second-guess the reviewers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Verifying Jehovah's True Words!

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! --Newbndreamz (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

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. Pastorrussell (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

'sincere'? 'foolish'? All very subjective, and nothing to do with article content. This is not a forum!--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing what Newbndreamz is requesting, any discussion here is pointless. BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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 History of Jehovah's Witnesses, development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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 Timeline of doctrine changes of the Jehovah's Witnesses or something similar. He want's to use the old publications as sources for that time line.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is already contained in Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#Timeline of doctrinal changes and the preceding section of that article dealing with Russell's initial millennialist teachings. BlackCab (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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 Fanatic. 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. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all you just described. However, your and mine request probably couldn´t be satisfied (at least fully) because of this 2 Cor 6:14-18. 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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. {{WP:HUMOR}} --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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 2 Cor 6:14-18. 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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 Belial' 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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?--Jeffro77 (talk) 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 (Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Suggestions_for_cleanup_pre_GA_Review). :)) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. User: FaktneviM 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. BlackCab (talk) 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 1 Cor 5:9-13 is clearly stated in verse 10 that shunning is relative! Can´t be absolute! <blockquote>Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world.</blockquote> (= 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 ?

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 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?

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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, 72Dino (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of scriptures

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? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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 WP:PRIMARY for more information on appropriate sources. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:JW#Use of scriptures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: We already have had with Jeffro77 some talk about using scriptures and other issues. (= No result)

• Watchlist and RC
  
• To do
  

• {{WikiProject}}
  
• {{WikiProject Talk}}
  

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, I still don't know what it is you're proposing. What do you want to discuss? BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for cleanup pre GA Review

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.

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. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:44, 18 July 2011 (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.

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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2011 (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. BlackCab (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close as successful GAN. My76Strat (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: My76Strat 02:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Because of the depth of this article, in appropriate relation to this subject, I am certain this review will encompass days at minimum. I will publish comments intermittently, as the review may warrant and invite any constructive comments by interested Wikipedians as well. Based upon my initial reading, I believe it is more likely, than not that this article will be successful. It flowed with a logical fluency that thoughtfully described the subject without excessive detail. It is meticulously well written. And these are the first of my impressions:

Issues upon first reading

• The word "eventually" in this sentence: "Expelled individuals may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant by local elders." implies that some period of time must pass before this is possible. If there is no requirement of time, and the only discretion is the decision of the local elders, the term appears misplaced in this context.

This issue was resolved on the talk page and it is not an issue needing an action. My76Strat 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I only mean it is a non issue for me. Naturally if contributors decide by consensus to modify the prose, doing so would not be improper. My76Strat 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Under Background (1870–1916) you find this sentence: "During the course of his ministry Russell disputed many of the creeds, doctrines and traditions of mainstream Christianity including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world" In one instance, (creeds, doctrines and traditions) the serial comma is omitted, followed by (Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning) where it is used. These guidelines describe that such style is appropriately a matter of preference, but does admonish that an article should be consistent with regard to any such preference. Please consider which style is most appropriate and correct its use to reflect consistency.

 Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also the image of Charles Taze Russell is not properly positioned. Consider element 5 of relevant policy which states: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading nor at the end of the previous section, otherwise screen readers would read the image (and its textual alternative) in a different section."

 Fixed My76Strat

• At times, I found myself detracted by so many inline citations. I would certainly consider that 1 or 2 are sufficient for any challenged, or likely to be challenged fact. It also seems that References, and notes are commingled within the reference section. My own cheat sheet might help if there is any desire to improve this aspect.

This is a suggestion for future improvement and will not delay promoting this article to "GA". My76Strat 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was surprised by the omission of any mention of the "Quick build" as their manner of constructing Kingdom Halls. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, but I did actually help them build one of their churches, and found their tradition interesting in that regard.

 Done My76Strat 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I did forget to mention; When I first read the article and the concept of "shunning" was introduced, I did remember that Jehovah's Witnesses had a term for this practice (but could not remember it). It was not until much later that the term "disfellowship" was shown while ambiguity existed for too long. I think when you first begin to mention "shunning" you should tie it to the term which is uniquely JW My76Strat 13:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat

Second reading

When I return for my second read, I will be looking closer at the references to verify any facts I might consider subject to challenge. I will also check closer that all text is free of copyright violations, and images are properly licensed. And I will verify that anything summarized in the lead is expounded within the body.

