Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Divine Name[edit]

"They consider use of the name Jehovah vital for proper worship." I think it is more accurate to state that "They consider use of the Divine Name as vital for proper worship." JWs do not have any prefer for Jehovah over Yahweh, Yehovah, or any of its alternatives. In English only is the name preferred because of it history and naturalness. Other forms of the Divine Name are used in other languages using both I and Y as the first letter. The statement seems juvenile and could be thought to be misleading. Jehovah is English. JWs use over 700 languages. There is no dictation that the English word be used. Of course use of the words "Divine Name," while acceptable, would likely be too positive. We need to tone down the positive reference and highlight as much negativity as we can in each paragraph. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that they do not prefer the form Jehovah over the form Yahweh is pointedly false. Yahweh is the preferred term by most biblical scholars in English.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Divine Name Jehovah.

A variety of Bible translations, historical and modern, use the Divine Name Jehovah. Yahweh is considered an abbreviation of the Divine Name, containing just two syllables rather than three, and Bible characters usually did not abbreviate the Divine Name, except on occasion. Many Bible character names contain part of the Divine Name, such as Jeho-shaphat and Jeho-iakim, and this has aided the understanding of how to pronounce the Divine Name. In Hebrew, the "J" is pronounced as a "Y" for these names. In the tetragrammaton (יהוה)‎, the Hebrew letter used for the v in Jehovah is ו‎ ("vav"), and makes the "v" sound as in "vine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.96.104 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting a change to the article. Your claim that Yahweh is an 'abbreviation' of the 'divine name' is just wrong. Yahweh is a transliteration of the tetragrammaton, and it is the form preferred by biblical scholars in English. The form Jehovah is also used in English, and this article accurately presents that it is the form preferred by Jehovah's Witnesses. Your implication that 'v' should dogmatically be used in English where vav appears in Hebrew would make for some atypical English pronunciations of names like Esau, Reuben and even your chosen example, Jehoshaphat (יְהוֹשָׁפָט).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the editor who open this thread, except his statement about positive. (I prefer neutral). I would like to point out for example the names "Jeremiah", "James", "Peter" or even "Jesus" have different pronunciations in original language if I recall right like "Yeremiah","Yakob", "Patros" or "Yeshu". Biblical names are usually transliterated in to other languages in its most palatable/natural form or one that is already quite understood. In English similar names to Yahweh starts with J. For example "Yeremiah" is Jeremiah. For Jehovah's Witnesses the pronunciation is not important but using the name is. The reason they currently stick with one popular pronunciation is so as to avoid confusion in publications and teachings, and that is quite reasonable. If one day English speakers (not scholars) find Yahweh more sweet to pronounce then I am sure JWs won't have a problem renaming their name to "Yahweh's Witnesses' :-). I second "They consider use of the Divine Name as vital for proper worship, and in English they prefer Jehovah". This avoids suggesting to readers that the name pronounced Jehovah is like an amulet for JWs in all languages. --Roller958 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, and it should simply state usage in English. The forms Jehovah and Yahweh are both used in English with the latter being the form preferred by scholars. It isn't necessary to make a special case for foreign translations of Jehovah at this article, just as we don't normally do so in articles when referring to other names such as Jesus or Jeremiah. Non-English Wikipedia articles about Jehovah's Witnesses should provide the localised name as it appears in the respective article language (though as the denomination began and is headquartered in an English-speaking country, it would be appropriate for foreign-language articles to also note the English form). There is no hint of a suggestion in the article that Jehovah's Witnesses use the name 'Jehovah' as an 'amulet'. That said, the sentence in question could be changed to say they "consider the use of God's name vital for proper worship", but the POV term 'Divine Name' should not be used in 'Wikipedia's voice'; if the use of Jehovah over other English forms is to be elaborated upon, that would belong in the relevant subsection, not the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for providing your opinion. I certainly like using God's name over Divine name, however given there is multiple pronunciations in English I suggested to add that in English they use Jehovah. To say a simplified version would be "They consider use of God's name Jehovah vital for proper worship", but the problem is some editors who have reservations on the pronunciation might question it. So I suggest something like "They consider use of God's name vital for proper worship and in English they use Jehovah". Roller958 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Since "For Jehovah's Witnesses the pronunciation is not important but using the name is", it doesn't really seem necessary to add "and in English they use Jehovah" (but if something like this is to be included, it would be better to simply say, "and they prefer the form Jehovah"; usage in specific languages is not necessary in the lead). The fact that the group is called Jehovah's Witnesses makes it somewhat self-evident that they prefer the form Jehovah. But if elaboration on the point is considered necessary, such belongs in the subsection, not in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the Purpose of this Biased paragraph? Free Speech and Freedom of Religion at Issue here. Do we value it? Or is this Russia?[edit]

