Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

RFC: IS the religious typification section relavant in Jehovah's Witnesses article?

In his 1975 published book, James A. Beckford had labeled the characteristics of Jehovah's Witnesses as Totalizing, extremists, historicism, absolutism, activism, rationalism, authoritarianism and extremism. On the other hand in a recent case (2010) involving Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the religion's requirements "are not fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives" and that charges were "based on conjecture and uncorroborated by fact." As per the above talk, editors are not able to end up with a proper decision in this regard. So I request an RFC. Is the inclusion of Religious typification section relevant to the article? what can be done to resolve the POV issue?--Logical Thinker:talk 14:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to very definitely think that having a separate section on this topic in this article is pretty clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE. If the topic of totalizing religions is notable enough for a separate article, then certainly I would have no objections to seeing such an article created. If it is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article, then I would very seriously have to question why anyone thinks it appropriate to have the material added to this article, and, possibly, because I haven't checked, only this article. I cannot believe that a typology used primarily (if not only) by a single editor requires a separate section in this article. Perhaps, I don't know, such material might be relevant to Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, to some degree, in accord to WP:WEIGHT, because this is a form of "criticism" of the JWs, but I have no reason to think that it deserves significant mention in this article until and unless some of the most reliable independent sources, like for instance encyclopedias, are produced which give the material in question approximately similar weight. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The material is clearly relevant and properly supported by a reliable source. It might be more in line with NPOV to have the section develop into a more general consideration of this perspective, such that alternate viewpoints were also presented. If this could happen, then a different section title would probably be necessary. But I see no grounds for removing the entire section; perhaps trim a bit, together with expansion by including other viewpoints. But not removal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:John Carter. The section is out of scope of the article. It could be probably used in Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. Indeed the terms used is a violation of WP:LABEL, which states that such WORDS should not be used unless widely acknowledged by reliable sources. If it should be used here then it should be cited from most reliable sources such as other Encyclopedias. Further, WP:UNDUE and misuse of WP:RS also appears, with a higher importance given irrelevant topic. The section will definitely mislead a common reader, who don't know anything about Sociology.--Logical Thinker:talk 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity that the section in question needs to be edited to be more in line NPOV, but does not need complete removal. Vyselink (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to inject some fresh blood into the discussion. It is not helpful when editors who have been highly active above add their comments here in ways that might create the impression that they are new participants. Leave it alone for a while and let it work as an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support inclusion. I added the section under discussion. LogicalThinker has raised a successive list of objections to it, including that a professor emeritus of sociology is peddling fringe theories, that use of Beckford's socilogical typology is an attack on the religion, that three paragraphs in a long article gives undue weight and, lately, that the article is now too long. All disguise his real motive for removal: that it is an adverse viewpoint of his religion's system of control. The terms "totalitarian", "authoritarian" and "autocratic" have been applied to the Witnesses' system of leadeship by a host of authors, including Beckford, Holden, Penton, Botting and Rogerson. This characteristic is therefore sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article of the religion. In this case it is summarized as "Totalizing" by Beckford's system of sociological typology, a system he applies to embrace the characteristics of all religions. The wording is editorially neutral. It is brief. It does not attack. It presents an academic conclusion and does not push an editorial point of view. It is notable, relevant and helpful in understanding Jehovah's Witnesses. LogicalThinker cites an opposing viewpoint of a Russian court: this dealt with a narrow range of claims presented by the defence and prosecutor in an appeal, and is already presented under the Criticisms section of the article. BlackCab (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Whole conversation is tl;dr for me, but my short answer to the question posed is yes. Some say the religion is totalizing, extremist, etc. Others say these accusations are unfounded. It is pertinent to the article to make clear who has what POV and their reasoning behind their POV. Of course, if the section gets too long, then summary style can be used and a subarticle created.

That said, an individual section about "religious typification" is not entirely necessary. The information could be folded into other sections. I have no strong opinion on whether to include or exclude this section as a section. I strongly support including the material, regardless. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ResidentAnthropologist, one section above, probably has it right. James A. Beckford is one of the most highly respected sociologists of religion around, but the way the material has been presented probably doesn't do him justice. I don't have a copy of the book, but ResidentAnthropologist has, and I'd be inclined to follow his guidance here. --JN466 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I suggested on 3 November that the new section may be better placed in the Criticsm section.[1]. I began a copyedit of this section yesterday to remove much of the superlative and 'extreme' wording, but I inadvertently navigated away from the page and lost my changes. Given that Beckford is a notable individual in his field, I'm not sure the information should be deleted entirely. Despite problems with the tone of the section, User:Logicalthinker33's suggestion that the section should be deleted on the basis that it violates several 'policies' (some of which are not actually policies) is somewhat unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77--I have no objection in condensing and moving the section to the criticism section, provided the extreme wordings are corrected--Logical Thinker:talk 08:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have opted for making it a subsection of Organization instead, but it has been significantly condensed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Logicalthinker33's specific concern in the beginning of this section, the terms "Totalizing, extremists, historicism, absolutism, activism, rationalism, authoritarianism and extremism" are clearly marked as special terms employed by Beckford, and are given explanations in layman's terms. The specific legal case in Russia that Logicalthinker33 cites has no direct relationship to Beckford's classification, nor is itself an official classification of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with your new edit. You said you would support to move it on criticism, and now you placed it in organization section. The section again is a whole criticism to the religion, and is a misuse of reliable source. Its appropriate to reduce it and place it in criticism. As per the talks above most of the RFC comments (other than usual editors) have opted for either removal or reduce it and place in relevant section. Did in any country JW's are regarded as religious extremists other than those in banned countries? If yes his statement is notable other wise JW's are extremists should be acknowledged by most reliable sources like encyclopedia's. Further using a classification subsection makes it even more worst, a push POV. I placed it in criticism section with the title sociological criticism --Logical Thinker:talk 09:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The content I placed under Classification was substantially different to the original content that I had previously said would be suitable for the Criticism section. The modified section contained only sourced content. The reduced content I added is in line with what was suggested by the RFC comments, as was the move to a subsection under Organization. Your query about extremism is irrelevant, as it is in a different context to that used by Beckford, which is explicitly defined in the paragraph in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism#Kinds of article subjects requires that ,"intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with evaluation of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook." Also, "in such cases it should avoid Words that may advance a point of view". In our case placing the sociological evaluation inside organization section is irrelevant, because all the beliefs and practices of the religion had to be clearly explained first, after that only the evaluation by critics could be placed. Hence the ideal location is the criticism section at the bottom.--Logical Thinker:talk 10:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The sociological classification by academics is not a criticism per se; therefore it does not belong in the criticism section. BlackCab (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who said it is not a criticism? U have already added Beckforth's statements inside criticism main article. Its a sociological evaluation of the subject, but is a form of "criticism" to JW's as user:John Carter had stated.--Logical Thinker:talk 11:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the tone of the chapter Beckford devotes to religious typology suggests a criticism per se. His book is an academic analysis of what Witnesses believe, why they join, why they leave, what they do when they gather and what they do in their private lives. Part of his study is the level of organizational control exercised by the religion's hierarchical leadership. That is reproduced here to add to encyclopedic knowledge of the religion. It is not for you to decide to relegate it to a section devoted to criticisms. Other academics have noted the WTS's rather vainglorious claim to be a theocracy and warnings to minimise association with non-Witnesses; they too are observations that can be viewed as criticisms, yet they remain in the main body of the article as simple facts. Beckford's classification is no different and you are attempting to distort those facts by dropping them into a section solely concerned with clearly stated critical viewpoints. BlackCab (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of the word "criticism", that doesn't necessarily have to mean that it is "criticism"/negative, just that it is critical evaluation of the topic by outsiders. I would also have to say that I think sociology of religion is counted as one of the core topics of religion in general, and a section on the "sociology of Jehovah's Witnesses" would be a reasonable addition to this article. It would also be a reasonable addition to the main articles of other religious groups, if they were of such a type that there could reasonably be seen as having standard sociological attributes. The question to my eyes is about whether the content was talking about the theory or the JWs. If the former, it doesn't belong here - if the latter, it does. In its first form, the section seemed to be primarily about the theory, including its relevance to other groups, and I did and still do believe that does not belong here. The best alternative would probably be to create a separate article on the theory, an article on the book in which the theory is proposed, and create a section of that article about the theory, or maybe add the material to the author's biography. And I can see that the JWs, which have been described by several outsiders as being a somewhat socially isolated community, may well merit creation of a section on the sociology of the JWs in this article, and maybe a daughter article on the topic if wanted. But there is no reason to use this article to explain a theory which is also used to describe other groups as well. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Beckforth's statements criticism or not?

After long discussion editor Jeffro77 had moved the section in to Organization section, with the heading classification. I placed it down in to the criticism section inside the existing criticism (including statements on totalarians) with the heading social criticism. My reasoning was Wikipedia:Criticism#Kinds of article subjects requires that "intermingling an explanation of the article's subject with evaluation of that subject can sometimes result in confusion about what adherents of the point of view believe and what critics hold. To avoid this confusion, it can be useful to first explain the point of view clearly and succinctly (including disagreements among schools or denominations), and then explain the point of view of critics of the outlook." In our case placing the sociological evaluation inside organization section is irrelevant, because all the beliefs and practices of the religion had to be clearly explained first, after that only the evaluation by critics could be placed. Hence the ideal location is the criticism section at the bottom.

User:blackCab reverted it stating that Beckforth's Evaluation is not a critical. On the other hand beckforths statements such as "totalizing" is found in Criticism main article already, which was placed by User:blackCab. The fact is its a form of criticism towards JW's, and disrupts the flow of the article. Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations integrated throughout the article require that "Negative criticism that is integrated into the article should not disrupt the article or section's flow. For example a section entitled "Early success" should not contain one paragraph describing the success of the topic and three paragraphs qualifying or denying that success. This is often why separate criticism sections are created. Alternatively, this section could be retitled "Early reception". JW's reject the claims.--Logical Thinker:talk 11:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You might like to pay a little more attention to the name of the professor whose work you have dismissed as a fringe theory. It's Beckford, not Beckforth. A discussion of the type of organizational behavior the religion displays is appropriately located in the Organization section. You are now concocting yet another rather lame reason to remove it from the body of the article. There is no intermingling of the subject with an evaluation, so there is no room for confusion. BlackCab (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Classification section is clearly and entirely the views of religious sociologists. There is no "intermingling" of thoughts in that section, and the subsection does not "disrupt the article or section's flow".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Astynax previously suggested that the section be moved within the Organization section.[2] Additionally, User:Logicalthinker33 has repeatedly stated that the content of the section in question is directly related to the Organization section;[3][4][5] the condensed version relates to that section even more so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep it in the organzation section per Black Cab --Guerillero | My Talk 14:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Long winded but necessary explanation on Terms, Context, and age of sources

The other I think I need to mention is the dated term of "totallizing," It used to be a very neutral academic term but terminology has shifted in 35 years since publication. Currently his alomost always used in a involuntary context, Such as almost all the hit in google scholar you find will usually post 1980s use it to refer to Prison, POW Camps, Countries under Authoritarian Regimes, and "cults." I mean the Brainwashing/Suicide commiting popularized term not the sociological term such found in Stark/Brainbridge model. Part of the issue is in that the term has been criticized in wide context due to way it was being used. In Beckford's book he means a social unit that provides for all the "social needs" of its members including: Freindship, Recreation, Marriage, Family, relationships ect. The Amish, Roma, many Ethnic Communities would fit this model as well. So Anthropologist said "that is too much like the concept of Culture" thus the shift became used more in the formal involuntary contexts like the aforementioned Prisons and such. Thus We have the term Total Institution as an article and not Totallzing Religion. So though he is correct and there is Verifiably Sourced statement with High quality sourcing in the section we are discussing its WP:NPOV terms... the shift in those terms and context we are using the teminology come off pushing a very negative POV version of this Religion to the point we all but say it is a cult. Sorry for the long winded explanation but these are the types of issues we deal with when using 35 year old sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your suggestion? Some terms may be interpreted in a different fashion after 35 years, but my experience of the religion confirms that Beckford's description is still accurate. I disagree with your claim that the wording pushes a POV. The term "cult" doesn't appear in his description and a resder is no more or less likely to infer JWs are a cult than they would have done when the book was written in 1975. BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read what you wrote, Wikipedia is not based of your confirming or disconfirming a statement based you on you "experience of the religion." Your experience positive or negative or anywhere in between means Squat on Wikipedia. Another aspect is "audience" Beckford wrote his book for an Academic Audience we are writing for the general public. So it is very relevant for us not to use terminology that is outdated or confusing. Why do you think some people tried to move it to the criticism section? becuase it comes off that way. I said it comes off doing everything but calling them a cult. Frankly your above statement makes you sound like a disgruntled ex-member pushing a negative pov based off your expeiences and misusing RS to push it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's your opinion of what audience Beckford sought for his book. The point of my statement is that though you say some terminology has changed, the behavior he describes hasn't. My user page makes clear that I am a former member who wishes to provide the depth of information about the religion that wasn't easily available when I joined. I am no more "misusing" Wikipedia than a zealous starry-eyed Witness who adds exhaustive material on their religion's practices and beliefs, or a fan of Pearl Jam or U2 who writes articles on their album or band history. I'm well aware of WP standards of neutrality and I let the sources speak for themselves.BlackCab (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No its not my opinion, but thats another issue in itself. The Terminology has changed thus we dont use 35 year outdated defnitions that mean something very different from their original uses. Terminology means something different in different. Right now you have added something in a non-neutral context and using outdated terminology to "provide the depth of information about the religion that wasn't easily available when I joined." Thus you misusing a source to show a POV you have confirmed based on you own experience. Your comment in this RFC and before it are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and fail address what a number people here have said comes off the cuff in a Negative POV way. You have made it clear by this exchange that you a pushing a point of view civilly and engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

user:BlackCab it may be your experience with the religion, but mine and almost all JW's believe it's a lifetime privilege to serve as a Jehovah's Witness. Your statement is completely wrong. For example I don't think JW's are pressurized by the organization to do voluntary work. What motivates them is the Bible and their desire to save others from the impeding destruction. They do not live as an alien in the world, they intermingle with other people, work amongst them. The WT society does not follows totalitarian discipline, it gives kind advice to safeguard its people from going away of biblical principles. They do not recruit people merely, they baptize only those persons who have scriptural qualification. I was thinking of adding another para to the section from the recent case at European court of Human rights regarding the same allegations from Russia. The court observed that the statements "JW's are totalitarians", "JW's are Extremists", "JW isolate them from other people", "People were forced to do missionary work","military-like discipline in domestic life" all are absolutely wrong. Court also observed that the motivation behind voluntary work is not WT society, but it were individual members "personal decision" based on their bible based conscience. Finally court concluded that the requirements of JW's are not fundamentally distinct from other religions.(example those who follows a particular dress code). Also it fined the Russian government for making wrong allegation against an internationally recognized religion. You could read the 43 page verdict issued on 2010 june here--Logical Thinker:talk 06:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

LogicalThinker, your opinions reflect the statements in JW publications about what Witnesses are like. That's what constant reinforcement of propaganda does. My long experience of JWs is that they preach because they are pressured by the organization to do so, and also to avoid adverse judgment by their brethren if their monthly report is too low. Most of the Witnesses I know are much more concerned with "hours" than people and use any ploy they can to extract "witnessing hours" from contact with unsuspecting householders and friends. All this is beside the point, of course. The statements in the section under discussion are not there to reflect my POV, they express Beckford's. If he felt differently, the article would reflect that as well. His viewpoint is expressed accurately, fairly and in an editorially neutral tone. BlackCab (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No my statements are not from publications, its real life experience. Personally I don't do much hours in preaching and no one is forcing me to do so. Only if my hours drop less than 5, elders will give me biblical council and it is not different from other religions who as their adherents to follow its principles. But I do the preaching work voluntarily, and my motivation behind the preaching work is Bible. Organizing is required in any religion. Even Catholics expect its believers to give tithing. The ECHR had already stated that JW's requirements are not different from other religions in the verdict. You are clearly a WP:SPA editor and as per definition of the religion an apostate, your motives are to make showcasing and/or advocacy. The classification sub-section in the organization section is not different from religious typification section as before. Apart from those usual editors including me, User:John Carter (Who is an administrator and co-coordinator of Wiki project Christianity) had proposed the entire removal of section during the RFC. User:ResidentAnthropologist who have the book and knowledge in the WP rules had repeated it's essentially an NPOV. User:Jayen466 ( who had helped to make many featured articles) had strongly supported User:ResidentAnthropologist. User:B Fizz/F and User:Astynax had pointed out it makes an NPOV by giving UNDUE weight. You are essentially an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editor who is repeating rejected arguments almost without end.--Logical Thinker:talk 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is all a pointless discussion. Reading through the abbreviated version of what I wrote that remains in the article, I don't see anything that is offensive or biased. If you think there is such material, please identify it and state why it is offensive or biased. BlackCab (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Move the section to criticism under the title social criticism is my proposal. Anyway I would be forced to add opposing views against those of Beckford's statements from ECHR. Also I would add what JW's say about Beckford's indirect acquisition as a cult. Don't blame be when the section grow bigger with it. Otherwise it would surely be a POV--Logical Thinker:talk 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the concise summary. My response: (a) Beckford notes characteristics of the organization and does not criticize them at that point, therefore the section is appropriately located and does not belong in the Criticisms section. (b) The ECHR's comments address only two areas of conduct that were raised in a Russian court case (time spent in religious activities, abstaining from certain holidays) and are therefore not related to the characteristics Beckford describes. (c) Beckford makes no "indirect acquisition" that the Witnesses are a cult.

I find it difficult to understand how you read those characteristics as criticisms. Do they have an assertive leadership? Do they have specific and narrow objectives? They are very choosy about who qualifies for baptism, and therefore control the quality of new members. They have a low rate of doctrinal change (something they're proud about) and are proud of the uniformity of belief among members. I'd imagine the Witness leaders would quite happily claim all those attributes. BlackCab (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your personal biases are getting in the way of collaborative editing here. You are refusing to address our concerns instead making snark comments other user's religions. This is counter productive to collaboration here. I am Removing the text shortly please do not add it again with out gaining consensus. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for removal. All previous comments refered to the original, longer wording in its standalone section. I will reinstate it on the basis that there are no valid reasons for its deletion. BlackCab (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are totalizing your statements ensuring that the section cannot be questioned or balanced. Why then you give UNDUE weight to the statements specifically at the organization section? In addition new statements by Bryan R. Wilson was included by your right arm User:Jeffro77 without discussing and it is also a POV pushing. What is the need of special classification section for a religious article? For those who had supported the issues regarding the neutrality of the article (including User:John Carter,User:ResidentAnthropologist, User:Jayen466) I would say that leave it as it is, for the insolence of those Ex-JW's who have dedicated their life to oppose JW's. Full protection indefinitely should be given to this article. Still I am satisfied that since my inception I was able to improve this article by balancing many issues. No wonder if ex-JW's claim that sociological study say JW's are terrorists! Wikipedia used to be neutral, but JW's articles would be never--Logical Thinker:talk 19:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary of views: The comments of both Jayen466 and JohnCarter referred only to the previous wording in a standalone section. Neither have commented on the new use of the material. Astynax and Jeffro proposed abbreviating it and moving into thee Organization section, BFizz, User:Vyselink and Nomoskedasticity opposed its removal. I oppose its removal: only two editors, LogicalThinker and Resident Anthropologist are pushing for its deletion. There is clearly no consensus for its removal. BlackCab (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are twisting the summary. JohnCarter stated that the section do not need significant mention and could be used in criticism section. Almost all said that the section is somekind of POV. I did not oppose deletion, that's why I moved it to criticism section. Majority is not the reason to add/remove/move section, what needed is reasonable arguments. This article is not an evolution vs creation controversy or sociological study or classification study. The problem here is giving UNDUE weight to a particular aspect in the name of reliable source. The criticism section starts as follows: "Critics have described the religion's leadership as autocratic and totalitarian because of Watch Tower Society requirements for loyalty and obedience by Witnesses". At the same time you say it is not a criticism and hence used in classification section. The article was neutral and complete before, but the POV occurred when you pushed this section. Its--Logical Thinker:talk 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Logicalthinker33, your comment that "Almost all said that the section is somekind of POV" relates to the section prior to summarizing and moving to the Organization section, and it not relevant to the present discussion. Most users who have commented have indicated in favour of retaining the section. There is therefore no consensus for deleting the section. The section is a brief presentation of how professionals in the field of religious sociology have described the religion, and the special terms are clarified in layman's terms. If you believe those views to be negative or fringe, you are welcome to provide additional views from other notable professionals in the field. And please be aware that a court case in Russia is not directly comparable to a sociological study of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice above that Logicalthinker33 refers to me as 'BlackCab's "right arm"', a childish and irrelevant statement. In any case, the comment by religious sociologist Bryan R. Wilson previously existed as a lengthy reference, and it was entirely appropriate that I moved it into the section body as it didn't reference an existing statement. It was not an addition by me at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77 while you are somewhat better editor than blackCab (Who is over sensitive, too disgruntled), You have always supported his opinions. For example you did not oppose first when I moved the section from organization to criticism, and you admitted that you have given the same suggestion earlier. When BlackCab came and reverted it you started to support it. So my statements was not childish, but is exactly correct, though my wording may be not appropriate. Since my inception in to wiki, I am satisfied that I did good contributions to this article. Some of my contributions were addition of opposition section, addition of important missing statements (such as funding of organization, JW's follow a worldwide brotherhood etc), removed bias given towards (1975 issue with a lapel Card etc) and placed balanced statements on criticism section. It all may be irritating to you, but what I did had always improved the article. The truth that you ex-JW's continuously focus on this article itself testifies the fact, You are jealous and have no idea on how to stop the growth of Witnesses. I also know that its impossible to get a bias free article about JW's because the motivation behind it is invisible evil forces, and God allows it. No wonder to see that at periodical intervals some zealous witnesses arise and irritates you people by removing biases. (eg. User:Naturalpsychology. Expect more such bold persons in future as long as you keep bias in the article. Don't think you could always dominate the article. Any way again I don't want to break your happiness by removing that biased paragraph.--Logical Thinker:talk 05:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't identify as an active, inactive, or former JW, though I happen to know a few JWs personally. In any case, your ad hominem attack on "you ex-JWs" is irrelevant to article content. My long editing history shows that I have removed biased information—both for and against—from JW-related articles. I have not always agreed with BlackCab, and I have at times directly stated that I disagree with him. I have also at times made comment about his bias and his tone. Given that I have been editing here for years longer than BlackCab, suggesting that I'm his 'right-hand man' or any similar analogy is simply laughable. You are either unaware, or choose to conveniently ignore, the many times I have debated, strenuously, against those who would remove 'Christian' from the description of JWs, and you have shown no gratitude for my repeated efforts of keeping out undue weight about child abuse, racism, and various other issues. Instead you simply focus on those edits of mine that do not conform to your personal bias. Furthermore, most of my edits consist of refactoring existing material and removing biased material rather than introducing negative information.