• I did find all of the images are properly licensed, and the text appears free of any encumbrance. As an interesting aside, I did find extensive mirroring of this articles text and some of the sites are not attributing this article, as they should. I also was impressed that the lead is a near perfect summary and all statements of fact were included in greater detail within the body. 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. The lead should be as free of clutter as possible. My76Strat 14:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling. I have found examples where both occur and it should be consistent with few exceptions. See this and this as they pertain to consistency. My76Strat 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The only instance I saw in unquoted text was "baptised", which I've fixed. However, some quoted references use British spelling, though the source is American and most likely uses US spelling. I'll check for these later.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Consensus favored American English. My76Strat 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article is extremely cumbersome to navigate in edit mode because of all the citations. This is not required for "GA" status but it could be valid to consider citing sources as shown in the article Chemical weapon. My76Strat 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a suggestion for future improvement and will not delay promoting this article to "GA". My76Strat 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence: 'Marking is practiced if a baptized member persists in a course of action regarded as a violation of Bible principles but not a "serious sin".' is the only place in the entire article where "Marking" is mentioned. I understand that it is practiced, and why, but I have no idea as to "what". Consider removing some of the ambiguity in that statement. Expand the note if suitable prose is not desirable. My76Strat 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I edited the former ("Marking is practiced...") to the current ("Marking, a curtailing of social- but not spiritual-fellowship, is practiced...").--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The change indicated above doesn't address the reviewer's comment regarding for what a member might be 'marked'. I'll amend this when I have time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually AuthorityTam did address the issue as I meant to imply. It was more about wondering what marking meant. The wikilink makes it even better. My76Strat 22:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence: "The beliefs, doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses have engendered controversy and opposition..." JW may be opposed, but it is wrong to say they engender that opposition. To engender is to give cause and I do not see their actions as sufficient for giving cause. It is entirely as likely that the disposition of the opposition engenders their own aggression or animosity. My76Strat 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It says the beliefs, doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses have engendered controversy, not simply that JWs have engendered controversy. Where those beliefs, doctrines, and practices are at odds with the views of governments or other groups, those views have engendered controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reworded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is much better after your last edit. Sometimes even the slightest insinuation can lead to negative resentment and the congruent flow from engendered is; they gave cause, they are to blame, the opposition is justified. My76Strat 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if I could be shown that this change was made because there is agreement to my rational, opposed to perhaps being done against anyone's better judgement. Nothing that I have suggested was ever a requirement. Bearing that in mind there truly are few remaining things to do. Regards, My76Strat (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with your rational for the reason I gave above. However, I understand your point, and there is no special advantage to the other wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this edit (claiming JWs forced the Nazi and Stalinists to persecute them).--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Phew, that's a pretty blatant distortion, AuthorityTam. The authors are clear enough in their claims that the religion deliberately acted in a way that attracted the wrath of authorities, apparently welcoming the opportunity to present themselves as martyrs. (Similar views have been expressed elsewhere about the blood transfusion ban, with speculation that it was designed to create a scenario in which JWs would die for the sake of their religious doctrine.) Nowhere in the source material or the article here is there a suggestion the Witnesses forced governments to persecute them. BlackCab (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement is very clearly given as the claims of those authors. However, there is nothing in the statement saying the JWs forced governments to do anything. JW literature does state that persecution of JWs is 'evidence' of god's support e.g. The Watchtower, 15 November 1977, p. 686: "Jehovah’s Witnesses know that “all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted.” ...

Therefore, while not seeking persecution or enjoying the suffering that persecution brings, they are nonetheless happy because it is an added evidence to them that they are taking the right course and are pleasing their God Jehovah."--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• In this sentence: "Witnesses claim to base their beliefs solely on the Bible and prefer their own translation", "claim" is slightly pejorative in that it exists as an expression of doubt. Consider if there is a more neutral way of presenting this information. My76Strat 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reworded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• "The name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10–12" includes an external link within the prose. This is contrary to policy and it should be linked through the references section. My76Strat 17:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a reason this sentence, Adherents commonly refer to their body of beliefs as "the Truth" and consider themselves to be "in the truth". shows Truth capitalized once and not the other? My76Strat 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

