Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

*Irrefutable evidence that those are the wrong numbers used for the number of witnesses*.

Thx for the ban! Really gave me time to look in depth at everything. And what I found was this; The misconception you're using is from the "2011 study edition article FAQ, that's over 12 years old!, As your reasoning for using the "Average" statistics, when even the organization actually refutes that by using the numbers that I said, was accurate which was; [8,699,048]

If you don't believe me, here is the exact link to how I came up with the conclusion; plus I will also provide directions about where to find it on the App/Website too, should you so choose to go check it out for yourself.

Link:https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/

And instructions for the app: Go to BooksYearbooks and Service year reports>2022 Service Year Report of Jehovah's Witnesses>Grand Totals>and scroll all the way down till you see the first footnote highlighted with a * and it will take you directly to the link where they say "Number of Jehovah's Witnesses world wide".

you go into Books>scroll down and you will find the "Year Books and Service Year Reports".>Go to the "2022 Service Year Report">Grand totals page>and scroll down till you see the first footnote>click the link provided in the footnote and it will take you to the exact place where my numbers are irrefutable.

Instructions for the Website:Go to JW.org, Click the three lines that is the Main Menu, About Us,Frequently Asked Questions,Organization,How Many of Jehovah's Witnesses Are There Worldwide?

In conclusion, the evidence I have provided is more than substantial to back my claim that my numbers are indeed accurate to what I've been trying to say and that your's are Misunderstood and Misconceived.Hulk576 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

A better source (independent} would be Reuters here [1] which says around 8.7m. Theroadislong (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The specific numbers for Germany in the Reuters article linked do not correspond to the figures published by the Watch Tower Society for either the peak or average publishers nor for the number of congregations for any year. It is therefore unclear how those specific numbers were derived. But it seems that for the worldwide figures, the article has simply parroted the 'peak' figure from the Watch Tower Society's figures. (The number of countries, more than the total actual number of countries on the planet, also parrots the Watch Tower Society's figure for the number of 'lands' which include many dependencies separately to beef up the number).--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The more reliable (than the ‘peak’ figure) average publisher figures are on the same page as the peak figures asserted by the tedious editor. —Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The editor’s claim that the explanation about usage of the term ‘peak publishers’ from 2011 is ‘outdated’ would need to be substantiated by a more recent reference indicating that their method for determining ‘peak publishers’ has since changed. As the organisation itself acknowledges that the ‘peak’ figure can count people twice, the average figures are used. The organisation’s own assessments of percentage increase is also based on their average figures, not the ‘peaks’.

Regarding third party assessments (e.g. surveys) of JW membership, estimates are generally considerably higher (closer to but less than SDA membership) because of the way the Watch Tower Society counts ‘active’ members. This is already well explained in the Demographics section of the article.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If it were the case that the 'peak' figures were more accurate, this would be reflected in the Watch Tower Society's stated rate of increase in the same report that gives the peak and average figures. The 2022 Grand Totals gives "0.4" as the "Percentage Of Increase Over 2021", which obviously uses the 'average' figures (100 * [8,514,983 / 8,480,147 - 1]). If they were using the 'Peak' figures, the rate of increase would be given as "0.1" (100 * [8,699,048 / 8,686,980 - 1]); actually about 0.14%, but they round off to 1 decimal place. So if the editor still wants to insist on using the 'peak' figures, it must also be his position that the stated percentage increase is wrong, which would in any case make the Watch Tower Society's figures unreliable. So whilst the Watch Tower Society presents the 'peak' figures in the FAQ pages (without identifying it as such or explaining how that figure is determined), the average figures remain more reliable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources completely independent of the Jehovah's Witnesses are always to be preferred on Wikipedia, as opposed to sources published by the Jehovah's Witnesses. There are, of course, neutral scholars of comparative religion who specialize in such things. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The figures are clearly attributed as those published by the group, but it would be good if someone has a secondary source that gives worldwide figures for the denomination (but not simply parroting the numbers from the Watch Tower Society anyway, as is obviously the case with the Reuters source earlier in this thread). The Demographics section explains that figures from independent sources such as surveys generally present considerably higher numbers. Independent figures for affiliation with the denomination are typically similar to what the Watch Tower Society gives as their annual Memorial attendance figures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you count the number of Jehovah's witnesses;

"We count as Jehovah’s Witnesses only those who are actively preaching the good news of God’s Kingdom each month. (Matthew 24:14) This includes those who have been baptized as Witnesses as well as those who, though not yet baptized, qualify to share in the preaching work.

This is the exact quote from the organization. If you have any other sources for the statistics? Do plz share them.

Wiki user: theroadislong cited [Reuters] for his [8.7m] figures.

The 8.5 figures are not substantiated by any other known source.

Update; just found this article from the [BBC] which also cited the [8.7m] but also includes the number of witnesses in Germany. Can't exactly paste the source due to Wikipedia blacklisting something.Hulk576 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hulk576: It is unlikely that the BBC is being blacklisted. If a link is blacklisted, you'll get an error message when you try to include it in a comment, but you can just remove the "http:" from the beginning and it will work, but people have to copy and paste it into their browser address bar rather than click on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ok thx! Hulk576 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64910415.amp Hulk576 (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If anyone could pull up the BBC article and cite better than me, I'd appreciate it. Hulk576 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It was probably blocked because you used a Google redirect instead of the actual link https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64910415.amp - which as you can see, can be included perfectly well.

That source attributes the number to a report published by the JW: "In its latest report from 2022, the movement says there are about 8.7 million Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, including about 170,000 in Germany." ~Anachronist (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thx Anachronist,

Here are my three sources to back up my edit: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/jehovahs-witnesses-some-facts-about-their-history-community-germany-2023-03-10/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64910415.amp Hulk576 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

One last thing to substantiate my figures;

How do you count the number of Jehovah's Witnesses?

"We count as Jehovah’s Witnesses only those who are actively preaching the good news of God’s Kingdom each month. (Matthew 24:14) This includes those who have been baptized as Witnesses as well as those who, though not yet baptized, qualify to share in the preaching work". Hulk576 (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Other sources parroting the JW peak figure doesn’t make it valid for the reasons already given. The quote about how JWs count ‘active’ members is irrelevant to why the ‘peak’ figure is less reliable than the average figure. In addition to the Watch Tower Society’s acknowledgment that its method Of determining ‘peak’ membership counts some people twice, neither secondary source provided supports the specific figure restored in the infobox.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki admin [Cullen328] said "Reliable sources completely independent of the Jehovah's Witnesses are always to be preferred on Wikipedia, as opposed to sources published by the Jehovah's Witnesses". The term 'parroting' is a discrediting term used to discount major news media/publications who have to actually do extensive research on the topic they're talking about while also being fact-checked before they publish their articles.

I've cited 3 sources which includes from the organization itself that led me to reach my conclusion, while you've only provided 1; If you have any other circumstantial evidence do plz provide by means of citing the source. I believe the debate to be settled by way of majority sources/contributions by other wiki editors on the talk pages thread on the topic at hand.

P.S. This was a good discussion and one that needs to be had more frequently on the site in order to allow everyone to have a contribution no matter how small on something they believe in or on a topic that they're well versed in. Hulk576 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You really are tiresome. Sources that simply parrot the Watch Tower Society’s ‘peak’ figure are not reporting something ‘completely independent’. The sources directly state that those figures are what the Watch Tower Society reports. 🤦‍♂️ The ‘peak’ figure remains misleading for the reasons already provided.—Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

why, thank you! I don't relent on a topic I'm well versed in. I see you still haven't shared your sources which I don't know why you wouldn't if your claim for 'peak' figures are "misleading" using a '2011 watchtower study article'. We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.🤷‍♂️ Hulk576 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh? I have demonstrated both from the Watch Tower Society’s definition of ‘peak’ figure and the Watch Tower Society’s method of determining growth rates that the average figures are more reliable. It’s quite odd that you doubt the veracity of the Watch Tower Society’s explanation about how ‘peak’ figures are determined, though you have provided no source indicating any change in that definition. And it wasn’t in a ‘study article’ (it was a ‘Questions from Readers’ article), but it’s also not clear why you would give less credence to it on that basis anyway. (It is of note, though, that the explanation about how ‘peak’ figures count some people twice was only placed in a magazine generally provided only to members, obscuring the fact for the general public, as seems to be your intent here.)—Jeffro77 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahh...But if that were true that they were trying to obscure the fact from the general public, as your insinuating why then wouldn't they just hide the figure altogether?

The thing I've noticed is you've never cited an outside source to completely prove that is true what the '2011 Study Articles' ? Rather you've used the publications to cite the reasoning but, I thought was wrong because the organization was "misleading"? So how then do you prove your claim the "peak" figures are wrong without using that very source you've cited!?!

Also during 2011-2023 the New World Translation was revised back in 2013, and more "Newer" publications have come out and yet we're still stuck on article from 2011 justifying a nonsensical figure which claims little to no growth during that time period?

If you can't answer that then I don't know what else to tell you than to make sure you do your research on a topic a little more before reaching your conclusion. 🥸👍 Hulk576 (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If you can cite a source other than the Watchtower article claiming the "peak" figures are invalid/incorrect I will concede the debate and refrain from further mentioning it. Thats all you gotta do, simple! Hulk576 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Your ‘request’ is a red herring, and your claim that I have said the ‘peak’ figure is ‘incorrect’ is a straw man argument. The ‘peak’ figure indicates the highest number of reports received for any month of a given ‘service year’, including duplicate reports as acknowledged by the Watch Tower Society; it is not a matter of those figures being ‘correct’, but the suitability of the figure for a particular purpose—in this case, as an accurate indicator of ‘active’ adherents. The fact that the Watch Tower Society—a publishing company—has ‘published other things’ since 2011 is mundane and irrelevant. It also isn’t clear what your claim about ‘little to no growth’ is based on, particularly since their stated growth would be lower for 2022 if they were using the ‘peak’ figure. It is nonsensical to expect that the Watch Tower Society would frequently re-state how they determine the ‘peak’ figure when it is already available for the intended audience, and there is no indication that the method has changed. Updating their Bible translation is particularly irrelevant to how they count membership🤦‍♂️.

You have also misrepresented other editors by falsely characterising ‘other sources say the Watch Tower Society report membership as a particular figure’ as ‘completely independent’ sources, which they are not.

Your ‘reasoning’ is all over the place.—Jeffro77 (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

After reading the multiple thread's that entail this argument, it seems to me the basic issue is one editor, Hulk576, insists on using the "Peak Publisher's" number (8,699,048) given in the 2022 Report, while Jeffro77 argues for the "Average" number (8,514,983) as being more accurate. Based purely on the definition of the terms employed, I would say the "Average" number is more appropriate for Wikipedia to use, as it gives a better overall look at the organization as a whole, rather than just a snapshot of its height. As an example/comparison, Coca-Cola's stock prices from Oct of 2022 to October of 2023 had a high of $64.99. Coca-Cola can't then claim that it's average stock price is that high just because, at its PEAK, it was. At it's lowest it was $54.02, so a more accurate description of Coca-Cola's stock prices for the year would be $59.50 ($64.99 + $54.02= $119.01 / 2 = $59.505. Yahoo! Finance was used for the numbers). Obviously it's not a perfect comparison as stock prices are updated every 15 minutes, but it's suitable for government work. As the JW's have given us the average number themselves, that is the one that should be used.

As for "independent" sources for the JW's adherent numbers, that is likely to come to naught I'm afraid, as most sources use the JW's own numbers, and, as far as I am aware, no true, independent, large scale counting has been done of the JW's by a third party on a worldwide basis. They tend to be local/nationwide surveys, and as is explained in the "Demographics" section these numbers tend to be higher than the number given by the JW's as the JW's use a far stricter method of counting (i.e. those who actually report service numbers, rather than those that merely say that they are JW's.)

