Jehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Witnesses Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance). Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

	Other talk page banners

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

Vaccinations[edit]

Since 1952, Jehovah’s Witnesses accept vaccination and other medical treatments : it is a personal decision^[1][2] Between 2021 and 2024 the governing body pushed for Jehovah's Witnesses to be vaccinated against Covid-19^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}. This caused many divisions within the congregations ^[10].

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jehova and Witnesses[edit]

I think the reader needs to be told who Jehova 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 Jehova 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)[reply]

Distinguishing features[edit]

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)[reply]

Shunning[edit]

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)[reply]

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

@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 [1]. 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 [2][3][4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@ShaunRex: This is what a diff looks like: [6] 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. [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [8]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [9] 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. [10] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Jehova's Witnesses that were written in this century? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Jehova'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• ... 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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