Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

Very important thing to mention!

Consubstantiality is usually the superficial merger of the trinity, but Jehovah Witnesses don't accept the trinity. Ok with that. But consubstantiality - Greek: to homoousion means also that the person-god Jehovah the father alone is internally non divisible - doesn't have internal constituents.

Some people say he has, some say no. Is the second definition (not about the trinity) of the ομοούσιον accepted officially by the Jehovah Witnesses? Add data about the innate consubstantiality of the person-god Jehovah as interpreted officially by the Jehovah Witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411B:BA00:B547:9A81:559A:8897 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

JWs have no position themselves on "consubstantiality", which is a subset of trinitarian belief, other than that they don't believe in it. It is not necessary for this article to elaborate on JW views of Catholic views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Memorial partakers

There used to be statistics in the annual yearbook about those who chose to partake in the Memorial. This might be worth mentioning, since only the annointed can partake. The statistics stopped being published a few years ago. 2001:1970:5A9F:C200:F16C:D508:FF47:6FBE (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No, the memorial partakers figures are still published annually on the official website as part of annual "Grand Totals". I'm not sure it's necessary for this article to elaborate on specific details of how many partakers there may be, as this article is a more general article about their beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be interesting because according to Watchtower teaching, partakers have to be born again, and being born again ended in the late 1930s. In other words, no one has been born again since then. This is part of their end times teaching, so it would be interesting to see if the numbers are in fact going down. --2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:28EF:2259:6821:F44A (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That view was changed in 2007, and it is not current JW belief that only people born prior to the 1930s can be 'anointed'. Aside from that, the number claiming to be 'anointed' has indeed increased every year since 2005, but that doesn't bear directly on this article, particularly since the Watch Tower Society itself says that some 'partakers' may not 'really' be 'anointed'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Well nothing has been established as for the information above.All of us who know the Religion ,know the reasons why sometimes information change.i hope many of us here are just ignorant If for reasons of not knowing some information.It would be sad and selfish if someone is twisting information knowingly.

I can see Jehovah witness dont establish all believes and it's for a reason,to those of you who don't know!That reason is ,they fully believe in the bible but they don't trust themselves(truly humble(bible teaching into consideration)and they know their own judgement can be false. That means if something is established by them they have looked the information over and over again.Then they publish it and show it to the public.Intresting of all things ,we can backtrack all their believes and doings.Understanding is key

.I'm not a Jehovah witness.I have a non biased opinion just like this page. 104.173.37.138 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting anything relevant to article content. This Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not providing general opinions or speculation about JWs. See also WP:FORUM.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Accusation of bias

After adding an innocuous wikilink to this article,[1] an IP editor 24.78.228.96 (talk · contribs) claimed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs that the previous absence of the wikilink is an example of "glaring bias". The page where the IP editor complained is a defunct WikiProject and is therefore unlikely to get much response there. I have therefore copied the existing discussion from there below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

24.78.228.96 (talk · contribs), I must confess I am confused. Your internal wikilink is still present and the only edit Jeffro77 (talk · contribs) made was to remove the underscore. That edit didn't change the internal link or even render it inert. Your added link is still there, it still works, there was no attempt to "wipe it away". What is the problem here? I would also like it to be known that 24.78.228.96 (talk · contribs) has posted on a semi-retired user's talk page, questioning to move of this discussion. Jthekid15 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re right to be confused. They seem to believe that the previous absence of the wikilink constitutes some fundamental attack on Christianity. Their personal attack in the discussion below is quite odd too. My removal of the underscore from the link was made a few hours after their initial complaint and was entirely incidental cleanup.—Jeffro77 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

