This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theJehovah's Witnesses article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChristianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofNew York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Anywhere in this article that refers to Jehovah's witnesses as a christian denomination, is factualy wrong. They do not believe Jesus is God, therefore they cannot be christian. Proof: Christianity name is derived from Christ name. Example from your article that is wrong : "Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of Christianity that is an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century." This is false. They are not a denomination of ChristianitySusannahSuza (talk)17:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christian’s are considered to be those that follow Jesus Christ beliefs and teachings believing in his life, death, and resurrection as messiah. Outside of that are many different teachings of Christ divinity and understanding of the Bible. No where in the Bible is it taught Christian must believe “Jesus is God”, these are religious views and is bias towards a neutral article.Elicruze (talk)03:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't multiple doctrine suggest that the Bible does teach that Christians should believe Jesus is God? For instance:
- Multiple passages that indicate Jesus is God, such as John 1:1, 14, John 8:58, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:9, Isaiah 9:6, etc. It's stated in the Bible that anyone can claim to be God with mere words, so it mostly showcases the actions of Jesus that suggest divinity.
- The title "Son of God" being a title for a divine being in Old Testament context.
-
The only reasoning I can see to keep the denomination part (instead of "sect" for example) is due to the fact that the organization considers themselves Christian.Dawnisurenemy (talk)18:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawnisurenemy: Wikipedians don't intepret the Bible. To you, this may be the obvious conclusion, but obviously people have different interpretations because otherwise there wouldn't be people who believed innontrinitarianism. What Wikipedia does is summarize reliable sources withdue weight (and the label "denomination" is used, alongside others). We don'ttake sides on what's "right". To come to our own conclusions would be consideredoriginal research. Hope that helps,Clovermoss🍀(talk)23:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity must be defined in your response if you want to argue a fundamentally non-Christian sect is in fact Christian. I don't believe you can make an argument either way otherwise. Words and labels do have meaning after all.~2025-42468-41 (talk)00:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the first sentence say “Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves a nontrinitarian, millenarian and restorationist christian denomination” because it is much more neutral than the current one. It doesn’t lean one or the other. (my view is that it’s a cult).Mahal ko si Jesus (talk)05:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a Protestant work; not representing the whole christian world (the “call themselves” that I mentioned will be better). Especially Catholicism.Mahal ko si Jesus (talk)06:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions of rival denominations are not the basis for whether a denomination is considered Christian. However, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (volume 1, page 135) also classifies Jehovah's Witnesses as Adventists, which it classifies as Christian. No more 'no true Scotsman' fallacies thanks.--Jeffro77Talk07:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every mainstream theological reference — Catholic, Protestant, academic — defines Christianity by Trinitarian belief. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, so per reliable sources they fall outside historic Christianity. You’re welcome to cite a scholarly source saying otherwise — that’s how consensus works here.Augustus2714 (talk)04:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t a magisterial or authoritative doctrinal source — it’s a reference compilation that often summarizes rather than defines theological positions. It’s useful contextually, but it doesn’t establish what the Catholic Church or mainstream Christianity officially considers orthodox. If we’re talking about how Christianity is historically defined, the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds are the actual baseline, not a 20th-century encyclopedia entry.Augustus2714 (talk)05:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delet the jw.org sign as if its their symbol. Why? It is only the sign of jw.org, not of the movement Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, they say they hate symbolism athttps://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101976850: "The Bible, however, sets forth no visible symbol for Christianity. Christians today, therefore, must be on guard not to adopt such a symbol." That 1976 policy is still the policy. The movement did not have a symbol since removing their cross and crown symbol in 1928.
No thanks, please don't delete the official symbol/logo of the organisation, as used on the organisation's official website by the organisation itself. I didn't bother looking at your off-topic youtube link asWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.WalterEgo13:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that the 1976 policy stands: Since the 1928 cross and crown, this religion (calling itself "Christianity" in the 1976 article) has no symbol. The jw.org logo is that of jw.org, not of the community "Jehovah's Witnesses." And the other link I gave just illustrates that it is just as false to use the jw.org logo for an alleged Jehovah's Witness cross-like symbol as it is to use an A-H naval ensign for the flag of Autria-Hungary. They are related but not the same.