"Authors including William Whalen, Shawn Francis Peters and former Witnesses Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Alan Rogerson and William Schnell have claimed the arrests and mob violence in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s were the consequence of what appeared to be a deliberate course of provocation of authorities and other religions by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whalen, Harrison and Schnell have suggested Rutherford invited and cultivated opposition for publicity purposes in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the truth of their struggle to serve God.[312] Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest, but also advised members not to co-operate with police officers or courts that ordered them to stop preaching, and to prefer jail rather than pay fines."[313]

This paragraph is clearly biased and every musing of a so-called scholar need not be cited. 1)"the arrests and mob violence ... were the consequence of what appeared to be a deliberate course of provocation of authorities and other religions by Jehovah’s Witnesses" How did they do this? By using their constitutional RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH? This justified violence, arrests, and such? Did they have weapons? Did they have protests and sing slogans? Did they make threats? If this statement had been MADE ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT THERE WOULD BE OUTRAGE and the Wikipedia would have the article removed immediately!

Should JWs have resisted arrest? not co-operate with police? Continue to preach? Should they pay money when their rights were being violated? So now, please tell me, in what questionable, HEINOUS, EVIL, DESERVING way did JWs deserve their treatment based on their actions????? PLEASE TELL ME GIVEN THAT THE USA IS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY! PROTESTS ARE LAWFUL and these actions are not even civil disobedience which did happen in the Civil Rights Movement. The paragraph is inconsistent and it is purposedly designed to trash Jehovah's Witnesses. This is one way the Wikipedia article could show empathy to a group that expanded our understanding of civil rights, minority rights, and religious rights. But instead of getting anything positive or any SYMPATHY, you get HATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly this is hate!Jacobpressures (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The article cites what various sources have said, and the views stated are clearly attributed to those authors rather than asserted as plain statements of fact. None of the statements attempt to 'justify' violence or the violation of anyone's rights. They simply state what, in their view, happened. The brief paragraph is in a section about Opposition that does not dominate the article and is proportional to the article's length.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jacobpressures: Please note that this talk page is to discuss content improvements, it is not a general forum. Long rants and walls of text do not help the process, and the use of bold, or excessive uppercase and punctuation is discouraged. I suggest to instead discuss specific changes. You may for instance quote what seems inappropriate and offer an alternate wording, as well as provide alternate sources, etc. Try to keep each request separate and short. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 09:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys, maybe you can assist me. Is there anothe level up the chain that i can go to get these issues addressed? I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! Jacobpressures (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jacobpressures: I have previously sent you a message with links to how Wikipedia works at your talk page (here). Wikipedia is community-driven, although there are policies and guidelines. You are at the right place to suggest specific changes. Also of relevance are WP:WPNOTRS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. For non-article-content matters, it is possible to ask questions at the Teahouse or at the help desk. If necessary, we can occasionally request the help of third party opinions through for instance WP:3O or WP:RfC. I suggest to also consult the archives of this talk page to be up to date with previous and existing consensus on various issues that has already formed over time. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 20:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The original post was a bit of a rant and made it easy to overlook the fact that there's a valid point here. The quoted authors are outspoken critics of the religion and their assessments belong in the criticism section. They are not contrary to the other criticism mentioned, e.g persecution in Nazi occupied Europe for example and do not seem to contest areas in which the JWs were obviously persecuted. Rather, their arguments are part of a larger critical commentary and should be treated as such. Edaham (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, had the criticism come from a court transcript or a newspaper at the time, I think it should be placed as a contrary view in the persecution section to give a broad perspective as to the nature of the persecution. From someone whose primary aim is to skeptically examine the religion however it should be made clear that they are critics of the religion by placing their commentary in the appropriate section. Edaham (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense about 'is this Russia' (a false dichotomy) did not help the original commenter's aims. Including criticism within the rest of the prose rather than in separate criticism sections is actually the preference on Wikipedia. However, where there are significant and notable criticism, it is suitable for them to be separate. Since there is already a criticism section, moving those comments is probably suitable (though I haven't reviewed closely).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