JWs do not consider "the truth" to be a proper pronoun, and rarely capitalize it. I've long thought this sentence is nearly useless, as other denominations use the same expression internally to refer to coreligionists. It's from the Bible at 3 John 1:3, 3 John 1:4, et al.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Truth is not used in the typical sense of the word, and the use of the term is given special meaning by JWs (and other religions). Presence in the Bible of the special term is an irrelevant appeal to authority. JWs do not typically capitalise the term, so I have fixed it. (If the capitalised term is actually quoting Holden as the cited source, perhaps a longer and less ambiguous quote is required.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• In this sentence, "Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation related to civil rights in various countries.", "considerable" is a weasel word. My76Strat 17:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest something like; "Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have influenced legislation related to civil rights in various countries." My76Strat 14:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the only remaining issue which must be addressed. When it is done, all criteria will be met and I will happily promote this good article to "GA". To retain the adjective, it must be shown that it is affixed by independent, reputable sources, and not simply a valid observation based on original research. While I agree the influence is considerable, it is not substantiated by a WP:RS. My76Strat 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a source supporting "considerable", I support its removal. It is unnecessary and misleading about the extent of influence that has resulted in improvements to civil rights. BlackCab (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think that conveys all the information without opening the door for someone to say POV. Very nice, My76Strat 03:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Baptized members who violate the organization's moral code or who dispute doctrinal matters may be subject to disciplinary action" , "may be subject" seems wrong. A subject is always subject, but perhaps not subjected. My76Strat 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I suggested that entire lede paragraph be replaced with this tighter one: 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. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has previously said "are subject", but it was met with opposition by editors who did not understand that 'subject' does not necessarily mean it is enforced. I have changed it back to "are".--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer earlier stated, "The lead should be as free of clutter as possible." The lede formerly included a paragraph which seemed nearly twice as lengthy as needed for a lede; I've simplified the paragraph to this:
Congregational disciplinary actions include disfellowshipping, their term for formal expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may request reinstatement.
Below the lede, the matter is more fully discussed in the section Jehovah's Witnesses#Disciplinary action, and in the related article on the matter Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. Another editor agreed with yesterday's suggestion to simplify the wording of this lede paragraph; see below at Talk:JWs#eventually be reinstated.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly agree with your rationale, I would like to offer this distinction; the reference to "clutter" is primarily regarding extraneous markup and disjointed prose when it is not required. If there is a requirement, such as has been enunciated, intuitively it should remain and is not within the subgroup identified as "not required". Your action in summarizing the lead is wholly within policy and effective summary guidelines, and is a valid consideration. Considering the size of this article, it is actually prudent. So they are two considerations with tandem potential for improving the article. My76Strat 15:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The specific statement about "being free of clutter" related to removing superfluous inline citations from the lead, not simplifying the body text of the lead. However, I think your (AuthorityTam's) simplification of the lead is fine. I have restored the import of some of the deleted text to the relevant section of the body text, and removed the 'easter egg' link on 'shunning' and the superfluous link to the 'reinstatement' subsection of the section already linked in the same paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Just stepping back a moment: I'm loath to delete the statement that "Baptized members who violate the organization's moral code or who dispute doctrinal matters may be subject to disciplinary action". Beckford, in his landmark 1975 study of the JWs, made repeated reference to the organisational intolerance of, and strong discouragement of, doctrinal disputes (Penton and the Bottings also refer at length to it), and I would contend that this is another notable point about this religion. Whereas many mainstream Christian denominations have synods where doctrines are openly debated and decided, the Jehovah's Witnesses do what they can to gag discussion and questioning of doctrines, and -- as clearly seen in the case of Raymond Franz, Jim Penton and Carol Olof Jonsson, expel and label as apostates those who do voice dissent with the dictates of the Governing Body. While I agree that the current wording is more succinct, it comes at the expense of an important defining feature of the religion. BlackCab (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a notable point and should be covered in the article, but I'm not sure that it is essential to include it in the lead. The change made by AuthorityTam regarding 'discipline' seems sufficient for the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue was one of semantics. If the intent is to show tolerance, (a reasonable intent) consider changing the prose to "may be subjected to" which is correct to that end, and less ambiguous than "may be subject to" IMO My76Strat 16:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added information to the section on discipline that states the usual reasons for expulsion. This addresses my concern above. BlackCab (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "On July 26, 1931, at a convention in Columbus, Ohio, Rutherford announced the new name—Jehovah's witnesses—based on Isaiah 43:10: "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen"—which was adopted by resolution"; The matter of fact statement "Rutherford announced the new name" makes me wonder if it was an anticipated thing which he concluded with an announcement or was it unanticipated until that day? Consider if prose can remove that kind of wonder. My76Strat 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reportedly, there were posters up with the initials "JW", but it seems unlikely that most IBSA Bible Students anticipated the new name. A. H. Macmillan, a Watch Tower board member, claims that Rutherford sought and received permission from the board before announcing the name. I'm not sure that question needs to be answered here. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be changed to "introduced" to remove ambiguity. (Done)--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Watch Tower Society publications claim that doctrinal changes and refinements result..." Again "claim" exists as an expression of doubt. "publications teach" or even "publications state" can convey the idea without the doubt. My76Strat 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...and give him the title "Universal Sovereign" I think "gave him" is presumptuous and perhaps not referenced that way. I think adherents would "...recognize him as" or perhaps "proclaimed him as" but not presume to have "given". My76Strat 19:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have simplified the sentence to not require an additional verb.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of humankind" Can you interlink "redeemer" and "ransom sacrifice" for clarity of these somewhat specialized terms. My76Strat 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Satan persuaded Adam and Eve to disobey God" I though Satan persuaded Eve, who then persuaded Adam. Is it taught differently by JW or am I mistaken? My76Strat 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A JW source—The Watchtower, 15 February 1961—has stated that " persuaded Eve and, through her, Adam to abandon Jehovah’s service".) However, other (and more recent) Watchtower articles claim that Satan "induced"/"caused"/"led" (etc) "Adam and Eve" to rebel. I have changed this to 'caused', which is less direct than 'persuaded' and consistent with JW sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the number of Christians going to heaven is limited to exactly 144,000" A thing is "limited" when it can not reach its full potential. "is established as" "consists exactly of" are examples which do not weasel in limitations. My76Strat 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Various Watchtower articles state that the group is "limited to 144,000". Terms such as "consists exactly of" are not appropriate because the number is believed to not yet be completed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is fine that you remain consistent with sources. The observation was opinion based and certainly not an egregious affront. My76Strat 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "transforming earth into a paradise" or perhaps "restoring the Eearthly paradise" favoring restoration or reestablishment (which preserves the former) over transforming which omits the former. My76Strat 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're suggesting. "Transforming" is well-supported by JW literature. The adjective "earthly" should not be capitalised. I have removed the second use of 'earth' from the sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here again this is my opinion. My rational is that transforming, although entirely correct, misses the opportunity to elude to the former paradise which restoring would do. And because JW are restorationist's, avoidance of such missed opportunities seems intuitive. But again, there is nothing egregious in its current manifestation. My76Strat 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, JWs believe the Bible to teach that only the Garden of Eden (that is, a discreet geographic locale) was a paradise; when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden they did not find a paradise outside the Garden. JWs do believe that creation was in global harmony until the "fall of man", but the globe awaited (is awaiting) heaven-directed, human-enacted cultivation before becoming fully paradisaic. Incidentally, sociologists use the category of "Restorationism" to refer to a group's 1) rejection of Protestant roots and 2) claim to restore "true Christianity" as practiced immediately after its formation. The sociological term does not technically refer to theological concepts such as restoration of the earth or restoration of God's purposes. As stated, "transforming" is well supported in JW publications.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying these points for me. In light of a more correct understanding, I can hardly imagine a better word to convey these ideas than to transform. Incidentally, I did misunderstand the concept of "Restorationism" as my above comments clearly indicate. I would say this article is clearly educational. My76Strat 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "since 607 BC" Wouldn't BCE be more appropriate considering its relationship with JW teachings. Preferences are supposed to give deference to their subject and CE and BCE are established JW brands. My76Strat 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Their view of morality reflects conservative Christian values" very small potatoes here but would "Their views of morality reflect conservative Christian values" make an appropriate difference? My76Strat 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