There is not a shred of evidence on jw.org that the logo jw.org should represent the organization. All I see is that is represents jw.org. The argument that it just is on jw.org is a non-sequitor.
If you really want to know: Write to the Watch Tower Society as official Wikipedia official and ask: "Is the jw.org logo the jw.org logo or is it the symbol of Jehovah's Witnesses, replacing the cross and crown, contrary to the 1976 Watchtower article?"176.126.80.32 (talk)21:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article uses the logo commonly associated with and representative of the organisation. Articles about organisations and corporations on Wikipedia typically include a logo, and it does not inherently construe 'religious symbolism' in the sense you're complaining about. Opinions about Bible verses are not relevant regarding this matter.--Jeffro77Talk03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is used, but not as representative of the group, which the 1976 article says is evil, a symbol, but rather as representative of the website. I also did not cite anything from the Bible. The '76 article did.176.126.81.32 (talk)16:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is used in this article in the same manner that logos are used in other Wikipedia articles. The usage of the logo at this article is not relevant to whether JWs consider 'religious symbols' to be 'evil'.--Jeffro77Talk05:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the connection is relevant. As there is no caption in the wiki box that tells us it is merely the jw.org logo, one might readily falsely conclude it is a symbol of the religion. This is especially possible considering similar boxes (LDS Church, Catholic Church, SDA Church, etc.) that all feature the official symbols. One might think that that's also the case for this religion here. So, at least we should add a caption to clarify the correct information.~2025-31136-90 (talk)17:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logois a symbol of their denomination. It is prominently featured on their literature, website and places of worship. Their use of the logo is no different to logos as used by other denominations.--Jeffro77Talk09:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The jw.org logo is the logo of jw.org. And that is a website. It is not the denomination. The 1976 policy stands: The denomination has no visible sign, emblem, Standard, logo, symbol, etc. Contact the Watchtower Society in Wikipedia's name and ask directly: "Is jw.org your new symbol, after the cross and crown? Or is it the symbol of jw.org?"~2025-32182-67 (talk)22:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your source saying the denomination 'has no symbol' predates the existence of the JW.org logo by several decades. The logo is widely used to represent the denomination, including on their places of worship (which are not Watch Tower Society corporate offices or a website). It is not used in the article as a 'religious symbol'. Just stop.--Jeffro77Talk12:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the decades, there has been no official change. As such, the 1976 policy stands. Watchtower policy stands until it is changed.
Further, no evidence is provided how to interpret the logo. The argument was just: "They use it far any wide. Ergo, it stand for their group." That is a non-sequitor. The logo is widely used on their halls (but not inside, like a cross). But that does not mean they think it is the symbol of their group. I interpret it as just an ad for their website intended for newcomers, in which case it would not be a symbol for the group but for the website.
It is not used INhe article as a religious symbol. But it gives the impression itIN THE BOX is their symbol (as if it is like that of the LDS or SDA Church). There is no caption, so nobody knows what on earth is meant exactly, anyway.
But, again, I would just ask an administrator of Wikipedia to contact the Watch Tower Society of PA or the Watchtower Society of NY. Surely, they know it is the website symbol, not the denomination symbol (there is none since the 1928 cross and crown removal).~2025-35231-15 (talk)16:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of logos on Wikipedia articles is commonplace, and has nothing to do with whether JWs 'use it as a symbol like a cross'. Your argument that 'nobody knows what on earth is meant exactly' is baseless (logos don't always obviously have a specific inherent meaning), but also wrong ('JW' quite obviously stands for 'Jehovah's Witnesses'). There is no support for your desired change, and your rationale is specious.--Jeffro77Talk02:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Your argument that 'nobody knows what on earth is meant exactly' is baseless (logos don't always obviously have a specific inherent meaning)" - That was not what I meant. Strawman. I said: Nobody knows what the logo IN THE WIKIPEDIA BOX means. Obviously, I do not care what Jehovah's Witnesses mean with the jw.org logo. But my argument is: Nobody knows what the logo IN THE BOX means. Is it a website logo? Is it a denomination logo? There is simply no caption in the box. (Other religious groups have such a caption, for example "official logo" or whatever for the LDS Church.)