However, in regards to the JW's and their numbers, many academics consider them to be accurate, so I see no issue with using them. I will come back and add a quote from Dr. Zoe Knox in regards to this that I know exists in her most recent book, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World: From the 1870s to the Present", but I do not currently have the book at hand. Essentially she says that because the JW's are forthright and mostly transparent in their methodology in counting their adherents, most scholar's have little to no problems taking the numbers as being correct. Vyselink (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Vyselink! Exactly!!! I said in the beginning that the organizations figures were correct that I cited, How so? Well right here I'll provide the link to exactly where they state the figure I've been debating about to be the correct figure. Right here I'll provide that very evidence;

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-m

If you scroll down slightly on the page you'll see that, they themselves are using the [8,699,048] figure rather than [8,514,983] which is what I've been trying to tell Jeffro77.

I used the "outside sources" because of what Wiki admin: Cullen328 stated recently, when my position has always been from the beginning was to use the figures from the organization itself. Hulk576 (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can fix the link provided, I would appreciate it plz. Hulk576 (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, Vyselink didn’t agree with you. Secondly, at no point did anyone say the ‘peak’ figures are ‘incorrect’; they are correct insofar as they are what they purport to be. (And you are yet to apologise for your repeated dishonest assertions that the average figures are incorrect.) But the ’peak’ are not an accurate measure because they count some people twice who made late reports. Further, the ‘other sources’ you provided also are not independent but just cite the Watch Tower Society figures. Stop pretending you have support where you don’t.—Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow!

Veselink said "However, in regards to the JW's and their numbers, many academics consider them to be accurate, so I see no issue with using them.

Also "Dr. Zoe Knox in regards to this that I know exists in her most recent book, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World: From the 1870s to the Present", but I do not currently have the book at hand. Essentially she says that because the JW's are forthright and mostly transparent in their methodology in counting their adherents, most scholar's have little to no problems taking the numbers as being correct".

You know you have no counter argument so you keep parroting the same line over-and-over.

I'll cite again what it is you claim from the '2011 study articles' which are not set in stone, nor are the official recognized way that they count figures.

Where in this do they say that the average figures are what they use?

"Peak publishers and average publishers. “Publishers” includes baptized Witnesses of Jehovah as well as unbaptized ones who qualify to be Kingdom preachers. “Peak publishers” is the highest number reporting for any one month of the service year and may include late reports that were not added to the preceding month’s report. In this way some publishers may be counted twice. However, the peak figure does not include the number of publishers who actually shared in the ministry but forgot to report. This emphasizes the importance of each publisher reporting promptly each month. “Average publishers” is the typical number of different ones reporting time in the ministry each month". Hulk576 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No where does it say the " Average figures are the definitive figures that they use".

Your arguments are asinine at best and I really don't know what your getting out of it but good for you to continuing going on with your narrative.

This counts Witnesses who are both "baptized" and "Unbaptized" if they were counted twice don't you think there would be 9 million or 8.9; I mean come on! Hulk576 (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/ Hulk576 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Predictably, you are misrepresenting what Vyselink said. He indicated that the figures given by the Watch Tower Society—peak and average—are generally considered reliable in the sense that they’re not just completely made up. Vyselink explicitly stated that the average figures are better for our purpose here. I have already demonstrated that the Watch Tower Society uses the average figures for determining their growth rate, so your continued insistence of isolating the ’peak’ figure as ‘what they use’ is idiotic. Your continued obvious distortion of what others have said shows that you are simply trying to be disruptive to make a point.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive in what way? I can't for the life of me understand why you'd use average figures instead of the peak that the organization states is using without citing the 2011 study article? Hulk576 (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean check out the link I provided and it clearly states why they're using the peaks numbers not the Average. Hulk576 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I've provided irrefutable proof that the peak is more relevant than the average. And you're still are in a dillusional tyraid that it's all wrong I mean come on! Hulk576 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly an apology. The quote I was thinking of regarding scholarly acceptance of the JW's numbers is not from Dr. Knox's book but rather from an article she wrote, "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011, pg 166), so I give it here: "Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly defined, and transparently calculated."

And just to make sure that my views/thoughts are not obfuscated in any way: I believe the "Average" number of members should be used; the unavailability of reliable third-party sources for JW membership numbers is a reason to use the JW's numbers; and scholars tend not to question the official numbers too much, as shown by the above quote, so that is another indicator that they can be reliably used in the absence of third-party sources. Vyselink (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you explain this then Vyselink?

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/ Hulk576 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This ongoing tiresome claim that 'they use the peak figures' is just stupid. The Watch Tower Society is the source of both the peak and the average figures, so of course they use both figures. The Watch Tower Society calculates its growth rate based on the 'average' figures, not the 'peak', as has already been explained irrefutably.[2] You have not once acknowledged that the 'average' figures are 'correct' in the same manner that the 'peak' figures are.

The Watch Tower Society has directly stated that the 'peak' figures can count people twice. Your claim that it is somehow relevant that the Watch Tower Society has 'published other things' (including a Bible translation 🤔) since it made that statement[3] is bizarre.

You aren't listening or acknowledging plain facts about how the figures are determined and used, and you are cherry picking parts of other editor's comments to claim they support you, to the point of being ridiculous. For example, Vyselink unambiguously indicated a preference for the 'average' figures,[4] to which you responded with a false equivalence about JW figures being 'correct'. You have also falsely claimed that you have gained consensus from Anachronist (talk · contribs) and Theroadislong (talk · contribs) (who you also grossly insulted), whereas they actually noted the importance of preferring completely independent sources. Back in reality, the Reuters link[5] gives numbers "according to the denomination's website" and the BBC link[6] gives numbers from the Watch Tower Society's "latest report from 2022". As such, neither of those sources is "completely independent".

The lack of competence and/or willingness to work collaboratively suggests that Wikipedia may not be the place for you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, you seem to run this article like a *Redacted* because you feel high and mighty when people challenge you. And that's not right at all also do really need to bring up the Theroadislong I made a mistake and I apologized very ignorant of you. Hulk576 (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is for everyone who the *Redacted* are you to tell me I'm not allowed because I'm do an honest edit whereas you can't refute my sources/arguments. Hulk576 (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You know you can't refute the main source I'm using so you just keep on scraping the research I've done.

At least I've done the research to substantiate my edits. Hulk576 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making it very clear that you still are not listening.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ why? Hulk576 (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no clue why? Hulk576 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything you claim I've worked hard to research is WRONG!!! WHY?!? I've done extensive research I'm not trying to vandalize the article I'm not trying to add misinformation to the article yet everything I do is wrong and everything your doing is Right! All I'm trying to do is update statistics to the from the sources I found and miniscule edits to the beginning of the article thats it! Hulk576 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yet I'm being shutdown for absolutely no reason other than to keep discrediting/discarding my edits. Hulk576 (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You have made no attempt to discuss things constructively. Let's try to get back to basics.

• At no point did I say the 'peak' figures are 'incorrect'. Rather, they are not the best most reliable indicator of membership.

• The Watch Tower Society uses the 'average' figures for determining their growth rate, so claiming they only use the 'peak' figures is obviously incorrect.

Let's see how you go with attempting to acknowledge those two simple points before going any further.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok let's restart! The way I'm viewing the "average" figures is they apply to monthly statistics, whereas the "peak" figures apply to yearly figures at least the way that it was implied in the article and even 2022 grand Totals. Hulk576 (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That ignores my first point and is contradicted by my second point. Try re-restarting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is what's stated at the end of the 2022 grand totals " A service year runs from September 1 to August 31 of the next calendar year. For example, the 2015 service year ran from September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015". Hulk576 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The definition of a 'service year' is not relevant to any distinction between the 'peak' and 'average' figures. The 'peak' and 'average' figures are both for a given 'service year'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

So in the organization there are 2 concepts for the figures 1.Service month which accounts the preaching work done by Jehovah's witnesses for that month what it doesn't take into account is that there are witnesses who don't or can't do preaching work for various reasons.

2.Service year which rounds up the totals which includes preaching work, the peak publishers and other statistics etc. Hulk576 (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And that's where the source that I've been implying has made those very same claims on how they reached that [8.6] figure

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/ Hulk576 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

While they don't specify specifically how they reach those figures like in the '2011 article' it is safe to assume that what's being said in the source I've cited Is how they're using the 'peak' figures as the the main figure rather than using the 'average' figures and that's been my position the whole time. Hulk576 (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You are continuing to ignore the second point I gave. Aside from that, the average figure adequately takes into account the fact that some members may not be able to preach in some months. But the peak figure counts late reports twice, which are for people who did preach the previous month but who submitted late rather than 'not able to preach'. Also, the term "service month" has only appeared twice (both as "field service month") in living memory in JW literature, and not since 1993. There is no reason to believe the method of determining the 'peak' figures has changed since 2011, nor was that method only introduced in 2011.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not lying we're literally using "Service Month" at the kindom halls Hulk576 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If your a pioneer you have turn in your time to head of your pioneer group and they round it up for the Service Month Hulk576 (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• You're

Hulk576 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a system used to keep track of the preaching work and also to tally up everyone's time essentially. Hulk576 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Like clocking in at a job essentially Hulk576 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the literature has not but elders and circuit overseers do. Hulk576 (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that JWs sometimes refer to the "service month". But their literature has not used the term for the last 30 years. And you are continuing to ignore my second point from earlier.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The elders' manual Shepherd the Flock of God also does not use the term "service month". The Branch Organization manual uses the term once, but only in the phrase "time spent in the field service month by month." (These publications are not provided to general JW members, but were made public by the Australian Royal Commission.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That's where the conflict of interest is Jeffro77 the source that I've cited make no claims of using the average figures for the year of '2022' Hulk576 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in 2011 they did but now I guess they don't that's where I was getting at with the Newer publications and the 2013 of the New World Translation is that the organization itself has changed drastically from 2011. Hulk576 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

So much so I hardly recognize it lol Hulk576 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We rely on the JW app rather than physical publications even moreso than back than Hulk576 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• 2013 revision of the NWT

Hulk576 (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Their stated annual growth rate in their yearly 'field service report' is based on the 'average' figures. It is not clear what you consider to be a 'conflict of interest' about that fact. Nothing about your perceptions of changes since 2011 has any bearing that would indicate a changed method of counting 'peak publishers'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why then do they use the peak total specified in this link?

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/ Hulk576 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Could be for any number of reasons, one possible reason being that the higher number looks better. But they demonstrably use the 'average' figures for statistical purposes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

2021 Peak Publishers: 8,686,980[7]

2021 Average Publishers: 8,480,147[8]

2022 Peak Publishers: 8,699,048[9]

2022 Average Publishers: 8,514,983[10]

2022 Percentage increase: 0.4[11]

Using peak figures: 8,699,048/8,686,980 = 1.0014 (0.14% increase)

Using average figures: 8,514,983/8,480,147 = 1.004 (0.4% increase)

The Watch Tower Society quite definitely considers the 'average' figures more accurate for statistical calculations.

Please try to focus on the facts rather than claiming some 'conflict of interest'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question and I'll answer yours why are they using the *peak* for this?

