Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses talk page (Discussion page). (January 2010 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a sad, but interesting article. Help is needed to improve it to at least GA standards. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

After having read some of the works regarding this subject, specifically including some academic works, I have to believe that it would be incorrect to say that the Bible Student movement is an offshoot of the JW's, but rather the other way around. This is, in part, due both to the fact that the name JWs did not come into usage until Rutherford, not Russell, and also that there are several significant theological changes, such as the beliefs regarding the Great Pyramid, and what seems to be a clear violation of Russell's explicit request in his will to not create another publication beyond the Watchtower. While Russell may well have agreed to those changes, it would be OR on our part to say that he would have, and, thus, that he was in any way a "member" of that later group.

Taking that into account, I also think that it would make sense to expand the scope of this group to include the broader Bible Student movement, considering all the groups are as closely related as they are. Would this be agreeable to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I am in the process of preparing a stand-alone bibliography article on the JW's and related groups. That page will not itself contain a listing of the official JW publications, although such a listing of sources would be valuable. This is in part because I am not sure whether it would be more useful to have a single list of such publications, or separate lists of the writings of Rutherford, Russell, and maybe others, and also because of the question that several of these works were originally presented as rather short pamphlets, which were later collected into more significant (and generally more frequently kept by libraries) books. I would be interested in the input of the other members regarding where and how to include this information on official JW publications. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is it claimed that the Bible Student movement is an offshoot of the JWs??? I don't think it's alleged anywhere that JWs came first. If it suggested anywhere, it should certainly be fixed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the actual wiki-categories. Quite right.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, JWs might argue that Trinitarian Christianity should be considered a branch off of pre-Trinitarian Christianity (carefully avoiding the term "nontrinitarian Christianity"). But, there are hundreds of millions of Trinitarians and (at most) tens of millions of nontrinitarians, so...

Anyway, sure, the Bible Student movement can be discussed here. But, to be realistic, it seems likely that study of the Bible Student movement will always be a sidebar to study of Jehovah's Witnesses, who still refer to themselves as Bible students and still routinely publish literature through their "International Bible Students Association". The most lofty estimates I've heard is that there are about 10,000 non-JW Bible Students total, about 0.1% the number of Witnesses.

Furthermore, we should acknowledge that Jehovah's Witnesses happen to retain the most readily discernible characteristics of Bible Student theology (such as nontrinitarianism, resurrection to human life on paradise earth, thnetopsychism, no hellfire, no clergy, no infant baptism, neutrality, etc). A consideration of the theological differences between non-JW and JW Bible Students is much less substantial than a consideration of the practical differences between the two (eg GBJW, elder/deacon appointments, reporting, discipline, etc).
Oh, and I believe Russell willed (see will here) only that the Watch Tower Society not publish and that the editorial board members not write or edit a "periodical" other than The Watchtower. Ironically, during Russell's life Watch Tower was already publishing other periodicals, such as The Old Theology Quarterlies and The Bible Students Monthly. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of categorization, it doesn't matter which group has more members. There are Bible Student groups that are not JWs, so the Bible Students category doesn't belong under the JW category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding trinitarian/non-trinitarian, there are arguments from both sides and others as well. However, considering that the various Bible Students groups are so closely related to the JWs that the group could easily cover all of them, to the degree that they are notable, I would think expansion to include them reasonable. I would still like input on where to place the bibliographical data on the various official/approved documents of the JWs over time. The number of outside souces is so large that I would think they would make one single bibliographic page excessively long. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be too difficult to find an umbrella category that included both JWs and Bible Students. There seem to be many such groups, and all are rather small. They relate better to each other than to JWs, as they tend to use Russell's work extensively (unlike JWs who quote him rarely, although he is an honoured figure). I suppose it would be analogous to making an umbrella group covering Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Origenism, Docetism and other various isms (including several Protestantisms) because they all have fairly close ritual similarity. And then you would have to consider the various branches of Adventism, which have points in common with JWs, including Christadelphians. What you would call such an umbrella group becomes moot, and indeed smacks of original research.

Incidentally from what I understand and have read and know, the differences between JWs and various 'Russellite' movements are considerable, even if they had an ostensibly common source.Eusebius12 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone like to consider the ratings on Talk:William Henry Conley? Someone has decided it's top importance on the JW WikiProject and high importance on the Christianity WikiProject. It's also rated as C. I'd judge it as low, low and start. Thoughts? BlackCab (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why you feel all past presidents should be marked Top Importance but Conley should be marked Low?

Along these lines why do you feel the article should be moved from C to Start? I at least can claim hundreds of hours of research. Others I am sure have spent significant amounts of time. The article is still not C by your standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the assessment criteria for importance of JW-related articles. Knowledge of Conley is not required for an in-depth understanding of JWs, and there is no evidence that he contributed greatly to their doctrinal development.