"but also wrong ('JW' quite obviously stands for 'Jehovah's Witnesses')" - Strawman. Regardless: It does not say: JW. Look at the logo. It says: jw DOT ORG. So, it is: the WEBSITE of Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not use it for THEMSELVES as a denomination.
"There is no support for your desired change, and your rationale is specious." No, your arguments are strawmen.
I repeat: The 1976 policy is still in place. There has been no symbolism since 1928 (considered evil). The jw.org logo is the logo of jw.org, not that of the denomination Jehovah's Witnesses that happen to use jw.org (but they also use Watchtowers, which also have logos, so?). If you deny that and say the 1976 idea is overturned, there is a simple possibility: To settle the dispute (jw.org logo vs. Jehovah's Witnesses logo), the administrators should contact the WTB&TSoPA or the WB&TSoNY. I remain convinced they will confirm my interpretation. I deny what was written by Jeffro77 and remain totally unconvinced until I see the evidence. Otherwise, the 1976 policy stands.~2025-35240-63 (talk)21:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Watchtower Society is (one of) the official representative(s) of the denomination. Here is an analogy: A country uses a flag. Some think it is the naval ensign. Others say it is the official state flag. If I propose to just contact the country to make sure what it is, would you object, "Oh, the country has no say over Wikipedia!"? No, that would be a totally bad retort. If you have people that can tell you what they themselves think about their own logos, it is useful to get their views ABOUT THEIR OWN LOGOSf course, this does not mean that Wikipedia is now "subject" to my country in my analogy. Regardless, a user already edited the page to say it is merely the website, not their official denominational symbol. Maybe that will be accepted by some people here. If there is an other editor that will remove the caption or change it to say, "official logo of Jehovah's Witnesses," and the dispute continues, my proposal to get their official stance stands.~2025-35739-44 (talk)07:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought analogies were supposed to be a simple example of something!!! That's just a throwaway comment, but note that you have not made a case for the removal of the logo. -WalterEgo13:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping some notes here, as promised. Some of these may be easy to address, some less so. I haven't looked deep into the source material: in some cases we may already be at the limit of what the sources can say, but perhaps someone who knows the sources can dig things up. Also, I'm posting these piecemeal. I'll be back.Vanamonde93 (talk)00:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few terms in the lead piped to terms that aren't identical to the layperson. For instance; "hellfire" goes to "Hell in Christianity"; so does this mean JW's reject the concept of hell, or something more subtle, that perhaps requires a footnote? Same with "inherent immortality" going to "christian conditionalism". The degree of explanation that technical term requires is a frequent point of contention at FAC, and the lead in particular requires concision, so I don't want to ask for agloss
Yes, JWs do reject the concept of hell entirely. The only nuance is how they treat a specific word that is usually translated as hell to mean something else.
That's fine, but I still wonder why the link is [[Christian views on Hell|hellfire]] rather than simply [[Hell in Christianity|hell]]?
"Limited in Western Academia" is perhaps necessary if that's what the source says, but the implication that Eastern academia may have analyzed JWs is odd.
The source saysThe serious academic study of NRMS only began when newer groups gained public attention in the West, notably the Unification Church, the children of God (subsequently The Family International), the Church of Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement). The neglect of NRMs in theology faculties was no doubt due to the contempt which their ideas were held, and it was left to sociologists to treat them as social phenomena. As a result, the older minority religions, sometimes called the 'old new religions', were left behind, and the attention focused on societal issues, often at the expense of beliefs and practices. Other sources tend to be a bit more explicit about the lack of academic study, particularly Knox. Do you think I should check that and maybe replace the ref?
