Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

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..-- Jeffro 77 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 '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)
 * 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 . 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. There's also 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 . 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, 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)


 * 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,, 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)
 * 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 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)

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)

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)

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? But it didn't entirely die out, JW lived on. Why? Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

And not one of them did anything worth mentioning? :-) Levivich (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.-- Jeffro 77 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.— Jeffro 77 Talk

Jesus-Archangel Michael Parallel
Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus Christ Preexisting Carnation was as the Archangel Michael. Prophet Michael, God&#39;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)


 * 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.-- Jeffro 77 Talk 05:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks like I edit conflicted with you just now . 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.- Jeffro 77 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.-- Jeffro 77 Talk 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense. I think I've fixed it now . I was citing the New Introduction book there. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)