90% commentary

I have accomplished about 90% of the review for this article. I do not anticipate any more suggestions from me, as the 90% was diligent. I do wish interested participants, would append under each bullet, any comments they feel appropriate regarding this article, and "GA" criteria. Some prose have already improved, and others may be appropriate in their current form requiring no action. Let this be the record of this article's "GA" review, which it is, and the record of the collaborative authors input, who made it happen. Only edits within this section will append to the transcluded record. For a day or so, unless it wraps up quickly, I will mostly observe. Some things I have already observed and I have strong confidence that stability will be maintained for this article, and expect it will actually continue improving. By all means, if someone sees a thing I may have missed, bring it up and make your suggestion. The only rule beyond the ones you well know is: Do not use a == Level 2 == header. Best regards, My76Strat 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my overstatements

I apologize for making statements which indicated I was imminently prepared to promote this article, that 90% of the review was concluded, and that all criteria had been met. I was primarily focusing on the clear presentation of non biased facts as related to the prose in use, and juxtaposing my confidence that it will likely happen. I will not shortchange my review simply for smearing egg in my own face, and my intentions were never malicious. The raw truth is; the review is moving along, the participants are acting in good faith, the article is improving towards its goal, and it will conclude in its own due course. I will have more suggestions based on some elements I have missed, whether spotted by me or someone else. Again, I apologize for spawning heightened expectations. With esteem, My76Strat 17:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Circle the wagons

Please concentrate to address the issue raised above regarding the following sentence: "Persistent legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses have had considerable influence on legislation related to civil rights in various countries." (view the thread for more detail and provide a resolution or rebuttal there. This is the only aspect preventing me from moving to the subsequent steps culminating in promotion to "GA", Additional comments are always great, and time will remain for more input. But I am eager to move to the next phase (final sequence). My76Strat 18:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Corrections on the spot

All of the concerns raised above have been amicably corrected and moves me to the final phase which has effectively already begun. This is when I would ask that anyone with a concern for anything I may have missed, or for presenting their input as to content disputes or policy concerns that would be better addressed than not. Two issues have been raised, and others are invited to comment as well. I have asked some of my own trusted colleagues to review my review, so that when it is done, it will be done correctly. These things are in the best interest of the article that we want to call good. (that's kinda scary; I recall bible teachings of the good teacher} Ok we want to call it a "GA", yeah that's better. The good thing about resolving some of these issues is it can serve as a record of consensus regarding things that could be tomorrows content dispute, and you can say, "We decided there that we would do it this way" and many disputes are resolved quickly when you can show a prior consensus. Like if someone wants to change to BC an AD for example. Or switch over to British English because they like it better. So please stay willing to correct some things on the spot, as they may come up. And lets get through any concerns that might be raised. My76Strat 03:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your fairly thorough review of the article. I certainly prefer 'British English' over 'American English', but a religion headquartered in the US is contextually best suited to US English. Matters of style have not been the primary source of disputes in JW-related articles, and those kinds of issues are generally fixed fairly quickly when noticed. There are various issues that are continually rehashed, as can be seen by going through the Talk archives, despite efforts to refer to previous consensus. It would certainly be ideal for additional review by experts on the subject who a) are not regular contributors to the article and b) have no vested interest in a biased view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that generous appraisal. Bringing in additional reviewers is an established option, and not a thing which I am averse. I do not think there is substantial deadlock as to necessitate it now, and would like to achieve all the progress that is within our collaborative potential. If any participant believes it is prudent to bring in the others now, simply state it as your clear desire that it be done now, and I will initiate the action. My76Strat 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I intended the additional review more generally. I don't think there is a desperate need to immediately bring in other reviewers. However, the article could benefit from such review from independent experts now or at any other time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments initiated by article contributors

Background 1870-1916

Forgive me, but a large issue has sat on the backburner for too long, in the section Jehovah's Witnesses#Background (1870–1916). Editors such as me feel that the section's current wording and references have been cherrypicked/ assembled to present Charles Taze Russell as though he used and intended his organization only for publishing purposes and (supposedly) never intended to establish a religious organization (notice the section mentions 'autonomous congregations' and 'non-profit business entity to distribute tracts and Bibles'). Furthermore, details of Russell's long-since-abandoned theological chronology are discussed ad nauseam while significant and long-reaching practical steps he took are ignored. Frankly, this current presentation seems agenda-driven and dishonest.

The matter has been discussed until editors such as myself have postponed the discussion...

• Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_54#Business Convenience
• Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_54#Business_v_religious_organization
• Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_54#Practical_history_v_eschatological_details
• Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive 54#The Misplaced Pages Russell is unbalanced, and focuses unduly on one aspect of Russell's teachings
• Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_54#Current_Russell_Section_Deals_Mostly_with_Time_Prophecies