I can't believe that after all this time there is bias in these articles and twisting of the facts and truth. I start reading and right in the second paragraph some one has added a note about some dissemination of some news. This isn't some news that no one else is talking about that can be glossed over like that. There are bible translations out there that use the very phrase " The Good News" because it refers to The Gospel, that every Christian denomination refers to. So I changed it to what it should be and even added and internal link to the article for "The Gospel" which says in the first line, also referred to as "The Good News." These are the diffs. And I am worried that this twisting of the facts by omission is shows a glaring bias. And I request that it be observed for a period, placed on a watch list, or whatever is official done at this project. Thank you. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though you may be over-reacting. You added a wikilink to the article, which was uncontested. It is not clear how the previous absence of that one wikilink indicates any 'twisting of facts', nor is it clear what other 'glaring bias' you're alluding to. You have not attempted to engage anyone at the article's Talk page regarding your concerns.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There he is, the man himself. I would want a second opinion on absolutely anything you have to say. As I wrote, I expect an attempt to be made to wipe away the internal link I added. The fact that I had to make that edit to the wording after all this time is a real concern. I'm glad you're here to minimize that point, which also vindicates my concern. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And if the hypothetical boogeyman you've invented shows up, you can discuss their objections on the article's Talk page. The absence of a single wikilink that was overlooked because the context was already clear is not the conspiracy you imagine it to be. Apart from your pointless rhetoric here, there is no problem at all with the change you made to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "good news", without a wikilink, was first introduced into the text of the original article Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses by AuthorityTam (talk · contribs), a pro-JW editor, on 2 April 2009[2]. Elements of the subject relating to beliefs were split to Beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on 14 August 2010, with the same wording retained, and the article was renamed Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs later the same day. The context of the statement apparently seemed obvious to the editor who added the phrase and subsequent editors. At no point was a wikilink added to the term in question and then subsequently removed due to any supposed 'bias'.

If you have any legitimate concerns of bias to discuss regarding the article, please start a section at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed every change made to the lead of the article in question. Apart from occasional section or page blanking by vandals (some being JW supporters trying to redirect traffic to the denomination's website[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]), the only change made to the term "good news" in the lead was one removal of the quotations marks around the term on 23 December 2014,[10] which was reverted the same day.[11] But if the IP editor won't take my word for it, they are welcome to review the history of the article themselves and point out any instance where the absent wikilink was supposedly added and then removed due to some imagined 'bias'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've already said, when I came across the article, the term "The Good News" (as a reference to Gospel's purpose, of every Christian denomination) was NOT there. What was there was written as some diminished less maybe local joke of a new, which is a smear and a slight on this religion. No proverbial wheelbarrel full of distraction you bring into this can change that. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

More than happy to hear whether other contributors here, or at the article’s Talk page where you should have raised your objection, agree with your novel reasoning on this matter.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that Jehovah's Witnesses do not capitalise the term "good news" (even when referring to the gospel). Additionally, the original editor who added the term included an extended quotation (which is still present 12 years later) in the supporting citation showing the use of "good news" explicitly in the context of Christian "proselytizing" (and the cited source explicitly explains that no negative connotation of the term "proselytize" is meant). The wikilink that has been added (which the IP editor imagines will be attacked for some bizarre reason) is entirely appropriate, but its absence was by no stretch of the imagination any attempt at 'smearing Christianity'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) "smearing Christianity" is not what I wrote, either you don't understand my point, you are pretending not to understand my point, or just twisting my words right in plain sight.
(2) "posted on a semi-retired user's talk page" is relevant only if you ignore that all those names are still on the project participant list.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Your exact words were “smear and a slight on this religion” and paraphrasing as ‘smearing Christianity’ is accurate. (Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of Christianity which is a religion. I am not responsible for your possible misuse of the terms.) I’m not interested in childish semantic debates. It remains the case that your accusations and personal attacks are entirely unfounded. If you have any legitimate concerns of bias in the article, present them.Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jeffro77, You are false, and your accusation of semantics is false, I wrote my statement on the "Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs" page not the "Christianity" page, so you paraphrasing is exactly what I called it, "twisting my words." If I'm writing "this religion" on a Jehovah's Witness talkpage, you can't reinterpret it as all of Christianity, that's your falsehood not my semantics. You've managed to double down on your tunnel vision this time, the first time was not bothering to note that any old news is not the Good News. 24.78.228.96 (talk)

This entire ‘dispute’ exists only in your own mind. I already indicated in a previous response to your unfounded personal attack that the context of the ‘good news’ in the article was clearly in reference to ‘the gospel’ and not ‘news’ generically. I’m sorry that you’re so disheartened by the absence of a wikilink that someone other than me failed to add when they made a change 12 years ago, but unless you can provide me with a time machine, there is nothing I can do about it. Just calm down.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that you had sent out a Group Notice when I saw your change from the 'Recent Changes' list. Due to the large edit size and the summary only being 'gn' it looked suspiciously like vandalism. I caution you that you must assume good faith WP:GF, we are not trying to silence you or twist your words, we are confused as to your actions. Your edit still stands, the link still works, please explain what the problem is more clearly.