(But the current presentation of that information outside of a subsection is not good.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Understand and have read wp guidelines on criticism. In this case I think the exception stands due to the stated reasons, and the fact that a criticism section exists already, both here and as an entire article. Agree with your comments regarding the sub section issue. I will look at that again more closely and see if there's a better way of doing this. Incidentally do we want a separate article for criticism? I always see the homeopathy article as a good bench mark for reconciling all criticism into relevant areas of the article. Edaham (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
just a thought, the simple, but quite radical adjustment to the heading criticism, "critics of Jehovah's Witnesses" might be a worthwhile subject heading, as there are many people and organizations who have acted and written extensively on this subject. Edaham (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it would be appropriate to merge Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses into this article as it would dominate the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The suggested change to critics of Jehovah's Witnesses does not seem like a good idea to me, but see what other editors think. The paragraph that was moved to that section is specifically about criticism involving the causes of mob violence, and not about critics of JWs generally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that the reason for a separate criticism article to exist is that there would be too much criticism material to cover for the main JW article. The main article is not short and there probably also would be weight issue if much of the article was dedicated to criticized topics. The homeopathy case is slightly different because it crosses in the medical field (and is pseudoscience), where Wikipedia must adhere to special sourcing standards. —PaleoNeonate - 02:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jeffro77: Agree with your points on both counts. I spent some time reading the criticism section and yes it does warrant its own article. I also agree that the criticism section heading looks better unchanged and I have left it as such. In response to the suggestion that the criticism moved from the persecution section not be left outside a subheading, I have added a subheading to that section. Please take the time to check. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Bad, bad move. The paragraph about the possible incitement by JWs of further persecution is now in completely the wrong place and its new location makes no sense. Firstly it now leads the "Criticism and controversy" section, when in fact it is a minor criticism in the context of all public and academic criticisms about the JWs. The paragraph provides additional and valuable information and context specifically to discussion about persecution and violence historically suffered by the JWs. That is the section where it belongs. The claim that "the quoted authors are outspoken critics of the religion" is bullshit. Peters is an academic whose book praises the JWs for their contribution to the protection of individual rights under US and Canadian law. Is his fair and balanced observation, echoed by authors who happen to have a harsh word or two about the JWs, now also relegated to what is regarded by some as the snipers and haters section? BlackCab (TALK) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you are right. It probably shouldn't lead the criticism section. I still think it belongs in that section though (as long as that section exists) as it is not really about persecution, but about other people's claims that they were creating the false impression of opposition. By making the argument that it is in the wrong place you are actually making a good case for the redispersal of the entire criticism section into the relevant areas of the article (which I also support if it is done properly). As for the "BS" claims, firstly please adhere to wikipedia civility guidelines and secondly I did not have time to read all the sources mentioned as there is some over-cite regarding that particular piece of content. You seem to have an in depth understanding of the cited material. Which of them do you think most clearly support the article's content? Edaham (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I probably wrote the section. Though I have all the books I'm not in a position at the moment to rank the sources; I probably listed a range of them to counter claims (which were being made at the time) that criticisms were simply the view of "disgruntled" ex-JWs with axes to grind. Over-citing is an unfortunate by-product of that. I would strongly oppose any move to disperse those criticisms: they should remain there as a summary of the main Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses spinout article. BlackCab (TALK) 07:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Understood, there's obviously quite a bit of history to this article as well as several COI groups who might be interested in editing it. Will have a more in-depth read of the associated branch articles Edaham (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing the content in question (actually only three sentences), it does seem better in its original location. It doesn't discuss an ongoing criticism or controversy, but deals specifically with opposition to JWs in the 1930s and 1940s. However, given that it refers to mob violence in the United States, the section probably warrants at least a sentence in the preceding information about what actually happened in the United States before dealing with the purported causes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"The organization makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[157] and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements.[158]" Question: How is this different from any other religion? Other than for the obvious reason, to purposefully make JWs look bad, I don't see how this statement contributes to the discussion. What other Church has a provision for members to criticize, especially contribute, to official teachings? Does the Catholic Church allow laity to contribute to its teaching? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Seventh-Day Adventists? Mormon Church? I think in any of these organizations the thought would be then the teachings are that of man and not God. Thus I think the sentence is intended to smear but contributes nothing to the conversation. Jacobpressures (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