(I have no opinion on the Class rating on the article.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC) (I have since reviewed the article and the criteria and formed my opinion.)Jeffro77 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My standards in this case are irrelevant, as is the fact that you have spent hundreds of hours researching the article. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Assessment#Quality_scale defines the standards. It does not denigrate the article to describe it as "Start" class. "C" class would require it to be "substantial", which it currently is not. Please remember to conclude your posts with four tildes (~) which will add your signature. BlackCab (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked through other articles assessed by this project. There are numerous articles. I think it may be perceived that you are denigrating the person being written about and those spending time on the article if a double standard is used to rate articles. I would like an explanation as to why the W H Conley article was set to low and start and the other presidents were set to top considering how other articles were rated. I have purposely not added much information about ZWTS - I think there are only two sentences there. The reason for this is due to reactions from certain modern day Jehovah Witnesses. BACnet (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "denigrating the person". The JW WikiProject assessment has nothing to do with passing judgment on the person at all. It has to do with how relevant the article is within the JW series of articles. Russell started the Bible Student movement and established its core doctrines, which were the foundation for the beliefs of JWs. The presidents from Rutherford onward were specifically JWs. If there were a Bible Students WikiProject, then the article about Conley would have a higher assessment within the scope of that project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please indicate which other articles you think may need their JW Project assessments reviewed?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the criteria, I'd say the article is C-Class. It think it has enough detail, suitable structure, and provides sufficient references to bring it above Start Class.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'JW publications for... articles seems to be getting quite advertorial. I recommend a review of the notability of the subject matter in these articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have to say that I think the entire set of articles might be a violation of WP:NOT, perhaps particularly WP:SOAP. If the works were written by a person who has an article, I would think that article itself, or perhaps a separate article of List of works by author, would probably be the best way to go. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article is being used as nothing more than a forum to promote and advertise those publications. BlackCab (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The author of the works is the Watch Tower Society (though since 2001 their publications are stated as being published simply by 'Jehovah's Witnesses'). There is indeed already a list of their publications at List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications. As for the other series of articles, outside of a JW forum, most of the publications simply have no notability. Those that have any 'notability', such as the world record entry for the 'Truth' book, have a snippet of trivia rather than notability. Articles don't become notable by having a greater weight of non-notable information. AfD time?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitiely an AfD. BlackCab (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More specifically, and by example, Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing is not a notable subject, and should not be confused with the notability of their preaching itself, which is covered under Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Evangelism. There do not seem to be any great number of third-party sources discussing the significance of the particular publications that JWs distribute in their preaching efforts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've raised a query about this at the Books Project discussion page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also directly contacted one of the few other editors who has taken an active interest in bibliography articles recently. My own personal opinions, and at this point that is all they are, are as follows.

I have to question exactly how the works included in each article were selected. Unless there is some sort of official JW source, or subject headings as per some sort of formal library topic system, I tend to think that these articles may suffer from WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH problems.

Having said that, it is the case in several churches that lists or categories of, for instance, encyclicals of John Paul II are included in either a category or list to that effect. I suppose letters of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and similar organizations could have such lists or categories as well.

Jerry Bergman's bibliography book of JWs, which I have referenced elsewhere, does however list all the documents officially recognized or sanctioned by the JWs, whether published by them or not.

My own, personal, choice, would probably be as follows. The Bergman book breaks down official JW publications by author and/or time of initial publication. Following such a similar format here might be the best way to go. So, for instance, sections for "Documents written by Russell," "Documents written by Rutherford", "Documents produced during the presidency of (fill in the blank)", and so on might be the best way to include all the relevant documents in a way which doesn't have the OR and SYNTH problems the present structure does. And, of course, if such is desired, it could be broken down into separate sub-articles for the longest headings. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Comments as requested:

Location: I'd suggest/agree with merging all 4 sub-articles (Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents, Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing, Jehovah's Witnesses publications for youths, and Jehovah's Witnesses reference works), into the articles Jehovah's Witnesses publications and/or List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications. (Those 2 should be linked to from Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses#Watch Tower literature and the sidebar navbox.)

Content: Definitely needs more reliable third-party references, particularly for publication quantities. Ordering the content by chronology (and author) is standard. Possibly, you could use the layout structure of List of Latter Day Saint periodicals and List of Biblical commentaries as guides for structure and content-size and prose/list ratio.

Images: You'd need to check with someone familiar with current guidelines (WP:FAIRUSE and particularly the subsection WP:NFLISTS), but afaik, we can't have any fair-use images in lists (bibliographies, discographies, etc) unless the cover image is of particular relevance and it is specifically discussed in the article.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One option, which might be useful, would be to list first the books/collections of JW material in a given section, if any, and then the noncollected material. For authors like Russell and Rutherford, this might be particularly useful, given the number of pamphlets and articles they wrote. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC) It seems somewhat bizarre that the notability of publications in the multimillions is being questioned. If a work in any other field of literature had a distribution of 50 million plus then its notability would not be questioned. The means of its distribution, ie preaching, is irrelevant. There are countless boutique publications which have their own page, unmolested by petty article nitpicking. I will not add such articles however, as I haven't the inclination at present, but the validity of such I think is strong. If a publication has 100 million distribution (as The Truth That Leads to Everlasting Life, You Can Live In Happiness On Earth, Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life and What Does The Bible Really Teach? all have reached) then it doesn't matter if the work in question has been mentioned in the New York Review of Books or even the Courier Mail (for Jeffro's delectation). As much as I love Doctor Who, it is risible and asinine in the extreme to consider that these vastly distributed works are less notable than the Doctor Who PDAs, which all have individual articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_Doctor_Adventures and many Mormon publications have their own articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saint_periodicals not to mention a vast corpus of other religious literature including Catholic encyclicals etc. This selective deletion and aggregation is indeed selective and possibly heavy handed (at least if it was consistent, then it possibly could be defensible). Jeffro's zeal for pruning encyclopaedic deadwood unfortunately is only confined to articles related to JWs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your references to Doctor Who make it clear that you have checked my editing history for comparison. I have a passing interest in the program, but am not heavily involved in that project. The implication that I 'should' suggest deletion of Doctor Who-related articles is an other stuff exists 'justification'. If you would like to spend more time on the Doctor Who WikiProject and engage the main editors on that project to clean up articles you consider unimportant, go ahead.

Regarding your comments about specific JW publications above, please refer to the Wikipedia criteria for notability of books. You are also welcome to raise AfDs for articles about other books that do not meet the criteria for inclusion.

My main focus on Wikipedia is on the JW project, and I do not need to explain or justify my reasons for doing so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, it seems we've been through this before.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed {{TOCLeft}} and {{TOCRight}} templates from several JW-related articles. The usage notes for these templates state that they "should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page;" and "should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles." If a particular reader doesn't like the standard presentation, their options are 1) accept it or 2) modify their own CSS files for display on their own system. See the Cautions section at the documentation for either template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society article is better turned into a redirect page to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. It is poorly written and repeats information already on the WTBTS article. I have started a discussion on the article talk page. BlackCab (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a redirect for years. User:Bradsp changed it, with claims about articles being too "Russell-centric", even though his preferred text mentions Russell several times, but without clear reference to exactly what group he was part of. Since it's the same corporation, there doesn't seem to be any clear reason for the separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For some time now, it appears the only thing this project has had to say about the ZWTTS is below.