My difficulty isn't with the lack of study - that's clearly well-supported - but with the "western", which I see you've removed. It does seem like there's more detail in that source that may be worth including? Assuming Chrissides is referring to JW's in this segment, something like "Jehovah's Witnesses, among other new religious movements, were often neglected by theologists. Sociological study of their relationships with external society, rather than their beliefs and practices, has dominated the limited academic study of them". Modified as appropriate given the rest of the source of course, but the theology/sociology contrast is useful material.
InDemographics, I wasn't able to find "getting no further than high school graduation" in the source.
Read all five pages of the report and I don't see it either. I think it was cited to NPR when it was first added to the article, which says thatLinderer's story is a common one for children raised as Jehovah's Witnesses. Pew Research shows that only 9 percent of Witnesses get undergraduate degrees. That's well below the national average of 30.4 percent and the lowest of any faith group. The likely reason for this trend is the religion's official warnings against college.[1] If that's the case, not sure why it was rearranged in with the rest, as the year of that research isn't clarified in the source. After a lot of digging, it seems to be a reflection of this2016 summary by Pew Research.[2]
More broadly, the statistics there are fine, but some contextualization or commentary from secondary sources would be nice.
Not sure there's much of that? I searched "Jehovah's Witnesses Pew Research" and most of what came up was forum posts and not reliable sources. There's a PBS article that just summarizes the findings but with no additional commentary.
It doesn't necessarily have to be based on the Pew survey. Any academic discussion of their demographics, even with much less detail, would be nice. I recognize that this is potentially difficult.
"Colportage" is technical enough that a gloss would be nice.
What do you mean by "gloss"? Do you want me to add some context?
Linked above: "gloss" in the sense of a "brief explanatory note"
The demographic changes post-1917 are a little confusing to me. I can't access Penton. Gruss talks of three-quarters leaving between 1921 and 1931, which is not quite "by the 20s"; and the latter is an awkward construction anyway. This may be simplest to present as two different estimates about two different periods, with in-text attribution and the sources moved appropriately.
I'm not as familiar with the Gruss source but I can access Penton. Do you prefer the construction in the text before[3] or would you prefer something else entirely? Only one of the page snippets linked in the Penton source was accessible to me through Google Books and it simply says "thousands left", without specifying further. I know I have a physical copy of the book somewhere but I've been doing winter cleaning so give me a few more days to find out where exactly it is and I'll double check if either page in the physical edition corresponds with it.
A minor formatting note that when you use multiple page ranges from the same book, you can use sfn formatting or similar to allow readers to click to the full bibliographic entry from the shortened footnote: I noticed the Gruss source doesn't do this, perhaps there's others.Vanamonde93 (talk)00:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FAC does mandate citation consistency. You have a little leeway with respect to what that means; you can do sfn for all books, for instance, or all sources, or even just those books for which you use multiple page ranges, but you generally want web sources and news sources treated the same way throughout. If I spot individual examples I'll try to flag or fix them.Vanamonde93 (talk)19:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will have seen I tweaked the lead citations; feel free to revert/adjust as needed, but I suggest that where you're using a number of sources to cover many adjectives, you want to split the sources out to avoid implying that any one supports them all. When using a large number of sources to support a contentious point, I try to wrap them into a footnote with explanation, rather than a reference; but this may be a matter of preference.
I do not have strong preferences for ref formatting. I will make a concerted effort towards consistency for the reason you explain above, but beyond that I'm not particularly picky so I'll follow your suggestions unless another editor objects.Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note that "Scholars George Chryssides and Zoe Knox avoid using the term new religious movement because it also has negative connotations." is cited only to Knox; perhaps Knox covers it?
I'm hesitant about the use of JW sources for reporting statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, such as their membership or the number of Bible studies. While they are likely to be the only source to tabulate these numbers, and the numbers are of interest to readers, they also have a vested interest (as does any similar organization) to present themselves in the best possible light. So I'd suggest in-text attribution in those cases.