You have made some good edits, and it is—eventually—beneficial for articles to reach equilibrium by having editors with different points of view. I have not disputed all of your edits, and if all your edits had been categorically reverted, then there would in fact be no such subjects for you to enumerate as you have done immediately above. However, many of your edits are certainly biased in favour of your religion, and I'm not aware that you have ever removed biased statements that were in favour of your religion.

Regarding your specific contention about my moving the Classification subsection into the Organization section... what I moved to the new section was substantially different to what I had previously said would be suitable under the Criticism section. The section is limited to only the views of notable people in the field of religious sociology, with clarification of the special terms used. Additionally, most of the respondents to the RFC have indicated in favour of keeping the summarised section.

Your speculative religious rhetoric about "invisible evil forces" influencing JW-related articles is both sad and amusing—presumably all the edit wars on Wikipedia that don't relate to JW articles are for mundane reasons, and it is exclusively these JW-related debates that you would blame on "invisible evil forces".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I don't understand why Logicalthinker, if he is convinced Wikipedia is ruled by invisible evil forces, continues to edit here. Perhaps it's because he (if, as I suspect, he is also Tim2k, Damoser, Flowerman75, Jehonathan and Matrix356) has also previously presented the rather contradictory view [6][7] that those who oppose Witness editors will not prevail. This is a secular encyclopedia. It does not conform to the rather superstitious views of Jehovah's Witnesses that those who challenge the authority of the Watch Tower Society will suffer God's wrath. If it did, the Wikimedia Foundation might as well gift the whole shebang to the Watch Tower Society and let them edit it. I find his latest statement overwhelmingly tragic. It's also sad that, if proven to be a sockpuppet, he resorts to lies and deception in order to help his god win against those dark forces. BlackCab (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77 I had considered you as a respected editor and I have said this before. I am thankful for you contributions. The problem is we have people who are Strong support to JW's and those who are Strong anti-JW's. No wonder if such conversations occur because of overzealous attitude. User:BlackCab the facts you pointed out is not tragic or contradictory. The first statement by User:Tim2k is not mine. He is correct that scripture says that it will not prevail, and it points to the prevailing of opposition till the Armageddon. Regarding my quoting of scripture "if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them", I did not meant it about Wikipedia, but what I said is about Jehovah's Witnesses generally. I meant it's wise to realize that if JW's are not directed by God, then surely it will not survive long time. On the other hand if they are directed by God, you may be fighting against God. Sorry for quoting the scriptures again. I regret that I was not so polite in my conversation. I am not an elder nor an MS, I am just a publisher who may be very younger than you. JW's are not perfect nor I am, they do mistakes but would try to not repeat it. I am quitting from contributing here for an unconfirmed period --Logical Thinker:talk 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The claim that 'only things directed by God can last a long time' is illogical and irrelevant. The length of 'a long time' is not specified, but presumably it would need to be longer than the duration for which all the other 'false' religions have existed. It is therefore unverifiable and meaningless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

old earth creationism?

I actually came to the article to try to learn what the JW doctrine was around creation. I know they subscribe to a form of old earth creationism. I've talked to JW and read some of their literature so I know this is the view they promote, I'm not sure why it's not even mentioned in the JW article or the one on their beliefs. I would add it but I can't work out if they actually consider them selves OEC or something else, because in the OEC article it claims that OEC don't believe in the biblical flood, but it is my understanding that JW do believe in a biblical flood, so this seems to be a contradiction which I don't understand.. Vespine (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

as for inclusion of it in the article, i'd suggest not with an actual explanation of the belief as this can be lengthy, but just stating they're OEC, yet believe in the biblical flood. difference being, most OEC also believe in evolution of some sort, because they are unable to explain the creation account sufficiently. JWs only believe what the bible says, and fully what it says.

an excerpt from Insight on the Scriptures, as published by WTS. this should explain where the views on creation come from. Damoser (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have removed a huge slab of text lifted from another publication that was included above by User:Damoser. Please provide a link to another website or pass this on through email. Or write a very brief summary. This is not an appropriate use of an article talk page. BlackCab (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Damoser, saying that JWs "only believe what the bible says, and fully what it says" is entirely subjective and not at all unique, because their beliefs are inherently consistent with their own interpretation of scriptures; the same is true of any Christian group.To answer Vespine's question, JWs are Day-Age creationists, which is one form of Old Earth creationism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Non Trinitarianism and Non Chalcedonianism.

"Non Trinitarianism" is a logical subset of "Non Chalcedonianism" (i.e. all non Trinitarian doctrines are, by definition, non Chalcedonian). As the Unification Church is non Trinitarian then it is also non Chalcedonian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's your own interpretation of the term and is not the one that is commonly used. Usually the term refers to those Christians who accepted the Council of Ephesus 431 but did not accept the Council of Chalcedon. See Non-Chalcedonian. We don't use our own logic to extend the meanings of terminology beyond what they typically mean in the real world. Jehovah's Witnesses would never self-identify as being "non-Chalcedonian", nor are there sources that call them that. Therefore, neither should we. This has nothing to do with the Unification Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the category for the reason stated by Good Ol’factory (albeit before I'd seen his response).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the category should not be restored unless the definition of JWs as "non-Chalcedonian" can be confirmed by a reliable source rather than simply drawing a subjective conclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article's lead sentance states that JWs are non Trinitarian so by definition they are also non Chalcedonian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that i was actually forced to do this, but here it is anyway: "Thus, Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation.". This is not of my invention. In fact, i did not have to go far for it at all. Just consult footnote number 114 which directs to the JWs own official publication house - Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. [8] In summary, this extract is the very definition of non Chalcedonianism - he is not one of the persons of the triune Godhead. If he is not God, then he cannot be the Chalcedonian Man-God either. This is not OR, it's just simple logic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What seems to be overlooked here—and I don't know how I can explain this any clearer—is that despite what using our own logic might say, not all Christian denomination must be either Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian. It's possible to be neither. The Jehovah's Witnesses are neither Chalcedonian nor non-Chalcedonian. As the article Non-Chalcedonianism states, non-Chalcedonians are those who accept the Council of Ephesus 431 but do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. That means if a group rejects both, they are not called "non-Chalcedonians". This is how the term is used in reliable sources. It is not used as a generic term that refers to all who reject the Council of Chalcedon. It is not a dichotomy that covers all Christian denominations. You might like to think of things as an all-encompassing dichotomy, but that's not the way the term is used in reliable sources, at least the ones I have read. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This unique world view of user Good Ol’factory must be rejected. The article on Non-Chalcedonianism numbers the "non-Ephesians" among its members (i.e. those who do not hold to the teachings of Ephesus either). The equation really is quite simple: All Chalcedonians are also Ephesians. All non Ephesians are non Chalcedonian. Some Ephesians are non Chalcedonian. It is not possible to be non Chalcedonian and yet be Ephesian. So if a person or denomination declares itself to be non Ephesian, then, by definition, it is also non Chalcedonian. One cannot claim belief that a man (Jesus) is a Man-God if one does not first declare belief in the divinity of the man (Jesus). As I have made clear above, what is presented is an ontological dichotomy which permits two, and only two, mutually exclusive groups. There is no third way. A Christian person or denomination either is or is not Chalcedonian. It matters little whether or not the person likes the category or not. If there is sufficient evidence within the main article or in other authoritative sources that support the possibility of a correct assignment, then there is not reason why that assignment should not be made. Where there are grounds for doubt, where the person or group is ambiguous about their stance, then the person or group should be in neither category. Where the stance is known, it's not possible to be neither. It is, however, possible to disguise your true intent or for there to be insufficient data to make the assignment with confidence (i.e. near certainty). That is not the purpose of the dichotomy: it's purpose is to clarify on known things, not to speculate about unknown things. To say otherwise is to bring original research, not to mention outright rejection of plain logic, into the argument. Most denominations in the world today were not present at Chalcedon. That does not prevent them or us declaring their doctrines to be in concord or not with the Chalcedonian Confesion. The Anglican Communion was not at Chalcedon: they have no difficulty in declaring themselves to be Chalcedonian. Is a person or denomination to be exempt from categorisation simply because he used born / established in the 20th century? What a nonsense that would be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, that's not the way the term is used in reliable sources. Reliable sources don't treat it as an all-encompassing dichotomy in Christianity, as you wish to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, JWs do not recognise any of the early Church councils in the organised Roman church, and are therefore outside the scope of these specific definitions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it places them beyond the scope. The category scope states that it encompasses any person or denomination that describes him/itself as Christian. As such, they are entitled to be examined and categorised. By placing yourself on the Christian pedestal, you're entitled to be asked, "well really, tell me how Christian you are. What do you sign up to?". Readers are entitled to know just how Christian is Christian. Is it a little or a lot? Even while the new testament was being written there were heresies. Hence the need for a standard, a canon. All heretics say that they have the truth and that everybody else is wrong. Many Protestants believe that the Pope is the Anti Christ. Hence the need for categories, standards and tests for the most popular types of orthodoxy. It's up to readers to decide if a particular test of orthodoxy is applicable to them or not. But the test itself is value free and objective. It applies no prejorative wording. It is a neutral POV. One either is or is not Chalcedonian. If one is not, it is probably a matter or supreme indifference to be so labelled, unlike in former centuries when it might have meant death. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment evinces a misunderstanding of how categories work in Wikipedia. The scope of a category is not to be defined beyond the confines of what is found in reliable sources. (User:Laurel Lodged created the definition.) In many cases, especially with religious labels, self-identification is also crucial in deciding whether or not to apply a category. If I didn't know better, I would say that it almost sounds as if a particular POV is being pushed here through this category, but for now I'm happy to just point out that it's not how categories work in Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, your application of the term is too broad. For the purposes of the category, the scope should stick to the formal and notable use of the term. This means it applies to groups that rejected the Council of Chalcedon. This would rightly include the Eastern churches—such as the Coptic Church in Egypt and Abyssinia and the churches of Syria and Armenia that formed following the Council. Because JWs ultimately derived from Protestantism (Chalcedonian), via Adventism, they do not fit the historical development for the natural definition as non-Chalcedonian. Therefore, unless they are specifically classified in this way by a reliable source, they should not be in the category. Something that is not Chalcedonian is not necessarily non-Chalcedonian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated in other discussions, self-identification should not be the sole determining factor in classifying a particular group. However, where a particular group neither a) fits the technical definition nor b) is classified in such a way in reliable sources, then self-identification is all there is left to go on. JWs believe that all Romanised Christianity was false, distancing themselves from any side of debates in Church Councils after and including the Council of Nicaea.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Gents, I see that we will not get agreement here. I will bring the debate to a wider audience for their input. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The JW "church" is certainly not among "the Eastern Churches".

• An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies by Orlando O. Espín, James B. Nickoloff, Liturgical Press, 2007, page 963, "NON-CHALCEDONIAN CHURCHES - General name applicable to the Eastern Churches that do not accept key doctrinal decisions of the Council of Chalcedon"

Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, JWs are most often grouped as Restorationists.
Interestingly, the WP entry "Non-Chalcedonian Christianity" currently redirects to Oriental Orthodoxy, and the article "Non-Chalcedonianism" currently begins, "Non-Chalcedonianism is the view(s) of those churches that accepted the First Council of Ephesus of 431, but, for varying reasons, did not accept allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon following it"; JW theology has always ignored all ecumenical councils. It is a mistake to apply a term such as "nonChacedonian" to all nontrinitarians; this thread's initial premise is wrong (ie, it's untrue that all nontrinitarians are nonChalcedonians).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

by user AuthorityTam's logic, it would also be untrue to label JW's as non Trinitarians (as they do not consider any of the Ecumentical Councils as being binding). Why is it a mistake to apply a term such as "non Chacedonian" to them but not a mistake to apply a term such as "non Trinitarian" to them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not really discussing the non-trinitarian point in this thread, but if we were, it would depend on how sources describe the Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to that issue. It may be a mistake to categorize them that way—it may not. But what is clear is that based on sources, the JWs are certainly not "non-Chalcedonian". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The term '(non-)Trinitarian' is a concept within the scope of Christian religious groups, and does not necessitate reference to a particular event beyond early Christianity. Chalcedonian refers to a specific event, and with reference to Eastern Churches. Laurel Lodged's comparison is therefore invalid. JWs are indeed derived from Protestantism, through Restorationism via Adventism, however, as correctly pointed out by AuthorityTam, they themselves are not Protestants. However the history of their development makes the definition of non-Chalcedonian entirely inapplicable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

going to have to agree with the majority here. non-trinitarian isn't about the council in which the trinity was established, but rather not believing in a triune godhead. non-chalcedonian is specifically about the councils which JWs do not adhere to. if all ducks live on farms, and all pigs live on farms, are all ducks pigs? your logic is faulty.Damoser (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of non Trinitarianism. The same is also true for non Chalcedonianism. I fail to see why other editors do not see their equivalence. User Good Ol'factory has changed the definition of the Category:Non Chalcedonianism to make it appear as if it was only concerned with defining itself in terms of NOT being Ephesian. The previous definition, created by me, was wider in scope. This original definition was compatible with "believing in a triune godhead" as opposed to the doings or one or more ecumenical councils. The changed definition has completely altered the intent of the category and it should be reverted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The category should indeed be based on the formal use of the term. Jews, desk lamps and amoebas would all qualify for a non-technical definition of non-Chalcedonian. Unless you can provide some notable reason more significant than 'created by you', there seems no good reason for your preferred re-definition of the term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I showed in my earlier post in this thread, scholarly works have already defined the term "Non-Chalcedonian churches" in a manner which excludes the Jehovah's Witnesses "church". If Laurel Lodged or anyone else wants the article to use a definition other than that, their new definition should be similarly verifiable. Even then, it's difficult to see how the insisted-upon term benefits the article (and easy to see how the term introduces ambiguity). --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Disciplinary action

User:76.121.212.176, you haven't understood the point I'm making. When the article contains a statement drawn from a reliable source, in this case Andrew Holden's socilogical study of the religion, it is not for you to reword it with a statement that alters its meaning. Holden wrote that the threat of shunning also serves to deter other members from dissident (that is, dissenting from the official view imposed on members by the Governing Body) behavior. Your introduction of the term "wrong behavior" is a personal judgment and quite inaccurate. Your added wording that the Witnesses' elaborate discipline system is designed to conserve one's personal relationship with God is also quite meaningless. The threat of shunning individuals, as Holden noted, is all about maintaining control over members. Forbidding members of the religion from speaking with a dissenting member would have no impact on that dissenting member's relationship with God. -BlackCab (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Similarly your edit in the intro that "disfellowshipped/disassociated members may eventually be reinstated to the congregation if deemed repentant" is poorly worded. If a person formally resigns from the religion (disassociated in the JW lingo) and later wish to rejoin, what is it they need to show repentance for? BlackCab (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded this part of the introduction. A JW can also be 'disassociated' (without their consent and with no right of appeal) for other reasons, such as by accepting a blood transfusion, attending another religion's church services, or joining a political party. ("Shepherd the Flock of God", pages 111-112).--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

no right of appeal is inaccurate. i personally know of people who were disfellowshipped for bestiality, because they owned a farm, and had to manually stimulate male animals for their health, so the local elders disfellowshipped them. a circuit overseer learned on the occurrence, reinstated the family, and removed the elders from their position. anyone can appeal to the circuit overseer, district overseer, or branch overseer if they deem necessary. most do not.Damoser (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your objection is irrelevant, as I was referring to disassociation, not disfellowshipping. A seven-day 'right of appeal' is provided for 'disfellowshipping', but not for disassociation, as stipulated above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Editing of the page seems to have has been blocked for a week following a request from User:Logicalthinker33. The request was unnecessary and was made without any warning or discussion. Interestingly, it was made with almost identical wording to that used -- without success -- by user:Tim2k recently[9][10].

Tim2k's editing history is suspect and I have raised a sockpuppet investigation over Logicalthinker, who arrived on this page as a very active editor shortly after the banning of User:Jehonathan,[11][12] another sockpuppet from Kerala, India, where Logicalthinker lives. Logicalthinker's behavior strieks me as deceptive and underhanded. BlackCab (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that Logicalthinker33 is a sock of Tim2k, Damoser (the Page Protection Request seems more like a copy-and-paste followed by some extra editing). However, I am not entirely convinced at this point that he is not a sock of Flowerman75/Jehonathan/Matrix356.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my additional points of evidence at the investigation page. I agree there is compelling evidence that Logicalthinker33 is a previously blocked user, but the editing behavior of both Damoser and Tim2k is highly unusual. You've been around here long enough to see patterns in editing behavior by editors. The last two who popped up during a period high activity by Logicalthinker look very dodgy. BlackCab (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The users Tim2k and Damoser may be the same as each other, but the writing style—not only word choice but also double-spacing after sentences and almost always leaving off capitals at the beginnings of sentences—of Damoser is quite different to that of Logicalthinker33. The differences are too elaborate for them to be the same editor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not user Damoser or Logical Thinker. I do not know these individuals, just like I do not know users BlackCab or Jeffro. I stopped editing on the page after I threw my arms up in disgust at the way the page was being unendingly added to with negative point of view and admitted bias. It's interesting, I didn't know until recently, that there's already a page : Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's quite shorter than this article.. with plenty of room for additions. Yet, some editors are not content to add their criticisms to the logical place for such things. This article is in no need of continued additions.. it's been noted over and over again throughout this talk page by neutral parties. My last action on this article was to request page protection, but to no avail. Let me make this clear... I am no longer editing anything on wikipedia. Your paranoia is just another attempt to heap reproach and suspicion on your perceived editing adversaries. I am just a reader from now on.. No offense, but I have better things to do.Tim2k (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where criticism/controversy of a thing is notable, it is appropriate for its main article to contain a summary of that criticism, and other articles reflect this (e.g. Seventh-day Adventist Church, Church of Scientology). Whether or not criticism of JWs is 'correct' or 'fair', it is certainly notable. The Wikipedia essay WP:NOCRIT (not policy) recommends that relevant criticism on a main topic be integrated with the relevant sections rather in a separate Criticism section, but notes that a separate section may be suitable particularly for long articles. Prior to having a separate Criticism section in this article (and also demonstrated by the former 'Religious typification' section), any suggestion of criticism—from notable reliable sources—outside the Criticism section meets very quickly with claims of bias and undue weight. Given the length of the main Criticism article, the Criticism section at this article seems to be a fairly light summary, though editors are welcome to discuss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept that User:Tim2k is not a sock of Logicalthinker. I'm still puzzled by his his claim that he stopped editing and threw his arms up in disgust at the addition of edits made with "admitted bias". Tim2k's edit history shows just three edits: (1) the addition on the talk page of a scripture designed, presumably, to warn editors of the futility of opposing Jehovah; (2) a warning to other Witnesses that they should cease editing the article; (3) a request for page protection. I don't know which editor he refers to as having admitted bias. JW editors have made positive contributions to the page and help to add balance and are welcome here as long as they don't expect this page to be a PR exercise for the WTS. BlackCab (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My hunches about socks are generally correct, and my suspicion that Tim2k is not a sock of Logicalthinker33 has been proved correct. However, Tim2k's statement that he stopped editing is unusual, because he has never edited an article, and his first edits at Talk were in relation to his objection that allegedly caused him to cease editing. This suggests either that Tim2k is a sock of someone or that he previously edited under an anonymous IP. It seems fairly probable that Tim2k's reference to "admitted bias" may relate to BlackCab's User page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was simply referring to contributing to the direction of the article. The act of 'editing' in the sense of the verb. It should be noted though that any change to a page on wikipedia requires 'editing', as clicking on the button :"edit" to the side of any section, article or discussion, causes said action. In fact, it appears my initial choice of words were quite haste in that I am in fact, now editing! I appreciate that some sense of civility on the part of some has taken hold. I am though taken aback by the analysis of my actions, because I consider myself to be quite unplanned, so to me it's quite surreal to see a hearty back-and-forth. So, in conclusion, I am not a sock, or a sockpuppet, I have never edited the article section of the page... and I still contend that my brothers should not either. (Though it's their decision.) When the page protection comes off, as it undoubtedly will in the wake of the whodunnit, and the smattering of NPOV returns with a vengeance, I'm sure; sensible, truth-seeking people will reason within their minds and hearts come to their own conclusion. After all, "Truth is as impossible to be soiled by any outward touch as the sunbeam."- John Milton Tim2k (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

it is to be noted, that my cessation of activity here is due to a personal resolve to cut contact with blackcab, due to the fact that he is an apostate of the religion. it has nothing to do with the actual editing of the article. i'd personally prefer to continue to move towards a NPOV, as i feel this article currently isn't, but my obligation is to following scriptural advice on contact with former members of the congregation, and contact with those who turn to slandering the congregation after departure. i'm content with articles on Jehovah's Witnesses presented by respected news sources, such as the BBC. i realize that if anyone truly wants to know about the religion, they will not rest after reading this article. were i not a Witness, but curious, i'd read several sources, as i realize that almost nothing is without bias. hence i've no reserves in allowing this article to develop without my influence.

i initially joined the discussion because i was looking up something related, and eventually browsed to this article in curiosity, to see how accurate it is. i wasn't satisfied with some sections, but didn't want to just change them without letting others know why, as that would be rude, so i joined in the discussion. shortly after i discovered blackcab was a Witness formerly i ceased activities here.

thank you jeffro, for noting that i'm not like the other editors. i hope this resolves any doubt as to whether i'm a puppet or not. feel free to check my IP, and see that i live in northern iowa. also, note that i am the same person, with the same user name elsewhere online, such as; damoser.deviantart.com, damoser.animepaper.net, www.playlist.com/user/9874607, www.youtube.com/user/damoser, and various others. cheers. Damoser (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading "scriptural advice" to reject a man promoting a sect (Titus 3:10) and avoid Christians in Paul's day who denied the resurrection (2 John); I don't see any "scriptural advice" in the Bible to cease written contact with someone who chooses to leave a Christian denomination. Jesus didn't tell his followers to do that and nor did any other Bible writer. That sounds more like a modern organizational edict designed to exercise control over members and keep them in fear of leaving. But that's your choice, Damoser. This is a secular encyclopedia and unfortunately in the real world you're going to bump into people who don't follow the same religious path you do. I raised the issue of sockpuppetry following your sudden appearance during a high-activity period of another JW who repeatedly lied about his use of multiple accounts. I accept that you're not that guy. BlackCab (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Rom 16:17 2 Pet 2:3, 13, 18; 3:16Damoser (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To JW editors, or to any other editors: If you don't want to edit, don't. We don't need to know your 'scriptural' reasons for doing so. Take it to a discussion forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

A neutrality tag was added by sockpuppet Logicalthinker on November 16 because of a dispute over the inclusion of material on religious classification.[13] Consensus appears to have been reached on its inclusion in a modified form. Are we safe to remove the tag? BlackCab (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would. Vyselink (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Classification section

Apparently, Beeshoney wants to delete the section. However, you can't just delete it unilaterally because YOU think it should be deleted. Talk about it first, then if we come to consensus, something can be done. Vyselink (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I undid the revision and restored it to it's original. Vyselink (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I did explain my reasons in the Summary box, but I'll repeat them:

• POINT A: There is no "Classification" section on articles about other religions. Why should there be one here?
• POINT B: The views expressed by these people seem quite extreme. For example, "control over competing demands on members' time and energy", "rationalism (conviction that Witness doctrines have a rational basis devoid of mystery" and "extremism (rejection of certain secular requirements and medical treatments)". It sounds more like a description of a terrorist group than a religion, and from what I've seen, these claims are exaggerated. Furthermore, JW's clearly explain their viewpoints on matter's such as medical treatment, but nothing is mentioned in this section. There is no balance of opinion.
• POINT C: The views expressed by these people are opinion, not fact. This is an encyclopaedic article, not a blog, and I see no valid reason to have these opinions expressed in this article.

Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The summary box is not enough information to delete an entire section. If a sourced, documented, discussed before section is to be deleted, you have to talk about it, not give a sentence long summary. Vyselink (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of those points were raised during the earlier lengthy discussion about the inclusion of Beckford's classification at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#RFC: IS the religious typification section relavant in Jehovah's Witnesses article?. Please note that most of the discussion concerns the first presentation of this information; it was later reduced in size and included in the "Organization" section, where consensus was reached for its retention.

As a brief response to your three points, however: Point A: See WP:OSE. The non-inclusion of similar material in other articles is not an argument for its deletion in this one. Points B and C: You're correct that the statements are views, but they are the views of respected experts in the field, which is what Wikipedia routinely includes. See WP:IDL and WP:UNENCYC. BlackCab (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDL and WP:UNENCYC are things to avoid in a deletion discussion. My reason is not "I just don't like it", and I also did not say that the section is "just unencyclopedic."

I don't think that the previous discussion it very relevant to this one, as it discusses whether the section is relevant in this article, not why it shouldn't be here. However, WP:NPOV was brought up, which is interesting. As I said before, the views expressed by these people - whether respected experts or not - are still opinion, not fact. I appreciate that it can be difficult to strike a balance in this case, as there is no black and white answer to the "classification" of any religion. Different people - even different "experts" - have different views.

I am not surprised that you opposed the last discussion and this one, since you openly identify yourself as an "ex-JW", and clearly have a negative view of the religion. However, NPOV dictates that Wikipedia articles must be balanced. Simply quoting two people, both with clearly negative views of the religion, would indicate that 100% of people feel that way. I am sure that that is not the case.

I have to agree with this assessment - you have a bias individual posting bias material - read other conversations on wikipedia and you'll find they discourage this practice. Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Labiblia (talk • contribs)

I don't see why the Russian court case is not relevant, as it says that the religion's requirements "are not fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives." This clearly contradicts the views of the two "experts", and a Russian court case seems like a reliable source to me. The fact that the requirements "are not fundamentally different from... other religions", also backs up POINT A that I made previously. There is no "classification" in any other religious article, and if JW's "are not fundamentally different", why should it be included in the JW article?

One final point that bothers me is that the first quote - the longest and most negative - is from a book published in 1975! Is this guy still alive even? I can't imagine that people's views of JW's today is the same as in 1975. 1975 was quite a turbulent year in the history of JW's too. Any opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses expressed in the main article should be quite recent - preferably after 2000. The other quote is from 1993, which I suppose is a bit better, but still not great. I think that the first quote in particular should be deleted, but if it's really necessary to include it, why not move it to the History article?

Basically, the section needs to have a neutral point of view. I ask myself: "Why do it need to be included in the first place?" And if you feel that it really does need to be included, than make sure that a balanced, up-to-date range of opinions are expressed - not just two. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are full of views, Beeshoney. Much of science is views, or the opinions of experts. Neither Beckford nor Wilson are opponents of the Witnesses; in this case both of them attempted to come up with an answer to the question of what type of religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses is. Their conclusions are quite helpful in an encyclopedia article about the religion.

The ECHR case, which dealt with an appeal against a Russian court case, is not relevant because it did not deal with the same issue that Beckford or Wilson did. The phrase "not fundementally different" you quote is in s.118 of its judgment, which deals with the original allegation contained in s.116, namely that the Witnesses "violated the constitutional right of its members to inviolability of their private life and the right to choice of occupation, dictating: (a) determination of the place and nature of employment; (b) preference for part-time work that allows time to preach; (c) unpaid work at the Bethel community centre in St Petersburg; (d) regulation of leisure activities; (e) ban on celebrating holidays and birthdays; (f) mandatory missionary activity and “door-to-door” preaching." The observations of Beckford and Wilson extend far beyond those limited points. So unless there are other sociologists offering dissenting opinions, I don't see quite what "balance" you expect to add.

The fact that Beckford's book was written in 1975 is irrelevant. It remains a widely quoted text on the life, thinking and organizational structire of the Witnesses. Having read the book, I know it is an accurate representation of the religion of which I was a member for more than two decades. The religion itself has undergone no significant change since then and the fact that it was published the year Witnesses were expecting Armageddon doesn't color Beckford's views at all. BlackCab (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your response, BlackCab, I would like to have the opinion of more than one Wikipedia editor. Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And just to clarify this section does not conform to WP:NPOV. Do you actually think it does? Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The section conforms to all Wikipedia policies on neutrality. And the earlier discussion was a direct result of an RfC seeking comment from other editors who don't normally edit the article. A consensus was reached to keep the material. BlackCab (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, first I'd like to focus on this: "extremism (rejection of certain secular requirements and medical treatments)." Just because someone rejects certain medical treatments does not necessarily make them extremist. People are free to choose what type of medical treatment they want. And many doctors who treat JW's do not view them as "extremist" either. Furthermore, WP:LABEL discourages the use of contentious words such as "extremist."

Also, what "secular requirements" do JW's reject? Are not people free to choose what type of career they want? Not everybody goes to college and/or university. Not every JW goes to college and/or university. What point is being made here? Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the "extremism" complaint, WP:LABEL also states that words such as extremism are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Seeing as how James A. Beckford is unquestionably a reliable, and third party I might add, source, I don't think that it's an issue. If the "(rejection of certain secular requirements and medical treatments)" had been BlackCabs own ideas on what he meant, I would agree with you that it might be taken out. But seeing as how they are the scientific opinions and conclusions of a respected sociologist who's specialty is religion, then once again I believe that the "reliable sources" requirement is met.

With that being said, I would also like to see some more clarification on what "secular requirements and medical treatments" Beckford deems to be "extreme" put into the article. The descriptions given for the others (activism, historicism etc) are clear and obvious, but I have to agree with Beeshoney a little and ask if it wouldn't be appropriate to go into a little more detail into which "secular requirements and medical treatments" he mentions, as to me it seems a little to broad a statement. But just to be clear, I do not support removing the section. Vyselink (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Vyselink, when you say, "I do not support removing the section", do you mean the entire section or that specific statement? My point on the word "extreme" is that, no matter how prominent a person James A. Beckford is, (and I admit that he is prominent), that is his personal opinion and not everyone shares that view. The world "extremist" is not widely used to describe JW's. The problem is that it is very difficult to find a reliable reference that contradicts Beckford's view, as people who do not view JW's as an extremist religion do not specifically say: "Jehovah's Witnesses are not an extremist religion." Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Beckford does indeed include "extremism" as one of the six characteristics of the Watch Tower ideology he discusses. He introduces that section by saying that its extremism is the characteristic for which "it is probably best known to the public" and says the term has been used by Yonina Talmon ("Millenarian Movements", 1966) and David Martin (British Journal of Sociology, 1962 and 1965). (p.206) Over the next four pages, however, he suggests the term is less than accurate: he says that though the organization itself is revolutionist ("in the sense that the sect's propaganda has never ceased affirming the imminence of a shattering destruction of all known social structures"), the individual members are conservative, and also that that "their refusal to enlist in the armed forces, to accept restructions on their alleged rights to evangelize in public without hindrance and to control the precise type of medical treatment for themselves or for dependents virtually exhausts the list of present-day sources of friction with secular authorities ... 'world indifference' more aptly describes their outlook than 'extremist' or 'revolutionist'. In that discussion, he applies the "extremist" term to the perception by the public and some other academics rather than his own judgment. Given the sentence discusses his views, I'll remove the term "extremist" from the paragraph. BlackCab (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeshoney, my comment was on not removing the entire section, but I was open to the removal of "extremism", and I see that BlackCab has already done so, so I am good as far as that. The original complaint I had was that you removed the entire section unilaterally, without discussing it. Now that we have made at least some headway with a productive, reasonable discourse, I think we are making progress. Vyselink (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Should infobox "Classification" read Millenarian or Christian?

I would like to know why the "Classification" section on the infobox is Millenarian. JW's are a Christian religion - they believe in and follow the teachings of Christ - so why isn't the "Classification" section Christian?

The Millennialism article says in the opening paragraph: "Millennialism... is a belief held by some Christian denominations."

JW's are a Christian religion, and one of their beliefs is a form of Millennialism. Therefore, if the "Classification" section refers to what religion they are, then it should read "Christian."

Would anyone disagree to me changing it? Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree it is being mislabeled and it should be changed to Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Labiblia (talk • contribs)

There was a lot of discussion that preceded that label. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 39#Inappropriate classification in infobox. and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 51#Tam's tweaks. Please consider reading through that before solidifying any judgments. Also, you may wish to consider what is done with the article discussing other denominations, including two somewhat "parallel" entities, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Seventh-day Adventist Church. Those infoboxes don't say "Christian" there either. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your second link does not refer to the infobox whatsoever. The first link refers to changing the "classification" from "restorationist" to "millenarian." However, my point is that JW's are a Christian religion, and that their beliefs are millenarian. If the "classification" refers to what religion JW's are, then it should read "Christian", not "Millenarian." Millenarianism is not a religion.

Regarding Latter-day-Saints, I know nothing about them, and so cannot comment. Seventh-day Adventists are classified as Protestant, but Protestants are a major division of Christianity, and so everyone identifies them as Christians. Not many people automatically think of "Christian" when you mention the word "millenarian." Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a Christian Denomination infobox, so the Classification section is an indicator of what type of Christian denomination that religion is. See infoboxes at Uniting Church in Australia, Church of Scotland and Seventh-day Adventist Church. Many religious groups have no such infobox, so it's a bit hard to see any real standard, but books on the JWs readily identify them as millenarian. BlackCab (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

BlackCab is correct. The "Classification" within the Christian Denomination infobox specifies what kind of Christians a particular group is. It is nonsensical to assert that JWs are "Christian Christians".--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Having looked around a bit at the infoboxes of other Christian denominations, I now believe the infobox for Jehovah's Witnesses should read "Classification: Restorationist". --AuthorityTam (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what sources? The books I've read uniformly refer to them as a millenarian religion. BlackCab (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to using the term Restorationist. An examination of the article, millenarianism shows that the term applies quite broadly to very different kinds of religions, and it doesn't classify a type of Christian group, which is the purpose of the Classification in the scope of the Christian denomination infobox. As far as identifying what of kind of Christian group JWs are, Restorationist is a better fit. The terms 'Restorationist' and 'Millenarian' are not mutually exclusive. It should also be noted that labelling a group Restorationist does not suggest that a group is a restoration of 'original' Christianity, merely that it purports to be.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, based on their organization structure and the history of their development, the following terms are correct for describing JWs:

• Classification: Restorationist
• Orientation: Adventist
• Polity: Presbyterian polity

JWs and others may disagree because they either do not like or do not understand the meaning of the terms or dislike implied affiliation with other groups, however that does not alter the actual meaning of the terms or the history of the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the many responses.

I agree that they are a restorationist religion - even though JW's don't explicitly say they are, their literature hints at it very frequently (ie. the frequent "we've restored 1st century Christianity" comments).

I do not entirely agree with Adventism. For a start, Jehovah's Witnesses are not a direct denomination of Adventism. The Wikipedia article on Adventism does not list them as a denomination, but says that C.T. Russell had "connections at the very beginning with the Millerite movement." Although JW beliefs can be very similar to Adventists, some are not - for example, they do not adhere to the Sabbath. I am not saying that JW's are not similar to Adventists, but whether they could truly be classified as such is disputable.

I agree with their Ecclesiastical polity being Presbyterian. Although JW's do not admit it, their polity clearly is Presbyterian.

BlackCab says that the infobox is a Christian Denomination infobox, and this is true. However, the word "Christian" is not mentioned at all. I am not too familiar with infoboxes, but I propose that (if possible) we change the infobox to this:

• Religion: Christian
• Classification: Restorationist
• Organizational structure: Hierarchical

I am not sure if it is possible to add a new section (ie. "Religon"). If it is possible, though, I am sure it would clarify matter a lot. Also, I do not think it would be appropriate to put "Ecclesiastical polity = Presbyterian", as few people understand what this means. The current wording is much clearer.

Would anyone agree to these changes (and is it possible)? Beeshoney - Don't Google it, Woogle it! (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, because Wikipedia is not censored, the fact that people do not like or do not understand the term 'Presbyterian polity' applied to JWs does not mean we cannot use the term. It is clearly evident from the definition that it is the correct term. JW literature avoids classifying their religion as anything other than simply 'Christian' in attempt to make themselves appear somehow unique, however this does not mean that well-defined terms cannot be applied to them if they fit.

I agree that there would need to be a source for grouping JWs as Adventist, as this is not quite as clear cut. However, the primary identifying factor of Adventism is the 'Second Advent' (i.e. Christ's return) which is a core JW belief. It would be better to leave out the orientation parameter altogether than to say their orientation is something other than either 'Adventist' or 'Bible Student movement'.

Because the Christian Denomination infobox is used on a large number of articles, proposed changes to the template should be discussed at its own page. I would be reluctant to add a seemingly redundant parameter to the infobox and therefore I would not support (but with only a mild objection) the parameter's inclusion at such a discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added the polity as modified because their elders aren't voted in by congregation members.

I have also removed the orientation parameter for now. Restorationism is a classification, not an orientation. Millenarianism isn't a classification of Christian groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding political neutrality and abstinence from warfare

The article Restorationism (Christian primitivism) currently has two statements tagged as needing citation regarding Jehovah's Witnesses.

They focused on several key doctrinal points that they considered a return to "primitive Christianity" ((some points are listed)) ... strict neutrality in political affairs;[citation needed] abstinence from warfare;[citation needed] ...

I was looking through this article and various JW subarticles such as the beliefs / practices articles, but could not find neither references nor good discussion on the page about these points. My limited knowledge of JWs suggests that they are correct, but I find it odd that our articles remain relatively silent on these topics. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There are points in various articles about how JWs have had problems with governments for not being involved in politics and wars. In general, non-involvement in something (as opposed to either active support or opposition) doesn't make a spectacular amount of noise, which would affect the available third-party sources for such a statement. Conversely, if someone were to present sources showing that JWs do become involved in political affairs or warfare, then the contrary statements would of course be removed.

There are certainly references in JW literature indicating their stance of non-involvement in politics and wars. I don't have time to go hunting right now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BFizz, the references in that section I tagged relate to the Bible Students and their teachings in CT Russell's time. The sentence reads: "They focused on several key doctrinal points that they considered a return to "primitive Christianity" including a rejection of trinitarianism; the rejection of the definition of hell as a place of eternal torment; active proselytization; strict neutrality in political affairs; abstinence from warfare; and a belief in the imminent manifestation of the Kingdom of God on Earth."

Russell wrote articles disagreeing with the trinity teaching and hellfire, but I'm not at all sure the teaching of strict political neutrality or conscientious objection were current in his day. Those were developed under Rutherford's leadership, when the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was coined. The Bible Students' proselytization was done with the strict aim of gathering the elect class, but I'm unsure it was a core doctrine at that time. A source should be provided for those claims if they're true. BlackCab (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For each of the two contested points, I've added a reference contemporary with Russell.

• Neutrality in political affairs – Watch Tower, January 1, 1916, page 5, "We see wrongs perpetrated in every direction; Divine Laws entirely set aside by these so-called Christian nations--Christendom. ...God's nation--is in the world, but not of it. Its members cannot be loyal to the prince of this world [Satan], and to the Prince of Glory, both. ...Indeed, we entreat all the Lord's dear people to remember that there are but the two great Masters; and that we have enlisted on the side of our God and His Christ, and are to prove loyal to these in the midst of a crooked and perverse people, blinded by the god of this world and filled with his spirit of pride, boastfulness, animosity, hatred and strife. It should be our desire to be neutral as between these contending factions of Satan's empire. ...Let us never forget our neutrality. Let us be just toward all, kind, generous. Let us avoid as far as possible any discussion of these matters with those who would not be able to understand and appreciate our position."[italics added]
• Abstinence from warfare – Watch Tower, April 1, 1915, page 101, "In all the Continental Armies our Brethren, known as Bible Students, are to be found--not willingly, but by conscription. ...Before the war we recommended to the Brethren that in the event of hostilities they should, so far as possible, if drafted, request positions in the hospital service or in the supplies department, where they could serve the Government efficiently; whereas, if they were ordered to the firing line, they would not be obliged to shoot to kill. We have reasons for believing that these suggestions are being followed... We have exhorted the brethren to strict neutrality so far as the combatants are concerned, whatever might be their natural inclination through accident of birth or association."

There are dozens of additional references from the Watch Tower during Russell's lifetime. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Polity 2010

Yes, JWs are closest to a presbyterian polity mostly because they differ even more from episcopal polity and congregational polity. Yet, the parallels between JWs' modified presbyterian polity and strict presbyterian polity are obvious... In preface, classic presbyterian polity involves a local body of elders called a "session"; several geographically-adjacent "sessions" vote elders from among themselves to a "presbytery". That means only elders vote on who to appoint to the presbytery (rather than congregational polity having all congregants voting).

• JW publications have explicitly acknowledged that each local body of JW elders forms a "presbytery".
• A JW branch committee can be loosely imagined the JW parallel of a presbyterian Synod. JW branch committeeman must have first been a member of a JW presbytery (that is, a local elder body) to be appointed to a JW branch committee.
• The GBJW takes the place of a presbyterian General Assembly.

JWs acknowledge that until 1938 their local polity was unequivocally either presbyterian or congregational. Since 1938, elders and deacons are not elected by congregants.

• The Watchtower, January 15, 1955, page 47, "These early congregations [of "Bible Students" and then "Jehovah's witnesses"]...were organized on the congregational and presbyterian style of church government. All members democratically voted on certain matters of business and also elected a board of seven or more “elders” (presbyters) who directed the general governmental interests of the congregation. (The first-century theocratic form of congregational control was not restored to Jehovah’s witnesses until 1938.)"[italics added]
• The Watchtower, June 1, 1955, page 333, "Jehovah’s witnesses...1938. In that year The Watchtower, in its issues of June 1, June 15 and July 1, presented an exhaustive study of the organizational operations of the early Christian congregation in the days of the apostles. There it was clearly demonstrated how the power to appoint congregation servants rested in the hands of a governing body... Similarly today the power of appointment of all servants in congregations rightfully rests with the governing body... These powers do not rest democratically with the congregations. In consequence [there was a] resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership... In this manner almost all of the congregations affiliated with the Watch Tower Society surrendered their democratic (or presbyter) style of church control exercised by them for the previous sixty years in exchange for a voluntary requested theocratic system of congregational operation.
• The Watchtower, 1938, page 182, "We, the company [congregation] of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.”

So, a well-informed JW will likely be untroubled if a secular reference lists the denomination as having "modified presbyterian polity".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Polity2011

An anonymous IP editor has disputed the assessment of JW polity as presbyterian (note small 'p'). Whilst it is true that JW publications state that they actually have a 'theocratic' form of governance, this is not an actual form of church polity; rather, it is their belief that God directs the religion. JWs are of course entitled to that belief, however it is unproven (and probably unprovable) that God actually directs the group, and it does not change the fact that the (secular) definition of presbyterian polity does apply, though JWs use different terms, such as "body of elders" instead of session and "co-ordinator of the body of elders" (formerly "presiding overseer") instead of pastor. It is particularly important to note that the 'presbyterian polity' is not restricted to 'Presbyterianism'. The sources provided by AuthorityTam above indicate that JW congregational governance is indeed based on presbyterian polity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

144,000 from Israeli people

I suggest the bold-type text is added to following paragraph:

They interpret Revelation 14:1-5 to symbolically mean that the number of Christians from all people in the world going to heaven is limited to exactly 144,000 (which according to literal reading of Revelation 7:4 are 144.000 Israeli people, 12.000 from each tribe).

My attempt to add it was reverted with the comment "POV - state their beliefs, don't provide other interpretations of scripture". This is not interpretation, but literal reading. So where can we place it? This is such an important issue in debates with Jehova's Witnesses, since they claim they read the bible litarally, but read it symbolically in several contexts regarding the Israeli people. The only place where it is mentioned at Wikipedia is 144000 (number). (Other symbolical interpretations of the Isreali people are briefly mentioned in Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_salvation#The_.27anointed.27.) Mange01 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising, considering that Revelation's prophetic tribal census differs from the tribal censuses of Numbers 1:20-46 and 26:5-51 as follows:

(1) Revelation includes Levi, who was excluded from the census (Numbers 1:47-49) and counted separately from the twelve tribes (Numbers 3:39 and 26:62); and Joseph, who received the two-fold "firstborn" blessing in place of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:1) and produced from his sons two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim (Numbers 26:28 and Joshua 14:4).