On February 16, 1881 Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was formed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA for the purpose of organizing the printing and distribution of religious tracts written by Charles Taze Russell,[3] founder of what is now known as the Bible Student movement.[26] The society's formation was announced in the April 1881 Zion's Watch Tower.[27] William Henry Conley, a Pittsburgh businessman, was appointed president, while Russell served as Secretary-Treasurer.[3]

• ZWTS was not created for the printing and distribution of tracts written by Charles Taze Russell. There were other writers.
• Conley was not "appointed" and Russell did not "serve." This language is consistent with Bible Students who tend to believe that Conley worked for Russell. This is not fair to Conley.

There is also mention in the article that Russell was the founder of the society. The way the article was written and maintained by some people in this project makes me believe Russell is being glorified. A similar aggrandizement of Russell is in many other articles.

The WTBTS article seems to be focused on unrelated content. Redirecting ZWTS to a modern Jehovah Witness corporation and making the founding ZWTS appear to be Russell founded, is just not in keeping with the non denominational nature of the ZWTS in which W H Conley was president.

The only way I see forward is to separate until this project can act as stewards to the W H Conley and ZWTS articles. I agree the ZWTS needs cleanup but better it would need to be cleaned up than buried. BACnet (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The society simply changed its name to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1896, so it's hard to justify a separate article as if it was an entirely separate entity. The issues you raise are easily addressed in the WTBTS article and can all be settled by the reliance on reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is against policy to create a competing article on the basis that an editor doesn't like what is in the other article. If there are problems with the main article, those problems should be fixed with sourced material, rather than creating a 'separate' article that is more to another editor's tastes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK discusses this issue. BlackCab (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The need for the new article is because ZWTS is being redirected to a modern Jehovas Witness article and not for reasons you are accusing. These are not the same articles and the people running the organization turned out to be like night and day. ZWTS under Conley looks very different. BACnet (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is neither enough content, nor a clear distinction of context, for an article about "ZWTS under Conley" as distinct from Russell's much broader involvement in the corporation and its continued development.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor is the reason given by rthe editor, "because ZWTS is being redirected to a modern Jehovas Witness article," sufficient to create another page. The writer would need to produce multiple reliable sources which themselves make such a designation and describe it at some length before there would be any basis for such a division. Otherwise, it would be a violation of POVFORK, as indicated above. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears the Bible Student movement is an all encompassing Russell specified initiative which can be used to glue everything together. But even there it is recognized and respected that other groups took form and that modern day Jehovah Witnesses are not the only Bible Students.

The society or congregation appears to have broken several times yet I do not see argument for these other groups to redirect to a Jehovah Witnesses article. The “Society” created by Conley gave birth to the subsequent Bible Student initiatives and not just the Jehovah Witness corporation.

Accusations of forking are not productive. BACnet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure the above comment is particularly productive either. No one disagrees that the JWs are not the only Bible Students. The bibliographical source I've found and mentioned elsewhere mentions at least 20 other current Bible Students groups by name, and indicates that there are about 200 total. Frankly, at this point, as with all other articles, it is incumbent upon the person who wishes to add to the material to demonstrate how there exists a real need for the content to be included. If the content of the article to be merged is substantially recreated elsewhere or can be easily merged without loss of information or WP:UNDUE concerns, into one article, then in general there is no reason to oppose such a merger. There seems to me to be no information in the current Zion article which cannot be included in the other article without loss of information. If sufficient reliably sourced information which would be unique to that topic were produced, then there might be grounds for splitting the article. Until then, however, I can see no reason not to merge. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears proof has not been provided for a merge of articles. Jeffros RFC perhaps could generate this proof but until this is done there should nto be a redirect. Just because someone redirected ZWTS a long time ago does not justify the merge. Until this justification can be found I see no reason why we should continue with a status quo. Creating an article apart from Russell centric history will allow the ZWTS article to grow. As it stands ZWTS history is heavily based on the history of Russell and editors appear unable to write about ZWTS without placing CTR at the center of the universe. The merged content does not allow consideration of ZWTS outside the Jehovah Witness Corporation or its member who are keen to place Charles Russell at the center of its history.

Proof of this is in the Jehovah Witness project content thus far as seen in the Conley ZWTS section and in the ZWTS section of the article in question. Editors have consistently applied references from Jehovah Witness books which themselves provide no references or rearrange text which aggrandizes Russell.

As far as content is concerned the lack of content should not justify burying a single sentence of ZWTS in the article as the Jehovah Witness project has sustained for a very longtime now. In fact the lack of content is more likely due to the Jehovah Witness redirect.

BACnet (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has read extensively regarding the subject, even if I haven't done as much direct editing, Russell is placed "at the center of the universe" because in effect, that is the way the sources describe the origins of the group. If you can provide independent reliable sources which dispute that, please do so. Otherwise, based on the information from reliable sources currently available, Russell is portrayed as he is portrayed in those sources. We are not unreasonable, but we would need evidence to the contrary to change that. And, honestly, names of positions are not necessarily relevant. I was the secretary of my union and my high school class in my junior year, partially because I was, well, kinda ugly. Other, more photogenic, people took the more public positions, even if there were times I and everyone else involved wondered if they could even actually spell their own names. They however had little if any part in the actual running of the organization. The mere fact of someone else assuming the title of president does not mean that he actually performed duties similar to those we sometimes ascribe to that role. The sources I have seen say, regardless of title, Russell was the lynchpin of the organization. Until reliable, preferably independent, sources to the contrary are produced, we are more or less obligated to adhere to the sources. Please produce the information to the contrary; otherwise we will have no reason to not follow what the known sources say. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you are admitting that you believe Russell is the center of the universe. I think you guys should write an article titled "Why Russell is the center of the universe" You can expound on your theories as to why some presidents are puppets. Just kidding. :)

As it stands opinion is not enough to justify the type of Russell centric editing that has been crafted in Wikipedia. If you Authority, Jeffro and Blackcab believe this then you should make your case. Because Conley was President you need to accept this at face value. References from Russell, should be stated as Russell opinion and unreferenced material from Encyclopedia Britannica or later Jehovah Witness history rewrites need original references. I am particularly talking about the “Founder” reference in Britannica and the Presidency claim in 1993.