I had earlier created this for the article, and seen it repeatedly chopped:
Some thirty congregations had been founded, and during 1879 and 1880 Russell visited each to teach the pattern of meetings he recommended. Seeking to consolidate the religious movement, in the 1880s Russell combined printing facilities and a meeting house into an Allegheny headquarters he named Bible House; in 1881, he founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society and incorporated it with himself as president in 1884.
Russell had been elected "pastor" of the Pittsburgh congregation in 1882, and thereafter was often introduced as "Pastor Russell". About 500 congregations eventually elected him as their pastor, and in this religious capacity Russell corresponded with "a select group" of individuals regarding their local pastoral work. By about 1900 Russell had organized thousands of part- and full-time colporteurs (now pioneers), and was appointing foreign missionaries and establishing branch offices. By the 1910s, Russell's organization was maintaining nearly a hundred "pilgrims" (now circuit overseers). A program was established in 1913 whereby selected branch offices could issue Verbi Dei Minister certifications, and Russell eventually recommended that congregations appoint as elders and deacons only those 'reasonably able' to answer the "V.D.M." questions.
Russell moved headquarters to New York City in 1909, again combining printing and corporate offices with a house of worship he named "Brooklyn Tabernacle"; volunteers were housed in a nearby residence he named Bethel. Russell formally identified the religious movement as "Bible Students", and more specifically, as the "International Bible Students Association". The evangelism efforts of Russell's organization included the 1914 film The Photo-Drama of Creation, seen by about nine million. In addition to Watch Tower publications, Russell's weekly column was carried by more than 2000 newspapers in the United States and other English-speaking countries. He regularly traveled to speak at Bible Student events, debates, and other engagements; Russell died at age 64 during a speaking tour in late 1916.
I believe now is the time to seriously reconsider whether the Misplaced Pages audience is better served by this religion's main article dwelling on theological details abandoned a century ago or on the original establishment of a framework that continues today.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if now "is" the time but now is certainly as good a time as any other. I did intent to next beseech any good faith editor, which you obviously are, to include any undeserved under served consideration or position that isn't firmly established as consensus driven. Or that no style preference had been endorsed contrary to consensus. For example here I accept American English spelling. positive use of the serial comma, and BCE CE date annotations when used. Things that still have to be decided, like uniform citation style and their preferences. There is no time limit on how long this process takes, and I am not weary for effort. So your issue is open, and if someone has another, open your own level 4 header and let me know. Thanks for posting that concern AT. My76Strat 22:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Russell was not a JW; his Bible Student movement was quite different to JWs, and still exists as a separate religious movement; the JW group became distinguished from other Bible Student groups only after Russell's death. Only a brief history of the background of the group's development from the Bible Student movement is required, and the article doesn't require an 'apologetic' about Russell's character, motives, or accomplishments (e.g. what does Russell's newspaper column have to do with JWs??). Additional detail about Russell and his original movement belongs at Charles Taze Russell and Bible Student movement; considerable attention to Russell is also given at History of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying that none of the suggested content above could be used; only that much of it is unnecessary in the scope and context of the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Background section already provides aspects of AuthorityTam's preferred wording above—the early congregtations, Russell's recommended pattern for their meetings, and the establishment of the Watch Tower Society. The information about the Watch Tower Society facilities could be included, because the same facilities continued to be used by JWs, though I'm not sure those elements are particularly relevant to the claim about whether "Russell ... intended to establish a religious organization" (and the section does not attempt any such claim either way). AuthorityTam cites a third party which suggested that Russell incorporated the Society to 'consolidate the movement' (though that source doesn't say the Society itself was intended as a religious entity). Russell's own words (in his A Conspiracy Exposed) on whether he intended the Watch Tower Society to be a religious entity were that: "This is a business association merely ... it has no creed or confession ... it is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth." (I do not believe that the current description as a "non-profit business entity" is necessary in the section; I think this should be replaced with "non-profit corporation".)

Regarding the doctrinal issues present in the Background section to which AuthorityTam refers to as "theological details abandoned a century ago", the section briefly provides the doctrinal development of the current core distinctive beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, though the material regarding Barbour could be abbreviated for the purpose of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Background section appropriately deals with the birth of the Watchtower, or Bible Student, movement. The basis of the core beliefs of today's Jehovah's Witnesses (indeed, their raison d'etre) remains exactly as Russell and Barbour described in their earliest books: that the world was about to reach the end of an epoch, with that view based on beliefs about long-hidden chronological indicators within the Bible. Closely connected with that fundamental teaching was that it was incumbent on those who could discern those chronological clues to share them with the rest of the world, acting as God's watchman. Those two points were, and are, notable teachings and defining characteristics of the group. AuthorityTam's suggested history section ignores that completely and dwells instead on mundane administrative and organisational details (location of headquarters and printery, the title of pastor, the appointment of missionary workers and elders, expansion of proselytising to include cinematic media). This is all adequately detailed in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses spinout article and aside from the formation of the Watch Tower Society (the control of which was held by a powerful Bible Student faction following Russell's death) does not need to be included in the main JW article. BlackCab (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read and reread this section several times. I continually arrive at the same conclusion. I do not see the prose as a nefarious attempt to portray "Charles Taze Russell as though he used and intended his organization only for publishing purposes and (supposedly) never intended to establish a religious organization" This does not mean discussion is not warranted or that AuthorityTam is on the wrong side of the discussion. It simply means it is an issue the lay reader would likely not identify from reading the prose as it currently exist. To help me, and other readers who are not as enlightened to internal dissent; please indicate by specific bullet examples showing the text as it is, followed by why it is non-neutral or excessive, and a suggestion for improving it. Remain cognizant that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is the preferred guideline when excessive detail is suggested. My76Strat 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Going one step further, I do not think this is a content dispute that would affect the stability of this article. To my observation, it is a discussion, the participants act in good faith, with mutual regard for the opinion of others, and it does not need an immediate resolution. This is another issue I intend to move on and away from considering, unless mitigation of significant consequence is shortly presented. My76Strat (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to do this just once.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed Chryssides' unsourced claim that Russell was "seeking to consolidate the movement" by establishing a printery. Russell himself felt strongly enough about explaining the purpose of forming the Watchtower Society that he spelt out that it was "a business association merely ... it has no creed or confession ... it is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth." That much deserved to be included in the article rather than unfounded assumptions written almost a century later. In the context of a history of Jehovah's Witnesses, which under Rutherford's direction adopted quite a different model of religious organisation, that fact is particularly notable. BlackCab (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Chryssides did not say Russell's incorporation of the Society was specifically intended to consolidate a religious movement, or that Russell's intention to consolidate the movement meant that the Society was itself a religious entity. It is speculative to infer the additional word from Chryssides' statement about the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include in the lead an opening statement like: "Jehovah's Witnesses formerly known as the International Bible Students Association (IBSA)..." This would remove any hint of ambiguity, if such is the charge. My76Strat (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be worth mentioning in the second paragraph before the reference to the adoption of the name Jehovah's witnesses in 1931. Is there a preference for Bible Students or International Bible Students Association? BlackCab (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Stating that JWs were formerly known as "Bible Students" may imply that other Bible Student groups no longer exist, so it would be better to use the more specific form. However, when referring to the earlier name, but not to the various IBSA corporations, JW literature almost always (exceptions are from quotes or first-person accounts) uses the term "International Bible Students", without the word Association. Therefore, if the older name for the religious group is specified, it should be given as "International Bible Students"; the full title "International Bible Students Association" should only be used in reference to the business entities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source that claims "Jehovah's Witnesses sprang from nothing in 1931". Most (all?) sources seem fairly consistent in reporting that a schism in the Bible Student movement's leadership in the late 1910s gradually resulted in the distinct group known as Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article prose clearly establishes that Jehovah's Witnesses were formerly known as International Bible Students, and I think this fact would flow congruently from the lead if it did insert the formerly known as distinction. IMO the link itself is where the most room for improvement exist, but that is another article, not directly related to this review. My76Strat (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the link within my last comment (which is the redirect for International Bible Students) is not bad and fits nicely with the prose from this article. The link I had followed which may have room to improve was International Bible Students Association, making it no more relevant than my initial comment. My76Strat (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments initiated by interested observers