(2) The censuses for the registered 12 tribes in Numbers includes the tribes of Ephraim and Dan; they are not mentioned in Revelation.

While one could explain that "Joseph" in Revelation represents "Ephraim" in Numbers (since Manasseh is mentioned in both accounts), the substitution of "Levi" for "Dan" cannot be so explained and indicates that the Revelation "tribes" must be spiritual tribes rather than literal. Besides, literal Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah, so he stated at Matthew 21:43: "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." — Glenn L (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Elaborating on alternative interpretations of the scripture—including whether it should be taken literally—is beyond the scope of this article. JWs' specific beliefs about the 144000 are discussed in greater detail at 144000 (number)#Jehovah's Witnesses. This article already mentions that JWs take much of the Bible literally but that they also interpret parts of it symbolically, however there is no requirement for the article to defend the JW interpretation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia is not a forum or a soapbox, and the article is not intended as a resource for "debates" with JWs about their interpretations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence shows bias

The first sentence says "really wrong and very messed up". You could say that of any religion, but to do so shows a lack of objectivity. David Fairthorne (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies Vandalism is fixed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence biased.

I normally consider Wikipedia to be a good source of information. The opening statement that Jehovah's Witnesses 'is a messed up religion' is an obvious from of vandalism and should be removed. The whole article should be checked for further bias or removed as its content is suspect. I prefer a learning environment of open mindedness so that I can come to my own conclusions about the world we all live in.76.200.160.61 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was vandalism. I have. reverted it and warned the vandal. — Glenn L (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion that "the whole article should be ... removed as its content is suspect" on the basis of some short-lived vandalism is itself suspect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one

Am I the only one seeing the problems with the first part of the page? Picture isn't working (it's showing the code for it, not the picture) and it seems to have been reworded improperly. Am I crazy or am I just missing something? Vyselink (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nvm. Looks like someone got it. Vyselink (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1876

Someone changed "1876: Bible Students founded" to "1879". I've reverted to 1876, but explained my reasons at Talk:Bible Student movement#1876.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the change, and stick by it for factual reasons. My response will also be under the Bible Student movement article. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of editors discussing the issue at Talk:Bible Student movement#1876 agreed that "late 1870s" was preferable to 1876. It was suggested that a reference be made pointing out what happened in 1876 and 1878/9 when the movement began. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no one felt 1878 or Barbour needed to be mentioned in the infobox except PR himself. See Talk:Bible Student movement#1870s (or the sub-thread immediately above that). I've removed 1878 and Barbour from infobox. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking 2011

At Jehovah's Witnesses#Denial of free speech and thought, someone introduced an edit which claimed that JWs discourage independent thinking BECAUSE it originated with Satan. None of the refs actually state that is the REASON they discourage it. I've reinstated my edit of what had been introduced. --AuthorityTam (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Potato - potayto: "spirit of independence was introduced by Satan the Devil". However, I already apologized in your talk page for my revert, as I thought/assumed that my entry and references were deleted. I am OK with your edit. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim that was added that a particular article was about what 'Jesus thought' rather than simply JW teachings is irrelevant, because 'what Jesus thinks' is subjective and unverifiable, (even if Jesus isn't dead and thoroughly decomposed). It is clear from the context that the article meant 'independent of what the Society believes Jesus thinks'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The context of the referenced article doesn't support that, and it's the 5th of 5 references on the same point. It seems likely the article will not suffer without it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We surely don't need all 5 refs. I'm not sure it automatically means that specifically the fifth isn't needed. I'll take a closer look later.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

At Jehovah's Witnesses#Denial of free speech and thought, it was recently edited to make it seem as though JWs avoid independent thinking only because it 'originated with the devil'; their publications cite 'unity' and 'avoiding division' as reasons at least or more often, so that has been reinstated in the section. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo-Drama of Creation

The Photo-Drama of Creation was Russell's major life's-work. We had agreed some months back that it would be accepted to mention it in the article on Russell.

This isn't the article on Russell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

1897

User:Pastorrussell claimed in his edit summary here that Vol. 4 of Studies in the Scriptures taught that Armageddon would begin in 1914, rather than end. The following quotes are from Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 4:

• the "Times of the Gentiles," which occupy the interim of time between the removal of the typical Kingdom from Israel and the full establishment of the true Messianic Kingdom upon the ruins of the present kingdoms, will end in October A.D. 1914.
• the Kingdom of God must first be set up before its influence and work will result in the complete destruction of "the powers that be" of "this present evil world"--political, financial, ecclesiastical--about the close of the "Times of the Gentiles," October A.D. 1914.
• The beginning of the earthly phase of the Kingdom in the end of A.D. 1914 will, we understand, consist wholly of the resurrected holy ones of olden time--from John the Baptizer back to Abel--"Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets."

No historical revisionism thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for being so blunt, but I resent that. I've actually read everything Russell ever wrote, have you? The reference which is there makes it appear that the only view CTR and the Bible Students ever held was that 1914 would be the end of all things. That is very misleading. To correct a misleading statement is not revisionism, nor is it censorship as was stated in the editor's note. The Studies in the Scriptures were written between 1886 and 1903. The fourth volume in the series was originally titled The Day of Vengeance and later renamed The Battle of Armageddon. In the years leading up to the writing of that volume it became clear through a closer study of history and the events of the day that Armageddon would begin in 1914, and more citations could be produced showing this view by the end of his life than the former. It has often been argued that the summaries should be composed of highlights therefore I argue that to give undue weight to Russell's former view over the latter is simply misleading. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Russell's later view was that Armageddon would start in October 1914, the quotes from Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 4, aka The Day of Vengeance, aka The Battle of Armageddon, show that in 1897—the year specifically stated in the article—Russell believed that Armageddon would have ended by October 1914.

However, I do not at all object to providing quotes from his later works, provided they are attributed to the correct years of publication, for his later beliefs, to further show the development of the 1914 doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Social Networking Sites and Blogs section should be added to or below External Sites to make the article more useful to the public.

There are two sites that I would suggest be added on the bottom of the site under External Sites.

One would be a very popular Blog for JW's in English with more than 200,000 hits per month. http://stuffofinteresttojws.blogspot.com/

The other two would be Facebook Pages where MANY (15,000+) JW's socialize and share breaking up to the minutes news... THIS page REALLY should be in the article because it marks a "NEW" type of "socializatin" that is becoming more and more acceptable in spite of the elders resistance. [although many elders also enjoy it quietly] it is located at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jehovahs-Witnesses-News-Library-History-Videos-Talks-Illustrations/252294947042

There is also a general interest page pulling info from Wikipedia concerning JW's http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jehovahs-Witnesses/105465989487703

I really don't care who puts the information up....I would just like a consensus before doing so and various opinions.

1031424110923A (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it Wikipedia guidelines do not permit External Links to social network sites or to blogs that aren't written by a recognized authority, after all this is an Encyclopedia which is supposed to dispassionately present data and factual information (pro and con) rather than resources to discuss the topic or rant about it, pro or con. Keep in mind that this isn't a source for positive information about a topic, but a place for a balanced and neutral view of a topic from a strictly scholastic perspective. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The first two links may be of value to some people, but I must agree that links to social networking sites aren't permitted. I see no value in a link to a page that mirrors content from this article. Downstrike (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The blog doesn't look that credible to me, but if it is very prominent in JW culture then it might merit inclusion. Facebook pages should generally not be linked to from Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal is to be helpful, yes, but not to be the one stop for all your JW external link needs. Facebook itself is a better mechanism for sharing less universally-useful links of this kind, because the act of sharing the link is a social and personal experience. Wikipedia is a generalized experience. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the blog is not of encyclopedic interest.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder

The recently-added reference to J. F. Rutherford as the "founder" of Jehovah's Witnesses has been removed as WP:FRINGE.
See below (#Founder refs).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It was poor form to lump all of those changes into one, but I generally agree with them so will not revert. I had forgotten that the template has a "founder" field. Russell is clearly the legal founder, and should be named as such on the template. In a literary sense, Rutherford is a founder as well; however, Wikipedia should prefer plain, legal language over literary devices. Rutherford did not, as far as I am aware, establish any legal entity to represent the religion; rather he used the WTS, established by CT Russell, which was a natural choice since he was Russell's elected successor. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder refs

Founder references (60)

1. "The first period was dominated by the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell (1852- 1916)." – Winds of change by Manfred Ernst, Pacific Conference of Churches, 1994
2. "Charles Taze Russell, the Pennsylvania founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – The Cambridge history of Africa, Volume 8 by Andrew D. Roberts, Roland Anthony Oliver, Cambridge University Press, 1986, page 151
3. "Jehovah's Witnesses...began as the International Bible Students Association, founded in 1872 by the adventist Charles Taze Russell" – A World of Ideas by Chris Rohmann, Random House, Inc., 2000, page 209
4. "Konenkov's connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States and his special interest in the founder of this community, Charles Taze Russell" – The Uncommon Vision of Sergei Konenkov by Sergeĭ Timofeevich Konenkov, et al, Rutgers University Press, 2001, page 68
5. "Jehovah's Witnesses. Their nineteenth-century founder, Charles Taze Russell, calculated..." – Is Latin America Turning Protestant? by David Stoll, University of California Press, 1991, page 106
6. "Charles Taze Russell is regarded by observers as the founder of the Jehovah's witnesses" – The Theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses by George Dallas McKinney, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, page 20
7. "Later, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, would embrace..." – From Atlantis to the Sphinx by Colin Wilson, Weiser, 2004, page 63
8. "Jehovah's Witnesses, which was founded by "Pastor" Russell and..." – African American Religious History by Milton C. Sernett, Duke University Press, 1999, page 466
9. "Jehovah's Witnesses are a remarkably active and dynamic sect, visible to most from street-corner or door-to-door encounters. They were founded by Charles Taze Russell" – The New York Times Almanac 2002 by John Wright, Psychology Press, 2001
10. "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916). Founder of Jehovah's Witnesses (the International Bible Students Association)." – The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition by J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell, Peter Toon, Zondervan, 1989, page 332
11. "Jehovah's Witnesses. ...They were founded by Charles Taze Russell..." – The New York Times Guide, Macmillan, 2004, page 503
12. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, was born in 1852 in Pittsburgh..." – Religious sects by J. Juan Díaz Vilar, Catholic Book Pub Co, 1992, page 35
13. "Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses was Charles Taze Russell..." – Politics, Volume 2 by Dwight Macdonald, Greenwood, 1945, page 346
14. ""Pastor" Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was raised a Presbyterian" – Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Volume 1 by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck, Facts on File, 2001, page 355
15. "Jehovah's Witnesses. Charles Taze ("Pastor") Russell (1852— 1916) , its founder, was reared in a Congregational family" – American Christianity: 1820-1960 by Hilrie Shelton Smith, Robert T. Handy, Scribner, 1963, page 332
16. "[Jehovah's] Witnesses acknowledge Jehovah God as their founder. The modern movement was organized in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell." – Academic American Encyclopedia, Volume 11, Aretê Pub. Co., 1980, page 394
17. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses..." – Great Events From History II by Frank Northen Magill, Salem Press, 1992, page 629
18. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – The New York times Encyclopedic Almanac, New York Times, Book & Educational Division., 1973, page 465
19. "The premillennialist views of Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses in the nineteenth Century..." – Fides et historia, Volumes 20-21, Conference on Faith and History, 1988, page 13
20. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Official Associated Press Almanac, New York Times, Book & Educational Division., 1970, page 425
21. "Jehovah's Witnesses furnish another interesting case. The founder of the movement, Charles Taze Russell, enjoyed" – Charisma and leadership in organizations by Alan Bryman, Sage Publications, 1992, page 75
22. "The nineteenth-century founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, supported..." – Living Religions by Mary Pat Fisher, Prentice-Hall, 2002, page 271
23. "Jehovah's Witnesses. This religious group is little more than 100 years old (1872). The founder was Charles T. Russell" – A Look at Today's Churches by Herbert J. A. Bouman, Concordia Pub. House, 1980, page 67
24. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – The CBS News Almanac, Hammond, 1976, page 903
25. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, published a book in 1891" – Methods of Modifying Speech Behaviors by Donald E. Mowrer, Waveland, 1988, page 36
26. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witness movement was Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916)." – Gods and Men by Brian Walter Sherratt, David J. Hawkin, Blackie, 1972, page 63
27. "[T]he modern Jehovah's Witnesses sect was founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1872." – The American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 105, American Psychiatric Association, 1949, page 646
28. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, first announced..." – The End of the World: A History by Otto Friedrich, Fromm International Pub. Corp., 1986, page 352
29. "Russell's Pyramid commemorates Charles Taze Russell (founder of Jehovah's Witnesses) who died in October 1916." – A Guidebook to Historic Western Pennsylvania by Helene Smith, George Swetnam, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, page 43
30. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, duplicated Miller's penchant..." – Contemporary American Religion: Volume 1 by Wade Clark Roof, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, page 5
31. "Russell, Charles Taze [Called "Pastor" Russell.] b. at Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 16, 1852; d. in Texas, Oct. 31, 1916. American religious leader, founder of the sect known as Russellites or Jehovah's Witnesses. " – New Century Cyclopedia of Names, Volume 3 by Clarence L. Barnhart, Prentice-Hall, 1980, page 3432
32. "Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witness movement. " – Religion in the Twenty-first Century by Mary Pat Fisher, Ninian Smart, Prentice Hall, 1999, page 83
33. "Thousands [attended] a speech by the founder of the International Bible Students' Association (later Jehovah's Witnesses), Charles Taze Russell." – American Decades: 1910-1919 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi, Richard Layman, Gale Research, 1996, page 478
34. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE (1852;1916), founder of the "Jehovah's Witnesses." " – Who Was Who in Church History by Elgin Sylvester Moyer, Moody Press, 1968, pages 357
35. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) was the founder-leader of the organization that came to be called the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, page 94
36. "Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born in 1852..." – Extraordinary Groups by Richard T. Schaefer, W. W. Zellner, Macmillan, 2007, page 250
37. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, was born on February 16, 1852..." – Pick a God, Any God by Doris Neumann, Doug Olson, Xulon Press, 2002, page 89
38. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the official corporate name of what is popularly termed the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born..." – Religious leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research, 1999, page 482
39. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses..." – Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner, Baker Academic, 2004, page 364
40. "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916) Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" – Who's Who in Christian History by J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992, page 600
41. "Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses were founded...under the leadership of Charles Taze Russell" – Religion and the law in America by Scott A. Merriman, ABC-CLIO, 2007, page 81
42. "Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" – Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions by Larry A. Nichols, George Mather, Alvin J. Schmidt
43. "Jehovah's Witnesses...According to founder Charles Taze Russell..." – The End of the World As We Know It by Daniel Wojcik, NYU Press, 1999, page 27
44. "Jehovah's Witnesses [came] into being in the 1870s. The founder, Charles Taze Russell..." – The complete idiot's guide to Christianity by Jeffrey B. Webb, Penguin, 2004
45. "Russell. Charles Taze. known as Pastor Russell 1852-1916 US religious leader, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" – The Riverside Dictionary of Biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004, page 695
46. "Jehovah's Witnesses...But they have been called by many other names since their movement began in the days prior to 1872 when their founder, Charles Russell, began meeting with a small group of Christians" – The Religion Book by Jim Willis, Visible Ink Press, 2004, page 290
47. "Maria Frances Ackley was the wife of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment by Gerald R. McDermott, Regent College Publishing, 2000, page 125
48. "Russell, Charles Taze — The founder of what is the present-day Jehovah's Witnesses..." – Handbook of Today's Religions by Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Incorporated, 1992, page 556
49. "Charles T. Russell, 1852-1916, an American religious leader, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses" – The World Book dictionary, Volume 1, World Book, 2003, page 1826
50. "Witnesses' belief-system...is rationalistic and devoid of mystery. The movement's founder, Charles Taze Russell, asserted that..." – Religion in the Contemporary World by Alan Aldridge, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000, page 117
51. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses." – Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform by William Gerald McLoughlin, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 17
52. "Russell, Charles Taze 1 852-1916. Amer. founder of Jehovah's Witnesses." – Webster's II New College Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005, page 1388
53. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, was born in 1852..." – America's Alternative Religions by Timothy Miller, SUNY Press, 1995, page 35
54. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, followed the path..." – Judging Jehovah's Witnesses by Shawn Francis Peters, University Press of Kansas, 2000, page 17
55. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, based his own..." – Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology by Lewis Spence, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, page 759
56. "Jehovah's Witnesses [predicted more] than any other American religious group. Charles Taze Russell, the founder, was like William Miller..." – From our Christian heritage by C. Douglas Weaver, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1997, page 241
57. "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..." – Religious Diversity and American Religious History by Walter H. Conser, Sumner B. Twiss, University of Georgia Press, 1997, page 136
58. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, made similar..." – Taking the Bible Seriously by J. Benton White, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993, page 123
59. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, claimed..." – The end of the world? by Reginald Stackhouse, Paulist Press, 1997, page 58
60. "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Religious organization originated in the USA in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916)." – Hutchinson's New 20th Century Encyclopedia by Edith M. Horsley, Hutchinson, 1965, page 595
    

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Business Convenience

The line about Russell, that he created the Watchtower corporation as a "business convenience" gives the impression that his initial purpose in creating the Watchtower corporation was to establish a business. The context of the isolated words needs to be considered in addressing this small point.

This site gives the context of those words. http://www.tdgonline.net/indice/articoli/wt-azioni.htm

Le finalità degli enti legali usati erano chiaramente indicate:

"The Tower Tract Society. This is a business association merely; it was chartered as a corporation by the state of Pennsylvania, and authorized to hold or dispose of property in its own name as though it were an individual. It has no creed or confession. It is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth".

"The Society owns nothing, has nothing, pays no salaries, no rent, no other expenses. Its policy is to use in the work every dollar received, to the best advantage, and as speedily as possible".

The Watchtower corporation was from its start a "non-profit corporation" according to its charter.

Oltre a questo, circa il carattere non lucrativo della Watch Tower, tenete conto che la Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania è un ente senza fini di lucro, o non lucrativo ("non-profit", in inglese) fin dalla sua fondazione nel 1884 (cf Proclamatori, p. 229 [notate il timbro sulla destra in cui si legge: "A non-profit corporation", cioè "ente non lucrativo"]).

If the Wikipedia article is going to retain the phrase "business convenience," then it would be clarifying to mention that the Watchtower corporation was non-profit from its inception and neither Russell nor anyone else with the Watchtower Society received salary of financial gain from the corporation.

The implication in the current wording can lead one to believe that Russell was just using the Watchtower to start another for-profit business, which would be misleading. Natural (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Natural

Although I was not the one that put that wording there I believe the intention of so using it is to make it clear that initially Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, et. al., were founded for legal purposes to conduct business which related to religious matters. This gave certain legal and financial advantages (tax regulations were different) and responsibilities. When Rutherford took over he eventually changed it from a business convenience to a 'theocracy' which speaks on behalf of God. Russell's view of the Society was nowhere near what Rutherford later interpreted it to be, and that is the intent of using that wording. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Without explaining in the article what "business convenience" is intended to mean, it can be easily misinterpreted. Is there any great disadvantage in removing or rephrasing? As a side point, looking over the Conspiracy, I wouldn't mind knowing if the "circular recently issued by O. von Zech, E. Bryan, J. B. Adamson and S. D. Rogers" were available online somewhere to get another perspective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a notable point. The WTS was founded as a business entity; today it is a religious society. I don't see that "business convenience" can be misinterpreted or that any negative connotation can be applied. Perhaps "not for profit business entity" can be used instead. The point is it was formed to receive funds and expend them on publications. BlackCab (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Naturalpsychology has raised this issue twice before, at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53#Watchtower was and is non-profit, not a business and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53#Confusing detail on business. On the latter occasion he claimed I was "trying to put the motive on Russell, that he was using the Watchtower for business interests, in other words, questioning, or casting into doubt his pure motives in establishing the Watchtower". It's a simple fact, as previously stated: the society was formed to fulfil a financial task. Russell stressed that point himself, and it's worth noting in view of the later transformation of the purpose of the body he incorporated. BlackCab (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the phrase is indeed an actual quote taken from Russell's Conspiracy Exposed, it is understandable that the unqualified ambiguous phrase "business convenience" in 'scare quotes' may reasonably be misinterpreted, irrespective of editor motives. Wording such as "non-profit corporation" would be suitable (with appropriate re-arrangement to avoid the redundancy of stating that a corporation was incorporated). Additionally, irrespective of whether the corporation is actually the religious organisation itself or is simply 'used by it' as posited by JWs, the corporation in question was and is officially a 'non-profit' entity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. The society has probably always been a non-profit corporation. That hasn't changed. What has changed was that it was formed to fulfil a business function. Today it exists as a religious society. Russell wrote in A Conspiracy Exposed: "This is a business association merely ... it has no creed or confession ... it is merely a business convenience in disseminating the truth." The term "non-profit corporation" in the history section of this article means nothing if its original function (ie, a business entity, or business convenience) is not noted. Your use of the term "scare quotes" is a bit odd. I quoted the term because it was the explicit phrase Russell used about a society which is now well known as a religious organization. As suggested above, the term "business entity" (without the quotes) would be a reasonable substitute if it's thought casual readers might think it means ... well, anything other than it says. BlackCab (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. I haven't said not to state the purpose of the corporation. I've said not to do so ambiguously.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My use of the term 'scare quotes' should be fairly clear, and relates to the quoting of a brief phrase that can be interpreted in various ways, without any explanation of the manner in which it was originally intended. I personally don't have a problem with the phrase, but it is clearly being misinterpreted as connoting something about 'convenience'. What is the problem with replacing the words with something less ambiguous??--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, elaboration about Russell's specific reasons for the corproation would be better placed at Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Charles Taze Russell, and is not necessary here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In a section dealing specifically with the history of the religion, it is entirely valid to mention in four words the purpose of the formation of the organization that later dominated the lives of millions of Jehovah's Witnesses. In this case the four words will be "as a businee entity". BlackCab (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the WTS is today a "non-profit" entity financially speaking it is in fact so much more in the eyes of the JWs. The WTS is God's visible earthly organization, and sole source for Bible truth. The WTS is administered by the Governing Body who, to be quite blunt, speak for God. What they say goes, and to question it is equated to questioning God himself. The WTS of Russell's day was simply an entity to facilitate the printing, publishing and distribution of religious matter. It wasn't part of a "theocracy", it didn't speak for God, it was not the sole source for truth. What's more, some profit was made on the items published. It was very small profit, on the order of a few cents per piece, and only to aid in the further distribution of more material rather than to acquire wealth. Long story short, the WTS in Russell's day was a corporate financial entity, the WTS in our day is a religious entity directly administered by God himself.Pastorrussell (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The new change still seems a little redundant (and misspelled, but I'll get to that). Is an incorporated business ever anything other than a "business entity".