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/ Hulk576 (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

And if you'd scroll down a little bit twords the end you would get get the short form explanation and link to the same page that I keep posting. Hulk576 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'm stating to understand your point of view and if you'd done that then we would've been in a much better place from the very start. Hulk576 (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I provided the same calculations 6 days ago in this thread.[12]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Already responded to that a few lines above. But there is no point speculating. The fact is that they demonstrably use the 'average' figures for statistical calculations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's be real why would a religion that's based on the bible lie about the big figures to make themselves look better which if they we're don't you'd think they'd go even higher maybe 9 million 9.5 million see? Hulk576 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The organization has had incremental growth not exponential growth. Hulk576 (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe the safer bet is to go with the FAQ because it's exactly what they claim is the current figures, until an outside source does "accurate" statistics which will then give a definitive response/number in the organization. Adm give us a better understanding/ breakdown of how they reached that conclusion. Hulk576 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Claiming that something 'based on the Bible' means they wouldn't lie is a fallacious appeal to authority, and the tone of the question is an appeal to incredulity. In any case the question calls for speculation, which is pointless here. The method of determining 'peak' figures has not been challenged as a 'lie' anywhere in this discussion, but it has been demonstrated that the 'average' figure is more reliable for statistical purposes. So you've gone right back to misrepresenting the context of the discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No consensus has been established to use the ‘peak’ figures rather than the ‘average’ figures.—Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Peak figures debate part 2

first and foremost what's the formula you're using to reach that 0.4% with the average and the peak? Hulk576 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC) this is something I'd like to add to the debate.

1. The term "peak" in the context of publishers might refer to the highest number of active members or publishers within a certain time period. Jehovah's Witnesses often track the number of active members who participate in activities such as door-to-door preaching and meetings, and the "peak" number would indicate the highest number of individuals engaged in these activities during a specific period, which could be a month or a year. Hulk576 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

2.the term "average" on the grand totals page might refer to the average number of publishers over a specific period. This would typically be calculated by adding up the number of publishers for each reporting period (e.g., each month) and then dividing by the number of reporting periods. Hulk576 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This ties in with 2.

For example, if they report the number of publishers each month for a year, they would add up the 12 monthly publisher counts and divide by 12 to get the average number of publishers for that year. Hulk576 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's something else to also add;

In summary, the key difference is that "peak" figures represent the highest point reached in terms of active participation within a given period, while "average" figures provide a more balanced view by considering the mean number of active members over the same period. The choice of which figure to report may depend on the specific purpose and context of the data analysis or presentation. Hulk576 (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is to Jeffro77's point;

"Peak publishers and average publishers. “Publishers” includes baptized Witnesses of Jehovah as well as unbaptized ones who qualify to be Kingdom preachers. “Peak publishers” is the highest number reporting for any one month of the service year and may include late reports that were not added to the preceding month’s report. In this way some publishers may be counted twice. However, the peak figure does not include the number of publishers who actually shared in the ministry but forgot to report. This emphasizes the importance of each publisher reporting promptly each month. “Average publishers” is the typical number of different ones reporting time in the ministry each month."

Source:[August,15,2011 Watchtower Study Edition] Hulk576 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This is my point; 1 of 3 Hulk576 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

1). Hulk576 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

1). Hulk576 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone could fix these 3 mistakes I'd appreciate it ↑ Hulk576 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

1).How do you count the number of Jehovah's witnesses?

We count as Jehovah’s Witnesses only those who are actively preaching the good news of God’s Kingdom each month. (Matthew 24:14) This includes those who have been baptized as Witnesses as well as those who, though not yet baptized, qualify to share in the preaching work. Hulk576 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Can't exactly list everything word-for-word like I want to unfortunately 😔 Hulk576 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's the kicker they actually give the statistics for each country and territory.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/2022-Service-Year-Report-of-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Worldwide/2022-Country-and-Territory-Reports/ Hulk576 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You're just being disruptive at this point. You have added nothing new, and asking again for the 'formula' for how the rate of increase is determined (a quite simple concept) is highly disingenuous after it has been clearly explained to you more than once. Just stop. At best, you need to stop hearing the sound of your own voice and wait for other editors to comment, if they care.--Jeffro77 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ohh, what if they don't and it's just you and me? Hulk576 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If I'm being disruptive what's does that make you?

Also, How would you answer your own question Jeffro77? Hulk576 (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Found this in [The New World Encyclopedia]

Jehovah's Witnesses have an active presence in 239 countries, though they do not form a large part of the population of any particular nation. Brazil, Mexico, and the United States are the only countries where the number of active Witness members exceeds half a million. Since the mid-1990s, the number of members actively involved in preaching has increased from 4.5 million to 8.7 million, with almost 120,000 congregations.[32][33] Hulk576 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Vyselink already said to use the average figures so it’s already not ‘just me’. Do not restore your disputed edit. Read WP:BRD until you understand.

The ‘New World Encyclopedia’ you’ve cited is a mirror of a Wikipedia article, so it wouldn’t be suitable as a Wikipedia source anyway.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Anachronist and theroadislong cited the [8.7] figure so 3 to 2 overrules your claim Hulk576 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If this is a democratic process as you so claim then it's already been decided. Hulk576 (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a lie. Neither of those editors said to use the ‘peak’ figure. Both indicated that completely independent sources are preferred. The other sources you cited directly cite the Watch Tower Society for the figures and are not completely independent at all.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is implying the [8.5] figure is wrong. And aren't yours that [8.5] figure is from the Watch Tower Society? Hulk576 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a completely independent source for the statistics, But I did find a few stats from 'Pew Research'. Hulk576 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Jeffro77 name the independent sources that I can use instead? Hulk576 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Independent sources are preferred. That doesn’t mean primary sources are ‘wrong’ (black-and-white thinking), or that they can’t be used at all. But they should be clearly attributed. It isn’t up to me to find sources for you. The fact remains that you have not gained consensus for your preferred change.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You're the main guy disputing the claims yet your not gonna take the effort in finding the sources to dispute my claim C'mon! Hulk576 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't even cite 1 source to refute my argument. Hulk576 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That goes to show whose doing their research. And who isnt. It's a crying shame. Hulk576 (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added a note to the article explaining why the 'average' figures are preferred over the 'peak' figure. Both figures are found in the same cited source for the 'Grand Totals'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses by Year" chart.

No source given. It requires one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I generated the chart in Excel using the yearly reports from the Watch Tower Society. Would it be suitable to cite it as something like Year Books of Jehovah’s Witnesses, [year range]? (Currently on mobile and don’t have the specifics to hand.) Otherwise feel free to remove.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is the source, it needs to explicitly state that it is the JW's own figures in the caption, as well as providing a proper reference.

Another point with the chart: it seems to be using two different scales for the data, which is rarely a good idea, and it isn't at all clear what the difference between 'memorial attendance' and 'memorial partakers' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump It's a jargon thing. People who partake in the memorial are considered to be of the 144,000 anointed who'll get to go to heaven, everyone else attends but doesn't partake. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The significance of memorial attendees versus partakers is explained at the more specific article, but it might be simpler to just remove the chart if it raises more questions than it answers for people not familiar with the subject.

(Also, the version currently on the article is an SVG format generated by someone else, based on the PNG image I originally provided.)—Jeffro77 (talk)

I have removed the chart from this article for now to avoid further confusion. If/when convenient, I might produce an alternative chart with clearer sourcing. (The existing chart is still present on a couple of related articles at this stage.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ordinary Witnesses no longer to report hours preached

It was announced today that starting Nov 1st, ordinary Witnesses will no longer be required to keep track of their hours. Here is the webpage (it is their "News" Page so is constantly being changed, so as a more stable source becomes available we will need to replace it. I have copied the entire announcement below and have updated the section, although I suspect there will need to be more fine tuning done soon. https://www.jw.org/en/news/

On October 7, 2023, at the annual meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the following exciting announcement was made. Beginning November 1, 2023, congregation publishers will no longer be asked to report the amount of time they spend in the ministry. Nor will publishers be asked to report their placements, the videos they show, or return visits. Instead, the field service report will simply have a box that allows each publisher to indicate that he or she shared in any form of the ministry during the month. There will be one more box where publishers can report the number of different Bible studies they conduct. Missionaries, circuit overseers and their wives, special pioneers, regular pioneers, and auxiliary pioneers will continue to report the number of hours they spend in the ministry, along with the number of different Bible studies they conduct. Further information about this adjustment will be provided to all congregations in the coming weeks.

Vyselink (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

We need secondary sources discussing such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's literally being reported today so unlikely to have any at the moment. And primary sources regarding changes to doctrine/beliefs are typically ok, especially initially. Vyselink (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok according to whom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Their change in policy about reporting 'preaching' falls well within that scope. However, the JW 'News' page is frequently updated, so a better source will still be required. Obviously a secondary source would be preferred.--Jeffro77 Talk 00:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but a person without 'specialised knowledge' would almost certainly be unfamiliar with the JW jargon in that announcement, and in no position to verify anything much without prior understanding of what the previous requirements were, and who they applied to. And covering the minutiae of what exactly JWs are or aren't expected to do, based on primary sources, is inappropriate anyway. We are supposed to base article content on secondary sources, and not on whatever their latest newsletter has to say.

I'll probably have more to say later on the subject of overuse of primary sources in this article later. Suffice to say, it is never appropriate to take statements regarding official policy as simple 'facts' regarding the actual practices or beliefs of the membership, as seems far too common in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive use of primary sources

This article relies excessively on citations to The Watchtower etc. Article content is supposed to be sourced to what uninvolved sources have to say on a subject, and not on what they have to say about themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I wrote this recently (not here), but I just wanted to say that I agree with you.

The article is simultaneously tagged for having a reliance on primary sources and listed as a GA. After taking a look at the GA criteria to refamilarize myself with it, would that count as a 2b or maybe even 2c issue? I'm basing that intrepretation more on the reliable aspect than the cited part because obviously there are cited sources. For the possible c issue, I think there may be valid synthesis concerns in combination with that? Ultimately, I think the easiest way to explain this might be to just illustrate what I mean by overreliance on primary sources. The article has a total of 435 cited references. The Watchtower is a publication that is produced by the religion itself; as well as anything cited to jw.org, the Watchtower Society, Insight on the Scriptures, Our Kingdom Ministry, etc. All of those sources combined is 168 of those 435 references.

We should address these concerns or start a GAR. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I will note that I have a massive book collection about JWs and that hopefully I can address our combined concerns within a reasonable timeframe? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I've little interest in the GA process, except in as much as it might in theory at least encourage better practice - I've seen too many questionable assessments to have much confidence in the rating. Instead, I'd simply suggest that per Wikipedia policy in general the article uses too many primary sources, does so in a manner that makes synthesis and undue emphasis more or less inevitable, and results in an article that treats the official publications of the denomination as sources of incontestable truth regarding what members actually think and do. This is unencyclopedic, and from the perspective of e.g. the social sciences, deeply flawed. Frankly, I doubt that the average GA reviewer is likely to pick up on this sort of issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well that's kind of why I asked about GAR in the first place. I don't really feel qualified to be making those sorts of calls because I've only really worked on one GA myself (Katherine Hughes (activist) and I've never tried to review one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: As for the official publications of the denomination being sources of incontestable truth of what JWs do and say... George Chryssides book Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction says this on page 13:

Since spreading divisive teachings is considered unacceptable, it is not so easy, although not completely impossible, to enscapsulate those who think differently from the organization's offfical teachings and policies. There is evidence that there exist those who question the Society's teachings on blood; there are waverers who are unsure of where they stand with regard to the organization; and there are those who are sometimes described, mainly by ex-members, as 'PIMOs' - Physically In, but Mentally Out - who remain inside the organization, with varying degrees of attendance and committment, but nonetheless remain inside, not wishing to lose contact with family and friends.