Comment from Jayen466

I am sorry to throw a potential spanner in the works, and apologise to the editors who have clearly put a lot of dedicated work into this article, but I am worried about the prevalence of primary sourcing in the article, which raises OR concerns for me. Cf. WP:NRMMOS and general sourcing guidelines. Generally, if we cite a movement's primary sources, we should do so because other secondary sources have done so before us. There is no secondary-source support for many of the primary sources cited here, leaving it unverifiable whether the particular selection made here reflects the main points raised in the relevant literature. I will see if I can get a scholar working in the field to give the article a look-over and leave comments here. --JN466 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are not a lot of third-party sources that deal in depth with JW beliefs, and those that do are generally disputed by members of the religion. I think it would do more harm than good to delete the majority of the article on a technicality.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I did account for an abundance of primary sourcing. I have not observed an example where the claim was flamboyant or likely to be challenged. To support a mundane fact which is not specifically used as an element of the subjects notability, primary sources are not mutually precluded. I did find when information could seem contentious or likely to be challenged, the source was independent, reliable, and supported the inclusion. A third opinion is welcome but IMO reasonable diligence will corroborate my assertion here. Thanks for allowing that we look closer that nothing problematic persists at this close. My76Strat 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchtower sources are certainly the best ones for the Beliefs and Practices sections in explaining their views and are unlikely to be challenged. I don't see that this constitutes original research; that term (and policy) is more about individual interpretations or observations by Misplaced Pages editors. Beverley, Beckford, Penton, Holden and others who have studied and critiqued Watchtower statements about such issues as the sources of doctrine and JW doctrines on discipline and separateness have been used to provide an outside viewpoint. BlackCab (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

After seeking opinions from fellow reviewers (whom I trust) and giving a stringent look at the issue as it relates to policy, I think it is incumbent that the issues raised regarding the references must be addressed. I found significant sources, which are independent, and substantiate the facts nicely, which are not used. And there is an abundance of references (primary sources) included to support facts not likely to be challenged. It almost appears that organizational admonishment to not indulge in worldly (secular) activities hamper devout adherents from scrutinizing publications outside those approved by the society, and to include them would insult the articles integrity. This is an obstacle which must be overcome!

First; remove all inline citations which are not likely to be challenged; Limit the citations where they are appropriate to two with no more than one being primary. Whenever possible, include the reference from an independent WP:RS; Remove all commentary from within the citation and include only the particulars which identify the source. Commentary should be shown as a note and notes should themselves be referenced when appropriate; And be consistent with the citation style preferred. If it bothers a contributors conscience to link to an outside publication, omit the url in the citation as it is not required and does not make a fact unverifiable. You can choose a style that does not blue link to the source and maintain it as a style preference. There are valid arguments against linking so it is a viable option. I have compiled a list of possible sources that can be considered and located them here for your consideration. This is merely a task so accomplishing it is only deterred by the mundane. But I think it is important to get it done, per Misplaced Pages. My76Strat 19:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about this suggestion.

(a) The references add information, and it is of dubious value to remove it. Once supporting references are removed, it becomes a difficult job to reinstate them later.

(b) What "commentary" do you suggest removing from sources? An example would be helpful. I'm not sure if you mean direct quotes from the source.

(c) Some of the links you provide, including Freeminds and Beliefnet, would not constitute WP:RS. Additionally, websites such as Freeminds are deemed by JWs to be run by "apostates" or opposers of the religion, so therefore more neutral sources are needed to preempt accusations that material is inaccurate or biased. I don't see that the primary sources that remain in the article cause any problems or conflict with Misplaced Pages policy. BlackCab (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Commentary refers to anything in a citation that is superfluous to identifying or quoting a source. See the Notes section for examples of commentary, which have already been moved out of the References section. There may still be other references that include such commentary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Information on Freeminds is frequently either poorly sourced or not sourced at all, and is frequently dubious or takes an extreme or overly dramatic view. Requests to Freeminds for sources for its unattributed articles go unanswered. It is essentially a personal webpage and should not be used as a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the sources I compiled, there are some good sources there I remember seeing as I was getting them, And I did include some adversarial sites, just in case there was any use for them, to support controversy or the likes, and they were only for your consideration. It is not necessary that you use any of them. I hope I have alleviated some concerns. By the way, a lot of cleanup in the reference section seems too have been done and it is already looking better. My76Strat (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