In-text attribution seems like a good idea. Secondary sources do occasionally report on these demographic statistics, but they're just a repetition of the official JW ones. I think it makes sense to clarify what exactly counts as a "bible study" to the average reader, now that I'm looking at that phrasing. It's a study of whatever the current book JWs are using for that purpose likeWhat Does The Bible Teach?. I vaguely remember either Chryssides or Knox mentioning this so I'll try to track that down.Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant about the use of the court document to support "hierarchical".
"which led to a new outbreak of mob violence" I assume this means violence targeting JWs, but you could be more explicit here.
As a matter of preference I would like to see an example or two in the middle paragraph of Knorr, dealing with dishonesty in the JW's version of the Bible.
In the third paragraph of that section you mention the governing body, but this is the first time it's been discussed in the body; its composition, and its distinction from the corporation isn't clear. I recognize that you cover this in detail later, but a brief explanation is probably useful, particularly if you can add a temporal component to it's formation.
The top subsection of "organization" leaves readers hanging somewhat - if the property was sold, where is the group now headquartered? It would also be nice to have that history before 1969, if possible.
Even after reading the organization section, I'm left uncertain as to how the governing body is chosen.
The material on gender roles is necessary, obviously, but strikes me as belonging in "beliefs".
I'm not going to focus on the government relations section for the moment, because I understand from above you're still working on the details of a split? I'll return when I can to cover beliefs and practices.Vanamonde93 (talk)19:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming, with apologies for the delay. "that the Protestant Reformation "did not go far enough""; I find myself wondering "in what way", though this needs to be brief, of course.
I suggest a gloss for Tetragrammaton
"They base this belief on a rendering of the Greek word parousia—usually translated as "coming" when referring to Jesus—as "presence"" - I confess I have no idea what this means. JW's base a belief on...a single word translated oddly? why, and from where?
"Greek word parousia" I may be missing the context here, but παρουσία (parousia) is the Greek term for "presence" and "attendance". Seehere. It is a regularly-used term in Greek schools, when the teachers have to determine which of the students attended a certain class each day.Dimadick (talk)10:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking issue with the translation, it's the relevance that I don't see established. Is it a matter of interpreting biblical texts? If so that isn't clear to me.
More broadly I think the Eschatology section could be reorganized a bit. There's a few sentences in there that don't quite belong in my view; other religions, relationship with governments; and there's some redundancy in the rest.
There's a little redundancy in "baptism"; some of that has already been covered. also, upon reading it, I am left with the impression JWs are baptized as adults primarily, but this isn't explicitly stated. I think the section reflects the broader difficulty of separating "beliefs" and "practices", which are necessarily intertwined - I would attempt to confine "beliefs" to the broadest ones, and put family, government, and baptism in "practices" but other reasonable divisions could be devised.
"outsiders are encouraged to attend" these meetings only, or all functions?
As above, I suggest that when you use numbers from the WTS, you attribute them inline - I don't necessarily disbelieve them, but they are not an independent source.
The BI source only refers to theWatchtower's circulation, notAwake!
"An application" - I assume this is a mobile app, but don't want to add the qualifier without the source
You've chosen to include commentary about the impact of JW practices in the sections related to those practices. I think this is a reasonable choice, and avoids a section with synth issues - but someone could reasonably argue that the material should be moved to a new one about relations with broader society, or cult comparisons, or similar. I'm not asking you to change anything, but the organizational choice is worth considering.
Could you find an adjective for Alan Rogerson? Also, Gary Botting has scholarly credentials - his former membership in the JWs is worth mentioning, but his scholarship too, I think
I don't fully understand what the National Secular Society is saying, and I'm uncertain whether the inclusion is due; are they considered an authority on medical matters?
There's an "update needed" tag that needs resolution.