So even academic publications tend to equate official JW teachings with what JWs believe because there's severe consequences for leaving (à la judicial committee). There aren't really any visible equivalents to movements like Mormon feminism. Secondary sources are still greatly preferable given Wikipedia's content standards (and possible synth issues), I just felt like this might be useful context? I'd say situations where primary sources are way more unreliable would be situations like Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. I'd say the brief section on that here is better than the child article dedicated to it.

Are you okay if I keep asking for your opinion in regards to content? I think you're an experienced editor that offers a unique perspective because you aren't affiliated with the JWs in any capacity (I'm an ex-JW and this is a general purpose encyclopedia with content that needs to be as non-jargonny as possible). I know you said you don't have much confidence in the GA process but given your opinions on content quality I think you'd likely be a good GA reviewer in spirit if not officially? However, I realize I'm also asking for a decent time investment on your part for identifying such issues. If you're not interested, feel free to let me know. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: There's only so much bold editing I'm comfortable doing in one sitting, but I'd appreciate confirmation that my recent edits are going towards the direction you were hoping for? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

NHK Japan quote

I have deleted (see here) the addition of an article about JW abuse in Japan. The main problem is that the article does not mention child sexual abuse by the JW's, and therefore doesn't belong in the section on child abuse. It may very well belong elsewhere. (I noted in my edit summary that I was unsure of the website being a RS, but after doing a quick lookup it appears to be so) Vyselink (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not attaching the article on sexual abuse. I have attached two articles, which are written in Japanese, but from reliable sources.(The Asahi Shinbun and Daily Shincho) Supplere (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

I was hoping someone could add some additional details to the blood transfusion area. They forbid the transfusion of white blood cells, but allow eating of them. White blood cells exists in breast milk, cows milk. Etc. it's important context because they won't transfuse white blood cells to save life. But they will consume them. Many JWs are raised without education and do not know this. Do not know white blood cells exist in milk. It's an important edit and double standard to highlight. 2001:56A:7A84:F000:18F5:A2AD:9A5:952B (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, please propose what specific language you think should be added and where, and provide reliable sources, when starting discussion to reach consensus for this. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable source that specifically discusses JWs' acceptance of babies consuming white blood cells as a component of human breastmilk. It isn't sufficient to combine separate sources that say JWs do not allow consuming blood and other sources indicating that breastmilk contains white blood cells, as this would constitute synthesis.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Newly added content about Spain

Hi Natverber. I get that it sucks to be reverted but I have some concerns that I hope we can address and agree on? I don't speak Spanish so it's a bit harder for me to evaluate sources that aren't English or French. One of the first things I do when I see someone adding potentially controversial content to an article is to check if the cited source is used in this list. There's no mention of it there which is a good sign because it means other editors haven't had a discussion yet about whether or not it is a reliable source. My second step was to use my search engine to type the website's name in and... La Razón (Madrid) pops up. So that's another good sign. Widely circulated newspapers are much better than a blog or advocacy websites.

So my main questions so far are what exactly this court case is about. What did you mean by "a conviction was made against Jehovah's Witnesses after a trial in Spain?" Was it a Supreme Court Casen like the ones listed here and what lead to it? That's the sort of thing that would be a good idea to summarize before going into anything else. My other advice would be to be a bit more careful to phrase things more neutrally. So not saying stuff like The judge confirmed that Jehovah's Witnesses is a "destructive cult", and the former members are "victims", according to a ruling. As I said, I think the ideal approach would be to summarize the context of the case and then possibly give an attributed statement on the judge's decision. But again, this should all be described neutrally and based on the facts of the case. So we shouldn't be saying stuff like "the judge confirmed" and "former members are victims" as definitive statements in wikivoice.

I welcome your thoughts on all this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Clovermoss, thanks for your questions. I know it's controversial information, but it's true. That's what the court said. Now, there is a source with recent auto-translated information about the judge: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_zrXhLv9mw9FQspEd2xem4HVwN5z90xy/view , I hope it helps.

It wasn't the supreme court, it was the "COURT OF 1ST INSTANCE No 6 OF TORREJÓN DE ARDOZ". I fully agree, there are better options to put these sentences in a more "neutral" way.

It is a long list, but I have the following list with resources about this new trial information:

https://www.elmundo.es/papel/historias/2023/12/13/6579c34fe9cf4a80628b4589.html

https://cronicaglobal.elespanol.com/vida/20231213/la-justicia-asociacion-de-victimas-testigos-jehova/816918463_0.html

https://www.elnacional.cat/es/sociedad/jueza-madrid-sostiene-testigos-jehova-secta-exmiembros-victimas_1134891_102.html

https://www.abc.es/sociedad/calificar-secta-destructiva-testigos-jehova-amparado-libertad-20231214043758-nt.html

https://www.europapress.es/madrid/noticia-sentencia-determina-libertad-expresion-ampara-calificar-testigos-jehova-secta-destructiva-20231214115002.html

https://www.antena3.com/noticias/sociedad/testigos-jehova-son-secta-destructiva-segun-sentencia-tribunal_20231214657ae12829f3180001769e7d.html

https://www.larazon.es/sociedad/testigos-jehova-son-secta-destructiva-exintegrantes-victimas-segun-sentencia_20231214657b002bf03b8e0001ec1399.html

https://www.atresplayer.com/antena3/noticias/noticias-1/diciembre-2023/14-12-23-javier-esparza-tras-la-mocion-de-censura-pactada-entre-bildu-y-psn-no-se-como-no-vomita-por-las-noches_657b12bdc338b0e4bdad82f3/ minute 21.20

https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20231214/9450335/llamar-secta-destructiva-testigos-jehova-libertad-expresion-sentencia.html?home=ultima_hora

https://www.lavanguardia.com/nacional/20231214/9450373/justicia-califica-primera-vez-testigos-jehova-secta-destructiva-agenciaslv20231214.html

https://www.telecinco.es/noticias/sociedad/20231214/testigos-jehova-secta-exfieles-victimas-justicia-espana_18_011219277.html

https://elpais.com/sociedad/2023-12-14/la-libertad-de-expresion-ampara-calificar-a-los-testigos-de-jehova-de-secta-destructiva-segun-una-sentencia.html

https://www.lasexta.com/noticias/sociedad/justicia-califica-primera-vez-testigos-jehova-como-secta-destructiva_20231214657b203c29f3180001773c77.html?so=so&sour=twitter&cn=sextanoticias

https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5198906/0/jueza-considera-testigos-jehova/

We have time to digest and properly include the information where it's needed... and trying to put this as neutral as possible. But I think we'll need this information in the article..., to show that there are cases where there is a justified way to say that Jehovah Witness are a cult, at least from a Spanish legal point of view.

Thank you,

Natán Natverber (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if the court used words like "destructive cult", you should not use non-neutral language such as that the court "confirmed" that. Aside from that, the case may be notable, but certainly not notable enough for a lengthy consideration at the main JW article, which should instead just summarise aspects that are relevant to the section. More broadly, the material should not come across more as promoting the the goals and activities of that particular activist group, which seems like undue weight. (There are similar concerns with material you added at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses).--Jeffro77 Talk 08:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a neutral and brief summarization of the court case and its potential legal ramifications wouldn't nessecarily be undue here. If Spain has some legal definition of the word cult and a court of law has determined that Jehovah's Witnesses meet that definition, I think it'd actually be undue to omit that information. I don't think we have strong enough sourcing for a mention in the lead like what's at Scientology, but the section the content was originally in could work as long as it's phrased carefully. Natverber, do you think you could try to suggest some content like that on this talk page and we can hopefully all come to an agreement? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Clovermoss,

I can suggest something like:

In December 2023, a lawsuit filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses against the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses was dismissed. This lawsuit was filed because the religion considered that the association of victims included in its statutes "a series of offensive statements against the honor of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses and all its members". It also requested the elimination of the victims' association, registered in the National Registry of Associations in February 2020. The verdict on trial explains that the religion can be considered a "destructive sect" due to "excessive control" over their followers. The Jehovah's Witnesses, according to the ruling, are a "sect" due to their "insistence to know" all the details about the relationships of their followers and their "insistent supervision" of their private lives. They add that forcing their faithful not to have "a fluid relationship" with people who do not share their faith is "an isolation of social segregation" to keep them linked to the cult. The trial verdict explains the victims stated in court that they suffered "different damages" within the cult and also "sexual abuse or its cover-up". The judge considers it proven that the people who testified at the trial feel they are victims of the "parallel justice" of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

About Criticism, please also let's try to have a consensus about https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=1189993234 . I think in this page we can have a more extensive -and neutral- explanation about the situation. The trial verdict includes 74 pages of interesting information about the institution itself, from an institutional and also critic point of view.

Thanks, Natverber (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So, I think something like this might work better: In 2023, a lawsuit was filed against the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The suit alleged that the association promoted offensive statements about the organization and requested its removal from the National Registry of Associations. The lawsuit was dismissed, with the judge [name?] concluding that the Spanish Associations of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses were not acting in a defamatory manner. According to [the judge] Jehovah's Witnesses were considered under Spanish law to be a "destructive sect" due to having "excessive control" over its followers. @Jeffro77: Would you consider this phrasing to be alright, assuming I am not making any factual errors in regards to the content? I'd want to run this by an experienced editor whose actually fluent in Spanish to make sure I'm actually interpreting this right and not accidently engaging in original research. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss The statement "were considered under Spanish law to be a "destructive sect"" is not true as JW is one of the 8 religious confessions recognised and protected by Spanish law under the legal status called "notorio arraigo" (smth like notorious roots). Anyway it might be right to assume that this minor jurisdiction judge considers this to dismiss the lawsuit, but it is minor court and not a supreme or major court. So there hasn't been any legal status change in Spain. Actually, legal consequences are null (at least by now). It is a relevant information to be included of course, but considering Due and undue weight it is a matter of controversy, but not even a Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country. @Natverber should be aware that coordination efforts of placing same content, in a notorious and over-weighted way, in enwiki, eswiki and cawiki (as far as I know) could mean Conflict of Interest. On the other hand, the same user is the creator of recent translations of Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses to eswiki and cawiki in recent dates. In the cawiki discussion which is undertaken over this, the user argued cross-wiki arguments to hold his position. That is the reason why I try to explain clearly and fairly the real significance of this verdict, as any misunderstanding of these arguments will be used to hold same position in other wikis, under a Conflict of Interest position -from my point of view-. Thus, what the verdict says is that calling 'sect' to JW is not punishable under Spanish law, but not that JW is a "destructive sect" under Spanish law. -- Quetz72 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I tend to agree with Quetz72 about not giving unwarranted deference to the lower court's opinion of the denomination, particularly not in a way that gives a false implication of being case law. That is, leaving off the last sentence of your suggested wording. I'm also not sure that the opinion of the lower court rises to the notability of presenting on the main JW article, and instead would be more suitable at Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, though I already have concerns about undue weight regarding the activities of Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses at that article.