I agree that we should think through titles and peoples glorifying comments of themselves. As you have done so have I. I think it is pretty clear that a sonless Conley, who was a printer by trade and much older than Russell was calling the shots from the beginning. Russell clearly glorified himself and he protected his legacy. In reading Russell’s letters it is clear to anyone the serious moral and character faults of this man - I would appreciate it if you admitted this as well. Kinder gentler people as can be read in the obituary of Mrs. Conley are not celebrated. Whether Conley was a puppet or he tried to build a better Russell is not provable.

I am not burdened with proving Conley was in charge because he was President of the founding society. It is your burden to dispute this so the article should be written in good faith towards Conley and his wife.

BACnet (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First, you prejudically misstate the statements of others. I am a Roman Catholic. I have no particular regard for the JWs one way or another. Your attempt to try to warp the statements of others for your own purposes is rather transparent. What you think, however, is irrelevant. By wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is incumbent upon anyone who seeks to add or alter material to provide the sourcing. I would appreciate it if you did what you are required by wikipedia rules to do, and provide the sourcing, rather than engage in these pointless denigrations of others. Should you continue to fail to do so, however, your own, all too obvious, opinions will continue to be treated as they have been, as unsupported opinions which are in no way sufficient to alter content. Also, I would suggest that you read WP:BURDEN, which clearly states that the burden of proof is on the person seeking to add material. In this case, that person is you. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to dispute any of my work feel free but please do not make blanket baseless statements about my postings.

Back to the issue at hand, please. I read WP:BURDEN and it very clear that Zion’s Watchtower and Tract Society is redirected to a Jehovah Witness corporation page. If you or others can prove Zion’s Watchtower and Tract Society is the modern day corporation and not worthy of an article then you should state your case. This is however your burden WP:BURDEN because it is your content or assumption that they are equivalent. ZWTS under Conley and a young secretary named Russell is clearly not your modern day Jehovas Witness Corporation. The single sentence in the Jehovah Witness Corporation article and stultification of efforts to propose development of an article is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

BradSp (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with John Carter's comments re the need for reliable sources that contradict the current article. BradSP is pursuing an agenda based on his own viewpoint rather than written, usable evidence. Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was renamed the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. That corporation was, in turn, renamed. The body evolved. Presidents were replaced. All history must logically be contained in the article based on its current name. BlackCab (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see how my request to SIMPLY CREATE an article for Zion’s Watchtower and Tract Society is so easily construed by you as a conspiracy. How requests to create a simple article can be met with personal attacks is beyond me. Don’t forget that due to the Jehovah Witnesses lack of content on ZWTS this request must be made. This Jehovah’s Witness project is responsible for this strangely missing content and something needs to give.

Refusal to allow the creation of standalone content coupled with the missing ZWTS content from the Jehovah Witness Corporation site is unacceptable.

BradSp (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any suggestion of a conspiracy. It is a simple matter of an article that seems to have no good reason to exist on its own. BlackCab (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, lets give this a try then. I just added content for discussion and a request for more info in the combined ZWTBTS area. The content deals with distribution and financials of the early society. Lets start fresh and see how it works out.

BradSp (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your request for more info appears to be nothing more than a desperate search for any documented support for your theory that there was a fallout between Russell and Conley and that Russell seized power from Conley. You evidently have no sources to back up your theory and show the weakness of your case for a separate article on the society under its earliest name. BlackCab (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

More conspiracy. I am reaching out to you to see if the Jehovas Witness Corporation article and stakeholders can handle research into the early ZWTS. Editors in Wikipedia have not been forthcoming in this area. From what I have seen there is paranoia and an odd protectionism as if Russell were a deity. I personally want the truth about Conley and Russell and the early ZWTS but it is hard when you make these rediculous assumptions.

Anyway, it appears likley that there was a problem when power in the early society shifted but like you I do not know. Hiding these facts by condemning people who talk about this NEEDS TO STOP! Distribution and financials are key parts of the early society.

I am not a Jehovahs Witness or an exJehovas Witness. I dont even know any! I just want facts and productive discussion. My interests are not what you think. I am not interested in bashing or embarrasing Jehovahs Witnesses or Russell as you assert.

BradSp (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to hide the facts at all, though there may be facts about Conley that are thus far unavailable. You have been invited several times to provide any available sources about Conley, and that invitation of course extends to any other editors who have such information. However, we can't simply present a history of Conley—such as the alleged dispute with Russell—even if it happened exactly as you believe unless there are reliable sources. The fact remains that 'Zion's Watch Tower Society' under Conley did not turn into some remarkably different thing under Russell and the article fork remains unwarranted, as borne out above by John Carter. Per the response of yet another impartial editor at the RFC, I have restored the redirect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is attempting to prove a conflict between the first president and the second this is being used by you to confuse the issue. You were asked to participate in a joint discussion of the financials and the publications adn then add to the article. I as well as others would like to see if the corporate Jehovah’s Witness article can handle this. If you want the unincorporated Society of President Conley combined with the corporate Jehovah Witness article then let’s see you include more content than the single sentence that you have enforced on Wikipedia.

Jeffro - So far you are just making accusations and reason why not to include content. Creating a redirect to stultify an article or force all opinions within ones belief system should have a term. Is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.105.235 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations of bias (whose belief system??) are humorous. In addition to myself, other impartial editors have indicated that a separate article of "ZWTS under Conley" is simply not warranted. No one is stopping you from providing additional sources from the Conley era; on the contrary, you have been repeatedly invited to provide further information.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that editing an active Jehovah’s Witness corporation article is going to be an uphill and possibly pointless battle. Far less content and thought will go into this page considering Russell wrote their early history for his own glory. Redirecting the Conley’s unincorporated society here is just another activity from a long list of activities used to confuse and manipulate the early Jehovahs Witness history. Wikipedia has problems - Combining a loosly related history especially under an active corporation is wrong.