Okay, I've worked through everything besides government interactions, as above. Happy to discuss any of this. In general the article is in good shape; it leans heavily on scholarly sources, which would be more or less a requirement at the FA level for this subject. I haven't done much in the way of spotchecking, which will be a part of a first FAC, or looked at the sources to see if all the relevant material is covered, but off the top of my head I don't see obvious omissions. I am help with the source formatting matters I mentioned above if that would be useful. Best,Vanamonde93 (talk)19:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Jehovah under beliefs I feel is confusingly worded saying Jehovah is the "only true god". Does this imply a polytheistic metaphysics of JWs? I feel like the answer is no, but I don't know how to start that research and would appreciate input. The issue (here) is with the word "true" because it implies other gods that are false. That is, it implies other gods exist but that something about them is "false" or perhaps that they just don't exist and that makes them false, but if that were the case I think it would be simpler to say "Jehovah is god" or "Jehovah is God". Please advise.Jwabeck (talk)07:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiJwabeck. The article says:They believe that Jehovah is the only true god, To me that sounds like a clear enough description of the JW belief as documented in the secondary source it’s taken from: Rogerson, Alan (1969).Millions Now Living Will Never Die. p.69. London: Constable & Co. ISBN 978-0094559400. I don't have the book but I assume that citation to be correct especially as this article has been peer reviewed and elevated toGood article status. It's not for us at Wikipedia to speculate or offer any further explanation on what that statement might imply. As stated above byAndyTheGrump in the preceding section, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and that'we almost entirely base article content, with due regard for balance, on secondary sources - publications independent of the subject we deem reliable and (depending on what they are being cited for)'. If you wish to elaborate on Rogerson's claim, I suggest a good place to start your research would be with his book and the context it is taken from, and also have a look at the phraseology of the separate article atJehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs#God, then you are most welcome to make a suggestion how the Wikipedia sentence could be recast.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)16:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but then the issue is that the article seems to contradict itself as in the eschatology section it implies a dualistic theology where it says "...competing claims of Jehovah and Satan to universal sovereignty" because universal sovereignty is normally a right reserved for God. Both claims can be correct, but if anything I think the article (specifically either the eschatology or god sections) requires expansion to bring the two claims into alignment. That is, the article explicitly states that Satan is competing with Jehovah, but it does not address the tautological hubris of competing with a "universal sovereign".Jwabeck (talk)17:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles do not need to attempt to reconcile what might seem like contradictions in a particular belief system. The Watch Tower Society teaches that 'Jehovah is the true God' (often using that exact wording) and that there was a 'challenge to universal sovereignty'. Their belief is accurately presented as is.--Jeffro77Talk09:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Recently this organization changed redefined their (as described in article) "shunning arrangement" to one referring to 'removal' and more lenient communication rules.would this warrant an update to the article?~2025-38385-72 (talk)00:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'disfellowshipping' was removed from this article at the time that the terminology changed. The actual practice of shunning has not substantially changed. Detailed elaboration about specific processes are not required at this main article. The specific changes are already covered atJehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline#Shunning.--Jeffro77Talk01:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thinkthis revert, which refers to the JWs as Protestant in the first sentence, needs discussion. Generally, restorationists are considered distinct from Protestants, and JW theology and practices differ significantly in many features compared to Protestants. Most sources on JWs that I have read do not call them Protestants, so it seemsWP:UNDUE at best to do so. It's also not clear yet whether the source cited does so outside of the chapter title; the chapter is about Adventists and JWs together.