I also have some concerns that @Natverber: may be, or may be perceived as being, closely associated with Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Quetz72 for your analysis there. I really appreciate it. :) Same goes for Jeffro77's thoughts here. @Natverber:, could you please confirm whether or not you have a conflict of interest in regards to the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think the best place for content about this would likely be at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments, where a section for Spain could be added. Is everyone here alright with that? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss Agree. -- Quetz72 (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The information doesn’t seem to significantly indicate action by the government of Spain, so the Criticism article still seems the best place to me, though that could change if the case is brought to a Spanish Supreme Court. As it stands, the current situation appears to be that the denomination’s attempt to silence a small activist group was dismissed by a lower court, without any change to any legal status or precedent.—Jeffro77 Talk 00:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 Yes indeed. On the other hand, once conflict of interest has been recognised below by the user, additional former edits in the introduction of the main article [1][2] might be considered to be reviewed, as it changed considerably the NPOV of the article, making it undue weighted. At this point, I tend to agree with you that best place for this information is the Criticism article. -- Quetz72 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 I don't think that something has to be supreme Court worthy to be under the scope of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. It was a lawsuit filed by the Watchtower Society that was dismissed, even if it was by a lower court. If it's just meant to be about supreme court cases we already have Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If either litigant were a branch of government, it could still fall within the ‘governments’ article, but that is not the case here. It might be a different situation if Watch Tower filed suit against a Spanish government authority or if the outcome affected Spanish case law.—Jeffro77 Talk 03:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the litigant(s) have to be a branch of government because anything in a court of law is still an interaction between a nation involving Jehovah's Witnesses in some capacity. In my opinion, that's something that's noteworthy in itself. I'd say the same even if the lawsuit wasn't dismissed and the Watchtower's requests were granted. But it's possible my approach is just way more broad than yours. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello:

If you consider I might have conflict of interests on this area, I'm good to have peer review on the content. I'm a Spanish philosophy student used to academic reading and writing and I never included content w/o reference, but I can't deny I have special interest on Jehovah's Witnesses and recent critic activities.

Probably this link from gov web will help to consider the recent situation on court, and can also clarify the content of the trial: https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Noticias-Judiciales/Un-juzgado-de-Torrejon-de-Ardoz-desestima-la-demanda-de-la-organizacion-religiosa-Testigos-de-Jehova-por-vulneracion-del-derecho-al-honor

"The Court of First Instance No. 6 of Torrejón de Ardoz has dismissed in its entirety the lawsuit that the religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses filed against the Spanish Association of Victims of Jehovah's Witnesses (AEVTJ), for violation of the right to honor, in that requested that the association be eliminated, that its website be eliminated and that the comments and information that, in its opinion, the members of this association make public cease, for attacking the honor of the religious confession and its faithful and creating a great discredit.

The judge dismisses the claim, understanding that the statements, experiences and comments of the AEVTJ are protected by the right to freedom of expression and information, as it is a matter of general interest, and the requirements of veracity and proportionality and absence of injurious spirit are met. In her resolution, which is provided in the attached file, the magistrate protects the continuity of the association and declares the possibility of talking about sectarian practices in the organization of worship.

An appeal may be filed against the resolution before the Provincial Court of Madrid."

The name of the Judge is: Raquel Chacón Campollo, who recently moved to serve as a territorial judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-19360

About Notorio Arraigo, the trial sentence says, page 56 https://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/TRIBUNALES%20SUPERIORES%20DE%20JUSTICIA/TSJ%20Madrid/JURISPRUDENCIA/Sentencia%20Primera%20Instancia%20n%C2%BA%206%20Torrej%C3%B3n%20de%20Ardoz.pdf:

"The recognition of the “notorious roots” of the plaintiff confession does not weaken the veracity of the statements of all the former believers and of the Association that calls it a “sect”, an attribution made by numerous former members according to their own experiences because it is closely related to the behaviors criticized and that have been described, and there is no norm in our legal system that, once officially recognized as a religious confession, prevents criticizing this condition. Limiting the possibility of classifying a religion as a sect would be like preventing an atheist or agnostic person from declaring himself as such, intrinsically it consists of not believing in any of the existing religions and therefore whoever affirms his religious beliefs "would be lying or believing a lie"; and even if the existence of God were publicly denied and it was said that all religions are false, they are corporations, they are “the opium of the people” (a famous phrase of a former Soviet leader), etc. The right to honor and religious freedom would not be violated by the fact of not complying with the requirement of truthfulness by being officially recognized or constituted as religions, with or without notable roots. On many occasions, it has been said that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy, and it also has recognized “notorious roots.” About Scientology, “rivers of

ink” describing it as a “sect”, despite the fact that since 2007 it has been registered in the Registry of Religious Confessions of Spain. Because it is the majority in our country, the criticism made against the Catholic Church is also notorious, holder of the right to religious freedom rather than honor, often described as a political power rather than religion, without forgetting the initial accusations, already twenty years, of covering up sexual abuse within it, which concluded with a public request for forgiveness by its maximum leader, the Pope, and which still give rise to reports for compensation for the victims."

Thanks Natverber (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References

'PIMO'

I reverted this edit earlier but did not have an opportunity to elaborate. The 'PIMO' subculture isn't officially recognised as a disciplinary process or alternative to other disciplinary procedures, so it doesn't really belong in that section. I believe it was better suited where it was, as a response by individuals to work around the official systems that otherwise impact their freedom of thought and expression.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My thinking behind moving the text was when PIMOs are brought up, people act that way because they don't want to be shunned for officially leaving the religion... so the disciplinary process section made sense to me from that perspective. It's something people do to avoid that whole process, even if it doesn't always end up working sucessfully. I could probably phrase things better to make that clearer. I was also going to add some content in about the concept of fading later. But the whole point was that it wasn't officially recognized as a way to leave. Content about PIMOs and fading should go together, as I don't think fading wouldn't really work under free speech and thought, so my conclusion was to put it all together where it talks about shunning. I've restored the text to where it was before either of us moved it for now while hopefully we form some sort of consensus of where the content should actually be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I still think it is better suited to the section about freedom of thought. And I’m not keen on having it in a section where it could be construed as an official procedure. But maybe see what other editors think? I’ll be offline now for several hours at least anyway.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I don't have my heart set on it being moved. I'm willing to compromise and keep the text where it is. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All good. Happy to see what other editors say. It could also depend on the proposed content about 'fading' too.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It makes the most sense as the article currently stands to keep it in the free speech and thought section. It doesn't seem to fit in the discipline section to me, even with the proposed addition of fading material. I do have another suggestion, don't know if it would work or not, but why not add both it and fading under a new subsection in "Opposition"? While PIMO and fading aren't DIRECT opposition, they can be seen as silent opposition. As an example (although you wouldn't be able to source this so this is just an example) when I was doing my PhD I interviewed someone who was an elder in the JW's yet also wrote online articles about certain doctrines they disagreed with (under a pseudonym of course). A more overt silent opposition in this case. But anyway, just a thought. Vyselink (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Vaccinations

I want to write this new section after the section about Blood restrictions :

Vaccinations

Since 1952, Jehovah’s Witnesses accept vaccination and other medical treatments : it is a personal decision Between 2021 and 2024 the governing body pushed for Jehovah's Witnesses to be vaccinated against Covid-19. This caused many divisions within the congregations .

Kinek (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kinek. I don't think this would be a very good idea because as an encyclopedia, we're meant to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. There are extensive sources out there talking about JW beliefs in regards to blood transfusions, but not in regards to vaccinations as far as I can tell. Unless you're seeing something I'm not? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

During the COVID pandemic, information from the Watch Tower Society about vaccinations simple echoed mainstream medical advice and was not remarkable. Claims to the contrary are generally from the ‘anti-vaxxer movement’, which is a fringe view that should not be promoted here.—Jeffro77 Talk 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

While I doubt it's on either @Clovermoss: or @Jeffro77:'s radar, there was a book published by Bloomsbury that had an article on the JW response to Covid, although I don't remember if it specifically had anything on vaccinations:

Chu,Jolene "When 'No resident will say: "I am sick"' The global religious response of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Covid-19 Pandemic" in "The Covid Pandemic and the World's Religions", ed. George D. Chryssides & Dan Cohn-Sherbok (London: Bloomsbury, 2023) pages 185-192.

I read it when it first came out last year, and happened to have the copy next to me when I saw this. I will look through it to see if there is anything of use. In general, I think the JW's response to Covid might be notable as long as it's from a RS, which I believe this would qualify as. I'll add some more thoughts here regarding if I think the article had anything worthwhile to say when I get a chance to read it again. There is actually another article on the JW's in the book as well, Perkins, Gary How one Jehovah's Witness community negotiated the ride of the 'pale horse' (pages 193-200). I'll take a look at that one as well. Vyselink (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There may be suitable information about the denomination’s response to the pandemic, such as changing to Zoom meetings etc (if covered in reliable secondary sources), but this isn’t the place for anti-vaxer nonsense, which was the original intent of this thread.—Jeffro77 Talk 09:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is important information because Jehovah's Witnesses have always allowed free choice in medical treatments except for blood. So this information is very important within the movement. Many Jehovah's Witnesses left following this episode. We need to get away from the provax/antivax divide and open our minds a little. Kinek (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Watch Tower Society literature has previously spoken against vaccinations, and organ transplants were previously also considered cannibalism in their literature, so the claim that JWs have previously been given free medical decisions aside from blood is obviously false. Beyond that, present reliable sources for the content you wish to add. Not anecdotes and fringe beliefs about vaccination.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

My writing "Since 1952" so it is. You are bothered because we are talking about vaccination and you have probably positioned yourself for or against it. That's not the question. The question is: the behavior of the Governing Body (which is autocratic and totalitarian) has caused divisions, the referenced testimonies show this. Kinek (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As previously stated, provide suitable sources for the content you wish the article to present. Apart from some JW sources that reflect mainstream medical recommendations, the one source you have provided is anecdotal and does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. In addition to the fact that the ‘testimonies’ are anecdotal, anonymous, and lacking any medical expertise, there’s only about 20 on the site out of a denomination with millions of members, and as such is not particularly compelling evidence of widespread ‘divisions’. Your intention seems to be about righting great wrongs rather than providing encyclopaedic information. Your opinion about whether or how I am ‘bothered’ is also an irrelevant distraction.—Jeffro77 Talk 09:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories

I have updated the categories to properly reflect the fact that the Bible Student movement is related to the background of Jehovah's Witnesses, and that the JW denomination itself was formalised in 1931.

Jehovah's Witnesses is not synonymous with either Bible Students (of which there are also other denominations apart from JWs), nor Watch Tower Society (which is a corporation that began after the Bible Student movement began and before the existence of the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination).--Jeffro77 Talk 01:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

New shunning practices?

Hi ShaunRex. I tried again and the link did work, so apologies for that. I'm on my phone right now so I'm guessing I accidently copied something beyond the URL for it to be an error? Anyways, I'm looking at it now. I'm not going to edit war so since my changes are contentious we can discuss it. Give me about an hour or so to look at this and to do some digging. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I should mention that I don't like that this topic area in general has a reliance on primary sources and that's something I've been trying to remedy. Articles should be summarizing what what reliable sources have to say about a subject. But that's a conversation for another day. Anyways, I have taken a look, as promised. It doesn't like he gets around to explaining what changes with this "new arrangement" until the 7:07 timestamp [13].

These changes appear to be: elders will now meet with someone multiple times before a judicial committee, baptized minors can now have their parents come with them to a judicial committee, there is now a reminder that you meet with the elders again after a few months, and former members are going to be reminded that it is possible to be reinstated. 12:25 reemphasizes that socialization with former members is forbidden but current JWs are now allowed to invite former members to the Kingdom Hall and it is now allowed for current members to use their conscience to decide if they wish to greet former members within that context. Socializing and "extended conversation" is still not allowed, even at the Kingdom Hall. So it seems like the ability to say hi is essentially the only thing that has changed in regards to contacting former members. And this exemption for saying hi doesn't apply if you're a known apostate.