Given that there is no proof of God's existence, it certainly is not the case that the WTS is or was ever "a religious entity directly administered by God himself", and aside from that, the current JW belief is that the corporation is separate to the religious organisation, regardless of how blurred the line may be.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then we are going to get into a discussion about what is important in the wording. Is it necessary for the reader to get the right idea? Do words matter? The JWs believe their Society is God's instrument. Their view is different from what it was in Russell's day. That's the whole point of even mentioning this distinction. Otherwise this entire thread is useless. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit off track. I'm still wondering why NaturalPsychologuy introduced a document in Italian. If that's what it was. BlackCab (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed Italian. As to why, who knows/cares?

Pastorrussell, you seem to be diverging into a discussion better suited to a web forum. And yes, this thread is fairly useless. A concession has been made for User:Naturalpsychology, so hopefully that will be the end of the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on this point is appreciated, again the point being it was a non-profit business entity. A business entity is entirely different from a non-profit business entity,where no one makes any money on the arragement. Jeffro made the valid point about it being non-profit business entity, without the "scare quotes". Thanks for that concession on this point. If the words non-profit aren't included, it gives a misleading impression. Natural (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Natural

User:Naturalpsychology, is there a source available for the statement that it initially operated as a "non-profit" organisation? I'm aware that you quoted above from an Italian document, (which is presumably an interpretation of something originally in English) but is a scan of the 1884 charter, for example, available to verify its position on profit/non-profit? BlackCab (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The charter, as quoted in Conspiracy Exposed (1894),[14] states "The Society owns nothing, has nothing, pays no salaries, no rent or other expenses."--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are three non-Witness references explicitly stating that the Watch Tower Society was incorporated as a non-profit.

• Winds of Change by Manfred Ernst, Pacific Conference of Churches, 1994, page 40, "In 1884 Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated as a non-profit corporation in Pennsylvania."
• The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worshipby Paul Bradshaw, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, page 261, "In l884, Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known, formed Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, a non-profit corporation in Pennsylvania, as a legal instrument to be used in carrying forward their Bible education work."
• Religion in the Twentieth Century by Vergilius Ture Anselm Ferm, Philosophical Library, 1948, page 383, "As the [unincorporated Watch Tower] Society expanded, it became necessary to incorporate it and build a more definite organization. In 1884, a charter was granted recognizing the Society as a religious, non-profit corporation."
  

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction aka hypocrisy

How can JW claim to be a Christian denomination when "The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, p. 229 par. 6 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania | “Christendom Has Failed God! After Her End, What?” states otherwise?

This is a cult, nothing more and nothing less. Worldentropy (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing Jehovah's Witnesses in general. This page is for discussing changes to the Jehovah's Witnesses Wikipedia article. But the short answer to your question is that JWs use the word "Christianity" in varying ways, and acknowledge that other denominations have some correct beliefs and practices, but believe that their religion is the only "true" Christianity. See also Restorationism (Christian primitivism). Your assessment that JWs are a "cult" falls in line with the definition at cult: "The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange", but is limited in its correctness to your own point of view, and is not correct as a broad generalization. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The usual dogmatic argument of JWs, and even the same attempt at ridicule from sentence one of anyone else outside the cult; oh, but the cult dares not speak against the teachings of the governing body, so no one else should or is allowed to. Lucky for us truth-undeserving agents of Satan, it's still a somewhat free world, at least in some Internet quarters. But I forget, only JW's have been bestowed with the gift of reading and writing by warrior jehova, with no such luck for us non-believers to know that this is not a forum to discuss JWs in general. So before I go on, Mr., sorry, or are you an elder, open your eyes (physically holding the lids open) and note that I was actually referring to a very specific word and concept within the article, that being Christianity, and hence the talk page here is very relevant, and thus not discussing JWs in a general context, which I could do all day, all night, forever.

More to the point, I'm absolutely armoured with those ideas/cults/religions ad infinitum, that cannot withstand a sound logical argument even at the most basic fundamental level, thus hiding behind a completely absurd notion that theirs is the the only true religion, the only truth, the only, well, ONLY !!. Unless, of course, the logic is theirs, references are theirs, last word is theirs and, in your case, the universe is theirs (well, at least belonging to those 144k chosen ones, the great crowd as you to call them). Yours, most interestingly my dear fellow, takes it a step further, in that you don't only claim to be the only true religion, you are the only truth!!, so how dare any other denomination, Christian or otherwise, lay a shadow of a claim to that all important honour?!. Alas, a very convenient and simple wild card to use in any sticky situation, arguing with anyone at all.

So now to your hilariously funny answer, which goes to prove pretty much most what's been submitted above, and I wouldn't even need bother get back to the absolute mountains of intellectual non-sense that you make it your business to spend donations on.

Let me understand this right from the onset. You stated JWs acknowledge other denominations have some correct beliefs, and stop here, and submit that this is blatantly false, sighting just one example of many, about your change of worshipped God (lol) from Jesus to jehova in 1954. Before 1954, someone could be disfellowshipped if they did not worship Jesus, and after 1954, you would be disfellowshipped if you did; intriguing, and the reason is that the Bible truth hasn't changed, and God didn't create this discrepancy, but feeble men did, in this case your leaders; Therefore, the very boringly obvious conclusion is that to be classified as a Jehovah's Witness, following truth was not important, following the incorrect teachings of men was. But then again, God is the God of truth (Ex 34:6), and you have copyright and exclusive royalty of jehovah, so there you go.

Then you go on to say but believe theirs to be the only true Christianity and I put it to you to state your reference(s) from your publications to back this up, when all you seem to refer to in your publications is the true religion not true Christianity.

Otherwise, could you explain why every other acknowledged Christian denomination actually vigorously deny you to be Christian, and you reciprocate by shunning Christianity and refer to it as Christendom? Answer this, and you would have contradicted the article referred to in my original submission, namely "The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, p. 229 par. 6 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania | “Christendom Has Failed God! After Her End, What?”. If this isn't argument that your cult has nothing to do with Christianity, could you please enlighten us Satan agents to the contrary, perhaps you'll make believers of us yet.

Next let's look at your definition of cult, and even though you site no references (surprised not; just another JWs trait, since those outside the truth are not deserving of it, the only references are their truth, and there you have the most powerful weapon of them all - mental (re)programming and conditioning), let's assume it is my submission; Save that, it is far from being my assessment. Any quick overview of a large number of independent assessments, will actually give any observer enough material to conclude that this assessment has actually been made pretty much since inception, so my submission is anything but original. Note, of course, that independent is a word JWs also have a problem with because those independents, whomever they are Satan's agents at best, let alone deserving of the truth :D Worldentropy (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your personal attack is unnecessary. User:B Fizz has never given any indication that he is a JW. To answer your initial point, the term "Christian denomination" was added after extensive and often heated debate some months ago that led to a consensus based on reliable published sources. The claims that they are a cult are discussed at another Wikipedia article here. I'm unsure about his claim that the WTS has conceded some religions have correct beliefs and practices; Watch Tower publications always denigrate other religions as "false" an an insult to God. I'm no fan of the JWs and explain why on my user page, but this isn't the place to debate the rights and wrongs of the JWs. BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew I should have left my "short answer" off of that response. The main point I wanted to get across in my reply was that this page is not a forum for discussing Jehovah's Witnesses in general. In any event, in the future, Worldentropy, I would appreciate it if you would not jump to conclusions, and if you would respond in a more succinct way. Also, for future reference, I am, in fact, not a Jehovah's Witness (never have been, and with all due respect, likely never will be).

BlackCab, I suggest merely that the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are not entirely unique; the WTS, especially in its early days, would be very stupid to ignore that other religions teach some doctrines that JWs consider to be true (Christ rose on the third day, man must repent to be saved, etc). However, the WTS would certainly never condone the entire bundle of beliefs and practices that comes with any one religion other than their own. Despite my argument, I admit I actually know very little about Jehovah's Witnesses, and mostly try to imagine what the logical thing to do would be for an organization that wishes to 1) portray itself as the only elected organization of God, and 2) still exist (ideally, grow) in the foreseeable future. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Business v religious organization

Did Russell intend the Watch Tower Society to be linked with a religious movement? Yes, it seems...
* 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."
See also "#Practical history v eschatological details", on this same page for now. Incidentally, incorporation by definition forms a business entity; the nature (profit? nonprofit? etc.) of this specific entity is better discussed at the article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (that is, Talk:Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As previously noted, it is relevant and pertinent that Russell founded the Watch Tower Society as a business convenience to publish books and Bibles. His successor later changed it to become the administrative centre of a religion. BlackCab (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A business purpose does not preclude a religious purpose, especially as incorporation is self-evidentially for "business" purposes.
Even if others continue to remove it from the article, the facts and references show that Russell repeatedly acted to establish a religious (not merely publishing) organization. At Russell's express direction, the Watch Tower corporation certainly did function as "the administrative centre of a religion" long before Russell's successor was even an adherent.
Russell himself wrote that the corporation's representatives should be given "leadership of the meetings" wherever they visited congregations:

• Watch Tower, September 1, 1894, Reprints page 1702, "[The Watch Tower Society has] arranged lately to have several brethren travel, some giving a part, and some all their time in visiting you for the purpose of building you up in the truth and in its spirit. We have sought to choose for this work brethren [meeting eight criteria.] ...If any of these Brethren come your way they will introduce themselves by showing a printed and signed certificate from the Watch Tower Tract Society (renewed yearly); whereupon we are sure they will be granted the leadership of the meetings."
  

Each of the Watch Tower corporation's representatives functioned in the explicit role of "a Missionary and Evangelist under the auspices of this Society":

• Watch Tower, September 15, 1894, Reprint page 1707, "We here give a copy of these certificates...
  Allegheny, Pa., U.S.A. ____, 189__.
  To Whom It May Concern:
  This is to Certify that during the year above written ____ of ____, is regularly ordained a minister of the "Church of the Living God" (1 Tim. 3:15; Phil. 4:3); that ____ is serving as a Missionary and Evangelist under the auspices of this Society; that ____ has full authority to teach and preach publicly and privately, orally, and by the printed page; and that ____ is authorized to administer to others of the household of faith, upon suitable occasions and after proper confession of faith, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper – according to all and singular the commands and teachings of this Church as laid down in the Holy Scriptures.
  Witness the signatures of the officers of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Allegheny City, Pa., U.S.A., and the corporate seal thereof."
  

Furthermore, the Watch Tower corporation worked directly with congregations to conduct meetings and establish new congregations, all of which were affiliated with the IBSA religion.

• Watch Tower, May 15, 1911, Reprints page 4821-4822, "[The Watch Tower] Society will be able to co-operate with hundreds of dear brethren...and the Society will thus be working through and in conjunction with the classes [that is, congregations]. ...In connection with all such meetings the Society is glad to co-operate. ...[T]he Society will be pleased to co-operate with any classes not prepared to bear the full expenses of these meetings, provided the report sent in seems to justify the expenditure. In making such a report the class, through its Secretary, should give us the particulars... The Society prefers to have reports monthly, on the printed blank which we supply... All correspondence (except such as is strictly personal and could be attended to only by Brother Russell) should be addressed International Bible Students Association"

My previous comment in this thread quoted the conclusion of scholar George D. Chryssides: "Russell wanted to consolidate the movement he had started. ...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."

Rather than merely for publishing purposes, other scholars agree that the Watch Tower corporation was organized for religious purposes.

• Encyclopedia of Religion in the South by Samuel S. Hill, Charles H. Lippy, Charles Reagan Wilson, Mercer University Press, 2005, page 403, "Russell organized the Watch Tower Society to help carry on his preaching activities. ...he established a movement throughout much of the Western world."
• Introduction to New and Alternative Religions by Eugene V. Gallegher, W. Michael Ashcraft, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006, page 65, "In 1881 he [Charles Taze Russell] published the conviction that the "faithful and discreet slave" represented the collective ministry of those anointed by God's "holy spirit" to share in messianic authority, and in 1884 he formed Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society as their unifying organization."
• Introduction to Social Movements by John Wilson, Basic Books, 1973, page 295, "The Jehovah's Witnesses was legally incorporated in 1884 when Pastor Russell organized several groups of followers into the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society."
• Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 7 by Lindsay Jones, Macmillan Reference, 2005, page 4820, "In 1884 he [Charles Taze Russell] organized his readers, who met in small congregations of Bible students, into the Zion's Watch Tower and Tract Society, and began annual conventions in 1891."
• Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Volume 1 by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck, Infobase Publishing, 2009, page 536, "Russell formed his adherents into the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1884 in order to disseminate these [religious] views."

The article can clarify that the Watch Tower corporation was not commercial (that is, moneymaking), but it seems equally or more significant to clarify that it was not merely intended for publishing purposes. Although he may have written and stated that a Christian could please God while remaining a member of another church, Russell also acted decisively to form a cohesive religious movement, unify his coreligionists, and establish new IBSA-affiliated congregations. Under Russell's direction, the Watch Tower corporation was an 'administration center' for many religious purposes. The short discussion of Russell's efforts to establish a religious organization (at Background (1870–1916); see also #Practical history v eschatological details on this Talk page) has been partially restored, to remove the inaccurate impression that there was no religious organization in place until after Russell's death.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see recent edits ignore the references I provided above. I'll look to incorporate these soon.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you are cherrypicking your sources to push your own view. Among the sources you cited above to support a different point was the New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship by Paul Bradshaw, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, page 261, "In l884, Bible Students, as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known, formed Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, a non-profit corporation in Pennsylvania, as a legal instrument to be used in carrying forward their Bible education work."

Russell himself (WT October 15, 1894) wrote: "ZION'S WATCH TOWER TRACT SOCIETY is not a "religious society" in the ordinary meaning of this term; for it has no creed or Confession of Faith. It is purely a business association, whose mission is to serve in a business manner the wishes of its beneficiaries, who are represented in its officers. How faithfully it has served these purposes thus far, its enemies no less than its friends bear witness." No interpretation by other authors (and some of those you quoted above are simply wrong -- he did not organize his followers or readers into a society) can contradict Russell's unambiguous statement about the purpose of his society. BlackCab (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Russell is unbalanced, and focuses unduly on one aspect of Russell's teachings

Russell's chronology about 1914 wasn't his own, Nelson Barbour convinced Russell of it. In 1876, with the Three World's, Barbour was the primary writer, Russell was co-editor, or co-writer.

So the idea of Russell presenting "his" chronology is not accurate, as there were at least 5 ministers before him who presented the idea of 1914. Barbour convinced Russell of an idea that many other ministers espoused in the 1800s and possibly one in the 1700s.

Additionally, Russell's teachings and ministry did not focus on 1914, that is one aspect of his writings. Opposers of JW like to focus on 1914, because what they thought would happen didn't and it is a favorite area to pick at Witnesses. Russell had at least 6 main points of reference in his teachings and minstry, including:

the immortal soul, hellfire, evolution and creation, evidence that the bible was from God, bible chronology, the trinity

For the Wikipedia article to present something on Russell on the opening page of an article on JW, by focusing on 1914, isn't necessary, and a more rounded view in the paragraphs on Russell would give the reader a more accurate picture of Russell's life, ministry and teachings.Natural (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Natural

Scott, the article notes that the Jehovah's Witnesses' central belief is the imminent destruction of the present world order at Armageddon and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. In view of that fact, it is entirely appropriate and relevant that a brief summary of the history of the religion includes the fact that in 1889 Charles Russell wrote, in Volume 2 of his "Millennial Dawn" series of books, that he believed Armageddon was already under way and that it would be concluded by 1914, with "the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership". In such a brief treatment of the JW history, it is immaterial how or with whom Russell developed his teaching. BlackCab (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Natural, do you propose any specific changes to the 'Background (1870–1916)' section? It seems to be fairly balanced to me; Barbour is mentioned adequately, and at the point where it says that the Watchtower magazine was "highlighting [Russell's] interpretations of biblical chronology", it seems fairly clear that his interpretations were influenced by others. But there's always room for improvement. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The current article mentions "1914" at least nine times in the body alone (with more mentions peppering the abundant footnotes/refs).
Agree that this current main article on Jehovah's Witnesses spends too much time discussing abandoned eschatological beliefs.
Incidentally, it's been discussed elsewhere (eg here) that it's wrong to pretend that Russell was writing about "Armageddon" when he was actually writing of other events, such as 'the end of the Gentile times/times of the nations' and/or the "Second Coming of Christ" and/or "the great tribulation". Even the term "Jehovah's day" was/is not really a synonym of "Armageddon". Thus, if he did not use the explicit term "Armageddon" in a particular ref, editors should not interpret or imply that Russell did. Of course, details of what Russell wrote are much more appropriately discussed at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine or Charles Taze Russell or Bible Student movement (although this last article is remarkably short on doctrinal discussion).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Russell taught that 1914 was a pivotal date and this teaching is maintained by Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses maintain their belief in Armageddon. The article notes what Russell wrote in The Time is at Hand about his expectations about "the battle of the great day of God Almighty " (Rev. 16:14.), which will end in A. D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership." Witnesses use that expression and that scripture today to talk about the same thing. Don't pretend otherwise. BlackCab (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Earlier in this thread BlackCab claims: "in 1889 Charles Russell wrote, in Volume 2 of his "Millennial Dawn" series of books, that he believed Armageddon was already under way"; yet on page 365 of that same publication, Russell explicitly wrote, "the Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty is impending [that is, yet-future]".
Both Russell and JWs were/are particularly interested in 1914. Nevertheless, it seems that this main article about the religion need not repeat the year NINE times, and should focus less on details of long-abandoned eschatology (and more on their organizational beginnings, though this parenthetical point is better discussed in another thread, such as here or here).
If editors want to discuss whether or not details of eschatological chronology need to be here in this article, this is the thread.
But the detail itself can be discussed elsewhere...
The eschatological beliefs of JWs can be discussed in the Talk page of Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The development of JW doctrine can be discussed in the Talk page of Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.
Russell and his beliefs can be discussed at the Talk page of Charles Taze Russell.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The article includes a quote from The Time is at Hand to show that Russell believed the events referred to in revelation 16:14 -- which he called "the great day of God Almighty" and Jehovah's Witnesses today call Armageddon -- had "already commenced". That statement, in the early days of the Watch Tower movement, are pertinent in the light of subsequent "adjusted expectations" of a religion that today still (122 years later) maintains as a 'central, core belief the conviction that Armageddon could be just minutes away. BlackCab (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems remarkably odd to insist so strongly on such a minor and controversial point (from more than a century ago!) in a religion's main article, and it seems obviously preferable that such a tiny grain of specificity be discussed in the Talk of a relevant article... but anyway...
JWs and others (Russell included, apparently) believed that the term "the great day of God Almighty" refers to "the great tribulation", an eschatological period related to but not synonymous with Armageddon. If nothing else, this little theological detour has exposed that certain abandoned eschatological chronology from a century ago has been given undue weight in this main article on the religion.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article continues to dwell unnecessarily on details of Russell's theology, while ignoring events of much more relevance to an article in a general encyclopedia. Even religious encyclopedias don't typically have this level on detail in their articles on Jehovah's Witnesses.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why limit Wikipedia to what other, less well-informed encyclopedias (some of which rely on Watch Tower Society contributors to provide their own skewed view) say? The summary captures in a few sentences the genesis of the Bible Student movement and notes some early core doctrines that remain (or were the root of) core doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses today. BlackCab (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Denial of free speech and thought

I don't know if you meant this to be you're own opinion or merely quoting the opinion of another but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses i know that what you have written under the heading of 'Denial of free speech and thought' to be misleading and completely untrue. You wrote;

“ The Watch Tower Society instructs followers not to question its doctrines and counsel,[274][275][276] and warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[277][278] and would "cause division". ”

We're actually encouraged to question any teachings we are not sure of and research from any reliable source that we feel necessary. I myself have done this on a number of occasion. It's through rational and logical thinking on our own terms that we reach our own conclusions and more often that not are completely in line with what the watchtower and tract society have already carefully researched and considered and made us feel free to question and countercheck what they have said. They always make a point of encouraging us to make time for personal bible study, as stated in the bible, in Hebrews 11;1; 'Faith is the assured expectation of the things hoped for...' in other words it built on trust which has to be earned, and also, just the fact that Jehovahs witnesses have published countless publications, explaining in full the beliefs of others in different religions aswell as in atheism and the theory of evolution and then explaining as to why they have rejected these as false but with respect. If you have read any of these publications you will see they are accurate and encourage the use of the mind and thinking faculties as was given us for this very reason by god. And the meaning of the independent thinking as encouraged by satan, wasn't so much the freedom of thought,but rather the questioning of gods sovereignty and right to rule, despite the fact he was the creator and we are his creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.8.234 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Which publications not published by the Watchtower Society have you used to perform research about JW beliefs about which you had doubts? In any case, your own personal experiences constitute original research, and the article accurately indicates the religion's official stance.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That question is irrelevant to Wikipedia, Jeffro (...as you said, it would be OR). The more relevant question is this: Can you provide specific Watchtower references that "[encourage you] to question any teachings [you] are not sure of and research from any reliable source that [you] feel necessary"? The current presentation of the "Denial of free speech and thought" section feels like a very one-sided interpretation of what the WTS teaches, with cherry-picked quotes to make the WTS sound as controlling as possible. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The section reflects the views of critics. If there are indeed, WT quotes (a) suggesting JWs look to other books to test and challenge the WTS views, or (b) inviting contrary views, they would be included. I don't believe there are any such statements in WT publications. As critics have noted, it is an autocratic religion that strongly discourages any debate of teachings and expels members who openly contest or question those teachings. BlackCab (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was rhetorical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that the section is one-sided regarding the selection of statements from Watchtower literature, I'm not aware that there are other statements from the Society that do encourage research from non-JW publications or that put 'independent thinking' (that is, independent of the WTS) in a more positive light. If you are aware of any, feel free to provide them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to the Scottish person who wondered whether the statement re questioning doctrines and "independent thinking": The statements were explicitly made by the Watch Tower Society as warnings to Jehovah's Witnesses. I have added some external references to indicate that other authors have noted the pressure the WTS places on JWs to be fully obedient without questioning their religious leaders or delving into non-JW literature. Alan Rogerson, in his Millions Now Living Will Never Die, notes (p.121) about what happens when the WTS changes its doctrines: "Of course it is not wrong to change one's mind, but the Witnesses persist in being certain of everything they believe, even on the slenderest evidence (the Society is always right). When the Society changes its mind, as above, the Witnesses then stay just as certain, but now say the opposite thing" (emphasis all in original). The September 2007 Our Kingdom Ministry told Witnesses that all the study material they need is contained in WTS publications. Weekly Watchtower studies ask questions, but also provide the answers they require Witnesses to give, effectively teaching Witnesses by rote. Small wonder then, that obedient Witnesses will always come to the same conclusion as the Watch Tower Society; as numerous authors have noted, even if they don't understand the doctrine (or see a contradiction) they place faith int the organization that someone has seen it and worked it out for them. Still, those are the sources I've found. Feel free to add any that contradict them. And just for an exercise, offer a comment at this Sunday's Watchtower study in which you disagree with an interpretation offered by the WTS. See what happens! BlackCab (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

JW publications have long discouraged "independent thinking", but the matter of "unquestioning obedience" is far more open to interpretation. Editors may wish to review an earlier discussion on the matter of JWs and "questions": June 2009. The article formerly stated that a corporation makes demands; it seems more encyclopedic to ascribe religious demands to religions, publications, and/or persons.
1.). The section Jehovah's Witnesses#Sources of doctrine formerly stated:

• The Watch Tower Society discourages Witnesses from Bible research or study independent of its publications and meetings.
  

