Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses practices

Convention attendance
An editor has tried to reinstate a claim implying that convention attendance at JW conventions is routinely in the hundreds of thousands. However, the sources provided have only established attendance figures above 200,000 for one convention in 1958. Until sources for multiple conventions with attendance of 200,000 or more are provided, there is no basis for the claim that some conventions have attendance in the hundreds of thousands. Additionally, the sources stating that the 1958 convention had the 'largest ever' attendance of a JW gathering are fairly dated, and cannot reasonably be accepted as a basis for the claim that it remains the largest ever JW convention attendance. The 1 June 2001 issue of The Watchtower also mentions the factoid about the 1958 convention attendance, but only states that it was the highest attendance that a JW convention "had ever had" (formatting added), with no indication that it had not since been superseded.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is more than somewhat dishonest of you to imply that the edit claimed that " convention attendance at JW conventions is routinely in the hundreds of thousands" as the edit does not state such information. The statement is below


 * The attendance of some of these International conventions numbers into the hundreds of thousands, with the largest-ever gathering of Jehovah's Witnesses being held in New York in 1958 at Yankee Stadium and Polo Grounds with a peak attendance exceeding 253,000.


 * Clearly the indication that Some are in the hundreds of thousands does not imply a routine occurrence, The reference material indicates an attendance in 1950, 1953 and 1958 that are over 100k . If you have a reference that a larger attendance has occurred since the 1958 attendance of 253,922 at the Yankee Stadium/Polo Grounds venue I would love to see it, however, I think to the best of my knowledge, that record attendance has yet to be broken, still, if you can find a source that indicates that it has, please feel free to include it. The cited reference includes all the information you objected to in your previous revert, yet you are still not satisfied, can you be?  Again, at issue is yet another preexisting statement to which I have only added the source requested by another editor, and yet again, you suddenly take issue with material that has been in place for who knows how long.  I know you claim you do not have an axe to grind, but all I see is a editor standing over the grinding wheel with an axe in their hand, creating matters, regardless of how insignificant, to take issue with. Please in the future, refrain from reverting my edits simply because I made them. Willietell (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hundreds of thousands" means at least 200,000 (and the misleading implication of "hundreds of thousands" suggests a figure greater than around the minimum to fit the definition). The sources do not support that multiple conventions have had attendance in the hundreds of thousands, nor do they indicate there have not since been attendance in the 100s of thousands. The available sources only indicate that one convention in 1958 had an attendance in the hundreds of thousands. I have therefore restored text supported by the available sources. And yes, saying attendance of some conventions numbers (present indicative verb) into the hundreds of thousands certainly implies that it is routine&mdash;that is, typical or unsurprising&mdash;for that to occur. I was not "dishonest", and nor did I say the edit "claimed" that such was routine, instead I correctly alluded to the implication.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is entirely incidental that your unrelated minor edit drew my attention to the error. I will correct errors where I see fit, and will not avoid correcting errors merely because an over-sensitive editor made a nearby edit.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically, what you are saying here is that, first and foremost, you are bad at math. Then let me explain to you how math works:     "into the hundreds of thousands" indicates that the figure contains 100 at least a thousand times, thus being 100 x 1000= 100000 plus any additional number in attendance.  The source in question indicates attendance of 120k plus in 1950, does not state the attendance in 1953, but leaves the reader to the right conclusion that it increased over the course of time, (which it did, the 1953 attendance was 165829  cite Watchtower July 15, 2012) then shows the 1958 attendance of 253922.  Additionally, you could add the 1969 International convention in Nuremberg, Germany with an attendance of 150k+ (cite Watchtower April 1, 2005).  However, such large conventions are not "common" because the venues to hold such large gatherings are very limited in availability and a series of smaller conventions is preferred. Nowhere in the edit does it indicate that such conventions are "routine" and you supposition that this is the case is a fault of your own and not the edit.  I am open to re-wording the information to one that doesn't make you "feel" like it is stating such attendance numbers are "routine", but this whole argument is just bordering on silly, and over well established facts that you cannot, no matter how much you may want to, change. Willietell (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will choose to ignore your idiotic patronising tone and your erroneously referring to semantics about numbers as 'math'. Colloquially, when the plural of a number is specified for countable nouns, it refers to a multiple of that number. For example, if someone says there were dozens of people in attendance, they don't mean 12, they mean at least 24, but usually an implication of a few dozen. The phrase isn't typically used to refer to something that just scrapes over the singular amount. I have already reworded the statement to accurately reflect what the sources actually say. Since attendance per the sources has occasionally&mdash;but not recently&mdash;been over 100,000 and has only once been over 200,000, it would be more representative to indicate attendances over 100,000, perhaps retaining the mention of the single instance over 200,000. Additionally, if attendances can't be demonstrated to have been in the 'hundred' of thousands for over 45 years, it's not clear why you feel the need to make such a big point about it. It's also odd that you assert that it is reasonable to assume that attendance increased over time, but also assert that 1958 had the highest ever attendance (which is not supported by any recent source).-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've stayed out of this because for the most part I've been busy, but at this point I think a third editor besides Jeffro77 and Willietell should make an appearance. Willietell, the phrase "some of these international conventions numbers into the hundreds of thousands" is incorrect from a factual standpoint. "Hundreds of thousands" means 200K+, just like "hundreds" means 200+. It is pluralized, and thus at least doubled. Further, the phrase also implies (by the use of "some" in connection with the "hundreds of thousands") that at least two conventions numbered over 200K. As Jeffro77 has already stated, only one convention (not "some" i.e. more than one) achieved that number.


