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..--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 [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)

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)

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)

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 [5]? 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 [6]. 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)

Edit summary

@Jeffro77: In this edit summary [7] 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 [8] 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.[9]

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)

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[10] 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 [11] 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 [12] (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)