Jeffro - You above all others have not been as neutral in editing these article as you claim. Your edits consistently enforce Russell aggrandizement. You just don’t appear as zealous as the others but you know a tree by its fruits and you are definitely keeping the status quo around here.

- The RFC will be good for the month. Let’s see how adding content plays out. I will recreate the RFC and report to the Christian editor community if violations of Wikipedia occur by the merging of ZWTS to the Jehovah Witness corporate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradsp (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about your speculations and conspiracy theories either about Russell, or about me. As previously requested, if you have other sources about Russell or about Conley, present them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is driven by sources, not our own opinions. Please see WP:TRUTH, which clearly indicates that, regardless of our own opinions regarding a subject, whatever they might be, we are more or less obligated to construct our content in compliance with the mainstream view of academic sources on the subject. Yes, we do know that, at times, the subjects we discuss will themselves be inherently biased, like regarding early Christian groups whose own documents have not survived, for example. However, that does not mean that we should not continue to comply with structuring the content to adhere to mainstream sources. Parties advocating the Conley position have been repeatedly asked to produce sources to substantiate their allegations, and have to date, so far as I can see, have failed to do so. Please produce the requested information. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont knot what sources you are asking for or what positions you are asking me or others to prove. You and Jeffro are being asked to provide quality sources and stop posting unsubstantiated pop culture regarding Russell. Frequently I am seeing status quo portal developing material which is unreferenced and slanted. Every sentence seems to end with Russell even when the topic has nothing to do with him. Anyone can look at how you guys edit and see this. This needs to stop.

BradSp (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Then please point out wspecifically hat the "unsubstantiated pop culture" you point to is. And it appears that you should read WP:AGF and WP:TPG, two of our most important guidelines for conduct. I very seriously urge you to read and follow them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I will read it closely - I am sure it will help. I suggest you pay close attention to the editing of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Yuo can get a clear understanding of the problems we are having. Until youo do this there is no point in getting involved by providing a neutral point of view. You need to understand the issues at hand playing out in the article! BradSp (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And everybody needs to understand our policies and guidelines. So far as I can see, your complaint is about how you believe the article places too much emphasis on Russell. The one really "academic" source I know of for the Bible Student movement, and from what I've read the most reliable source, is from all I've seen the book Apocalypse Delayed by the Canadian professor of religion and former JW M. James Penton. I do not have access to that book today, but tomorrow I can and will review it and see just how much emphasis it places on both Conley and Russell during the early days. If I can, I will also review the other available academic sources for the same information. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But I dont think these books will be very helpful. This Wiki article is based on references to original historic material and not modern JW books on the matter. Researching these two books and rewriting it in Wikipedia does not establish main stream concensus. Considering JW are not encourage to read this inforamtion or be on the internet for that matter it would be hard to establish a mainsteram concensus anyway. I recently read a young persons posting in the Jehovas Witness Project discussion archive. He sounded afraid to read this material and afriad to use information off the internet. This coupled with the fact that the governing body interprets matters of history and spiritualiy before a persons conscience again will make it hard for you to find main stream concensus.

I think the best you can do to ensure you are being fair to JW believers and encourage their participatin is do what you can not to allow others to embarasse them and identify material meant for condemning the modern day religion. Editors who point out past beliefs which do not pertain to modern day JW but are clearly doing so maliciously is different than people who are conscientlously building an article which is built based on historic facts and not for any single mans glory.

The edits I make are careful not to do harm to the religion or its people. I provide reference to original historic documents and I am oppsed to those who add information that is is not factual or considerate of the information we have about the time period in queston. I would never disparage these people or beliefs but at the same time historic truths regarding the happenings in Allegheny City need to told. I see no reason why this can not be done respectfully

BradSp (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you. However, I think you should know that as per WP:RS#Scholarship, we would prefer to base our material on secondary sources wherever possible, not primary sources, and that we are supposed to take the greatest degree of care when dealing with primary sources. From your comments above, the language you use above indicates you might be using. I'm not sure if you've ever been involved in creating press releases, which, ultimately, is effectively what a lot of primary sources are. I have been. They often, basically, deal with a "reality" which has little if any clear relation to what even the most addled modern physicist would even consider reality. Particularly if the sources were publicly released, they are often so seriously edited to obscure or misrepresent reality for whatever reason that they cross the line into fiction. I was involved in an event recently where a prominent official of a fairly large multinational "decided to resign to spend more time with his family" and write. The fact that he had been screaming his lungs out for two hours begging to keep his job, and even broke down crying toward the end of the meeting, somehow didn't make it into the release at all. ;) John Carter (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bradsp, as John Carter correctly indicates, we should present what is available in secondary sources. You claim we should present information from primary sources, however you haven't actually provided any. If other information is available, present it. The article will not omit what is available in secondary sources purely on the basis that you believe there is a conspiracy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that secondary sources should not be used. Pentons book is a history of Russell in order to understand the Jehovahs Witnesses. This is claimed at the beginning of the book. It is a history based around the life of Russell. Because Penton claimed Russell as the first President does not mean we can claim this in any articles - if you feel the need to stick with Penton on this matter then feel free.

Please be careful with using secondary source to ensure your content is appropriate for the topic and content has not been widely disproven,

I completley agree with what John Carter is saying as well as the approachabe way in which he is saying it.