 * However, Jeffro77, I would also state that I think the information itself is relevant, and should not be deleted wholesale. Also I believe that your "only largest ever until 1984" because of the source argument is off-point and a bit ridiculous. While the source may only go to 1984, it is quite clearly the largest ever, as conventions have become far more spread out. Were we required to have an absolutely up to the year source for everything the vast majority of this article would be deleted. Unless you can find a source that specifically states that a larger one has been held since 1984, it is correct to leave it in.


 * With that said, I suggest the following compromise:


 * "The attendance of several of these international conventions reached over one-hundred thousand, with the largest-ever gathering of Jehovah's Witnesses being held in New York in 1958 at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds with a peak attendance exceeding 253,000".


 * As no other convention has ever had more than 200K, this statement (accompanied by the appropriate source) is both accurate and not misleading/open to interpretation. Vyselink (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted my suggested wording. Hopefully this ends this. Vyselink (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I for one, am fine with the new wording, hopefully Jeffro77 has no objections. Willietell (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made a slight modification, but the suggested wording is substantially what I suggested ("it would be more representative to indicate attendances over 100,000, perhaps retaining the mention of the single instance over 200,000"). Whilst it is not necessary to have 'up-to-the-minute' sources to be reasonably sure that something is the 'highest ever', a source that is over 30 years old is not especially helpful. The statement in the 1 June 2001 issue (page 19) of The Watchtower that "in 1958, New York City saw the largest convention that Jehovah's Witnesses had ever had, the Divine Will International Assembly, with a peak attendance of 253,922" (formatting added) casts doubt on the claim that there has not been a higher attendance anywhere since, and in the absence of an explicit source that it remains the highest ever, the claim should be omitted. It would be good if there were secondary sources for the point made, as self-reported primary sources are not ideal.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you on the self-reporting sources, but in the case of the JW's I don't see it as a large issue. While she was commenting specifically on adherent/member numbers reported in the yearbook, Dr. Zoe Knox has stated that "Most scholars do not question the Society’s own statistics on membership, which are publicly available, clearly defined, and transparently calculated" ("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). JW's statistics on themselves are usually pretty accurate, so historians give them a lot of credit. Vyselink (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily questioning the accuracy of the statistics. Wikipedia in general prefers secondary sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Penton, on page 116 of the 2015 edition of his book could also be used, if you want a secondary source. He himself is quoting primary sources, but it's there if you want it. Vyselink (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Penton is certainly a reasonable source. Penton has written at least 3 books about Jehovah's Witnesses. Can you add the ref to the article or clarify the intended source?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Although you might want to check the formatting, I'm never sure if I did it correctly for WP as I'm used to doing it for my dissertation etc. Vyselink (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The citation you provided was okay, but I have replaced it with a Wikipedia citation template anyway.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if obits count, but here's one from the NY Times from when Fred Franz passed. Vyselink (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An obituary might be a reasonable source for an uncontested point about the individual who is the subject of the obituary. Beyond that, probably not.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Promotional content
Regarding these edits, please note that excessive promotional/instructional details such as "the use of a Roku streaming device after downloading a free JW app for the Roku device" are unnecessary in an article about religious practices. Like most corporations, JWs run a website. It is mentioned in the External links section, and it is a concession to mention it in the Evangelism section. Further elaboration on its content or services is not required in the scope of this article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Relatively minor, but a car is operated, a website is maintained. The mention of the Roku for streaming of video is unique enough to deserve mention, as it is only available thru Roku, I had mentioned the particular device, still it is  a minor issue.  For some reason, you seem to think a great many things qualify as "self-promotion" when they are really only designed for informational purposes, which after all is what the intention of an encyclopedia is purported to be.  Additionally, you seem to take issue with the word "counsel", I similarly take issue with word "told" as Jehovah's Witnesses are never "told" to do or think or act in any fashion, but are informed of scriptural points and are left to make an informed personal decision as to what they will individually do with the realization that they are personally accountable to their creator for their actions. In short, no one is ever "forced" to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is a personal choice that individuals make of their own accord. Also, individuals are not "brainwashed" by means of extensive study materials, as is the implication of the latter part of the subsection on evangelism but are supplied with more than adequate material to support their personal decision to endeavor to maintain a Christ-like personality in a world that is amoral. It is also a personal decision as to just how much of that material they will take advantage of through personal study.  The latter part of this subsection is guilty of POV pushing and needs to be reworked. Willietell (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed one of the verbs that you provided as it was unnecessary to provide both. If you don't think that websites are operated, it's not clear why you said it. That said, "operates a website" is not inaccurate, and is commonly used to describe web hosting. Ordinarily, provides may be a better verb for the non-technical purposes of this article, but this would require unnecessary rewording of the rest of the sentence to avoid repetition.