How is it different? 1) Many groups do not punish members for openly disagreeing with the group's interpretations, and some groups have provisions for input about doctrines and interpretations. 2) Most groups do not explicitly direct members to shun those who formally disagree. It's interesting that most of your chosen examples of other groups are those that shun those who disagree with them, which is a misrepresentation of how doctrinal disagreement is usually handled.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeated use of "the group" to belittle Jehovah's WItnesses! They are more than 100,000 people[edit]

Proponents of the use of the word "group" to describe Jehovah's Witnesses insist it is neutral when they know it can also be belittling. why not just use the more positive term denomination? It is a shame that minority opinions on Wikipedia constantly face denigration with the sly use of terms. And yes, i know they are no set numbers for various words or categories. No need to patronize.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobpressures (talkcontribs) 03:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t find the word “group” belittling. There is debate over the status of JWs as a Christian denomination given their rejection of Jesus Christ as God. The question is acnowledged right here https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/ Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Editor is rehashing a nonargument that he attempted several months ago. See Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62#Use_of_the_word_"Group". The terms 'denomination' and 'group' are both used throughout the article. The interpretation that 'group' is somehow 'belittling' exists only in the editor's mind, and is not reasonably inferred from the way it is used throughout the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is it stated that a Christian denomination must be Trinitarian? Are saying that all Christian denominations, which are non-Trinitarian, are not denominations? I think your objection is religious! You don't think they are Christian and are applied it to denomination. Jacobpressures (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of denomination would classify Jehovah's Witnesses as a denomination based on the nature of Jesus: "A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organisation, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one group and another are defined by authority and doctrine; issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy may separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations—often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties—are sometimes known as 'branches of Christianity' or 'denominational families'"

Furthermore, there is a list of denominations that are non-Trinitarian. Even the Roman Catholic Church which does not view itself as a denomination but The Christian Church is listed as a denomination.