The corporation doesn't have "meetings"; furthermore, it seems better to show the religion or its publications as the source, rather than a corporation. Yet, the cited references don't make the point interpreted; perhaps other refs do, but they are not cited.
The article has been changed to read:

• Their leadership "does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight", and instructs adherents to have "complete confidence" in the leadership and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding".

Also, "The Society also teaches that..." has been reverted back to "Watch Tower publications say...".--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
2.) The section Jehovah's Witnesses#Denial of free speech and thought formerly stated:

• The Watch Tower Society instructs followers not to question its doctrines and counsel<three refs>"
  

The first ref cited a superfluous article and didn't cite any page number; that's been corrected and a quote provided.
"Armed for the Fight Against Wicked Spirits", The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, page 27, "Jehovah is using only one organization. ...If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: “Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization? Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?” No, we cannot!"
The points made in the other two refs are different but somewhat related, and so the sentence has been rephrased to allow them to remain. The second ref (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, page 28) is weak, but I've left it. The third ref (The Watchtower, February 1, 1952) is about speculating rather than questioning. Thus (and for reasons discussed in 1.) immediately above), the statement has been edited to:

• Followers have been instructed to rely on "God's organization" for guidance,<former 1st ref> and not to speculate<former 2nd ref> or question doctrines.<former 3rd ref>

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a key, and frequent, criticism that WTS publications warn Witnesses against delving into non-WTS publications when "studying" the Bible. Your spin is unpersuasive. BlackCab (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel Tam's edits sound more like what the WTS has actually said, as opposed to synthesis of what it has said. The POV presented must be clear at all times; if critics say the WTS says something, we need to say that critics say that the WTS says it, rather than just saying that the WTS says it. That's a lot of 'say'ing, but I think you get the point. We cannot say the WTS says something that it has not directly said. It is not our place to interpret the hidden meaning or intent of the WTS; that is for the critics and related academia. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The references provided make clear the Watch Tower Society's view on Bible research using non-WTS source material and the right of Witnesses to form their own views based on what they read. The statement already has a number of sources, but more could be added, each of which contains the coded language clearly understood by indoctrinated Witnesses, warning against the horrors of "apostates", "false religious literature", "false teachings" and "poisonous writings" and the direction to "loyal Christians" to hold "appreciatively and loyally" to the WTS, which is presented as God's "channel".

• Question from readers, WT May 1, 1984: 'God’s Word warns Christians that “Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works.” ... So it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature that is designed to deceive. ...Furthermore, some of the religious literature that people may urge Jehovah’s Witnesses to read is written by, or contains the thoughts of, individuals who have apostatized. True Christians are commanded to shun such apostates.'
• "Jehovah's standards help us", WT June 15, 1983: 'Adhering to God’s standard also helps to prevent the spreading of false teachings and views. In the first century, Hymenaeus and Philetus turned apostate and tried to subvert the faith of others. God’s standard was: ‘Shun such empty speeches that violate what is holy.’ Christians holding to that standard would not have been interested in listening to apostates, nor in obtaining any poisonous writings ... Why finance their wickedness by buying their literature? As loyal Christians let us hold to God’s standards, feeding our minds on what is true and righteous, and holding appreciatively and loyally to the channel from which we first learned Bible truth."
• "Happy is he who reads aloud," WT April 1, 1973: 'By doing reading in this manner ... we can see the tremendous assistance we can receive in getting the meaning and understanding of God’s Word. ... We should always be alert to have the correct understanding of God’s Word. We want to avoid twisting the Scriptures, as this would lead us to wrong conclusions and might stumble others. We also want to “shun empty speeches that violate what is holy; for they will advance to more and more ungodliness.” Needless to say, this means being selective in our reading material. The Scriptures tell us that “to the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” Jehovah through his Son and the operation of the holy spirit has poured out upon his faithful servants on earth a superabundance of blessings and he has opened the minds and hearts of his “faithful and discreet slave” class to understand the true meaning of his Word. In turn, that faithful slave class passes on the precious truths to persons everywhere who will avail themselves of the treasures of truth.'
• "Firmly Uphold Godly Teaching", WT May 1, 2000: 'Apostates can present yet another threat to our spirituality. ... a few individuals have left our ranks, and some among them are bent on defaming Jehovah’s Witnesses by spreading lies and misinformation. ... Some apostates are increasingly using various forms of mass communication, including the Internet, to spread false information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a result, when sincere individuals do research on our beliefs, they may stumble across apostate propaganda. Even some Witnesses have unwittingly exposed themselves to this harmful material. ... The apostle John directed Christians not to accept apostates into their homes... Avoiding all contact with these opponents will protect us from their corrupt thinking. Exposing ourselves to apostate teachings through the various means of modern communication is just as harmful as receiving the apostate himself into our homes. Never should we allow curiosity to lure us into such a calamitous course! ... In the first century, Hymenaeus and Philetus turned apostate and tried to subvert the faith of others. God’s standard was: ‘Shun such empty speeches that violate what is holy.’ Christians holding to that standard would not have been interested in listening to apostates, nor in obtaining any poisonous writings ... As loyal Christians let us hold to God’s standards, feeding our minds on what is true and righteous, and holding appreciatively and loyally to the channel from which we first learned Bible truth. -BlackCab (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1984 Watchtower quoted above makes it clear that JWs are told^* not to examine religious literature from any other sources. But it also indicates that it is not merely 'apostate' literature that they are not allowed to read, but first indicates all (non-JW) religious literature, and only later mentions that some such literature may be from 'apostates' (pejorative usage).

^{*The introduction of the article is phrased as if it is other people reading about what JWs do, however people who are not members of the religion would be unlikely to consider all non-JW literature to be "false religious literature that is designed to deceive", with the single exception of JW publications. This and other statements in the article make it clear that the article is a direction to JWs not to accept non-WTS literature.}--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The source never says "all" or "any"; your interpretation is only "clear" to someone who shares your skeptical POV. The source says "it would be foolhardy, as well as a waste of valuable time, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept and expose themselves to false religious literature", which the two of you seem happy to synthesize into "all non-WT religious literature is forbidden/discouraged". If critics claim that the WT is speaking in code, then we can mention that. But it is considered synthesis to make such an interpretation as you have and assert it as fact. I'm not singling you out, Jeffro; I feel this has been done here and there throughout the article, particularly in the criticism section. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The article's opening question is "Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses decline to exchange their Bible study aids for the religious literature of people they meet?" It doesn't say they 'sometimes decline' or 'might decline' or 'are selective about' other religious materials. The article posits accepting other religious literature as something JWs do not do.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Watchtower, 15 March, 2006, Keep Clear of False Worship!: "True Christians [JWs] keep clear of false worship, rejecting false religious teachings. This means that we avoid exposure to religious programs on radio and television as well as religious literature that promotes lies about God and his Word. (Psalm 119:37) We also wisely refrain from sharing in social functions and recreational activities sponsored by any organization associated with false religion. Additionally, we do not support false worship in any way. ... What if a person who wishes to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is currently a registered member of a false [any other] religion? ... It is especially important that the person take decisive action to avoid completely any kind of spiritual contamination from false worship."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a core JW teaching that all other religions are "false" and part of "Babylon the Great". If this fundamental point is contested, it will not be difficult to confirm. If this point is not contested, the sources already supplied confirm that JWs are told not to read any non-JW religious literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If it was up to me We would cut out all the WatchTower sources. Its truly bizarre that we have essentially WP:PRIMARY Sources that are 60-70 even 90 years old as sources. There are plenty of actual WP:SECONDARY scholarly sources we should be using. We dont allow Scientology articles to have Freedom magazine as a source, same here. There so many WP:SECONDARY Sources there is no need to create an article from. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree that it would be ideal to replace the old Watchtower sources with newer secondary sources. I doubt it is immediately viable for the entire article, but probably possible for most of it. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No it would have to be a long term goal, but doable none the less. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a key teaching of JWs that only they are the "true" religion and that all others are "false religion". Any and all religious literature produced by non-WTS sources is necessarily suspect, while WTS literature is said to be sufficient to "fill" their research needs. It should be an easy matter to preface the sentence in that section with that sourced statement. I'm a bit dubious about your proposal to remove WT quotes and statements on the basis they are primary sources. Most of those quotes simply verify the WTS position on doctrines and practices, and in some cases, rebut critics' claims. BlackCab (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of those sources are more 60 or 70 years old. Theology shifts substantially in every movement epsecially over seventy years. Its says right there in WP:PRIMARY do not base article on PRIMARY Sources Which is exactly which this one is doing. Why are Secular Secondary sources Suspect? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A few statements are sourced to WTS publications pre-1950, but your claim that "most" are 60 or 70 years old is wide of the mark. WP:PSTS says sourcing is a matter of common sense. In an article dealing with a controversial religion, it seems a safer course to clearly state the official view, and source it directly, rather than rely on interpretations. BlackCab (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Really Amazing WP:SYNTH WP:CPgoing on here with WP:PRIMARY Sourcing going on here. PRobably going to look at this tomorrow or friday. This is really Unbelievable mess of WP:SYNTH to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OMG, I'm, like, really curious to know what POV you see. Presumably you will discuss before making major changes. BlackCab (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

R.A., did you get hacked? (or drunk?) That comment seemed unusually incoherent and exaggerated. I agree there is a slant to the interpretation of WTS sources in some instances, but I'd hardly call it "amazing" or "unbelievable". BlackCab, you say that "most of those quotes simply verify the WTS position on doctrines and practices". I agree that citing the WTS is appropriate for this purpose; when talking about JW doctrine, it's usually best to refer to its primary source. I only raise issue when I see things like the synthesis I mentioned above.

Regarding that particular example: just because JWs consider all other religions to be false, doesn't necessarily mean that they consider the literature from said religions to be 100% evil. Surely JWs must occasionally refer to other religious literature when it strongly agrees with their beliefs. A bit of Googling got me this WT article that refers to a snippet from the Catholic Encyclopedia and a few other Catholic sources that support their view of the Holy Ghost (near end of article). It's not direct support of these sources, but it certainly isn't condemnation of their usage. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Watch Tower literature does sometimes refer to statements made in other religious publications. As Raymond Franz noted in In Search of Christian Freedom, however, it seems to claim the sole right to be able to read and quote such material, while warning rank and file members against reading such publications for themselves for fear they contain "poison". I would challenge anyone to come up with one WTS reference encouraging rank and file members to research biblical beliefs in any non-WTS publication. Their literature urges Witnesses to delve deeper into the organization's own material (it is, after all, a "provision" from God through his sole channel), while warning of the dangers of researching online or even accepting religious literature from homes where they call. BlackCab (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While they may avoid material from other religions, Jehovah's Witnesses (as a religion and as individuals) certainly do not avoid all non-WT material, but routinely perform research in scholarly secular works of history, sociology, Bible commentary, archaeology, language, and a wide range of reference publications.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That wording needs clarification. Witnesses are certainly allowed to use secular works for research. It is only publications from religious organisations and former members that they are warned may contain "poisonous writings" and should thus be avoided. BlackCab (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There was recent improvement to one small area, but the discussion still seems somewhat unencyclopedic. I'll look at this again, and make some targeted edits.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Practical history v eschatological details

This is the main article for Jehovah's Witnesses. Its section on Russell was formerly overloaded with details of how his eschatological chronology developed, but the section almost completely ignored Russell's efforts to establish Jehovah's Witnesses (then known as the International Bible Students Association) as a cohesive religious movement (that is, sect, denomination, religion – take your pick). I've removed some of that undue detail and instead added this:
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 this is much more encyclopedically relevant.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The history section was previously trimmed after complaints about its length. The edit you made added far too much material that belongs in the history article. I have removed most. BlackCab (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the main article on Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems more important that the article inform readers about the beginnings of this religious organization, rather than details of eschatological chronology abandoned about a century ago. More importantly, despite an abundance of evidence that he did, the article formerly gave readers the impression that Russell failed to establish a religious organization. It seems important to counteract that wrong impression by including details of how Russell used the Watch Tower organization to employ colporteurs, appoint missionaries, open branch offices, certify local ministers and traveling representatives, and form new congregations. Along with the reasons he did so (not merely "to distribute tracts and Bibles" but rather "Seeking to consolidate the religious movement"), Russell's organization efforts have been reinstated.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't stated the "eschatological chronology" to which you're referring. In general, the article should briefly discuss the development of core doctrines, such as 1914. However, it would not be necessary, for example, for the article to address Russell's beliefs about white supremacy. No objection to adding other notable sourced details to the article if they are pertinent, though only brief and directly relevant details need be added to the Background section. Details such as the newspaper circulation of Russell's sermons is not relevant to JWs. Linking JW jargon terms such as 'pioneer' (a single line in the target article) is unnecessary to the scope of the Background section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'eschatological chronology' is that which was removed in this edit, namely:

• In 1889, Russell taught that "the 'battle of the great day of God Almighty' ... is already commenced" and would culminate with the overthrow of all political rulership in 1914, at the end of "the Gentile Times". By 1897, he believed that the end of "the Gentile Times" in October 1914 would culminate with the overthrow of all political and ecclesiastical rulership followed by the full establishment of God's kingdom on earth.

I agree that Russell's newspaper work need not be mentioned in this article.

By contrast, I believe appointed positions such as "colporteurs" (now pioneers) and "pilgrims" (now circuit overseers) should be mentioned and juxtaposed (Russell's IBSA term with modern JW term in parentheses), since the section in question should show the continuity between the 19th century beginnings of a 21st century religious organization. --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a brief summary only of material that is in the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article. In such a long article there's certainly no need for the depth of detail User:AuthorityTam keeps adding. BlackCab (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the current "brief summary" actually misdirects the reader. The plain impression is that Russell intended no religious organization, while the facts belying that have been repeated removed. I'll try to reinstate them more succinctly.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawless

For some time, the article included this statement:

• Members who formally leave the religion ("disassociating") are also shunned.
  

An editor twice changed that to:

• "Members who formally leave the religion ("disassociating") are described as "lawless"<ref> and also shunned. [The reference: "Do You Hate Lawlessness?", The Watchtower, February 15, 2011, page 31].
  

The article cited never makes the point interpreted. It has again been reverted.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph on page 31 is at the conclusion of an article that deals with one subject: how JWs should view "lawlessness". It reads: "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? What if that one is a close relative who no longer lives at home?’ Such a situation can be a real test of our love of righteousness and of our loyalty to God." Paragraph 18 declares (with the usual cultic outlook) that it is an "act of love" to shun an individual who is disfellowshipped or has disassociated himself. The question on paragraph 18 threfore reads: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" There are no other practisers of "lawlessness" mentioned in the paragraph, so the connection between disassociation (an unqualified expression that therefore embraces any reason for formal resignation) and "lawlessness" is unambiguous.BlackCab (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab's insisted point is not usable in the article because it results from his WP:ORIGINAL SYN, and (as an unnecessary side point) the refs do not support the editor's interpretation anyway. Nevertheless, I plan to wait until his frenzy subsides before I again edit the article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that adding the reference to "lawlessness" (drawn from a recent Watchtower) is a "frenzy" of editing, but there you go! You seem embarrassed by the use of the term, but it's there and unambiguous, and will remain. BlackCab (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because "lawless" does not appear in the same sentence as "disassociated", it does not mean that there is necessarily any synthesis involved. That text quoted from the paragraph in the source material is unambiguously stating that "someone who has been disfellowshipped or who has disassociated" is "a practicer of lawlessness". Unless it can be proven that the source does not actually say what is quoted above, it is being used appropriately to describe JWs' own teachings.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I googled the article (pdf), and skimming through, found this on page 26: "Jesus said that he came to call sinners, or lawless ones, to repentance." This clearly equates lawlessness to sin, not particularly to disfellowship. It's obvious that the disfellowshipped are considered to be sinners, but the title "lawless" is not reserved particularly for them. We should either leave this detail out, or make clear precisely whom the Witnesses are calling "lawless". ...comments? ~BFizz 03:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the lede we are distinguishing between "disassociation" and "disfellowship". The article describes disfellowshipping as a result of "unrepentant lawelssness"; it would be more appropriate to associate the term "lawless" with disfellopshipping rather than disassociation. Quoting the article: ...he unrepentantly chose to practice lawlessness. Hence, he was disfellowshipped...' ...comments? ~BFizz 03:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree with your first point. The JW article quoted above made special mention of 'disfellowshipped'/'disassociated' people in an article specifically about "lawlessness". Regarding your second point, it would be appropriate to identify the claim of 'lawlessness' with both terms used for those shunned rather than only disfellowshipping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Then I think by skimming the article, you've missed the point. The Watchtower article argues that a sinner is also practising lawlessness (or "wickedness", paragraph 2). In view of the fact that the Wiki article notes that JWs are directed to shun those who formally resign (disassociate) from the religion (certainly not an action found in orthodox religions), it is certainly helpful to indicate the purported justification from the WTS for doing so. In this case, it is that those who opt to leave are "lawless" (or wicked). The wording of the sentence in the Wiki article does not indicate that only former members are branded as "lawless"; it does however offer the information that that's the way those who quit the religion are viewed. BlackCab (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The JW view is that all lawlessness is sin, but not that all sin is lawlessness. The distinction, to them, is that 'lawless' people make a practice of sinning. If their intent was that all sin is 'lawlessness', it would be redundant to say that disfellowshipped/disassociated people were 'lawless' because JWs believe that all people—including JWs—'sin'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is clear: sin is equated to lawlessness because sin is considered to be disobedience to the laws of God. The article seems to use the phrase "unrepentant lawlessness" to refer to those who should be shunned. I agree that it applies to both disfellow/disassoc and it seems undue to only mention it for one and not the other. Please review my small change to the text. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed 'consequently'. They are shunned because they are former members, not specifically as a consequence of being unrepentantly lawless. There are (other) 'worldly' people who JWs would also class as 'unrepentantly lawless' but who would not be shunned in the same manner as are former members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving from consideration of 'disfellowshipped' to 'disassociated', but referring to 'disfellowshipped' as a parenthetical when referring to 'disassociated' seemed kind of awkward. I've decided to separate the thought about 'lawlessness' from the shunning of disassociated individuals.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Demographics graph

The graph at Jehovah's Witnesses#Demographics is dated only to 2005. Is anyone able to update that? BlackCab (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"The religion's position regarding conscientious objection to military service and refusal to salute national flags has brought it into conflict with some governments. Consequently, activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have been banned or restricted in some countries."-current ariticle.

The above use of "Consequently" after the previous sentence is misleading. They are usually banned merely because of their door-to-door activity and not primarily due to military or political conflicts. The word "Consequently" Should be removed from that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.129.220 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

External links

Www.Jw-archive.org should be added as an external site jeffro77 keeps removing it. 24,000 active users monthly make it the site of breaking news and archiving. Also we are on page 1 of Google under both Jehovah and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Why permit "genteel" and not Jw-archive.org? 1031424110923A (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of active monthly users isn't the criteria. Blogs are generally not permitted as external links per WP:ELNO. There would need to be some indication of notability (rather than perceived popularity) for an exception.

Regarding the separate matter of the 'genteel' site, if it fails the criteria, it should also be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On routine examination, the 'Strictly Genteel' site would appear to host early Watch Tower literature—primary sources—for which the copyright has expired. The site itself seems to be a personal website, which would fail the criteria for external links. It would be appropriate to link to the original materials that are hosted on the site (such as in citation references), however it would appear to fail WP:ELNO, so I will remove it..--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki campaign to post Jw-archive.org here

See [15] -- "Wednesday, February 23, 2011We need your help with editing Wikipedia article "Jehovah's Witnesses" (+ other languages) Opposers don't want this page (or the Facebook sites) to show up so they just delete it after I post it. Together we can change that. Start a simple Wikipedia account for free. Then edit the section shown below:Please paste line under "other sites" * [[http://www.jw-archive.org/ http://www.jw-archive.org/] JW-Archive.org] Largest Breaking News and Historical info site designed for JW's Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks for the heads-up. It's tragic that these people imagine because they're not getting what they want that it must be the work of "opposers". Clearly these people do not understand Wikipedia guidelines. Given previous behaviour and the references at the linked post to both jw-archive.org and Facebook, this is most likely the work of User:1031424110923A or an affiliated party. (See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#Social Networking Sites and Blogs section should be added to or below External Sites to make the article more useful to the public.) If people complain about the links, I will draw their attention to WP:ELNO as well as WP:CANVASS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If (when) it becomes indisputably clear that User:1031424110923A is indeed the source, I will also raise an ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesus as the creator

Dear Wikipedia Contribuitors,

thank you all for your great efforts. I'm teaching a class about the different creation ideas, myths, theories, etc. I am not a Jehovah's witness but when I was a boy my family and I spent a season studying with them and I think something in this article is wrong. Can I bring your attention to the next paragraph:

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was God's only direct creation,[141] that everything else was created by means of Christ, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's "only-begotten Son".[142][143]"

Particularly the part reading "everything else was created by means of Christ" is not correct. The supporting references say nothing about that. On the other hand, there are several articles mentioning that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah was the creator and not Christ. Here some examples:

"If God was the Word, as John 1:1 is literally translated, then it is no problem for the Word to have created all things. As God, He created. How could the Word be with God and God be the Word at the same time? The doctrine of the Trinity (One God, three Persons) is the solution here. The Word was with God (the Father) and God (the Son) was the Word. This understanding, consistent with the rest of Scripture, eliminates any contradiction of multiple gods. There is only one God, revealed in a plurality of Persons. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a solution to that alleged contradiction.