The claim was not previously in the main text, but was in a reference footnote for unclear reasons; it was introduced to the main text inthis edit on 25 December. The rest of the article does not discuss that JWs are Protestant at all, which is contrary toWP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.Crossroads-talk-20:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the JW's being labeled Protestant is not a new (i.e. since Christmas) thing. This argument has been had several times, most recently I believe in 2023, when Jeffro and I among others argued about it. (Clickhere for that archived discussion). Personally, I agree, they should not be called Protestant, but it was never conclusively settled (even the RFC that was supposedly opened on the above old talk page, while it was 5 NO's to 2 YES's, didn't lead to any changes).Vyselink (talk)22:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. Jehovah's Witnesses are definitionally Protestant and included as such in encyclopedias of religion and encyclopedias of Protestantism, but it isn't essential to overload the opening sentence. (The fact they object to the label on abstruse doctrinal grounds is not the determining factor, for the same reason that they are Christians even though many Christians don't like nontrinitarian denominations.)--Jeffro77Talk02:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that I am adding something to a talk page, so I apologize for any mistakes along the way, which is also why I will formulate my suggestions as merely questions.
1) Would it be possible to unlink the mentioning of "Armageddon" in the 4th paragraph for the purpose of "linking consistency", because it has already been linked in the 2nd paragraph, whereas "God's kingdom" has also only been linked in the 2nd one and not in the 4th one? Although I guess the alternative would be, if it would be possible to link the second mentioning of "God's kingdom" there for consistency instead.
2) Would it be unproblematic to include a notion about their understanding of "earthly paradise" post-kingdom-establishment at the end of or following the sentence "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 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." in the 2nd paragraph of the lead?
3) Could it make any sense to add quick info on their annual memorial commemoration to the 2nd paragraph of the lead too before or after the lines "They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity.", due to it being the only celebration that they all got together on some day of the year?
4) This one I potentially noticed only while writing my suggestions, but could it be that there is a space missing between "pagan" & "origins" in the 2nd paragraph? It could of course only be an error from trying to copy the lines that contain them, but I just want to play it safe.
Just a quick aside, if you want to indent your message, use : with no space before the first word (when you go to respond to this take a look at my edits here and you'll see). By putting a spacebar space, you created text boxes, so I have removed them.
As for your notes: 1) Done. Doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead. 2) That type of information is too specific for the lead and is in the article (although on a side note we may want to consider trimming the lead a bit). 3) I'm not sure about this one, I'll wait on other editors comments. My gut says no, as again it'll be in the article and doesn't need to be in the lead. 4) No space missing. Thank you for the suggestions. I'd suggest creating an actual page should you want contribute more!Vyselink (talk)03:18, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help and advice, Vyselink. It gives me the courage to open more topics in hope to improve articles that way.
1) Under "Beliefs", then "Eschatology", then the first paragraph and sixth sentence, the link on the word "seperate" doesn't work on my end.
2) Under "History", then "Background", then the fourth paragraph and first sentence, the name "New York" isn't linked together within "Brooklyn, New York", whereas in the first paragraph and first sentence "Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" is linked together, as well as how "Columbus, Ohio" is linked together under "History", then "Joseph Rutherford", then the third paragraph and first sentence.
3) It's possible that I just don't understand the reasonings behind the following three yet:
3.1) Under "Demographics", then the second paragraph, the links on "Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life" in the first sentence and "Pew Research Center" in the sixth sentence lead to the same article-page, despite being under the same heading and paragraph.
3.2) Under "Beliefs", then "Eschatology", the links on "parousia" in the first paragraph and fourth sentence and "second coming" in the second paragraph and tenth sentence lead to the same article-page, despite being under the same heading.
3.3) Under "Government interactions", then "Canada", then the second paragraph, the links on "War Measures Act" in the first sentence and "National Selective Service Mobilization Regulations" in the eighth sentence lead to the article-page, despite bring under the same heading and paragraph.~2026-21830-5 (talk)09:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
JWs do not believe in the Trinity, nor do they uphold that Jesus Christ is God. Rather, they believe Christ was created, which is in conflict with the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon.
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
The paragraph speaking about Weekend Meetings provides outdated or unsubstantiated statements about the nature of "comments." Specifically the final sentence which states that "personal ideas derived from independent study are discouraged." From personal experience I can confidently state that this is a false claim.Endlord1414 (talk)14:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
Not done: please providereliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -FlightTime(open channel)17:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