 * If you think the availability of the Roku app is notable, please provide a secondary source. This would require a source that discusses the subject, rather than mere inclusion in a list of apps that exist. (The text for the listing on the Roku Channel Store is provided by the channel's creator&mdash;as is the case of text provided by any channel creator&mdash;and doesn't constitute discussion of the subject in a secondary source.) It should also be a source that is independent of Roku as well, as that may otherwise have its own promotional issues. If a suitable source is available, it might warrant mentioning of a Roku channel, but elaboration about downloading apps would still be promotional and out of scope.
 * Told is a fairly basic English word, and it is more neutral in this context than counseled, which carries an implication of professional advice. If someone is told to do something, whether the person acts on what they are told is left entirely to the person. Your association of the word told with the unrelated word forced is irrelevant. It's not clear why you've raised the issue of brainwashing here. Broadly, it is a loaded and poorly defined term; however, as used by professionals, it is not a 'mystical' or 'mysterious' term and includes various relatively mundane techniques such as repetition (for example, the JW 'study' format of reading provided material, asking preprinted questions from the material and answering based on the printed material), information control and jargon (for example, both related to JW claims about 'apostates') that are quite definitely present in the JW denomination.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Willietell, you seem to have gone quiet on this issue. I don't want you to think that it is my intention to prevent the article from mentioning JW's recent foray into televangelism. I simply made an honest request for suitable sources. A quick search of Google News doesn't seem to have anything about JW Broadcasting other than the primary source itself, and other commentary about JW Broadcasting at this point in time appears to be from sources that do not qualify as suitable sources for Wikipedia (such as YouTube). If at some point there are suitable sources, it may even be suitable for a subsection about JW televangelism, but even then it would not be necessary to promote specific devices, apps or content.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a fact does not necessarily make it promotional, the mention of the Roku streaming device isn't a promotion of Roku, and I think you know that. It really doesn't matter what the device is, the point is that JW Broadcasting is available to stream video from the Watch Tower Society's web site and this is a notable feature of the subsection and should be included, if secondary sources are unavailable, which I seriously doubt as I have already seen multiple anti-Jehovah's Witnesses Facebook posts about JW Broadcasting cropping up, then a primary source reference should suffice until a secondary source of note becomes available, as it undoubtedly will at some point. Willietell (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Facebook isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Pages about JW Broadcasting on Facebook&mdash;favourable or otherwise&mdash;are entirely irrelevant to either the existence of or requirement for suitable secondary sources. At this point, it is suitable to mention that they also provide video streaming services; it is not necessary or appropropriate to go into detail about specific devices in the absense of suitable sources.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you didn't take my comment to indicate that I felt that Facebook was a reliable source? It was only a statement of reality that little time will elapse before a reliable source becomes available. Willietell (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the existence of Facebook pages is not in any way a reliable indicator that something will soon appear in reliable sources. Additionally, there appear to be at least as many favourable Facebook pages about JW Broadcasting as there are unfavourable ones, so your claim about "anti-Jehovah's Witnesses Facebook posts" doesn't seem to be anything more than POV posturing about 'opposition'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In an attempt to not display any promotional bias towards the Roku digital media player, adding in the other streaming platforms of which the JW Broadcasting app is available would be a balanced contribution to this statement. I would suggest editing it in this way:
 * "Currently, the Watch Tower Society operates and maintains the website JW.Org which is used to allow public access to Watch Tower literature and allows streaming of Jehovah's Witnesses-produced videos through the use of a Roku digital media player, Amazon Fire TV, or Apple TV after purchasing one of these streaming devices and downloading the free app. " —Onwabuez (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You've commented on a discussion thread from over four years ago, and the current version of the article does not mention the Roku player. It is not necessary for this article to elaborate on any specific media formats.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