So, I'd say that changing Limited communication with shunned individuals is left as a conscience matter if they are not deemed as apostates to Limited communication by members with shunned individuals such as a greeting or inviting them to congregation meetings is left as a conscience matter if they are not deemed as apostates is less misleading, so thank you for doing that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 governing body update #2, some changes were announced on how shunned individuals are treated. I thought it was worth mentioning as previously members were not ever allowed to utter a word to expelled ones. An editor reverted it stating it was a PR announcement. But that is irrelevant, same as the fuss it created on ex-jw and "PIMO" forums. I thought it is a significant change worth mentioning.  ShaunRex (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@ShaunRex: This is what a diff looks like: [14] If you want to know how to create these links, read this page. My initial reaction had more to do with me reaccessing the content we currently have about shunning and trying to think about what might be done to improve it. I've spent the afternoon looking at possible sources and have found quotes like this Even then, Lopes added, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t force members to limit or cease association with former congregants, whether they’ve been disfellowshipped or withdrawn voluntarily — that’s up to individuals. [15] That's what I was talking about in regards to PR and I was a bit worried that something like that may be what was going on here. It's what prompted my initial skeptical reaction. Obviously that sort of statement is inaccurate and it's what I was thinking of when I wrote that. All that said, your current version of the text is currently in the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I was surprised you didn't knew about the change as most editors I've seen here are former members usually and they are typically updated on everything happening. I understand you were not aware of the change in doctrine. Thanks ShaunRex (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am indeed a former member (I haven't been a JW since I was 13 and that was 8 years ago) but I don't think it's all that surprising I didn't realize they made some slight modifications to the shunning practice in the last month. A month is really nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's also not like I've had anyone suddenly invite me to a Kingdom Hall, given I'm a known apostate and all. Anyways, I've changed the phrasing to a bit more precise and to indicate that this a change from how it is been [16]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The jargon term 'conscience matter' should be avoided. Also, the updated rules about shunning specify only that disfellowshipped individuals (if not considered to be 'apostates') can be invited to meetings or offered brief greetings at meetings. Those conditions were not offered simply as 'examples' of more broad communication that is now permitted, and the new announcement specifically included that JWs are still not to socialise with expelled individuals. I have amended the wording accordingly. I have also restored cited material that was deleted but that is not superseded by the new changes.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought that In 2024, limited communication by members with shunned individuals that are not apostates was no longer prohibited, as long as it within the context of inviting them to congregation meetings or a brief greeting [17] made it clear that other changes weren't happening and extended socialization wasn't allowed. I'm not that picky with how it's phrased though and I don't really have any issues with your changes there. My removal of the other content wasn't because anything has changed but because it's synthesis. [18] It says Witnesses are taught that avoiding social and spiritual interaction with disfellowshipped people keeps the congregation free from immoral influence and while that is true, the source provided to make these claims doesn't really support it without introducing synthesis. I thought I had taken care of all these JWS believes/are taught such and such claims when I removed the citations to more than 100 primary sources months ago, either replacing them with stronger sourcing or removing them entirely. I suppose I must have missed this one back then. I'm at a friend's right now but when I'm back home I'll take a look at my Chryssides book again. There's probably something in there about shunning I can use. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I made the wording consistent across a few articles, and the other articles had wording that made it seem like those were just 'examples' (with the words "such as") of permitted communication. I have also fixed the month now on the other articles, thanks for picking that up. If there were other concerns regarding the other removal, then I don't have an issue in that case.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Background (1870–1916)

I'm wary that so much of this section is based on 20th-century sources. Are there two or three books about the history of Jehovah's Witnesses that were written in this century? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the first two paragraphs are really needed in this article at all (as opposed to the biography of Russell). It seems like the background could start in 1879 with some variation of "In 1879, minister Charles Taze Russell began publishing Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence...". I wonder how RS frame it, i.e. when they start the story of the history of JW, and what pre-1879 details are most often mentioned. Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

... mainstream Christianity's tenets, including immortality of the soul, hellfire, predestination, the fleshly return of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the burning up of the world.

• Why say "hellfire" instead of just "Hell"? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• I assume "fleshly" is an important word in "fleshly return of Jesus Christ" but I'm not sure what that means? That the Second Coming will be a physical return and not just a spiritual one? Is there a word for that theory/belief, or an article to link to? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• It's unclear whether "burning up of the world" is just a way of saying Armageddon or if it's is referring to some specific aspect of Armageddon or something else. Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In 1876, he met Nelson H. Barbour. Later that year they jointly produced the book Three Worlds, which combined restitutionist views with end time prophecy ... Beginning in 1878, Russell and Barbour jointly edited a religious magazine, Herald of the Morning. It's unclear what Barbour or his joint publications with Russell have to do with JW, or what is the significance of this for JW? AFAICT these are the only two lines where Barbour is mentioned in this article. Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In 1881, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was presided over by William Henry Conley, and in 1884, Russell incorporated the society as a nonprofit business to distribute tracts and Bibles. Does it matter, for understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (as opposed to an article about The Watchtower or Bible Student movement), who presided over Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881, or in what year it was incorporated as a nonprofit? Don't other details matter more, like when and where it was founded? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

colporteurs ... "pilgrims", or traveling preachers I like the way "pilgrims" is defined inline, and I think "colporteurs" should be too (maybe "'colporteurs', or distributors"?). Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reorganization (1917–1942)

The article doesn't actually say that Russell was president from 1884 until (I presume) his death in 1916. Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the first three paragraphs of the section could be combined and shortened by about half by removing some of the detail and focusing on the big picture, e.g. Rutherford became president, made significant changes, there were internal divisions, the publication of The Finished Mystery and sedition charges, the early unfulfilled predictions, the defections. It seems like maybe 1917-1920 could be handled in one paragraph, and 1920-1930 in a second paragraph, and the third paragraph would pick up in 1931. Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Because of disappointment over the changes and unfulfilled predictions ... by mid-1919 ... The article doesn't mention any unfulfilled predictions prior to 1925. It doesn't seem to cover what's in Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions#1918: The new terminus, and probably should? Were there unfulfilled predictions, plural, prior to 1919, or just one? Was 1925 the second unfulfilled prediction, or were there more than two up to that point? Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

...introduced the new name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10...

• The Isaiah quote sort of explains what "Witnesses" means, but not exactly, because insofar as Isaiah 43:10 says "Ye are my witnesses ... and my servant", it doesn't explain why they went with "Jehovah's Witnesses" and not "Jehovah's Servants." There must be some reason, some meaning, behind the choice of "witnesses" and not any of the many other words they could have gone with, like "servants," "followers," "flock," "children," etc. etc. Is it "Witnesses" just to be different, like a marketing strategy, or was there a theological reason for calling themselves "Witnesses" and not another name? Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• The article continues, The name was chosen to distinguish his group of Bible Students from other independent groups that had severed ties with the Society ..., does the mean other groups were called, like "Jehovah's Servants" and "Jehovah's Followers"? Or "Yahweh's Witnesses" and "God's Witnesses"? Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• ... as well as to symbolize the instigation of new outlooks and the promotion of fresh evangelizing methods. My uninformed layperson's understanding is that both the "Jehovah" and the "Witnesses" in "Jehovah's Witnesses" signified novel approaches to Christian worship. What was so novel about it? What were the old outlooks and old evangelizing methods that JW differentiated from? Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• This brings me to "Jehovah." I'm surprised at how little Jehovah's Witnesses#Jehovah says on the subject, really just one sentence ("Jehovah's Witnesses emphasize the use of God's name, and they prefer the form Jehovah—a vocalization of God's name based on the Tetragrammaton."). And nothing is really said in this History section about why Rutherford chose "Jehovah" and not "Yahweh's Witnesses" or "The Lord's Witnesses" or even "Christ's Witnesses." I presume that part of the significance was to focus on God and not on the Son (in contrast to groups that name themselves things like "Church of Jesus"). I presume it's not "Yahweh" in order to distinguish from Judaism. Same question as with Witnesses: is it "Jehovah" just to be different for the sake of being different, like a marketing strategy, or was there a theological reason for calling God "Jehovah" and not by another name? Was it rebellion against Christians/Jews who avoid saying God's name ("G-d")? Or was "Jehovah" not novel at the time, and it's just what everyone in the US called God back then? The Isaiah 43:10 quote doesn't explain "Jehovah." Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

By the mid-1930s, the timing of the beginning of Christ's presence (Greek: parousía), his enthronement as king, and the start of the last days were each moved to 1914. I think the article should explain why. What hadn't happened by the mid-1930s that was supposed to happen already? Also, was this more "unfulfilled prophecies" and how did the church explain these apparent errors? Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As their interpretations of the Bible evolved, Witness publications decreed that saluting national flags is a form of idolatry, which led to a new outbreak of mob violence and government opposition in the U.S., Canada, Germany, and other countries. Seems like this should be expanded. I'm surprised the public persecution of JW's in the 1910s and 1930s get only one sentence each, whereas there is a lot more detail in this article about the biographies of Russell and Rutherford. It reads like "great man history," focusing too much on these two individual leaders. I haven't read the sources so maybe I'm misunderstanding, but surely the persecution of JWs in their early history significantly influenced JW's development? If so, the article should probably explain in the history section how those persecutions influenced the church. Levivich (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued development (1942–present)

The first paragraph about Knorr is about what I'd consider the "right" length/detail for summarizing a presidency. I could see Russel and Rutherford getting two paragraphs each maybe, on the assumption they were more significant to JW's history. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely there's something to say about JW during WWII (especially given the significance of WWI on JW history)? Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

From 1966, Witness publications and convention talks built anticipation of the possibility that Christ's thousand-year reign might begin in 1975 or shortly thereafter. Why? What happened in 1966 or the early 1960s that led to this? Also, what about the earlier predictions of when the reign would begin? I think the article would benefit from some expansion that linked the 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918 and 1925 predictions to the 1975 one. One lingering question is: people aren't that stupid, there must have been some kind of plausible explanation that JW's believed in that explained why the prior predictions did not come to pass. The obvious question being: why would anyone follow a religion that had a string of unfulfilled predictions? And even if they did, why would they keep making predictions? I think answering those questions would help explain JWs to the reader, to help the reader understand JWs and their worldview. People didn't/don't have faith because they're stupid or crazy; from their POV, there are good reasons to believe; what were they? Membership declined during the late 1970s after expectations for 1975 were unfulfilled. But it didn't entirely die out, JW lived on. Why? Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In a major organizational overhaul in 1976, the power of the Watch Tower Society president was diminished, with authority for doctrinal and organizational decisions passed to the Governing Body. Because of the unfulfilled predictions? Is this reform (part of) the reason why JW didn't entirely die out, part of the reason some stayed? Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Since Knorr's death in 1977, the presidency has been held by Frederick Franz, Milton Henschel, Don Alden Adams and Robert Ciranko. And not one of them did anything worth mentioning? :-) Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In 1995, Jehovah's Witnesses abandoned the idea that Armageddon must occur during the lives of the generation that was alive in 1914. Yet again, after the 1975 unfulfilled prediction, and the reforms that followed it. Same questions: how did JW explain this? Did people leave as they had done in previous rounds, and for those who stayed, why did they stay? Were there other reforms in the 1990s as a result of unfulfilled predictions? Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In 2023, the Watch Tower Society announced that most Jehovah's Witness members would no longer be required to report the number of hours spent proselytizing. If this was significant, why? If it's trivia, perhaps it should be removed or moved to some sub-article. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Overall, it seems like 1942-1975 could be one section, and 1975-present might be worth expanding into a new section. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll stop here for now so as not to overwhelm the page. Levivich (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through all of these details, and I suspect most others don't either. Perhaps if you pick what you think to be the most significant issue, and start a section with just that for discussion. Once that has some kind of resolution we can move on to other matters in turn.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually asked for detailed feedback. This is quite a chunk to work with before moving on to more, but I actually am interested in this and think it's valuable. Especially if we're going to get the article to FA status eventually. It might take me awhile to actually try to address all this but I think it's worth the effort and it's good to have long term goals. Levivich already said that they're stopping here for now and I don't see an issue with that at all. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t suggest that it’s not interesting or valuable. Details will easily be lost if too many points across various issues are raised at once. It is also less likely that as many editors will get involved in discussing issues raised in this manner rather than individually.—Jeffro77 Talk