You have stated it very clearly. Your objection is religious and you don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses a legitimate denomination because they are not Trinitarian. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite your personal beliefs or attitudes towards JWs, Jehovah's Witnesses deserve equal treatment and to be ascribed the same dignity as other religious denominations. There is no question the word denomination is more dignifying than group. It is similar to a person who refuses to recognize the state recognized marriage of two gays as truly married. Its is to deny them that esteem. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The article already clearly states that JWs are a nontrinitarian Christian denomination. The presence of the word group in some places in the article is merely for variety to not use the word denomination over and over again. The word group is not used to the exclusion of the term denomination. Hence your complaint about Christian denominations being Trinitarian is superfluous. --Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If I'm reading this argument correctly, the use of the word "group" is somehow belittling to the Witnesses, according to the editor? I guess a quick counterargument would be that the Witnesses themselves have referred to their religion as a group, see here: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/name-jehovahs-witnesses/ as ONE example of many that I could produce. Just for those who don't wish to click the link, (which is the JW official site) the relevant part says "Thus, our name Jehovah’s Witnesses designates us as a group of Christians who proclaim the truth about Jehovah, the Creator of all things." (emphasis mine). Thus I think this POINTLESS argument, which has now wasted yet more time and space since the original gripe about it, is concluded. Vyselink (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at about a dozen articles from different news sources. The words "faith", "movement", "group", "religion" and "denomination" are used interchangeably. Any editor editing this article ought to have some editorial leeway when deciding which to use where, so as to maintain writing style. Debating the use of any of these terms based on our WP:NPOV policies (quoting "Jehovah's Witnesses deserve equal treatment" from the above as an example), seems to be unduly limiting. To enforce this dispensation on the article would be to ask editors contributing to this specific entry not to use commonly used terminology from sources and citations. Such a proposal is highly unlikely to gain traction among your fellow Wikipedians, who will generally expect to be able use what ever terminology they encounter in reliable sources, provided they fall within WP:MOS/WP:WTW guidelines. In the lede the more formal word, denomination is probably the most accurate, irrespective of whether or not there's a debate as to their recognition as such, as there are reliable sources to support this usage, i.e. this article which opens by describing it as a Christian-based religious movement in the global sense, referring to it more formally as a denomination in the sense of it having been founded as a religion, and as a group after having referred to it more specifically using other terms. This isn't a bad example to follow and several other sources echo this terminology. Edaham (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62#"religion" regarding use of "religion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Your cited reasons are debatable and depend on the support (if it exists in sufficient weight) of reliable sources. Lots of perfectly reliable sources refer to the group as a religion irrespective of whether or not this a sufficient scholalarly description. I think it's usage depends on the context in which they are being described. That said if you feel the use of any terminology in this article (religion notwithstanding) requires attribution, it's probably not a bad idea to add it, either by way of citation or in-text attribution. (Addition) Also I think it is fair to make the distinction between establishing its formal context in the lede, and quoting source material in the body where "the religion" might be read more casually and written accordingly. Edaham (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, context matters, and I explicitly stated that using religion would be okay "in quoted text or where it is clear that the term is being used in a more informal/colloquial sense". But because there is a prevailing POV, particularly from various Christian groups, that JWs are not 'real' 'Christians', it would be unhelpful for the article to potentially imply that JWs are some 'other' 'religion'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a good point, worth keeping in mind when reviewing present and future contributions. Edaham (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind using the term denomination for JWs, but I find forcing it as the only term that can be used inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments. I would like to add, in relation to trinitarianism, it's unclear what the complaint is, but it is important to mention that the JWs are nontrinitarian simply because it is one of the defining doctrines of the denomination. This in no way attempts to legitimize or belittle it, the article does not claim that the JWs are not Christians (although some POV pushers sometimes inserted such opinions, it was always reverted). —PaleoNeonate – 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Postive Remarks about Jehovah's Witnesses Repeatedly Removed Without Discussion[edit]

The article has improved since I was here last. It was finely tuned as "neutral" statements obviously written by opposers. While that is still the case, it has impoved. However, any positive remarks are deliberately removed and not discussed. Jacobpressures (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Though you raised several 'objections' in May, you did very little to substantiate your complaints (see Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_62) once responses were provided. The article hasn't actually changed a great deal since your spate of complaints on 3 May 2017.[1] Your claims about 'finely tuned' statements 'obviously written by opposers' and about the 'repeated removal of positive remarks' remain unsubstantiated, and whilst there have been occasional POV edits (both for and against the denomination), these have routinely been quickly reverted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abuse section[edit]