BradSp (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it might be worth, I checked all the sources in the library here, including those listed below, and found no reference to Conley in the indexes, and a fairly uniform consensus to the statement that the early Bible Students movement was effectively centered around Russell. While others did occasionally publish as well, Russell and his works were the driving force. And, yes, if Penton does say that (I don't remember specifically seeing Penton say Russell was the first president per se - the president is not necessarily in all cases the most important or driving force in any group) we can and should include that, because it is included in a reliable source, a source which is, specifically in this case, the most highly regarded source on the subject. The sources checked include Apocalypse Delayed by Penton, The Evocative Religion of Jehovah's Witnesses by Matthew Alfs, Jehovah's Witnesses Literature by David A. Reed, Jehovah's Witnesses by Andrew Holden, Counting the Days to Armageddon by Robert Crompton, The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses by Heather and Guy Botting, The Jehovah's Witnesses by Herbert Stroup, Armageddon Around the Corner" by William Whelan, Visions of Glory by Barbara Grizzati Harrison, and Jehovah's Witnesses: A Comprehensive and Selectively Annotated Bibliography by Jerry Bergman. The last book includes a section at the end detailing the activities of a number of other Bible Student groups, which I read through completely but saw no reference to Conley in any of it. On that basis, I have to say that, reflecting the reliable sources available, we are more than justified to indicate Russell was the core of the early Bible Students movement, because in effect all the sources I have seen say as much. I can and do acknowledge that the JWs are not the entirety of the Bible Student movement, but, given its position as the largest by far of all the groups, it can be understood that the people writing about the movement would refer to it in the title and elsewhere by the name most closely associated with it, in this case, "Jehovah's Witnesses". If you have other sources available which say other things, by all means produce them, but, based on what I've seen, the sources available tend to support the highlighting of Russell, and do nothing to indicate that Conley in particular was of any particular importance, given the fact that none of them seem to even mention him specifically by name. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont think anyone doubts that Russell was a central figure. The problem is that there are no references or relable sources supporting the notion that Russell either financed or was the man behind Conley presiding over the ZWTS Pre 1884. In reading the early "original sources" there is also no mention of a Russell Centric movement.

BTW - the secondary sources above were written without knowledge of W H Conley. It is noteworthy that Russell did not introduce Conley as first president or describe him as president in his recounting of the history of the ZWTS. The later society didnt even write an obituary for him. Penton clearly writes a history according to Russell and has been widely found at fault by crediting Russell as first president and not Conley. Penton also states that focusing on Russell is a way to best describe the modern Jehovahs Witnesses. This is certainly not the best way to describe the first society and there is no academic research or original source material, I am aware of, that says otherwise.

The ZWTS article is a history of the society and not a history of "Russell as First President." Academic writers who claim Russell as first president have been widely discredited This is the bases of Pentons academic research and your claimed academic concensus. I don't think anyone doubts that Russell was a central figure and we all certainly have reached concensus there. Removing or not crediting other figures is the problem this article has. The problem is that there are no references supporting the notion that Russell either financed or was the man behind Conley controlling the ZWTS between before 1884 as you seem to interpret from academic writers. Pre 1884 is the time period we are discussing so this is all tht you should be looking at. In reading the early "original sources" there is no mention of a Russell Centric movement pre 1884 (before Russell was president.)

BradSp (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But what is your point? The article can only "credit" Conley as far as is available in reliable sources. If you have sources, provide them. If you don't, stop complaining.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that, according in this web-page it is said:

So, unforeseen circumstances FORCED RV Franz to write his 2 wonderful books, and thus creating "Commentary Press", the publishing arm of many of the ex-JW books we now read today.

Also we read here:

sis Cynthia Franz c/o Commentary Press P.O.B 43532 Atlanta, GA 30336-0502

We also read:

New information regarding Ray Franz's will is that it allows for very clear continuation of Commentary Press and the named Beneficiaries will insure, with God's will, that the books and publications will remain available to all.

All this is testified by the white pages directory.

According to these witnesses, the books of Ray Franz are self-published and thus they are improper for citations and bibliography in Wikipedia.--Yupiyaya (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Caution should certainly be exercised. However, it does not automaticlaly mean that Franz's book are automatically inappropriate as sources in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Having been a member of the JWs' Governing Body, Franz can certainly be considered "an established expert" about JW-related subjects, and JW literature indicates that Raymond Franz was a writer, instructor, and Governing Body member for JWs prior to his expulsion. Additionally, current members are much less likely to provide information that Franz made available (none of which has been specifically disclaimed by the Watch Tower Society), so information from Franz is both reliable and a unique resource. Of course, statements by Franz that are contended should always be clearly indicated as only his claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I grasp your point. Yet please consider that books of Ray Franz, to a great extent, are autobiographical. About the use of self-published biographies, Wikipedia policy says:

1.it is not unduly self-serving;

2.it does not involve claims about third parties;

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.

--Yupiyaya (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it would be wise for us to consult the administrators.--Yupiyaya (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to contact WP:RSN. However, let me check to see how the books are described, if they are described, in the various other works about the subject I have available first. If other generally reliable sources speak highly of them, then that would influence how acceptable they are. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed in a few JW-related articles that generic terms are being linked to JW-specific articles, which may result in reader-surprise. Editors should keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, not 'JW-Wiki'. I would therefore like to propose a new editing guideline as a subsection of 'Readability for non-JWs', with the following text:

====Wikilinks====

When creating a wikilink of a generic term, JW-related articles should link to the article about the generic term rather than JW-specific terms. For example, "hymns" should be linked to hymn, not Kingdom songs. Where it may be helpful to link to the JW-specific term, rephrase to include a link to both terms, e.g:

"Meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses are opened with the singing of hymns, which they refer to as Kingdom songs."