Jesus-Archangel Michael Parallel

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus Christ Preexisting Carnation was as the Archangel Michael. Prophet Michael, God's Disciple (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup. And? What suggested change are you making? Vyselink (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Jesus born

I didn't found in the article, are they belive jesus born from a virgin or not? Wikipme31 (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipme31: Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin. Where they vary from some other denominations is that they believe Mary and Joseph had biological children after Jesus' birth. I'll double check if any of this is in the article but if it's not, it might be an ommission that's worth remedying. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Updated with content adapted from Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. I'm not sure it's necessary to elaborate at this main article about Jesus purportedly having 'half-siblings'. Possibly something that could be mentioned at the other article, though I'm in two minds about whether it is getting into unnecessary minutia there.--Jeffro77 Talk 05:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like I edit conflicted with you just now [19]. I think I have the stronger sourcing here but I'm willing to listen if you think your version of the text is better. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

What you have added is better.-Jeffro77 Talk 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The citation error is related to the {{sfn}} template rather than the other citation to which you added the edition. When there is more than one source with the same author name, you need to include the year in the sfn citation. It is not clear which of Chryssides' works is being cited, so I'm not sure which year to add to the citation to fix.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. I think I've fixed it now [20]. I was citing the New Introduction book there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

Noting that I have boldly removed the content cited exclusively to primary sources in the disciplinary action section because WP:SECONDARY states Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead feedback

Hi @Clovermoss. I still haven't had a chance to look at the whole article yet and probably won't have a serious chunk of time for another couple of weeks still, but I did have some time to look at the lead --really just the first paragraph of the lead -- and figured I'd post my thoughts here while they're fresh. First--good job, this is clearly a high-quality article and you (and others) have obviously put a lot of work into it! I'm going to focus on what I think could be improved, and I hope I don't come across as too critical, because this article is great. (Also, I'm going to do the GA/FA thing of signing each section so you can respond inline.) Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I don't know if it's Wikipedia policy or anything, but my feelings are that the first sentence of any article should tell the reader what the topic is, with the assumption that the reader (I imagine the target audience to be a secondary school student, so a teenager) knows absolutely nothing about the topic. So that means, in my opinion, the first sentence should have almost no jargon or unfamiliar words.

"Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian, millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination" is a great first sentence for an academic work, but I think it's too high-level for a Wikipedia article. Someone who doesn't know what JW is, is unlikely to know what the words nontrinitarian, millenarian, or restorationist mean -- whereas, if you were writing an academic paper for a scholarly journal, these terms would be familiar to your readers. The teenage high school student would have to click on those three links to learn what those three terms are before they would understand the first sentence. I don't think it's good to have a first sentence that requires the reader to read other articles in order to understand it. I get that those are important features of JW, important enough for the lead, but I would introduce them somewhere later in the lead (and possibly include some kind of in-line description so that people can understand what they mean without even having to click on the articles). Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Re your comments on the first sentence below: hmm, if it is standard, I think that standard should change :-) I approach the first sentence as: if you had to explain to somebody what something was and you only had one sentence to do it, what would that sentence be? For example, for LDS, I would say "LDS is a Christian denomination founded in 1830 that follows the Book of Mormon" or something like that, as a first sentence. For Shaker, I would say "a sect of Quakers founded in the 18th century that believed in celibacy and are now almost extinct." In both cases, I feel like if you don't tell the reader that LDS follows the Book of Mormon, or that Shakers are almost extinct because of the celibacy thing, you haven't really told the reader "the most important thing" about the topic. In none of the three cases would I think that their being millenarian or restorationist or nontrinitarian is "the most important thing" -- because those aspects aren't unique to those groups. Or another way I look at it: no two articles should have the same first sentence. So if "is a nontrinitarian, millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination" is a sentence that applies to any other group besides JW, then that means two articles could have the same first sentence, which means it's not an ideal first sentence.

It sounds like of those three aspects, millenarian may be the most distinguishing feature? And nontrinitarian second-most?

In terms of what I would write instead, I think I'd favor placing the topic temporally and geographically: "JW is Christian denomination founded in the United States in the late 19th century..." maybe followed by "that believes the destruction of the world is imminent" or "that believes Armageddon is imminent" or you could throw in "millenarianism" there instead ("is a millenarian Christian denomination founded in the US in the late 19th c." would only have one jargon word in it). Then in the rest of the first paragraph, maybe starting in the second sentence, talk about nontrinitarian and restorationist? Levivich (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take what you said into consideration. Jehovah's Witnesses can also be classified as a new religious movement, but that term might be hard to explain without further background. I think such content would likely be better suited elsewhere, especially since we're trying to avoid jargon. Something along the lines of what you suggested doesn't sound bad; however, I'm a bit hesitant to try and change the first sentence when it's been the way it has been for years. I will think on all this and hopefully that will help my indecisiveness. Alternatively, feel free to be bold if you feel confident about the phrasing! Anyways, I wanted to say that I'm going to be busy for the next week IRL so it's possible I might become a bit behind on addressing your feedback. If that happens, I wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't ignoring you! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In principle, I don't see a problem with reviewing what is presented in the first sentence. But it isn't necessary for the first sentence to present a perfectly unique description of the subject of the article or to cram in as much detail as possible. In particular, MOS:FIRST says, "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject". Deciding what would be "the most important thing" about the denomination sounds particularly subjective, which could be a red flag, and it also isn't necessary to put the most sensational aspects in the first sentence. If I were to drop one word from the current first sentence, it would be "millenarian" as the least common of the descriptors..--Jeffro77 Talk 08:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible lead changes are something that can be reviewed later if now isn't the best time. I don't think Levivich's intent was to sensationalize things at all. I think it's possible to create a first sentence that is not a bunch of jargon aimed at people interested in theological differences and is relatively succinct about what Jehovah's Witnesses are. All that said, none of this has to be decided right this second. We could talk about proposed changes before implementation? Anyways Lev, we can always come back to this later if you want to provide other feedback about the article when you have the time. I personally like the idea of a structured checklist of things to consider before properly considering FAC one day. I like the subsections and think they'd complement that sort of thing well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Jehovah and Witnesses

I think the reader needs to be told who Jehovah is, and what it means to witness, or to be a Witness, in this context. This would be familiar to Christians, but I don't think non-Christians will even know that Jehovah is God or that bearing witness to God is something different from witnessing a crime (and they wouldn't learn that from reading the Wikipedia article on witness, which doesn't cover the religious usage of the term). I think this is worth explaining in the lead, maybe in the first paragraph. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Distinguishing features

What distinguishes JW from other Christian denominations? For example, Mormons have the Book of Mormon, Pentacostals speak in tongues, Baptists practice believer's baptism... off the top of my head, these are examples of distinguishing characteristics of denominations. What about JW? Is nontrinitarianism unique or unusual among Christian denominations? It seems to me that millenarianism is common to all/most Christian denominations? And there are certainly many restorationist denominations. So these are characteristics, and used in the categorization of denominations (right?), but are they unique characteristics? Same for the line, "the destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent, and the establishment of God's kingdom over earth is the only solution to all of humanity's problems" -- is that unique to JW or is that something that more or less all Christians believe? So I wonder if the unique characteristics should be mentioned early (first paragraph?), and the other categorizations mentioned later? Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, nontrinitarianism is unusual among Christian denominations to the extent that most established denominations consider nontrinitarianism deeply heretical. 2A0A:EF40:E05:C701:388F:B266:9B6D:13B7 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Shunning

Is shunning one of the unique characteristics of JW, or is that a common practice in Christian churches? (I don't know the answer.) I question whether it's so important to JW that it's worth an entire paragraph in the lead (certainly worth being covered in detail in the body). Perhaps it is important enough to be worth some detailed discussion in the lead, I'm just not sure what RS say about it. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

OK that's all I have for now. Cheers! Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thanks for taking a look. I think it's important to have someone that's not familiar with JWs but is an experienced Wikipedian share their thoughts about the article as a whole. It's an important perspective to have. So for the first sentence, I'm not sure what would work better. It seems to be pretty standard for articles to start like that? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints starts with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informally known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a restorationist, nontrinitarian Christian denomination that is the largest denomination in the Latter Day Saint movement. Shakers says The United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing, more commonly known as the Shakers, are a millenarian restorationist Christian sect founded c. 1747 in England and then organized in the United States in the 1780s. (That probably shouldn't have the word sect in it). Do you have some idea of what you think would work better? As for what "Jehovah witness" means... there's some further explanation at that in history. There probably should be something brief in the lead about the Bible students and how Jehovah's Witnesses per se weren't a thing until Rutherford chose the name in 1931. There should also probably be something (maybe not the lead, but somewhere) about how Jehovah's Witnesses use the terms "God" and "Jehovah" but believe Jehovah to be God's personal name and use it frequently.

For distinguishing features, Jehovah's Witnesses really do place an emphasis on the end times. I suppose to some extent that's normal for Christians, but it's the main focus of their preaching work, so that's probably why it's there. The imminent threat of Armageddon is why they're knocking on doors trying to spread the "good news". There is Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions (that should probably be a list article), but the organization hasn't made any specific claims regarding when the end is happening since 1975 (when a bunch of the faithful sold their houses etc). Other than that, JWs are mostly known for what they don't do/believe, which the second paragraph of the lead summarizes quite well.

I do think it's important that shunning is in the lead somewhere although upon reflection I definitely agree that it should be trimmed. But it's an essential part of the faith and it's also something that counts as different. It's comparable to Scientology's disconnection in that former members are not supposed to have any contact whatsoever with current ones (with the exception of elder visits and the expectation of attending meetings while ostracized). It's definitely distinguishing compared to other denominations, look at how CBC describes it as a rare practice used by few groups [21]. There is an article for this in itself (Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline) but there's a reliance on primary sources there (apart from in the criticism and legality sections). It's definitely something that is talked about in reliable sources, though. There's the journal refs already listed in the lead and also further background at Jehovah's Witnesses#Disciplinary action. There's also [22][23][24] among countless others. I don't wish to bombard you with links but if you want to see more, feel free to ask. All that said, I've trimmed the lead to be a bit more proportional. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed upon a reread of everything that Rutherford and the 1931 date is mentioned in paragraph two, so please forgive me for overlooking that and saying there should be something about that in there. So, I'm thinking that the content we do have on shunning (which may need to be trimmed further?) should be moved to be with the last paragraph. The transition is less jarring there then with the paragraph that starts by saying The denomination is directed by a group of elders known as the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which establishes all doctrines. I'm thinking that maybe that paragraph would best suited to summarizing some of what's in the beliefs section? It'd flow together better, at the very least. I appreciate your insight on the lead so far, it's just that I think it's hard to improve the lead without looking at the article as a whole and trying to summarize it.