An editor has repeatedly modified the lead to focus more on child sexual abuse. This article is the main JW article, and it not necessary to provide additional information about that issue in the lead. Additionally, the editor added further detail about a purported 'particular concern' of the UK charity commission, though that source actually listed various 'particular concerns'. The editor's selection of one of those 'particular concerns' and presenting it in isolation is the editor's own POV; additionally, the 'two-witness rule' is already mentioned in the section, and does not need to be mentioned again in this summary section at this article. The spin-off article is the place for elaboration on the issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC

That's me. I've trimmed the introduction's mention of abuse to about the same number of words as before, but I have separated criticism of JW doctrines and ideas from criticism of actions regarding wrong-doing; they are totally unconnected.

I note that amongst other edits, User:Jeffro77 deleted an important reference[1] I had added, supporting detailed text.

Re "The editor's selection of one of those 'particular concerns' and presenting it in isolation is the editor's own POV;" That's simply untrue. The BBC article cited says (near the end) One particular concern is the Church's policy of dismissing an allegation if it fails its two-witness policy, which states two people need to have seen the abuse for the Church to proceed with a full investigation., and mentions no others. The prominence given to this particular JW policy (a general policy, relevant to the JWs in general) in the Charity Commission report is notable and relevant.
  1. ^ "Decision: Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses". Charity Commission for England and Wales. 26 July 2017. Retrieved 20 November 2017. 

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You have placed the BBC source prior to the claim that you say it supports. The statement does not appear in the UK government source that you have cited for the statement of 'particular concern'. At best, the presentation is confusing and misleading.I have given the citation a more obvious name becuase 'rose' was not particularly clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The details are already covered in spin-off article on the same subject. Significant findings and highlights are concisely covered here already. Excessive content on this is undue to this article. Please take a break from edit and take it cool instead of edit warring. --Roller958 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I note that sourced information has been repeatedly removed removed by two editors, both of whom edit almost exclusively this article and articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The tendency of the editing is to remove reliably sourced material that can be considered to show the JW in a bad light. The most recent edit took advantage of the edit to remove an existing paragraph, also sourced, also unwanted by the JW. A brief sentence in the introduction summarising a section in the article—the introduction is supposed to summarise the article content—was deleted with unenlightening comment Remove excessive content on lead. Please take a break from Wikipedia and get on with running your temple. Pol098 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Along comes another editor who decides I'm 'running a JW temple' because I have removed content in a manner that the editor has decided is 'pro-JW'. Entirely false characterisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
There are massive pending investigations in UK, Canada and in US where WTS is asked to submit all documents on church discipline and related documents. Once they publish the outcome it could be more noteworthy than Australian commission inquiry report included in this article. But it is not fair to simply list every investigation here when we don't know the outcome. --Roller958 (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
"its not fair to list every investigation here when we don't know the outcome." So let's include the Charity Commission investigation, all mention of which, and citation of its outcome in the form of a very detailed report relevant to JW practices in general, was deleted en masse. Pol098 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why you edited my reply. Due weight is already given with a section on this subject under criticism. You can't just add content on every news report or pending cases just because its properly sourced. I deleted en masse material which is undue. Roller958 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion of the brief paragraph in the relevant section about the Charity Commission. I think it may be premature, given the scope of this article, to include detail about the early stages of a class action case in Canada.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
By "my reply" I presume you are referring to the article; I haven't edited any replies to comments in this Talk section. Your comment must relate to the last edits I had made to the article at the time of this comment. I added in the introduction "There have been several allegations of unacceptable handling of sexual abuse cases and of coercion of JW members, some of which have been upheld by courts and formal inquiries." This summarises article text, per WP:INTRO: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This issue is not a new addition, it has been in the introduction for a long time, until User:Roller958 decided to take advantage of my rewording to drop it altogether. Before I reworded it, the introduction conflated doctrinal differences with wrongdoing as "criticism"; I separated the issues. I'll come back to this article later, I'm busy at the moment. I think it's appropriate for all involved in this discussion to make a statement of position, which I'll outdent. Pol098 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I state that I have no involvement with or membership of any organisation or body that has any opinion or interest in either supporting or opposing the subject of this or any other article. I am not paid or encouraged to edit any article in Wikipedia; in fact I have never discussed with anybody what articles I edit, or the nature of my edits. I edit a wide range of articles on a wide range of unrelated subjects. I am happy for Wikipedia or an independent arbitrator to verify this. pol098

