Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/GA1

GA Review

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

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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

Issues upon first reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Fixed My76Strat ^talk

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

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

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

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

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

 Fixed My76Strat ^talk

Second reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere, I suggested that entire lede paragraph be replaced with this tighter one: Congregational discipline may include disfellowshipping, their term for expulsion and shunning. Members who formally leave are considered disassociated and are also shunned. Disfellowshipped and disassociated members may request reinstatement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90% commentary

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

Apologies for my overstatements

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

Circle the wagons

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

Corrections on the spot

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

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

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

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

Comments initiated by article contributors

Background 1870-1916

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd used the terms "agenda-driven and dishonest" because of what the section formerly removed rather than because of what it included. Another consideration is that critics of JWs too-often pretend that the religion sprang from nothing into existence in 1931 (when the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was applied). In fact, the name of the religion was International Bible Students Association (IBSA) until 1931; the name IBSA was not merely a corporate name in Britain or Canada, but was the oft-independently-reported name of the religion. I have elsewhere shared dozens of references to this point, but there are hundreds. For decades before and after 1931, adherents routinely referred to their religion and themselves as "IBSA" and as "Bible Students". Yet...this supposed "GA" article first mentioned "Bible Students" in an almost completely nonsequiturial manner! Also, these 30 congregations did not suddenly form in 1879 as a response to the founding of Watch Tower; they already existed (and knew Russell's writings from other publications). That and a few suggestions from above have been incorporated into the article body in this section, with this edit.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments initiated by interested observers

Comment from Jayen466

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have serious concerns about this suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

To address concerns above; If there is concerns about removing a reference, don't do it. At the same time, don't feel compelled to source anything that is not likely to be challenged, or to over source things that might be adequate with 1 or 2. References are not exactly for the purpose of adding information. Sure they might; but imagine I am reading your article, and I suddenly think you have misspelled "Jehovah", maybe its vandalism, maybe there are more than one way to spell it, or maybe I am just getting a wrong impression; so I click a link to the reference and go to another site, another article, and I see it is spelled the way this article shows; but their article is looking good, and feeds information, and the next thing you know I've read their article and never returned to this one. The real reason to provide a citation is so that the information can be verified, and to support notability. So what if I have to go to the library and look up the book that has been cited, or construct my own web search (which is why some omit the url, even if it is known). Ideally we want to keep the reader right here. As far as the block quotes shown, they are excessive, beyond fair use. Adding information as you say; And it is copyrighted text. You need only include as much text as would reasonable ensure that I arrive at the right text if I do a search on Google books or inside a large document where I can search text. I am sure the publishers of the text do not desire for their copyrighted works (their pearls) to be reprinted here (trampled). Nevertheless, take no action, for I am not a copyright expert, but I will ask for expert guidance on how much is too much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some specifics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I have found

Jehovah's Witnesses is a good article because—

1. It is Well-written to wit:

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

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

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

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

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

(c) it contains no original research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because I have observed these things, while exercising reasonable diligence to expose the contrary, (if it was shown to exist) I am confident that the review itself will bear these facts by any measure of scrutiny. Therefor, in adding this article to the appropriate list, I will have concluded my involvement with this nomination. When next I append prose to this article, or it's talk page, I will be doing so as a colleague. I have already adopted "esteemed regards" for every contributor I have pleasured to observe during this review. So I do in fact anticipate any future interactions; with esteem! My76Strat (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.