The primary reason Jehovah’s Witnesses do not want John 1:1 translated accurately is due to influences outside the Bible. As the theological descendents of their founder Charles Russell, they arrive at the Bible with the preconceived notion that Jesus the Christ is not God. Therefore, when a passage that clearly contradicts their theology comes up, there are two options: change their belief to coincide with what the Bible teaches or change God’s Word to fit with their current theology. Sadly, they have opted to exalt their theology above Jehovah’s Word. So, who is really the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ final authority? It is no longer a perfect God and His Word but fallible, sinful men and their ideas about God." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-the-creator)

"Often times a Jehovah's Witness will claim that Jesus is not the Creator of all things by quoting from their translation of the Bible [the New World Translation] in Colossians 1:16." (http://www.eadshome.com/John1NWT.htm)

In fact, I think that the supporting sources have been misinterpreted. One of them reads: "Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was "the first-born of all creation." (Colossians 1:15, NJB) He was "the beginning of God's creation." (Revelation 3:14, RS, Catholic edition). "Beginning" [Greek, ar·khe'] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginner' of God's creation." (http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_05.htm)

So, it reads that Jesus is not the 'beginner' of the creation, it is, he is not the creator.

Can you, please, share your opinions? I think the article must be corrected but it'd be better if we get to an agreement.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is for presenting the view of Jehovah's Witnesses; I don't see where we have misrepresented their belief. You apparently disagree with their belief, which is fine, but that doesn't change what they believe. Do notice the part that says "everything else was created by means of Christ" is in the same sentence that starts with "Jehovah's Witnesses believe". We are not trying to assert JW belief as fact; rather, we simply present their belief.

Thank you so much for your quick reply. By the way, I am not defending or attacking JWs beliefs. What I am saying is that there is a mistake in the article (not in their beliefs). According to my research, JWs believe that Jehovah is the creator, but... the article says that they believe that Jesus is the creator (word by word the article reads: "everything else was created by means of Christ").

You quoted http://www.eadshome.com/John1NWT.htm which said "often times a Jehovah's Witness will claim that Jesus is not the Creator of all things"; I'm not sure about "often times" but this is correct. JWs believe Jesus is not the Creator of himself; however they do believe he is the creator of all other things (also implicitly excluding Jehovah from "all other things", I guess). ...comments? ~BFizz 17:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The cited Watchtower article says the following:

Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called "sons of God," in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the "only-begotten Son," who was the only one directly begotten by God.

This makes it clear that JWs believe Christ to be the "only one directly begotten by God". However, they apparently believe Jehovah still played some indirect role in the creation of "all things". JWs describe the creation of everything else as being "through Christ" or "by means of Christ". Elsewhere in that article, they use the term "unassisted" to describe Jehovah's act of creating Christ. JWs believe all other creations of Jehovah were somehow "assisted" by Christ. I'm not an expert on JW doctrine, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but this is similar to Mormon doctrine, which I am much more familiar with. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert either ;-) Nevertheless, I'd like to know if someone knows the official position of JWs concerning this topic. As I understand, they think that Jehovah is the creator and that Jesus (his only direct creation) did not have to do with the creation of the rest of things. Some other religious groups "correct" them by saying that their own translation (The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures) teaches that Jesus created everything else (they use John 1:1 from the JWs tranlation for this purpose) and as I understand, JWs simply keep their position: Jesus was not the creator. This is how I perceive the scenario concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses (and how others try to correct them). But I would like to know if my perception and research is correct. If so, the article must be edited to show the JWs real position (Jehovah is the creator and not Jesus). And I repeat I am not a JW and I do not want to stablish whether they are correct or not but, I just want their real position to be shown in the article for the sake of the correctness of this article. This is going to benefit those who study and teach (like me) the different (philosophical, religious and scientific) ideas about the origin of the universe and life unbiasedly :-D 200.125.135.2 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of the wording "created by means of Jesus". It is not the same as saying "created by Jesus." JWs believe that god 'used' Jesus (in some unspecified magical way) to create everything else, but that only Jesus was created by god directly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The analogy often used by JWs is that of Jesus as the builder and Jehovah as the architect. God gave the instructions and outline of creation, and Jesus carried it out. Jehovah created Jesus directly, but everything else was created (brought into being) by Jesus. As is said, "All things are of the Father but by the Son." Pastorrussell (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Pastorrussell! It seems you are very familiar with JWs doctrine. I do not know how "official" your credentials are but being the webmaster of a website about the topic (which is shown easily in a Google search) is enough for me. Just a favor. Could you please provide a link to an official page of the JWs stating clearly what you have just explained? Thanks in advance!George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

JW's believe Jesus was a master-worker during the creation. Pastorrussell is right (though he seems like an anti-JW proponent), and it is because they believe that the character 'Wisdom' found in proverbs chapter 8 is about Jesus' heavenly course. -> "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men." I think your could find something from their official website here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazilfazil (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Central Belief of Jehovah's Witnesses

Wiki states,

Their central belief is the imminent destruction of the present world system at Armageddon and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, which they consider to be the only solution for all problems faced by humankind.[9]

While it is accurate that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the above statement, there are other central beliefs to the religion. This is one angle of it that the writer or editor has chosen to refer to as the "central belief" of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses state their central belief in the front cover of the Watchtower, which sums up more accurately the purpose of the religion and its beliefs, in proper priority,

The PURPOSE OF THIS MAGAIN, The Watchtower is to honor Jehovah God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe.

That would be the first central belief, that Jehovah God is the Supreme Ruler of the universe.

2. Tis magazine shows us the significance of world events in the light of Bible prophecy.

3. It comforts people with the good news that God's Kingdom, which is a real government in heaven, will soon bring an end to all wickedness and tansfor the earth into a paradise.

4. It promotes faith in Jesus Crist, who died so that we might gain everalsting life and who is now ruling as King of God's Kingdom.

Those are the central beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. To single out one belief, that maybe irks the editor, that he maybe has issue with, and that he figures others feel the same way, is not representing the balance of the central belief system of Jehovah's Witnesses as stated above.

Thanks. Natural (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

A belief or worship of God is a given in a Christian denomination and is therefore not notable. The sentence identifies the central distinctive belief of the religion, as noted by any number of sources and in fact supported by points 2 and 3 of the Watchtower mission statement you cited. I'm puzzled at why you think its inclusion in the article suggests an editor is "irked" by it. Can nothing be written about the JWs without you thinking it has been put there as part of an anti-JW agenda? BlackCab (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement in the article agrees with the statement quoted from The Watchtower above. Aside from their inherent Christiain belief that God is the ruler of the universe, the very next part of the statement from The Watchtower indicates their primary belief that [their interpretations of] world events point to the coming end of the world 'system' followed by God's Kingdom establishing government on earth; it's the same concept as stated in the contested sentence in the article.

This...	equals this...
the imminent destruction of the present world system at Armageddon	significance of world events in the light of Bible prophecy... God's Kingdom... will soon bring an end to all wickedness
establishment of God's kingdom on earth	God's Kingdom, which is a real government in heaven... will transform the earth

--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the thing, Wikipedia is saying that the central belief of Jehovah's Witnesses is this point. It is one of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. But it is not THE central belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are a number of central beliefs.

Jehovah's Witness literature states that the sanctification of God's name through the kingdom, as in the order of the Lord's prayer, is the theme of the Bible and their ministry. I'll provide some references for that. That is the central belief. Afterward and connected to that is the destruction of the wicked system, and the coming paradise. The sanctification of God's name involves the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, which is a central belief of Jehovah's Witnesses. The use of the divine name Jehovah, or as translated some other way, is a central belief of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The article could just as easily say, The central belief of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the name of the Almighty God is Jehovah, that all humans should worship him, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus provided the ransom sacrifice through which sins can be forgiven. The sanctification of God's name is the central universal issue. Also at the core of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is the imminent destruction of this wicked system and the ushuring in of paradise through God's kingdom.

If you are pinpointing the core of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, then the above would more accurately sum it. However, pinpointing that one point seems to be an editorial slant of Wikipedia at the present time in a number of places of the article. Russell did not only preach about the last days, his ministry, preaching and works were diviersified, but Wikipedia focuses on the apocalyptic message, to the exclusion of others. It seems to reflect and editorial bias.

It would be better if Wikipedia gave a more rounded view or complete picture. Natural (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

As stated earlier, worship of God is not a notable fact for a Christian denomination. Almost all sources identify as the central doctrine of the JWs the expectation of the imminent destruction of society and the start of God's Kingdom. It is not a "slant" or "bias" to state that. BlackCab (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article statement in question reflects the purpose explicitly indicated in the group's primary public journal and indicates the primary belief specific to JWs. It incorporates the establishing of the 'kingdom', the destruction of the 'wicked system'. The ransom of Jesus is common to Christian religions and is not unique to JWs, and is adequately addressed in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit to change "their central belief" to "one of their central and distinctive beliefs". The belief is significant enough to mention in the lede but should not be presented as *the* central belief when basic (and trivial-to-mention) beliefs have an equal amount of "centrality". ...comments? ~BFizz 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to simply state the belief. It is certainly a belief that is both notable and central, so it is entirely suitable to mention it in the lead, but it doesn't require the elaboration that was present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Shunning statement in introduction

Also, if the editors desire to raise the controversial point of shunning in the introduction, then it would be important for the reader to see at this stage that shunning is not a first resort, but last resort in terms of discipline. Shepherding, counsel, reproof, marking, there are a number of steps of discipline that are based on the Bible that JW Jehovah's Witneses use. Shunning is singled-out, when the other methods are used much more frequently, and it is not always discipline, it is shepherding. Elders are counseled in the Watchtower that their role is not that primarily of disciplinarians, but of shepherds. It would be more in harmony with both the teaching and practice of JW to highligh shepherding and counselig rather than shunning if discipline is to be mentioned off the start. However, I feel that the editors here want to raise that because it is distinctive about JW compared to most groups, however, if they want to include it in the intro, then it needs to be balanced with the proper emphasis, it is a last resort, not a first resort, and the reader should be aware of that if it is to be raised as it is here. Natural (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Please keep your comments succinct without repetition. It is, as you say, a distinctive point about the JWs that they have a strong stance on discipline which includes shunning as its ultimate sanction and that distinctive fact is noted in the intro. Other forms of discipline are covered in the article in the appropriate section. BlackCab (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A single paragraph for disciple seems undue for the introduction. My honest opinion is a simplified sentence "The religion follows strict discipline including possibility of shunning baptized members who unrepentantly violate their fundamental doctrines and moral principles." would be sufficient and appropriate.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, in practice, the term "strict" discipline is a matter of viewpoint. Some who are very liberal in their philosophy of how organized religion should run might consider it strict, others do not view it so strict, but reasonable. This statement by a noted sociologist on the subject reflects the general reality of how it is actually practiced in the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses,

Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to conform to rather strict standards, [but] enforcement tends to be very informal, sustained by the close bonds of friendship within the group. That is, while Witness elders can impose rather severe sanctions (such as expulsion and shunning) on deviant members, they seldom need to do so -- and when they do, the reasons for their actions will be widely-known and understood within the group. Moreover, even if leaders are not always very democratic, the path to leadership is. As a result, Witnesses tend to see themselves as part of the power structure, rather than subjected to it. It is this, not 'blind fanaticism,' that is the real basis of authority among Witnesses." (Journal of Contemporary Religion)

It is notable that even disputing doctrines is sufficient to warrant expulsion and shunning. BlackCab (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an incorrect and misleading statemen. A person who endeavors to cause divisions, to start his own religion and who does so tenaciously and without heeding counsel on the matter may be disfellowshipped. But a person disputing doctrines is not sufficient to warrant explusion and shunning. This statement reflects a personal bias of the editor making this statment. Natural (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Naturalpsychology, you dispute the wording of the article that describes the Witnesses' system of discipline as "strict", yet support your argument with a quote from Bryan Wilson that uses the words "strict" and "severe" when discussing that system. You simply make no sense.

I have also added two references to support the statement that the disputing of doctrines can warrant expulsion and shunning. Both are secondary sources. An excellent primary source is also found in the Shepherd the Flock of God elders handbook (p.65,66) which states that if an individual "obstinately is speaking about or deliberately spreading false teachings ... this may be, or may lead to, apostasy". The chapter of that book specifically deals with types of conduct that are grounds for the establishment of a judicial committee, which has the power to expel a member. "False teachings", of course, are any doctrines or teachings contrary to the official statements in WTS publications. As noted in Penton's book (about Raymond Franz, Carl Olof Jonsson and others) and James Beverley's Crisis of Allegiance (about James Penton and others) there are numerous examples of individuals being expelled for voicing objections to official doctrines. You may defend your religion for adopting a policy of expelling and ordering the shunning of an individual for saying "Actually, I disagree with this teaching" (which might be similar to a totalitarian government ordering the deporting of those who oppose its policies), but I think it's still reasonable to call that policy "strict". BlackCab (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputing teachings - and - obstinately speaking or deliberatly spreading false teachings - out are two different things.

Additionally, we all know by your own admission that you view Jehovah's Witnesses as an strict, authoritarian and rigid religion and that is part of your goal in presenting edits in Wikipedia. Though Stark uses the terms stric and severe, he moderates those words with other statements. Your glasses only see blacklight and filter out white light, you see only negative, but you can't see any positive, so your editing tends to be negative, resulting in a negative bias in the Wikipedia article. We need to show both sides of the issue. Natural (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

The article does show both sides of the issue. The words "authoritarian", "autocratic" and "totalitarian" in describing the governance of the religion are not mine, but drawn from published studies of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Your theories about me seeing only blacklight are therefore irrelevant. Those facts are notable, and that's why they're there. In any case, the facts are plain enough that disputing doctrines would be sufficient to result in a member's expulsion. BlackCab (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals statement

Wikipedia uses the reference of p. 31 in the Feb 15 Watchtower article to create this statement,

Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".[227]

This statement is an intepretation I don't see where it says "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" in connection with disfellowhsipping on page 31, unless I'm missing something, I'm reading it in another language. It seems to be an interpretation based on a combination of the title of the Watchtower article and the two paragraph2 within that article that consider the point of disfellowshipping. In other words, since the article's title is Do you hate lawlessness, and since there is a paragraph within the article stating that those who are unrepntant are disfellowshipped, then disfellowshipped persons must be "unrepentantly practice (ing) lawlessness," in the Wikipedia statement. This would be a Synthesis of ideas by the editor, rather than a quote from the Watchtower, as implied here. Again, I'm reading it in another language, so I might have missed something, but that seems to be the case.

In any case, the sentence should be omitted. Natural (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Previously discussed at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#Lawless. BlackCab (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you Nat-Psych, the problem is here alot of Watchtower publications here are WP:SYNTH into the article. The article if where up to Wiki-par would rely on secondary sources for such things and eliminate much of the. The issue is upon my examination is nothing here that has been WP:SYNTH together is "wrong" just often time connections are being made that should in theory be made by secondary sourcing. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Resident Anthropologist, you raised a similar objection on Feb 10. If there are specific examples of synthesis, I'd be interested at looking at them because clearly they shouldn't be there. The objection Natural Psychologist raises here (which echoes that of another JW editor on the archive page) is, however, flawed. The Watchtower article cited is solely dealing with how members of the religion should view "lawlessness" and specifically restates in that context the WTS requirement for shunning former members who were expelled or formally resigned (in the JW lingo, disfellowshipped and disassociated respectively). It makes no distinction about the reasons why a person might have left the religion and applies a blanket description of "lawless" to those individuals and directs members on the "correct" attitude they should have about them. That Watchtower article is clearly escalating the offical rhetoric against members who defect from their ranks and the Wikipedia article simply notes that updated view.

I agree that an external secondary source would be ideal, but in this case the statement that disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" can be included as an unequivocal fact, based on the writings of the Watch Tower Society. WP:PSTS notes: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That certainly applies in this case, notwithstanding the curious protests of two JW editors. BlackCab (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are not a part of the Watchtower article as Wikipedia implies. The linking together of unrepentantly practice and the word "lawlessness" is a synthesis made up by the editor not by the Watchtower. The editing above as stated by BlackCab, may reflect a bias as an individual who himself states that he would be disfellowshipped if he was found out. The strong wording then, of this statement synthesized by Wikipedia editors, some of whom are personally involved in the issue of disfellowshipping, is a statement by Wikipedia editors and not by the Watchtower, as implied here. The statement, then, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Natural (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Additionally, it is a misquote.Natural (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

That is a blatant lie. The quoted phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" appears in The Watchtower, February 15, 2011, page 31, paragraph 13, column 2, line 8.[16] Additionally, paragraph 15 on the same page clearly indicates the context with regard to 'disfellowshipped' and 'disassociated' individuals.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I was reading that article in another language, I wasn't sure how it read in English.

The other thing is that there is still a synthesis by the Wikipedia editor. Paragraph 13 does not specifically refer to disfellowshipped people, but uses a scripture that is usually applied by Jehovah's Witness literature to those part of nominal Christianity rather than to Jehovah's Witnesses. How you link paragraph 13 in that article with paragraph 14, as Wikipedia does, would be a matter of interpretation.

Wikipedia makes a broad statment that the Watchtower does not.

Wikipedia - Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".[229]

It is not appropriate edited, esp. and has a bias. It is not the spirit in which the Watchtower states uses those words. The paragraph on disfellowhsipped one and the preceeding are two separate paragraphs, and not everyone who is a current state of being disfellowshiped is necessarily actively practicing lawlessnees, but they may have practiced it to the extent that they were disfellowshipped. Additionally, the Wiki statement gives the impression that the Jehovah's Witnesses has bad feelings or hateful feelings towards the invidivual who is disfellowshipped. The same article in paragraph 18 says ----

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.However, you are also showing that you love the wrongdoerItalic textenough to do what is best for him or her. Your loyalty to Jehovah may increase the likelihood that the disciplined one will repent and return to Jehovah.Italic textthat support of the disfellowshipping arragement indicatess that you hate the atttudes and actions thatled to the person being disfellowshipped, but also indicates that you love the transgressor to the pointthat you want to do the best you can to help them. The loyalty to Jeohavah in this instance makes better the possiblity that the person that is disciplined can repent and return to Jehovah. [it and bold added]

The brief, curt statement in Wikipedia does not give the full sense of the Watchtower's comments on disfellowshipped persons, as noted in paragraph 18, but it selectively chooses words in such a way so as to purposely give a drachonian, authoritarian viewpoint of Jehovah's Witnesses. If statements are selected about disfellowshipping, then the full flavor, as stated, the context of the entire sectionItalic text must come out in the Wikipedia quote selection. The Wikipedia isn't, then, necessary, and it is obviously a personal-bias selection, that requires deeper explanation than space permits, and it isn't necessary, confuses the issue rather than clarifies. I feel the sentence should be edited out.Natural (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Any reasonably educated person reading the source material would see that it very clearly makes a direct connection between 'disfellowshipped'/'disassociated' people and those who allegedly 'unrepentantly practice lawlessness'. Your apologetics don't trump the source material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Jeffro, usually your statements are very logical, but I'm not sure what this statement above means. Wikipedia states, Disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness".[229]

This is not a totally accurate statement. It needs to be rephrased or deleted. I don't think that the statement "unrepentantly practice lawlessness," without further explanation based on the context of the source material is appropriate, it is selecting one phrase, out of context. It is backwards. If you were to say, "Baptized Persons among Jehovah's Witnesses who a judicial committee of elders considers to be "unrepentantly practic[ing] lawlessness" are disfellowshipped." But when it is phrased as it is in Wikipedia, it is not accurate, it is a synthesis of two paragraphs, and does not give the correct view of Jehovah's Witnesses towards disfellowshipped persons. But you are taking a term out of the Watchtower which is from the Bible that it takse an entire article in the Watchtower to explain, and popping into an article meant for people unfamiliar with Bible terminology. So, I feel, it confuses the issue rather than clarifies it, unless the editor is trying to prove a personal point of contention or bias.Natural (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

What is more, for the average person, "lawlessness" means breaking the law, something you might be arrested for. The way the Bible uses the term is different. So, using that term without an explanation, for people unfamiliar with that terminology is confusing. If the editors insist to put "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" in the Wiki article, then there should be a Bible citation, so people understand that this phrase is not pulled out of hat. Natural (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Here is the reference, "But thanks to God that YOU were the slaves of sin but YOU became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which YOU were handed over. 18 Yes, since YOU were set free from sin, YOU became slaves to righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of YOUR flesh: for even as YOU presented YOUR members as slaves to uncleanness and lawlessness with lawlessness in view, so now present YOUR members as slaves to righteousness with holiness in view. 20 For when YOU were slaves of sin, YOU were free as to righteousness." Romans 6:18-20. Then, someone might understand what that phrase is talking about.Natural (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Naturalpsychology, you are disputing a plainly written Watchtower viewpoint on the dubious grounds that it "is not the spirit in which the Watchtower states uses those words". Paragraph 18 of the WT article directs Witnesses to "cut off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one", noting that by doing so "you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome." (In the case of an individual who voluntarily resigns, that is the action to be hated.) The review question on that paragraph asks: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" The subject of the article is lawlessness, and the questions lead those answering to reply that those who are expelled or who resign from the religion are practising lawlessness and thus the shunning of such individuals proves that an obedient JW hates such lawlessness. It's plain enough and your continued arguments about it raise the question of how much of your comments here are intended as a form of trolling.

No Bible citation for the term is required. Paragraph 2 of the WT article offers the word "wickedness" as an alternative for "lawlessness". Both words adequately sum up the view JWs are urged to hold towards those who leave the religion or who are expelled for reasons that are, under the process of judicial committees, never revealed to congregation members. BlackCab (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, I have removed your inappropriate comment from within my comment. My statement which you wrongly called propaganda is actully a summary of the Wikipedia policy about Original Research. That policy states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." (emphasis added). Do not modify other editors' comments to suit your own bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also badly flawed is your use of the term "Bible terminology" when what you are actually referring to is JW interpretations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation or synthesis, without explanation. I feel that somem of the editors have a particular bias with disfellowshipping, either because they are disfellowshipped, should be, or have some other personal issues with it. I feel the statement is a synthesis rather than a direct statement and doesn't accurately convey both sides of the issue as Wikipedia requires. I think the statement shold be modified or removed. If we can't come to some sort of agreement on that we can post it on the NPOV page and get a consensus.