I would hope that others will make similar statements. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You are free to use an arbitrator. I was referring to edit of yours in my talk reply. Your claim Jeffro and I are on same boat is totally wrong which editors know both of us can affirm, probably this is one of the few times I am agreeing with him entirely. This is not a competition to use phrase such as I took 'advantage'. Anyone reasonable will do what I did on removing undue material added to already large section on handling of child abuse. I don't have much time to dedicate on Wiki either, and I'll let other editors continue. --Roller958 (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead paragraph in question is a summary of the criticism section, which includes their handling of cases of child sexual abuse. It is not necessary to split it into separate paragraphs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

we don't regard ourselves as members like joining a club but as one of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

It's important to verify respectfully, that we are regarded by each other as Christian Witnesses of Jehovah. First an interested one would have to agree to a personal Bible study for as long as one needs to the point where if they decide to become baptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and they would have to answer the required questions to be sure they answer correctly and agree to commit wholeheartedly to Christ's way of life to the honor of Jehovah God our Creator to the best of their abilities and capabilities. (LUKE 10:27) Therefore, the term membership does not correctly apply to us in an appropriate way. we are part of a worldwide loving brother and sisterhood the way a family would be in a spiritual sense. Thanks for listening — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHATTHEfigg62 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi welcome to Wikipedia. The talk pages of articles aren't for listening to people talk or add their own commentary to articles, but for suggesting article improvements based on reliable sources. It's likewise important for us to verify respectfully, that we, as interested editors, after a reasonable period of study, consider ourselves to be Wikipedians and agree to commit whole heartedly to our core policies which aim to improve the quality and breadth of the information contained within our project. Thanks also for listening and welcome once again. We don't call each other brother and sister here, but many people are friendly and you can set your preferred gender in your settings. Edaham (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi WHATTHEfigg62. Generically, individual JWs are members of their chosen denomination just like the members of any other denomination.It is not necessary for Wikipedia articles to employ jargon specific to individual groups, (and though it would not matter either way, JW literature also frequently refers to JWs as 'members of the congregation'). Other than that, did you have anything else to suggest regarding article content? Please note that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to proselytise or to otherwise try to garner interest from what might be seen as 'prospective members'. It would be helpful if you sign your posts by typing --~~~~ after your comments at Talk pages. Unless a particular Bible verse is a specific topic of discussion directly related to specific article content, it is not at all helpful to intersperse scripture references in your Talk page comments; also, if a scripture is the subject of discussion, we discuss what reliable secondary sources say about the scripture rather than just asserting the Bible verse as 'support'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of "the" before "sociologist'[edit]