See also Wikipedia:Piped_link#Intuitiveness.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No comments after six weeks. Added to Project page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added sections at Talk for both Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom asking for the articles to either be expanded or deleted. If the article are not expanded in the coming weeks with notable information from third-party sources, I will raise AfDs for them. (I am not suggesting an AfD for the Franz article.) For more information, please see Talk:Raymond Franz#Book articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I should think the CoC book can be expanded without too much problem. There is a reasonable number of references to it in other books and I'll get on to it when time permits. In Search of Christian Freedom attracted less attention from external sources and can probably be deleted when the time comes. BlackCab (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just got around to adding material and refs for Crisis of Conscience and it's gone already. Who did that? I'll start a new one with better refs. BlackCab (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a {{prod}} template a week ago, due to lack of notability per Wikipedia's criteria for books. No one commented so it was removed today. If you can establish notability by those criteria, there should be no problem re-creating the article. It only had a couple of sentences and some publishing-house info, so there was little lost.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I'd like to ask for your help over an editing dispute. We want clarification as to what Witnesses officially ban in respect of blood transfusions - is it only whole blood that is banned? Or does the ban extend to fractions of blood such as red cells? And does Witness doctrine refer to further fractionation of those fractions? I think there may be some misunderstanding in the text on this page but we can't fix it until we know what's correct. Thanks in advance - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The ban includes 'major' fractions (red cells, white cells, platelets, plasma), but leaves 'minor' fractions (derived by further fractionating one of the four 'major' components) to members to decide (referred to by members of the religion as a 'conscience matter'). The section in the article seems fairly well referenced in regard to their 'stand'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But look, modern medicine does not recognize such concepts as 'major' and 'minor' fractions. There is no medical reason to further fractionate a 'major' fraction. If one were to fractionate a unit of packed red cells, what would the obtained fractions be called? How do they differ from each other? I'm not arguing with the Witnesses' idea - they can believe whatever they want - I'm just pointing out that the article needs to explain it. Can someone please fix it? - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am grateful for the table produced here: [1]. It does clarify the text. But again, I'm not sure how red blood cells or platelets can be meaningfully fractionated. White cells and plasma could be fractionated, and there is some conceivable medical point to doing so. I'm happy to help with editing the article, since I have a basic medical understanding. But as I said, I'm not a Witness and I need to rely on others to come up with their official stance. And their doctrine appears to have no equivalent medical doctrine. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of more specific information in available sources, we can only really present what they say. I understand your concern, but I'm not really sure how to be more specific. They specifically say they acceptthat individual JWs are allowed to accept fractions derived from each of the four components, irrespective of whether such derivatives exist or are used in current medicine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add something like the following to the Project page.

==Country-specific articles==

Please do not create country-specific articles that present only (or primarily) mundane statistics. Statistics of JWs per country are already located at Jehovah's Witnesses by country. Nor should country-specific articles be created based on information only from JW publications, as these are not third-party sources.

Though Jehovah's Witnesses are a notable religion, the specific activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in individual countries are not typically more notable than their activities in any other country, nor as notable as the activities of major religions in those countries. If the history or activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in a particular country are notable, it will be possible to create an article of reasonable length using third-party sources.

For an example of a poor quality JW country-specific article, see Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba. For an example of a good quality JW country-specific article, see Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania

Inviting other editors to comment...--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

JW-Populations in excess of 100,000 obviously are notable. Furthermore, I am refering to the great number of Catholic church buildings considered to be relevant, which sets a precedence.

Sarcelles (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion of what is 'obviously notable' is misleading. JW-populations of 100,000 among country populations over 100,000,000 are inherently not especially notable as a significant part of a country's population. The normal guidelines for notability apply. If JW activities specific to a particular country can be sourced in reliable third party sources, then such a country-specific article might be warranted. Comparison of a minor religion in a particular country with Catholic buildings is dissimilar and arbitrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Cuba the special features were persecution and share in the population exceeding that in all major Western countries and most non-Western countries. Sarcelles (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless the article were to present information sourced from reliable third-party sources about why Cuba has a marginally higher ratio of JWs than other countries, rather than it just being random mundane statistics, then it is still not particularly notable.

It is suitable for information about persecution of JWs in Cuba to be located at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses#Cuba, unless significantly more information on the matter can be provided from reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a noteworthy article or subsection in the main article. I think it would be useful to anyone doing general internet research of Jehovah's Witnesses, especially curious family members. I do not have access to The Watchtower Library and therefore would not be able to cite any sources. I will make a sub-page of my user-page as a sandbox and will link it here as soon as it is live. Please feel free to add to it and I will make it a real article as soon as there is sufficient information. schyler (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please add what you can. I will be doing research as well. Thanks! schyler (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The sandbox article is at User:Schyler/Jehovah's Witnesses and Family Members. I don't see that the subject holds sufficient notability to survive and I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to make. You'll also need to cite some sources to ensure it's not original research. BlackCab (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the article were to be improved, with adequate sources, it would still likely be merged into Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. If you plan to improve the article, it's okay to keep it as a User subpage while you're actively working on it; however, if there is no consensus to have it as an actual article, it would not be appropriate to keep it indefinitely, per WP:USER#Pages that look like articles. (As a minor side-note, articles with descriptive titles do not need the exact name of the article in the first sentence, and it should not be in boldface. See Wikipedia:LEAD#Descriptive_titles.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Schyler, you added a similarly themed section to the main article on 21 December 2005.[2] It was merged into the disfellowshipping section and deleted as redundant on 31 January 2006.[3][4] The relevant aspects of your suggested article are already covered in the main article and at Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline. If you have additional sourced information, it can be added there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That did happen, didn't it. If the community consensus was for deletion then so be it. schyler (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if you have notable sources that discuss JW family life as a notable issue distinct from issues suitably addressed in the discipline section, then by all means do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment regarding statements made by members of this group in the past regarding expected future events (such as the end of the world) which have apparently not proven accurate. Input is requested on how if at all material regarding those alleged "prophecies" as well as about whether they qualify those who made them as "false prophets" at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Failed Preductions/False Prophet Accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses. Any and all input is more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Jehovah's Witnesses articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article has been improved in several small but important areas since the selected snapshot, [5]. The "failed predictions" section was edited to note that it was Franz who cited WT publications claiming the role of prophet, and some attempt has been made to trim over-citing sections of the article. I'd suggest [6], but there are still a couple of weeks before the deadline, so the article may undergo some adjustment between now and then. BlackCab (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow in following up - I had a huge amount of feedback to work through! I really appreciate your suggestions of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Jehovah's Witnesses practices, which are important articles that got overlooked due to being moved created/moved while we were selecting. Could you suggest suitable recent revisionIDs for these, and the main Jehovah's Witnesses article? Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I found an article in Entertainment Weekly, which I acknowledge is not necessarily the best possible source but meets WP:RS, that Selena "embraced" the JW faith, even if she was not a member per se. I am not sure that qualifies her for the category, and I still think based on the content of that article and the quick quote in EW, that it probably doesn't, but it probably would help if there was a bit more digging done.