By "blockquotes" I assume you mean the quotes within the references section when sources are cited. I will look through some of these to see how many can be removed. Many, particularly when drawn from non-WTS publications, were added at the explicit request of JW editors who, evidently unwilling to read the books themselves, repeatedly demanded proof that such statements were actually in the source material. Again, I can remove them, but there's a risk the same editors will return at some point to demand evidence that the statements weren't the private interpretation of Misplaced Pages editors. BlackCab (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have found a number of secondary sources for beliefs and practices and begun to substitute those for Watchtower ones. I'll continue as time permits. BlackCab (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) My76Strat dropped by my page to see if I had any input here, since I work regularly with copyrighted text on Misplaced Pages (that is, evaluating its usage :D). There is always a difficult balance between keeping non-free content to a minimum and verifying information. We don't have a specific rule of thumb of how much is too much because it is so entirely dependent on variables--how long is the source? how long is the article? how "core" is the information to either? is it being used transformatively? etc. The best idea is to keep quotes to the minimum length necessary to verify the information. If you have a footnote that isn't particularly controversial, perhaps omit them entirely from that footnote. If you can, consider paraphrasing the source with limited direct quotation:

At page 1080, John Smith discusses the fabrigals necessary to frommerate the frippingal, including "an extensive list of toiletries." Smith adds, "By tradition, the list includes not only items, but brand names and quantities required, although considerations such as color and scent are regarded as personal and excluded."

The more controversial the material, obviously, the more likely a direct quote is to be needed, but even in those cases we try to keep them trimmed down to the least amount needed to prove the point. Editors may contest material, and we try to make it as easy as possible for them to verify that it is true, but WP:V does not require us to extensively reproduce the sources for them. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl, it is very nice that you have resolved the matter, as to my regards, and responsibilities to this review. With a clear conscience, although I still hold that it is excessive (my opinion), I trust that policy allows flexibility in this regard. Intuitively this is best exercised by the regular contributors who most know the particulars as to how the "quoted text was deemed appropriate. And I have noticed the recent inclusion of more WP:RS which is great. I consider the concerns originally posted to have been thoroughly addressed with diligent earnest. Unless someone rebuts this assertion, there are no more concerns that will preclude moving on and away form this subject. Nicely done IMO, My76Strat (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've had word back from my enquiry. The good news is that the article seems to have much improved over the past few months. A source that is hardly used at present, but could help add secondary-source references to the article, is the Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (Metuchen NJ: Scarecrow Press, 2008). I hope to have more detailed feedback next week. --JN466 02:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Some specifics

• ISBN's should be shown with consistency, choose either 10 or 13 character format, and either use hyphens or not, but be consistent. My76Strat (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted hyphens, but now note that WP:ISBN recommends the use of dashes if they are included. There is thus no requirement for consistency. That page also includes a tool to convert 10-digit numbers to 13, and I will do that for the older books as time permits. BlackCab (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert that edit if you desire. To be honest, I passed that along as a colleague recommended and hadn't reviewed the relevant policy prior to appending it here. Also I am human, and can make a mistake like any other person. (no infallibility here). Having said that, if you think something should be reconsidered, please, present your mitigation. I am reasonable, and my only goal in accepting this review is to see this article transformed (if you will) from the good article it was when I started this review, to the "GA" class article it is to be. In relation to that end; The participants to this process, (you) have been exceedingly helpful, and diligent, towards the goal. Best, My76Strat (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend it as a criticism, more an observation and a request for clarification. I would imagine the ISBNs would be coped and clicked rather than copied down by hand, so the absence of hyphens is not important and it does look a bit tidier. BlackCab (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"transformed (if you will) from the good article it was when I started this review, to the "GA" class article it is to be"—diplomatic genius!--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:OVERLINK, do not link the same term within the same section (Christianity is twice linked in the lead) and avoid linking terms that do not add to the understanding (like Christmas, Easter, birthdays) There may be other examples but these are provided for an example to show there is some over linking. My76Strat (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the links such as Christmas are relevant because the JWs consider their origins to be 'unsuitable for Christians', and the Christmas article provides information about the origin of the celebration. I would therefore recommend assessing such target articles for relevant supplementary detail before hasty removal of such links. However, mundane topics outside the scope of the article's theme do not need to be linked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction, Christianity is still linked twice in the lead. My76Strat (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a minor issue. Is there opposition to unlink the redundant interlink? My76Strat (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:UNDERLINK, ensure that each section links terms that can aid in understanding regardless of it having been linked in a previous section. Treat each section as a stub article and link the appropriate terms as they first occur within each. Look at Jehovah's_Witnesses#Failed_predictions for example. My76Strat (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And here is another example. My76Strat (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Further consideration shows that the second example may not contain terms where interlinking is necessary, but the first does. Please add the few links which are appropriate. My76Strat (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Do not forget that the infobox is part of the article. Statements of fact like number of congregations and number of members should be referenced there as well. My76Strat (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the reference was not given there because the footnote on the info-box says "Statistics from 2011 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses". I think it would suffice. If required reference number 243 shall be linked there--Fazilfazil (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, perhaps you can link the footnote itself to the appropriate reference. This simply aids in the readers ability to verify the information and would put any concerns to rest. My76Strat (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is another example where the correction is a minor inconvenience, or I await some mitigating rebuttal. I am prepared to place the review on hold, or move to closing it upon an appropriate response. My76Strat (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully someone who has the 2011 Yearbook will provide a reference in the near future.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference is currently shown as number 244 on the reflist and can be named and used here as well. My76Strat (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks for that. I have added the ref.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Just so it is known, My eyes are at the stage of deterioration which required me to enlarge my font. Because you render the image of the Tetragrammaton so small in the Jehovah and Jesus Christ section, it does not accommodate my larger font and renders to me as: "Tetragrammato". If you could enlarge that image slightly to accommodate that others are likely observing it the same way, or worse it their font is larger than mine. Could this be corrected for the sake of this actuality? My76Strat (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On Firefox, I was able to replicate this using the 'Zoom Text Only' option and scaling to the four (out of nine) highest zoom levels. The text is not cropped if pictures are also zoomed, i.e. 'Zoom Text Only' turned off. If the image width is increased to 220px (from 120px), it still crops the text at the highest zoom level (with 'Zoom Text Only'), but the image then seems unnecessarily large at standard zoom levels for the information conveyed. I could not replicate this issue in Internet Explorer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do use Firefox, I was hoping no one would enlarge their text to replicate this situation, because it would show the extent to which I enlarged my text. You have suggest some valid observations, regarding your preliminary observations, and I will not hold it as an issue to impede progress. Down the road we might find a better resolution, that accounts for people in my category who may not have their own preferences exactly right. Thanks for vesting time to be curious to my plight. My76Strat (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I am a fan of hyperbole. My76Strat (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Was "better resolution" an intentional pun? Perhaps the image could be replaced with Hebrew text in the prose? I would think most systems these days are capable of displaying Hebrew fonts. It may not be necessary to include the image at all—the image is only used on three articles on the English Misplaced Pages. This image is not used at Yahweh or Jehovah; a similar image (with Hebrew vowel points) is used at Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The image is certainly more relevant than my poor vision. And puns are as good as hyperbole at times. Even when you hadn't realized its existence when first appended. My76Strat (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed My76Strat (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Even when you hadn't realized its existence when first appended.... Huh? Not aware that I've missed anything (though I wouldn't be, would I?) Was there an intended pun other than 'better resolution'? I certainly wouldn't want awful punnery to go unnoticed. ;) --Jeffro77 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I was unclear in my above response. I simply meant to imply that I was not cognizant of the pun when I first appended it and that after it was pointed out, it was a clear example where a pun could have been intended (but was not). My76Strat (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah... fair enough. Though I was kind of hoping it was pun-intentional rather than unintentional.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What I have found