I like your idea about ticking things off like a GA/FA review. I know you're not officially reviewing anything but I do want to eventually try and make this an FA someday and I'd feel a lot more confident trying to start that process after you've analyzed everything. I really do mean what I said about how you have an amazing eye for detail. It also really does help to have a non-JW/average reader perspective because that is the target audience. :) I don't mind that you won't have serious chunks of time for another few weeks, take as much time as you need. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to reply about the first sentence up in the first sentence part, just leaving a note here to that effect. Levivich (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm also noting I haven't forgotten about this Levivich. I'm just focusing my efforts on improving the rest of the article before paying special attention to the lead in particular because it's supposed to summarize everything else. Recent discussions at the LDS article have definitely convinced me that there's a better way to do this. I also have some stuff in my sandbox surrounding my general approach here. I'm hoping to eventually get this article to a state where I can bring it to FAC and that's going to take a lot of work. I'm trying to tackle things as they come to mind while also doing obvious stuff like removing primary sources. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Collaboration

@Kingoflettuce: Once I'm more awake, I'll dig out my books and tell you what I have (like I agreed to do at Wikimania). I was wondering what "author mask" does [25]? Would you mind explaining to me why you did that and why it's useful? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, when there are multiple entries in a bibliography by the same author, the common practice (I think) is to replace the author's name with some kind of dash for the subsequent entries, so that the list doesn't end up becoming too repetitive. Rest well! 😂 KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Here you changed the number of questions [26]. Given that it's the same author, I think the newer sourcing and previous phrasing should be used. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I have no issues with it. The reader is left to assume that the other questions are about the person's lifestyle which is something the author doesn't elaborate on in the later source (likely because it's meant to be an introduction). I'm going to get some good sleep though because I haven't really done that since I got home. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Likewise! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 06:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Norway

@Jeffro77: In this edit summary [27] you wrote that a government not giving free money to a religious group for breaching specific conditions is not 'persecution'; neither of the cited sources call the deregistration 'persecution', and the 'deregistration' is not a ban on their activities; neither source says all other religious groups in Norway applied for or receive grants. Other religious groups don't apply for grants because the status that the Witnesses lost automatically gives this additional funding to religious communities. JWs are the only group to not get this funding and the sources cited do indeed verify this. Anyways, I agree that the "persecution" label is not the best, which is why I've renamed the section to "government interactions". Many legal battles involving the Witnesses are complicated and I think that's a more neutral section heading. It also works well with my plans to expand country-specific legal histories (Canada had a case involving disfellowshipping but they came to a different conclusion, for example). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC), edited to strike incorrect assertion Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I also added this [28] to clarify why the director of that human rights organization believes this to be interfering with the religious freedom of the Witnesses. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not the case that all religious communities in Norway automatically receive government grants. Only those that apply (annually) receive grants, and of those, JWs are the only ones who have been refused (according to the cited source, though it is incorrect), and they were refused because they failed to meet specific requirements for receiving the grants rather than some arbitrary 'persecution'. It is misleading to say JWs are the "only group" to be treated this way, as there are other groups in Norway that do not receive grants because they have not applied for them. Additionally, other organisations that have received grants have also had them suspended.[29]

Section 10 of the relevant legislation (translated) says: "No one may employ improper arguments, promises or threats or proceed by other questionable means for the purpose of persuading another person to join or resign from a religious community." Jehovah's Witnesses' shunning practices fail that requirement.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

(The change of the section name away from 'Persecution' is a definite improvement. It gets murky when anything not in the interests of the denomination gets conflated with legitimate descriptions of actual persecution.)--Jeffro77 Talk 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I recently changed the text to read:

In 2023, when Jehovah's Witnesses lost their status as a religious community due to their shunning practice, they also lost the right to perform civil marriages. The case has been appealed. Witnesses are the only religious group to have lost their status in the country, which prevents them from accessing 1.3 million euros in state subsidies annually. The director of Human Rights Without Frontiers believes that by deregistering the Witnesses, Norway is interfering with the group's religious freedom. Other academics disagree with this interpretation.

The source you bring up here is about bible schools, care homes, and an abortion organization losing their grants, which is not the same as deregistering an entire religious community. The source I cited supports what I've written (quote: "According to experts, this is the first time a faith community lost its legal position in Norway"). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology does not receive grants as a religious organisation in Norway.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Were they given status as a religious community and then deregistered? If so, do you have a reliable source that supports this claim? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It is mincing words to say JWs are the only group to have 'lost their status', as it omits that there are other religious groups that have not applied, or have been refused registration in the first instance. This leaves the article falsely implying that all religious organisations except JWs receive government grants.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll seek a third opinion here, then. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: The edit presented by Clovermoss is pretty close to what the cited sources says. I might omit the claim that this is the first time a faith community lost its legal position in Norway. In the article that claim comes from the JW and it's attributed to them. If it is going to be mentioned here is should be attributed to them and not the Wiki voice. The rest of that quote is a reasonable reflection of the cited source and I don't see a valid argument against included it. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Could you clarify why you think that claim is attributed to the JWs? As far as I can tell, that's not the case. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The article that's cited[30] says: According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are the first religious group to lose their national registration in Norway. Nemov (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: That's not the cited source. It's ref #202 in the Norway section [31] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional source. I'd still lean no on that claim unless there's better or additional sourcing. Nemov (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: It's not an additional source, it's literally what's been cited in the article since I added the text. I'm not sure why you think the source you linked is the one that was being cited. Is there any reason you don't think it's adequate? It mentions that JWs were the first to lose their status more than once and doesn't say "according to JWs". The US government report also states that Norway deregistered the Witnesses [32] (another source that has been present since I added this text). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I accidently clicked on citation 200 instead of 202, but 200 mentions that the claim comes from the JW and 202 says "experts" whatever that means. The claim that the JW are "the group to lose registration in Norway" isn't really that important and I'm not sure it's true based on these two sources. Nemov (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: You don't think a US government report on religious freedom is significant enough? There's also this piece from a magazine. I'm not strongly tied to the phrasing of "first" but several reliable sources support the fact that Norway lost its status as a faith community. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I agree with you about losing the status. That's perfectly fine. My only objection was to the claim of the JW being the "first." Nemov (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Okay, noted. Are you fine with the text present here? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's good! Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: My objection to the edit was regarding the assertion that JWs are the 'first' or 'only' group to be refused registration (which is distinct from being the first to be deregistered), along with any false implication that JWs are 'the only religious organisation in Norway that doesn't receive government subsidies'. The current wording is therefore fine. Apart from that, if one source attributes a claim to JWs and another source attributes it to anonymous 'experts', the latter is not sufficient to identify it as an independent source. The US government source does not say JWs are the first or only denomination to not receive government funding in Norway, and the fact that the denomination has been deregistered in Norway was never in question.--Jeffro77 Talk 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think I misread the source at first as "legal experts" or something because just 'experts' is too vague. The claim is also repeated a few times without attribution and it gave the impression that things were more set in stone than they were. That's why I had no issues removing it upon re-examination. I asked for a third opinion because I read your comments as being opposed to including information about the funding situation, not just the "first" claim. I will note that I never said in the article itself that JWs were the first to be refused funding, simply that they were the first to have lost it. I did not not say that the US government sources verifies the "first" part but I brought it up because I thought they were taking issue with the legal status of Jehovah's Witnesses. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless the reader is already familiar with Norway's system of government subsidies for religious denominations, saying a particular denomination is 'the first to be deregistered' can be very easily misconstrued as 'only JWs don't get funding'. It would be unncessary elaboration for the scope of the article to explain that denominations in Norway only receive government funding if they apply (there are various exceptions; e.g., Church of Scientology isn't registered at all, and the Church of Jesus Christ [Mormons] are registered but decline government funding), it is better to simply state that JWs no longer receive the funding rather than potentially sensational claims that 'only JWs' were targeted.--Jeffro77 Talk 23:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Re, It would be unnecessary elaboration...: no it wouldn't, it would be helpful, and an explanatory note is the ideal place for this, as it would provide the required info for those that aren't familiar with the Norwegian system, without interrupting the flow of the text for those that are. Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

We only have the one source that verifies the first claim, though. It seems best to stick to what is concretely repeated across numerous reliable sources (that JWs were deregistered). If the claim was better attributed and repeated in other sources, I think your suggestion could work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in Norway#Religious group registration has a bit on this, as does the 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom in Norway by the U.S. State Department, including this on JW. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no debate about the JWs losing their funding, just whether or not they were the first to ever lose it when it was previously granted. As far as I can I tell, the sources you just linked do not support the first claim. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

That said, the background to the situation is a bit more complicated. Jehovah's Witnesses were fully deregistered in 2023 but it looks like there were some other important decisions in Norway before that date. I'll look into what sources say about this. I did add some brief content to Freedom of religion in Norway as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been scanning articles from about a dozen Norwegian news sources (in auto-translation, and not entirely independent; many echo or report on previous reports) and while it's easy to find tons of sources verifying the dereg, I haven't found a single report that mentions it is the first, or 'unprecedented'. This isn't too surprising to me, as reporters report, and the event(s) i in question are about legal and financial battles of the day, and if no one is using those words (and why would they?) then there is nothing to report about it in a news article. (An analysis or historical overview article would be different.)

Anyway, in my research, I have had to learn a handful of words in Norwegian; here's a mini-glossary you can use to help you search there:

Mini-glossary of Norwegian search keywords for researching this topic

Note: These keywords are gleaned from Norwegian websites, not from automatic translation. Bear in mind that some words can be inflected and have different forms, but this shouldn't affect your search results. Mini-search keyword glossary Norwegian English enestående outstanding, unique for for først, første first første gang, den første gangen the first time fra staten from the state ikke not inge[n] [+statstilskudd] no (+ noun; e.g. no state subsidy) Jehovas vitner Jehovah's witness[es] nei no nektes deny Norge Norway norsk[e] Norwegian (adj.) registrering som trossamfunn[et] registration as a religious community samfunnet community som ... as a ... statstilskudd, statsstøtte state funding, state subsidy støtte support trossamfunnsforskriften religious community regulations trossamfunnsloven Religious Communities Act uten presedens without precedent uten sidestykke unparalleled, second to none

Mix and match terms to generate a search query like, inge statstilskudd for Jehovas vitner 2023 (no state subsidies for JW 2023). Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the Norwegian lesson! I've been taking the time to work on an essay but I will hopefully get around to doing my own research on this later today. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No doubt in your research, you will find additional Norwegian terms of interest. I waive WP:TPO, so that you may interpolate additional rows directly into the table. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Most translated website in 2024

The official Jehovah's witnesses website is the most translated website according to this source. Has it been noted in the body of the article yet? Wår (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A few issues:

• The cited source is a blog, which isn't a suitable source for Wikipedia.
• The cited source is a commercial venture rather than a source that independently researches translation efforts.
• The company that runs the blog is privately owned, and it cannot be determined whether it has any connection to Jehovah's Witnesses (for example, the cited page refers to "Brother Geoffrey Jackson"); it cannot be established whether Watch Tower volunteers separately outsource paid translation work for Tomedes.
• The detail is promotional in nature, and is not notable in the scope of this article.
• The cited sources mentions Jehovah’s Witnesses 18 times but the actual publisher, Watch Tower Society, 0 times, further suggesting a promotional tone, or possible commercial relationships such as comment-for-pay or Watch Tower translators performing separate freelance work for Tomedes.
• Most posts on the cited sources' blog get no engagement at all, with one or a few comments on the occasional post, but the post about the JW site has over 100 comments, almost all from JWs. This includes many within a month of when the post was first made.
• The Watch Tower Society is a publishing company involved in translation with an unpaid labour pool, so it is not remarkable that they do more translation than companies whose primary business is not publishing and have to pay their staff.
• The number of languages into which the JW site is translated is misleading, because for some of the languages, it is just a single landing page in the target language, or a site in English with some downloads available in the target language. It is not the case that all of the pages on the site are available in all the target languages.
• The tone of the question with 'yet' suggests an expectation or demand that is not consistent with the requirements of the article.

But happy to hear the thoughts of others.--Jeffro77 Talk 21:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a claim that needs much stronger sourcing if we were to include it. A blog is not that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)