I also looked in the Gale Biography database, and found the following individuals as being listed as being, at least at one time, involved in the JWs. Official membership and current status, in some cases, wasn't directly addressed. Anyway, they include:

• Art Johnson, Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Big Jay McNeely, Charles Taze Russell, Chris Jackson (raised a JW), Damo Suzuki, Damon Wayans, Dave Hill (allegedly joined), David Meyers (basketball) (converted after basketball), Diane Wilson (left the JWs), Dres (rapper), Eric F. W. Powell, Frank A. Cowell, George Benson, Gloria Naylor, Hank Marvin, Horatio Preston Harris, Isaac O. Olaleye, Ja Rule, The Jackson 5 (while they were the Jackson 5), James Nathaniel Richardson, Janice Paul, Jermaine Jackson (converted to Islam), Jesse Garcia (raised a JW), John M. Perkins (temporarily), Joseph Franklin Rutherford, k-os, Kim Wayans, Kyria Abrahams, Larry Graham, Jr., Marvin J. Penton (left the JWs), Maureen Mwanawasa (excommunicated), Michael Jackson (renounced membership), Mickey Spillane, Nathan Homer Knorr, Patti Smith (left the JWs at 13), Perstein Ronald Cave, Prince (musician), Rusty Kanokogi (for 2 days as a child), Selena (above), Serena Williams (devout), Teresa Graves (devout), Tito Jackson, Venus Williams (active), Wil Tirion, and William J. Schnell (left the JWs). Just FYI. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A person simply raised as a JW almost certainly does not qualify for the category, unless it can be demonstrated that such early affiliation directly related to their notability. It is highly subjective to state that a child self-identifies as a member of a particular religion and even more unlikely that such would be notable, so there would have to be a particularly noteworthy incident to merit inclusion in a category about religion. For example, if a (hypothetical) ten year old child of JW parents personally rejected a blood transfusion in a well-publicized landmark case, they might qualify for the category. A celebrity raised in a particular religion would qualify for such a category if they continue to self-identify as a member as an adult and their religion relates directly to their notable activities. A celebrity who converts to a religion might qualify for such a category, if their conversion were well publicized and/or it significantly affected their notable activities. The purpose is not to create an exhaustive index of celebrities who are members of or affiliated with a particular religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your points about whether being rasied qualifies, that was actually the reason I included that information where it was applicable. That was all the sources on the Gale website said, but those sources are not exhaustive and in at least some cases they may well have continued on in later life, but without that being mentioned in the short biographies on that web site. I do wish that the possible jump to conclusions made in the last sentence above was not there. All the list was intended to do was to provide a starting point as to what individuals could at least be considered. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no jump to conclusions, and I was not suggesting that you desire to use the category as some kind of JW index. The reply was given for anyone who reads this section, so that it is clear to other readers that your list should not be used as a basis for adding those names to the category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has been redirected to Religion in Nigeria, which does not mention Jehovah's Witnesses. The article Jehovah's Witnesses in Nigeria used to have 2,773 bytes. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Nigeria are not especially notable either in regard to JW activities worldwide or to religion in Nigeria. JW activities in Nigeria are typical of the religion's activities in most countries and these details are covered in the broader articles. The article did not contain any significant historical or controversial issues specific to Nigeria. Therefore, please demonstrate why an article about JWs in Nigeria is required and how such does not constitute undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As an inclusionist I believe the articles should be separated and the original article found at [7] be reinstated, possibly with one of Wikipedia's many Religion Stubs. schyler (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion, however there is nothing notable in the previous version of the article that is not properly covered at Jehovah's Witnesses by country and the general JW articles. There is nothing exceptionally notable about JW activities in Nigeria compared to their activities worldwide or to the activities of other religions in Nigeria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The cited statement found at the above link to the article's history says that "in Nigeria lives the fourth-largest national group of Jehovah's Witnesses in the world and the largest in Africa." This seems very notable. I sense your opinion is in accord with the current status of the article. It would be nice to have a third opinion here, especially one without bias, which both you and I have, possibly by posting this situation at WP:3. Let me know here, on my talk-page, or both if you would like to resolve this "dispute" using a neutral party. schyler (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There are not articles for the three largest national groups of Jehovah's Witnesses, so it's not clear on what basis the fourth is especially notable. If the topic is notable, you should be able to find third-party sources that specifically discuss (not mention in passing) JW activities in Nigeria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to solicit a third opinion. However, please note that User:Sarcelles, whom you have advised of your intention for a 3rd opinion, is an already-involved party and his input at the proposed 3rd-opinion discussion would invalidate that process, in which case an RFC may be required instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I may be mistaken on the norm here, so maybe this can be fixed without any problems. Are there very many articles at all describing in detail 'the work' in specific countries (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses in Puerto Rico? Where is this type of information if there aren't articles? If there are not specific articles there is no objection from my point of view. schyler (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you previously, you would need to provide reliable third-party sources that 'discuss' (not simply 'mention') JWs' activity in the country in a way that is notable. There are not many articles of this kind, as JW activities are fairly similar in most of the countries in which they operate, making the more general articles sufficient. As far as I'm aware, Jehovah's Witnesses Association of Romania is the only article that has sufficient third-party sources, and it is borderline because the notable content could be merged into Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is good to know. Thank you for being understanding. schyler (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not having reentered the debate earlier, World Christian Encyclopedia , Second edition, 2001 Volume 1, p. 554, has Jehovah's Witnesses at 440,000 affiliated persons and growing. This suggests a possibility that there are more than half a million JWs in Nigeria. Sarcelles (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if we use more recent statistics, this trivial detail, which indicates that JWs make up about 0.37%—not even half of one percent—of Nigeria's population, is already covered at Jehovah's Witnesses by country. To warrant a country-specific article, there needs to be third-party sources that discuss (not simply 'mention') their specific and notable activities in that country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)