</noinclude> Jehovah's Witnesses is a good article because—

1. It is Well-written to wit:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is Verifiable with no original research. It has been reviewed, and found compliant to the following standards:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. The article is Broad in its coverage and has shown that:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. It is Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. The article is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute and it does:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio, and the specific examples within the article have shown:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Response to GA1 'First reading'

1. 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. .
2. 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
3. Fixed
4. 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'.
5. 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 Kingdom Hall#Construction.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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 Jehovah's Witnesses#Organization, 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.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Eventually be reinstated

1. 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Point 2) "Imitate Jehovah’s Mercy" article from (w98 10/1)

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

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. = James 14-16.

Further reading with "Expelling" (dx 30-85) and (dx 86-10). See also terms "Disfellowshipping" and "Reinstatement" etc. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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."--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the whole paragraph at issue is too wordy for the lede. So I'd replace:

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.

with this:

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.

Although published refs support "perhaps many months", it is possible for reinstatement to take weeks rather than months.--AuthorityTam (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. :)) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The original text was not 'my version'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eventually" is accurate. BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA1 'Second reading'

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 WP:LEAD, "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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus reference mislead

/* Jehovah and Jesus Christ */

I had to change that misunderstands and bias. See hidden notes.

"They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael<!-- former, pre-human existence -->, Apollyon (a.k.a. Abaddon)<!-- fully nonsense, or refer to future role in Armageddon battle -->, and the Word<!-- former pre-being existence, - even before Michael being --> all refer to Jesus."

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.

(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.

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (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 Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Jesus Christ, 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. BlackCab (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.---Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just read it in CZ 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that most Christian religions associate Apollyon/Abaddon with Satan. However, JWs do not. Revelation—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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 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 Apollo. :-D ) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another one! I want it. Some kind of Misplaced Pages fairy tales. Please! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not use revert function to me, but normal edit next time, please. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 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. BlackCab (talk) 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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2011 (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. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Penton, M.J. (1997). Apocalypse Delayed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 330–331. ISBN 0802079733, 9780802079732. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
2. Osamu Muramoto, "Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses, part 1", Journal of Medical Ethics, August 1998, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 223-230.
3. "Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit", The Watchtower, April 15, 1988, page 31
4. 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watch Tower, pages 38-39
5. Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses by George D. Chryssides, Scarecrow Press, 2008, page xxxiv, "Russell wanted to consolidate the movement he had started. ...In 1880, Bible House, a four-story building in Allegheny, was completed, with printing facilities and meeting accommodation, and it became the organization's headquarters. The next stage of institutionalization was legal incorporation. In 1884, Russell formed the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, which was incorporated in Pennsylvania... Russell was concerned that his supporters should feel part of a unified movement."
6. C.T. Russell, "A Conspiracy Exposed", Zion's Watch Tower Extra edition, April 25, 1894, page 55-60, "This is a business association merely ... it has no creed or confession ... it is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth."]
7. Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, ©1993 Watch Tower, page 560
8. Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 0415266092.
9. Holden, Andrew (2002). Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement. Routledge. p. 19. ISBN 0415266092.
10. "The V.D.M. Questions", Watch Tower, November 1916, page 330, "It is our recommendation to all the Classes that any brother not able to answer these questions in a reasonable way be not considered a suitable representative."
11. Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, ©1993 Watch Tower, page 59
12. Religious Diversity and American Religious History by Walter H. Conser, Sumner B. Twiss, University of Georgia Press, 1997, page 136, "The Jehovah's Witnesses...has maintained a very different attitude toward history. Established initially in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell under the title International Bible Students Association, this organization has proclaimed..."
13. "Biography", Watch Tower, December 15, 1916
14. "The Newspaper Syndicate's Idea", Watch Tower, January 15, 1912
15. The Watchtower, February 1, 1999, page 17

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• Top-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles