Talk:Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses

Hours

The significance of the number of 'hours of preaching' needs some qualification. This time is based on self-reported figures of people counting time that includes walking and driving around in addition to actual time spent specifically 'preaching', and also includes studies conducted by JW parents with their children. Without indicating in the article what the time actually entails, the figure may be misleading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie references (deleted and still invisible visible)

Few weeks before deleted 2 broken links which are not functional. You could try it. Its not functional anymore. www-sources which are not functional should be removed.

3rd link deleted because its disputed reliability and neutrality. Objective purpose of that web is "probably" not be neutral to jw (= jwfacts is not facts, but maybe facts). In fact 3rd link could be present in article, if You like it. But its disputed NPOV.

No text in article was deleted. Only unfunctional and not-neutral www-links. After deleting them, still they are (not in "edit mode", but in "read-mode").... like a Zombie

Some registered Wiki-user confirm and apply it?

Greetings. Josh --89.176.47.113 (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.48.136 (talk) Yes, clarifying ... both adresses was by me. Josh --89.176.48.136 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't protected, and the links you refer to haven't been in the article since your edit on 15 September.

Maybe you need to clear your cache??--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I am clearing beowser cache manually during using browser, and automatically when browser closing. Probably other problem. Sometimes is visible, sometimes not. Dont know why. So, thanks for info. --89.176.48.136 (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

LDS Church (Mormons) demographics - much better article on wikipedia

1) LDS Church (Mormons) demographics - much better article on wikipedia

2) And they grow much more than JW´s.

Josh --89.176.48.136 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Feel free to improve the article. Your second point isn't relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you have more sources for these articles in case of JW. As it will be similar. I am afraid. I have no such a elaborate statistics like LDS. Maybe someone else --89.176.48.136 (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Interactive map old (only 2002-2008)

Interactive map, which is in article as reference shows only 2008 data. Not for 2010. Thanks for up-to-date 1876-2010 map very soon. Josh --89.176.48.136 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

reliability of figures

Are those figures really accurate? I mean Jehovas's Witnesses are not the most reputable when it comes to revealing bad news within their organisation. There are rumors that they do not seem to be able to attract new members any longer and therefore are "dying out". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.21.170 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article correctly states that the figures are those reported by JWs. If you have another reliable source for figures, please present it. There is no point speculating.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in deed, but I have heard of some sort of "investigations" and "mathematical cross-checkings" regarding that particular matter and those studies claim to reveal tendencies of fraud amongst the statistic's responsible. It may be done in conjuction with the so-called t-h-e-o-c-r-a-t-i-c w-a-r-f-a-r-e (source: http://w-w-w.s-e-k-t-e-n-a-u-s-s-t-i-e-g.n-e-t/r-e-a-d/4-5-1-8) (remove the hyphen signs to get the original strings! (otherwise this comment might be deleted my funatic secct members ;-) ) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.214.223.74 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements for the article. Unless you have a reliable source that specifically addresses your concerns, your topic is better suited to a discussion forum elsewhere.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link! http://w-w-w.s-e-k-t-e-n-a-u-s-s-t-i-e-g.n-e-t/r-e-a-d/4-5-5-4 / The results are presented by an university graduate and should therefore be regarded as valueable - JW's already do dubious business from time to time - maybe such efforts will reveal hidden truths? BTW: You do a very nice job here on that article - I trust your abilities. Thank you very much for keeping that article together - the german JW's wikipedia article is a terrible mess!

Currently have tendencies to hit the "fire button" to early - sorry for the continuous corrections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.22.202 (talk)

"presented by an university graduate" does not automatically make it a reliable source. I haven't checked the site because of the tedious obfuscation you've used on the link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion about that matter. The indentation level even made my browser crash. I will now start over again and present my hint to you - what you make of it (including reliable source estimation etc.) is subject to your consideration.

One graduate doctor (Dr. Thomas Ragg, Universität Karlsruhe) claims to have found out, that especially the figures for 1998 are inconsistent - furthermore he claims to have evidence to believe that the figures have been messed with on a greater scale since Raymond Franz left the cult - the utilisation of the so-called theocratic warfare with all the implications to it emphasizes the possibility of fraud amongst the statistic's responsible. (http://www.sektenausstieg.net/read/4554)

I herewith encourage you to regard "investigations" and "mathematical cross-checkings", because that way we might be able to reveal hidden truths - it is only the extent of lies that is be be questioned and backed with hard evidence, because lying itself is normal business amongst Jehovah's Witnesses. So at least you should put a "disclaimer note" in the article, shouldn't you?

BTW: You do a very nice job here on that article. Thank you very much for keeping that article together - the german JW's wikipedia article is a terrible mess and often even kind of a propaganda platform!

Greetings from Germany,

one XJW ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.209.210.238 (talk • contribs)

(Please do not delete other editors' responses from Talk pages.)

Thanks for clarifying. The site you've linked to appears to be a forum, with some self-published pages from various individuals; the pages do not seem to meet the criteria for a reliable source. There are plenty of graduates in the world, but not everything written by a graduate is automatically a "reliable source". There was an author named Thomas Ragg who died in 1881; but it doesn't seem that the Thomas Ragg you refer to is a notable published author. If the article has been published in a reliable source, per Wikipedia's criteria at WP:RS, please provide a usable reference. Additionally, it is highly recommended that sources for the English Wikipedia are available in English.

The English JW-related Wikipedia pages are also often used as a propaganda platform, both for and against the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Afro-American JW

Is the numbers given in the article correct? The link wasn't workning, and accordning to [1], about 22 percent of American JWs are afro-american, but it is still highest among the Christian denominations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. For these types of statistics, it might be best to say something like A [year] study found that [x]% of..., so the statement remains accurate as time passes, and it makes it more obvious when statistics may need to be updated (if newer stats are avaialble).

22% is certainly not the highest proportion of Afro-Americans among the Christian denominations. See Black church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Some/many

An editor has suggested that it would be more accurate to refer to the number of 'lands' for which JWs report activity that are not independent countries as "some" rather than "many". Since the number is approximately 50—and more than 20% of the total number of countries— it is more accurate to say "many". In the context used, "many" is the preferred term for referring to countable nouns, and 'some' in this context is likely to be misunderstood to mean only 'several' or 'a few'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jeffro. "Many", given the % of "lands" that are not countries, is more accurate. Vyselink (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Chart is based on unavailable numbers

No data is publicly available that shows the information the chart is purporting to indicate. The 1992 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses is the first to provide grand totals for 1991. Among the sums, it includes peak publishers, average publishers, memorial attendance, and memorial partakers worldwide. All yearbooks since 1992 provide this information. I recommend the removal of the chart as soon as possible. I've gone ahead and created a chart with actual numbers beginning with 1992. You're free to use it as you see fit. -- Gorba (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This image was considered at the time. However, whilst it is good to provide source data, the table included in the image results in a large area of nothing in the bottom left, which is not good presentation. The information in the table would be better included in the source information for the image (rather than just saying "own work"), with just the chart itself in the actual image.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)