Natural (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Then perhaps we need to restate the main points.

I contend:

• The Watchtower article cited is solely dealing with how members of the religion should view "lawlessness" and specifically restates in that context (paras 14,15, 18) the WTS requirement for shunning former members who were expelled or formally resigned (in the JW lingo, disfellowshipped and disassociated respectively). It makes no distinction about the reasons why a person might have left the religion and applies a blanket description of "lawless" (or "wickedness", paragraph 2) to those individuals and directs members on the "correct" attitude they should have about them. That Watchtower article is clearly escalating the offical rhetoric against members who defect from their ranks and the Wikipedia article simply notes that updated view. The statement that disfellowshipped and disassociated individuals are considered to "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" can be included as an unequivocal fact, based on the writings of the Watch Tower Society.

Jeffro contends:

• The quoted phrase "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" appears in The Watchtower, February 15, 2011, page 31, paragraph 13, column 2, line 8.[17] Additionally, paragraph 15 on the same page clearly indicates the context with regard to 'disfellowshipped' and 'disassociated' individuals.

Naturalpsychology contends:

• The linking together of unrepentantly practice and the word "lawlessness" is a synthesis made up by the editor not by the Watchtower. Paragraph 13 does not specifically refer to disfellowshipped people, but uses a scripture that is usually applied by Jehovah's Witness literature to those part of nominal Christianity rather than to Jehovah's Witnesses. How you link paragraph 13 in that article with paragraph 14, as Wikipedia does, would be a matter of interpretation.

Next move? BlackCab (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, the meaning is quite clear. Paragraphs 13 to 19, which deal exclusively with the issue of disfellowshipping and disassociation, are contained under a subheading that reads "Adopt Jesus' View of Those Who Love Lawlessness". Question 18, dealing with the direction to shun DFd and DAd individuals, asks: "Cutting off contact with a practicer of lawlessness gives evidence of our hatred for what?" (Answer: lawlessness). The fourth summary question at the close of the article asks: "How do we display hatred for lawlessness when someone we love is disfellowshipped?". Naturalpsychology's claim that there is no link between "disfellowshipping" and "lawlessness" is utterly false. BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The connection here is utterly plain and hardly warrants further discussion. Aside from that, since Naturalpsychology claimed that the words "unrepentantly practice lawlessness" did not appear at all in the Watchtower paragraph in question, I would like to see, verbatim, what did appear in the foreign-language edition he looked at. Naturalpsychology, please provide the original foreign-language text of The Watchtower, February 15, 2011, page 31, paragraph 13 that you apparently considered in your determination of this issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me please put it this way. The two contending editors of Wikipedia have pulled out of the article a phrase not used in the same strong way Wikipedia uses it. The Watchtower does not link the words disfellowshipped and practiced lawlessness. Additionally, there are modifying thoughts expressed in the subheading in question. If Wikipedia is going to focus on what might be considered a negative biased report of JW policy on disfellowshipping, using specific terminology, then it would of importance to present the modifying comments found later in the same subheading to present an unbiased look at the thought. Natural (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Wrong. The problem is one obtuse editor is trying to deny the existence of a clear published statement. 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?" I don't know how much clearer it could be. BlackCab (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab, you would want to avoid name calling in your editing conversations. I edited your comment accordingly. Thanks. Natural (talk)Natural

JW - Fastest largest growth of any religion

The Jehovah's Witnesses, known for their door-to-door preaching, had the largest growth of any single denomination. They believe secular society is corrupt, and that Armageddon is imminent. Famous members include Venus and Serena Williams. Membership shot up 4.37 percent in a year. http://abcnews.go.com/US/american-religion-national-council-churches-reports-pentacostalism-gains/story?id=12931023

This would be an appropriate comment in conjunction with the statements on JW demographics in the introduction. Natural (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Actually, how I read it, it's the fastest growth in the USA. Since this article concerns the JW movement on a worldwide scale, I don't think it belongs in the intro. Rather, could go to the appropriate sub-section - Demographics. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is subtitled "The National Council of Churches Releases Membership Statistics of American Churches." I agree that we shouldn't put this in the lede unless we have a whole-world picture of the religion. I've added it to the demographics section, we should probably also add it to Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor -added reference in section on predictions

"Today, Jehovah does not inspire prophets as in the past; instead, he has commissioned a faithful slave class to provide timely spiritual food to his household. (Matthew 24:45-47") w02 10/1 p. 17 par. 22 - Natural (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Handling Sex Abuse Detail

The Wikipedia article cites the year 2007, however, in the case that it uses as a reference, Heidi Myer, the events occurred 1991 to 1993. Some media reports picked up on it in 2003. There should be clarification if this is the example used to reference the 2007 date. http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/2004/opa031142-0309.html

It is difficult to find a 2007 reference in a reliable/Wikipedia-worthy source, it seems to be mostly blogs and the like, but it might be there, if Wikipedia wants to cite 2007, it should have an authentic source so readers can evaluate the details if they wish. Natural (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Can't see a 2007 ref relating to abuse in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

References

There are several Harvard style citations in the References section that are not especially easy to verify in this and other JW-related articles (and probably many other articles). Concise Harvard references such as {{Harvnb|Penton|1997|p=180}} (produces: Penton 1997, p. 180) are intended as in-line parenthetical citations. When used in References sections, the full citation should be provided for improved verifiability. Please see the Usage section of the Harvard citation template for correct usage in References sections and additional information, as well as WP:PAREN#Full citation in the reference section of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I began using them in the Rutherford article, I think, to avoid the constant repetition of sources for the sake of a different page number. One of them may have been carried over by accident. I've found and replaced a Penton ref using the Harvard style, but don't see any more. BlackCab (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was actually on one of the other articles where I noticed quite a few—could have been the Rutherford article. It might have been better for me to put this section at the JW WikiProject's Talk page rather than here, because I was addressing the issue more broadly than just this article in particular. The abbreviated form shouldn't be used at all in References sections. If you can confirm the book titles I don't mind fixing the refs with the page numbers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking the Rutherford article again, it has a fairly clear Bibliography section so it looks fine. It was late at night (here) when I checked it the first time. Thanks again.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on JW churn rate

It is usually better to go to the original source of information rather than a secondary source. The PEW report states that the churn rate of JW is 37%. The Time magazine article rounds it down 4% points which is a significant percentage in statistical analysis. The exact figure from the PEW would be more accurate. http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf Natural (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

It would be good to have a comparison figure, in the survey 40% Presbytyrian rate and if the editors wanted, 47% Pentecostal. It would give the reader a reference point. Natural (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

Normally, there is discussion on points. On one chose to discuss this point. But when it was put into the article, the edit was reversed. Why? Can this point be considered please? Thanks.

This is the statement after it was reversed. 2/3 is not accurate, even though that number almost 2/3s is misquoted by the writer who comments on the Pew Forum. Forum uses the number 37%, which is different than 2/3. It is better to go to original sources where possible, and I believe that Wikipedia states that. Comment please?

The 2008 US Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey found a high churn rate among members of the religion, with two-thirds of people raised as Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they had since left the religion.[271][272]

Natural (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I read BlackCab's comment when he reversed this edit. He states that the churn rate refers to those who leave. The original reference (Pew) uses the "retention rate" as 37%. The commentary on the Pew survey uses churn rate. It is always preferable to go to the original reference than to commentary on the reference, which has more of an editorial (opinion) to it, than the original reference would. Natural (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Churn rate "refers to the proportion of contractual customers or subscribers who leave a supplier during a given time period." The Time article,[18] a report on the Pew survey, noted the high rate of defection, so that report, a secondary source, is what the article cites. Not unreasonably, Time magazine found it newsworthy that "about two-thirds" of people raised as JWs later left. Perhaps you think that it's more notable that one third actually remain. BlackCab (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Naturalpsychology, the source says that 37% of converts remain in the religion. It is therefore a very simple calculation that about two-thirds leave. 'About two-thirds' is not a particularly wild exaggeration of 63%.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How's this? The survey measured "retention rate": how many still said they belonged to the religion, so it makes sense to present it that way, rather than the NYT interpretation as "churn rate" (the NYT apparently pulled its data from the Pew study). The survey questions "do you still consider yourself a JW?" and "did you leave the JW religion?" could have elicited different responses from participants who are somewhere in the middle. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the Time article is not statistically accurate. about 2/3 is statistically different than 37%. Any percentage more than 2 percentage points is statistically significant. So, time took an editorial position on the subject, a negative one. The Pew survey reported the information without an editorial viewpoint(a neutral viewpoint, as Wikipedia is supposed to take), and the percentage is different than what Time reported. 37% is 4 percentage points higher than 33% (1/3). Wikipedia should go back to the neutral original source, rather than the editorial (opinion, and statistically inaccurate source). A neutral viewpoint should be pursued using neutral sources. There are obviously polemic secondary sources which had their own POV beyond the facts.Natural (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I don't have a problem with the change made by BFizz. However, 37% is about a third, and the arbitrary claim that "Any percentage more than 2 percentage points is statistically significant" is something you've just made up.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BFizz's edit, which removed the Time reference to "two-thirds", adequately covers the point. BlackCab (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AgreeNatural (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Identifying Source of Argument

Because the first line in this paragraph is an argument presented by Ray Franz in his book, it should be identified as such.

Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and previously, the International Bible Students) to declare his will[321][322] and has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events.[323] Former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, who became a critic of the religion, has cited publications that claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses and the International Bible Students as a modern-day prophet.[324]

has equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events. with the reference to the Revelation book, is an argument presented by Ray Franz. Natural (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

^ "Execution of the "Great Harlot" Nears", The Watchtower, October 15, 1980, page 17. and again in the next footnote -- ^ Raymond Franz cites numerous examples.... He also cites "Execution of the Great Harlot Nears", (The Watchtower, October 15, 1980, pg 17) which claims God gives the Witnesses "special knowledge that others do not have ... advance knowledge about this system's

Both the Wikipedia editor and Ray Franz create this argument. So that entire first sentence from -- Watch Tower Society, to [324] should be attributed to Ray Franz, since it his argument, rather than Wikipedia presenting it as separate.

Natural (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Natural

You make no sense at all. The statement is drawn from the October 15, 1980 Watchtower cited. BlackCab (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

BlackCab, you should watch how you address other editors, your tendency is to use ridicule to put editors with a different slant down. "You make no sense at all." The argument is presented by Ray Franz, with his quote of the Oct 15, 1980 Wa, p. 17. The argument is repeated by Wikipedia. The argument and citiation is, then, clearly taken from Ray Franz's writings, but it is not identified as such. So it does makes sense. It is very obvious that the logic of the Wikipedia sentence, and the use of the Oct 15, 1980 citation is from Ray Franz. Natural (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

The sentence to which you object is drawn directly from a Watch Tower publication. It is directly pertinent to the subject of failed predictions, stating at the outset the JW belief that God has "equipped them with advanced knowledge about future world events". BlackCab (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but Wikiepdia is mentioning it twice, once as Ray Franz's research from the 1980s and once as original research. It is obvious that the reference is from Ray Franz and not original. It's the same exact research, coming across as a Wikipedia statement. In other words, the slant that Wikipedia takes on it, is using the Watchtower reference, in the exact way that Ray Franz takes in and elaborates on it in his publications. Wikipedia is echoing its own editorial opinion on the Watchtower reference, parroting Ray Franz's elaborations, without mentioning the source.Natural (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Wikipedia is not "echoing its own editorial opinion on the Watchtower reference" because it expresses no editorial opinion. The section deals specifically with criticism of the predictions made by the WTS publications. The opening sentence therefore initially establishes, with a statement drawn directly from a WTS publication, that they do indeed make statements about what they believe are future events. All subsequent criticism is attributed to those who made the criticism. BlackCab (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement drawn from Watchtower literature, honestly, not clandescently, not with hypocrisy, is drawn from Watchtower literature via Ray Franz's arguments and literature, and imposed into the Wikipedia article. It's too much of a coincidence that a more or less follower of Ray Franz is going to come up with a reference to Wa. literature on his own, exactly the same connection Ray Franz makes, without having first seen the connection made in Ray Franz literature. Natural (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Natural (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Nature

Current Russell Section Deals Mostly with Time Prophecies

The current Russell section focuses mostly on time prophecies. There were other notable aspects of Russell's life, teachings, ministry, that are as prominent or more prominent that the focus on time prophecies. Among these are his teachings and debates on hellfire, the PhotoDrama of Creation and his strong advocacy of the Bible and creation, as opposed to evolution. Also, his readings from other ministers, and using some of their ideas, such as on the immortal soul. Natural (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

The context of the Russell section in this article is to present things about Russell that are relevant to the development of JWs and their doctrines. It therefore naturally presents information on which JWs' primary end-time doctrines are based. What else would you have the section present?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As indicated by the titles of his publications, (The Time is at Hand, The Watchtower, The Divine Plan of the Ages, Thy Kingdom Come) and confirmed by reading those publications, Russell's primary focus was the approach of God's kingdom and the clues provided in the Bible on when it would come. He saw his role as warning of the imminence of that kingdom and the need for the anointed to join him. Jehovah's Witnesses today maintain that same outlook. In a short summary of the genesis of the JW religion, his views on eschatology are the most important and relevant. BlackCab (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Russell had a number of primary focuses. I agree that his views on eschatology are important and relevant, but also, that is one aspect of his teaching. It is one of the main focuses of the Wikipedia slant on JW. There are many other angles from which to approach the subject. So, the first page of Wikipedia on JW might not be the place to focus on Russell's eschatology, but to present the several angles that he took with his ministry, in the limited space, unless that section is expanded. It seems like the space allotted to Russell is an appropriate amount of space, no more is needed on the JW page, but if he is to be featured, more than the eschatology angle should be the focus. Natural (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

These are some specific points on Russell --

Doctrines he disputed and wrote about----

Hellfire

Charles’ parents sincerely believed the creeds of Christendom’s churches and brought him up to accept them too. Young Charles was thus taught that God is love, yet that he had created men inherently immortal and had provided a fiery place in which he would eternally torment all except those who had been predestined to be saved. Such an idea repulsed the honest heart of teenage Charles.

Predesination (what some of the churches taught)

He reasoned: “A God that would use his power to create human beings whom he foreknew and predestinated should be eternally tormented, could be neither wise, just nor loving. His standard would be lower than that of many men.”

What he viewed as Pagan teachings mixed with Christianity

But young Russell was no atheist; he simply could not accept the commonly understood teachings of the churches. He explained: “Gradually I was led to see that though each of the creeds contained some elements of truth, they were, on the whole, misleading and contradictory of God’s Word.” Indeed, in the creeds of the churches, “elements of truth” were buried under a morass of pagan teachings that had infiltrated tainted Christianity during the centuries-long apostasy. Turning away from church creeds and searching for truth, Russell examined some leading Oriental religions, only to find these unsatisfying.

in 1869, religious singing coming from a basement hall. (not quote--) it was of Adventists and that reawakened his faith, according to his account.

As it relates to the development of JW, they formed an independent Bible study group. ---This point about independent Bible study group relates directly to JW and their development. Whereas the eschatology is a tangent point.

Under Influence of others in this chapter, it is significant that Russell was influenced by other clergymen of that time. He names some specifically.

Also, it started in Pittsburgh and moved to Brooklyn.

January 1914, Photodrama of Creation which became the theme of his ministry until his death in 1916. That is also significant.

This is a significant quote from 1975 Yearbook, history of JW in United States of America

1903, Dr. E. L. Eaton, minister of the North Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, challenged Russell to a six-day debate. During each session of this debate, held that autumn in Allegheny’s Carnegie Hall. Endquote--- Points, immortality of the soul, dead unconscious, object of Christ's second coming, hellfire, millenium Kingdom rule is the blessing of all the families of the earth.

Eschatology is just one subpoint among many concerning Russell, and there are other points here which are more directly associated with the development of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Ref-Proclaimers book p.42-46 Natural (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

I reviewed the section "Background (1870-1916). In my opinion, there are way too many dates, and the prose seems to jump from one major event to the next. It's not bad, but it would be better summary style to take broader strokes at describing Russell's influence in starting the Jehovah's Witnesses. I envision maybe three average-size paragraphs that clearly and cohesively summarize the six main headings under History of Jehovah's Witnesses #1869-1916: Adventist influences, Watchtower Society, Congregations, Preaching, Organizational expansion, and Doctrinal development. Rather than providing a stream of major events in prose form, we should try to describe what the purpose and significance of these events (collectively) was. Obviously, a few key events can still be noted explicitly with a date. As a rule of thumb, the parent article's content (in this case Jehovah's Witnesses #History should be about the same level of detail as the lede of the subarticle (in this case, the lede of History of Jehovah's Witnesses), though I think this case calls for (assigning an arbitrary number to it...) about 2-3 times as much detail as the associated lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that any text can be improved, but I don't see that the narrative "jumps from one major event to the next". It covers the major milestones in Russell's formation of the Bible Students and their doctrines, necessarily focusing on those that shaped (or, as in the final couple of sentences, conflict with) the organisation and doctrines of today's Jehovah's Witnesses. The subjects you mention are all contained in the existing summary. I'm not sure what "purpose and significance" of those milestones you believe should be discussed, and I'm a bit baffled by your objection to the mention of dates in a section that deals specifically with the chronological development of a religion that was itself fixated with dates and calculations. Maybe you can start a new subhead and write a proposed history section yourself covering the Russell years. In the meantime I'll create a couple of paragraph breaks to make it slightly more digestible. BlackCab (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey: Jehovah's Witnesses pray the most nationally

http://pewforum.org/Prayer-in-America.aspx

http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Survey-Jehovahs-Witnesses-pray-the-most-nationally.aspx

I think the above as useful to the JW article series.--Fazilfazil (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A US survey would seem to be too specific for a article dealing with JWs globally. However, there could perhaps be a sentence added to the Worship section indicating that JWs pray before meals etc, which may be considered part of their worship. An extra sentence or two could probably also be incorporated at Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Worship, which could possibly incorporate one of the references above as an example.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference for Russell quote

I cannot find the quote about Russell and the battle in this publication cited by Wikipedia 31 Studies in the Scriptures volume 4, "The Battle of Armageddon", 1897, pg xii http://books.google.com/books?id=87JeIY4Cdu8C&pg=PT299&dq=russell+armageddon+commenced&hl=en&ei=kRykTZ2yMMbpgQe_t5SxCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=battle%20of%20the%20great%20day%20of%20God&f=false

If there is a link to the original reference here, 30 ^ C. T. Russell, The Time is at Hand, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1889, page 101. I would appreciate to read it. I couldn't find it on the internet, but it might be there. Thanks. Natural (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It's on page 102. You've tried this before, and it was clearly shown then that Russell explicitly taught that Armageddon was "already commenced" and that the "battle" would culminate in 1914.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You also attempted to contend this same point at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 53#Russell Quote on Armageddon, where I provided a link to the original publication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks, I know I'd brought it up once before, but don't know how to look up the archives. I appreciate it.

This is the thought on that, the sentence in context states,

...the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced.

There are two thoughts here, 1. the Kingdom of God 2. the battle of the great day...is already commenced.

Those two thoughts it would seem go together with the conclusion....is already commenced.

Also, if that sentence is going to be in the Wikipedia article, then there should be a clarification at the end of the sentence from the quote in the Armageddon book quoted above) about what he thought it to mean.

Natural (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

The summary about Russell at this article seems to adequately explain his beliefs about 1914 in the context of the development of 1914 as a significant year in JW eschatology. What would you propose to add?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That 1. "the Kingdom of God is already begun," also, that "God would use contending factions of mankind to overthrow existing institutions."

with this quote or the following in the footnote.

He said: “The work of demolishing human empire is beginning. The power that will overthrow them is now at work. The people are already organizing their forces under the name of Communists, Socialists, Nihilists, etc.”

The book The Day of Vengeance (later called The Battle of Armageddon), published in 1897, further enlarged on the way the Bible Students then understood the matter, saying: “The Lord, by his overruling providence, will take a general charge of this great army of discontents—patriots, reformers, socialists, moralists, anarchists, ignorants and hopeless—and use their hopes, fears, follies and selfishness, according to his divine wisdom, to work out his own grand purposes in the overthrow of present institutions, and for the preparation of man for the Kingdom of Righteousness.” Thus they understood the war of Armageddon to be associated with violent social revolution.

The main question I had was this, and it is a sincere question, not a point of debate. Russell in 1897 said that Armageddon would come in 1914 in the form of world anarchy, (more or less). But later, he said that "the battle has already commenced". What were his views after that, from that time until 1916? That's what I'm asking. That it seems as if he isn't necessarily consistent in the details, and that the one quote might be one version, but that he promoted another version from 1897 to 1916, of what Armageddon would be, that is, the bit about it having already started. Natural (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

This article is not the place to trace the minutiae of later changes in Russell's thinking. A separate article, Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine, covers the main adjustments. The history section of the Jehovah's Witnesses article appropriately notes the starting points of the doctrines that shape the current outlook of Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Russell taught that the battle had already commenced in 1874, and he taught that in 1914 the battle would climax with the world's descent into anarchy. It isn't a case of two different teachings in this instance. (However, his views about 1914 were changed again later when his predictions about 1914 clearly failed. The current JW view was introduced many years after Russell's death.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Russell - PhotoDrama of Creation

The Photodrama of Creation should be mentioned at the end of the Russell section. He spent the last years of his life and main thrust of his ministry on that so it is worth a brief mention. Natural (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

It is mentioned in History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Not everything in that article needs to be summarised here and that item isn't essential in such a brief summary. BlackCab (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to elaborate to such an extent on the eschatology of Russell, then there should be balancing info. in the paragraphs on Russell so the broader view of Russell's ministry is understood by the reader. If we were to cut out 3 sentences of the eschatology, then it would be more balanced, but as it stands, it needs balancing info. to provide a fuller and more neutral viewpoint. There is more than sufficient info. on JW eschatology of other Wikip. pages than giving it detailed attention in the Russell paragraph. It needs, then to be sufficiently balanced.Natural (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Natural