'Repentance'
I have removed the potentially misleading qualifier 'unrepentant' that was added to the description of the authority assumed by JW 'elders' to expel and shun individuals who they consider to have breached the organisation's regulations. The term inaccurately suggests that an individual would not be 'disfellowshipped' if they simply express that they are repentant. However, the assessment of an individual's 'repentance' is at the discretion of the 'elders' making up the 'judicial committee'. The JW instruction manual for elders, Shepherd the Flock of God, states (page 89) that if elders are "not convinced of sufficient repentance" that they may in any case make a "decision to disfellowship". Elders are further told (page 93) that "Tears do not necessarily indicate sincere repentance; neither does a lack of strong emotion show a lack of repentance." The sentence in the article already accurately conveys that elders assume authority to make the subjective determination regarding disfellowshipping.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

'Told' versus 'believe'
An IP editor changed the article to suggest that JWs believe they should attend all of their religious meetings unless there is a serious reason, replacing the previous statement that they are told this. It is sometimes appropriate to use variations of such wording, particularly where it is uncontroversial, to improve readability. However, in this instance, it is not suitable to simply say 'believe'. If this were an inherent belief, there would be no reason for their literature to tell them how important it is that they do not miss religious services without a serious reason. The cited source (The Watchtower&mdash;Simplified Edition) suggests that individual members should feel that way, but that they might not, stating, "Our meetings are a gift from Jehovah to help us endure until he destroys this wicked world. Is that how we feel? If we do, we will make the effort, even in our busy lives, to be at all the meetings. (Philippians 1:10) We should never miss a meeting unless there is a serious reason", (bold formatting added). As such, it would be inconsistent with the source to simply say they already believe it, and so I have changed this back to "told".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional edits
The same IP editor as mentioned above made various additional edits, some of which required cleanup while others were factually incorrect and/or superfluous. I have provided sources for a number of instances where the editor's information was incorrect, and have attempted to retain some of their additions where suitable.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pictures
Do we need 7 pictures in this article? Personally it seems like overkill. I'd say we get rid of (in order from top to bottom of article): the internal worship picture; the bread and wine; the convention; the door to door preaching picture; and the blood bag picture. None of them seem important/unique enough to warrant them. The external shot of the Kingdom Hall is a good one especially as a contrast to more flashy houses of worship. The cart witnessing picture is also unique enough to keep. Bring this total down to 2. Vyselink (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For the length of the article, I don't think 7 images is intrinsically overkill, but it is a bit top-heavy and we don't need any particular number of images just for the sake of it. I would probably keep the bread and wine image as their interpretation of the Eucharist is quite different to mainstream denominations. Not too concerned either way about the removal of the other images you listed, though I wouldn't see the harm in keeping the door-to-door one.-- Jeffro 77 Talk 08:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)