Jeffro77, regarding this edit: I am aware that it is not strictly necessary to include the definite article before a term such as "sociologist". Nonetheless, to quote Midnightblueowl at the Good article review for Stephen McNallen, "at a number of previous GAs and FAs I've found that there are editors who always insist on the addition of "the" when referring to someone's professional position". So it seems the preferred style is to include "the" in such cases. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't read better to me. If the were included, a comma should also follow the profession before the persons's name. Is the recommendation about good/featured articles in any guideline or policy, or is it just an anecdotal observation?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted my change for now, pending further discussion here. What is your rationale for changing all instances of sociologist, but not other professions such as Bible scholar or historian?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your suggestion about the comma. What are you basing that on? The point about adding it only before "sociologist" isn't important; it's just that that was where I started. Certainly it should also apply before "historian" and similar terms. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It just doesn't read well to me, and a comma would be more standard presentation for introducing a person's profession with a definite article followed by the person's name. The fairly selective treatment of sociologist in the article to the exclusion of other professions raised a red flag. Perhaps you should make the rest of the relevant edits to the article and then it can be assessed further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll wait for other editors to comment on the issue. Just to repeat it, the singling out of "sociologist" isn't important; I could have been more careful and added the definite article before all terms similar to "sociologist", but my failure to do so wasn't by itself a reason for reverting me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a pointless addition to me. Midnightblueowl's observation is just that, an observation, and doesn't mean that "the preferred style" is to include the "the". Indeed, in the example given, it reads "The sociologist of religion", which is a specific subset of being a sociologist, and makes more sense (but not by much) to include the "the" in order to highlight the distinction. Adding "the" makes readability more difficult, as pointed out by Jeffro, and this seems like a clear cut case (which FreeKnowledgeCreator even hints at by saying "I am aware it is not strictly necessary") of WP:IFITAINTBROKE, which, while not an official guideline, to me makes sense here. Err on the side of easier reading, imo. Vyselink (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply do not agree that it makes the article less readable. What Jeffro77 said was that to him it does not read well, which is a different observation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I see no reason to include the definite article, which adds unnecessary formality. Referring to him as "sociologist Andrew Holden" is concise and perfectly clear. BlackCab (TALK) 04:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
My observation that it doesn't read well has exactly the same meaning as Vyselink's observation that it makes readability more difficult. You may be incorrectly inferring readability as an antonym of unintelligible, whereas both of us were referring to the sense of being easy to read; engaging.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, BlackCab, formality is just what one should expect from an encyclopedia article. Exactly how should an encyclopedia article be written, other than with formality? As for the claim that including the definite article makes an article harder to read, I (still) don't see why. Perhaps it is possible that an encyclopedia article is easier to take seriously, and as such easier to read, if it is formally written? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
At this point, perhaps it would be best to at least have a consistent approach rather than the (still current) inconsistent treatment of sociologists. Rather than arguing the merits of one style or the other, let's at least get it one way or the other. The claim that singling out sociologists for the change doesn't matter is incorrect; even if unintentional, it suggests to readers that that profession is being singled out from other professions for some unstated reason.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the consistent presentation. Only one editor has expressed a preference for the other presentation, and has made no effort to apply that presentation to any profession other than sociologist. This suggests that either the presentation style actually isn't that important to the editor, or that the editor regards sociologists different in some way to other professions. In either case, consistent presentation is preferred.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Move New World Translation in First Paragraph[edit]

IMHO, the first paragraph should just concisely give a simple definition on the Witnesses instead of going in to specific details. It looks awkward in intro. I moved it to 3rd paragraph where the statement would fit along with the list of beliefs and practices. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly would prefer to read NWT if its available in their language. But I believe its not very significant to be in the intro given most core teachings of Witnesses were established even before NWT was published and even today many JWs use different Bible translations in their programs when NWT is not available --Roller958 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That move looks fine to me. I agree that their use of a particular Bible, although certainly one of their defining features, is not so important that it need go in the opening paragraph. BlackCab (TALK) 04:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Discontinuing studies[edit]

Regarding the recent editor's reverted changes about discontinuing studies if the person is not attending meetings, that change is incorrect and despite the editor's claim, it does not better reflect the source. The quoted source indicates that a "sincere student" is expected to "make an intelligent decision to serve Jehovah", which is a euphemism for becoming a member of the denomination. The source further states that attending meetings is only something that "could lead the student to giving evidence of his desire to serve Jehovah".--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)