Side-note:

If you're looking to get more involved with a religion wikiproject then I recommend WP:X or WP:RELI as they are much more active and not listed as 'Defunct'. You can continue to contribute towards WP:NPOV and help reduce bias while being in a more active environment. I also recommend that you create an account, this is so your edits are tied to a single source as IP addresses for editors often change. Learn more about why creating an account is helpful at WP:LOGIN.

Jthekid15 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC about conduct at this Religious Article's talkpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like a review of the conduct at this Religious Article's talkpage? The policy tag is there for a broader more neutral request
in this spirit of this project where things started. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Concerned: My request is vindicated by false accusations, such as "vandalism" for messaging project members. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have (briefly) reviewed the conduct on the article, as well as on this, its talk page, of the IP user 24.78.228.96, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion. I did all this solely because I saw an RfC notice here. My assessment is that nothing terrible has happened, except that 24.78.228.96 appears to be unduly incensed that a two-word phrase was never linked to a WP target page. 24.78.228.96 added the link, addressing the situation, causing no complaints or negative reactions by anybody on the planet, and still: 24.78.228.96 has fussed, complained, argued, sneered at or even attacked another user and started an (IMO) unnecessary RfC.
  My advice would be for IP user 24.78.228.96 to calm down, maybe even take a short break, then look over their actions and try to see that what we've got here is a whole lot of overreaction by an IP user, and a whole lot of calm discipline on the part of the other (logged-in) editors. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I too have (slightly more than briefly, but not in-depth) looked at this conversation (as far as I can follow it). There is no actual problem to look at, despite the fact that the IP is requesting someone look at it. The edit is still in (a wiki-link of all things), and was never challenged. It appears their complaint is that it wasn't wiki-linked already. Jeffro clearly explained that it was simply an oversight when the edits to the page were originally made ("The context of the statement apparently seemed obvious to the editor who added the phrase and subsequent editors. At no point was a wikilink added to the term in question and then subsequently removed due to any supposed 'bias'."). The IP appears to be wanting an RFC because they THINK that something that hasn't occurred (the removal of their wiki-link) will occur at some point ("As I wrote, I expect an attempt to be made to wipe away the internal link I added. The fact that I had to make that edit to the wording after all this time is a real concern."). This appears to be completely pointless on every level.
  • One final note on the "attack" that can be seen via the link in JohnFromPinckney's above post: I do not believe it rises to the level of an actual attack. Declaring that you would want a second opinion because you don't trust the first person's is certainly rude and childish, but does not constitute an attack IMO. Unless there is another more blatant personal attack that the IP has done elsewhere that I have missed, I say we simply dismiss the RFC. Vyselink (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a personal attack, as the wording was specifically targeted at me rather than a general statement about wanting a second opinion, though the specific motivation is unclear. However, the attack is trivial and as it is unlikely the editor will apologise, it can simply be ignored at this point unless the behaviour continues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - aside from spamming the former participants of the defunct WikiProject indicated previously (causing some degree of confusion, including but not limited to another editor initially thinking the group message might have been vandalism), the anonymous IP is continuing to canvas for support of this RFC,[13][14] though it is not clear what the editor is actually expecting to achieve.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Clarifying. Since I keep being misquoted. I originally was concerned with the wording of "a good news" (insinuating some other) since this is not a new article, there seemed to me to be bias in that it was left incorrectly worded (for so long) to suggest something it is not, in a lead paragraph no less. "a good news" is a different thing as "The Good News AKA the Gospel" and the minimizing struck me as an ugly dangerous bias. My concern about the correction of "a good news" (not the internal link) being reverted is only cautionary and the internal link is not the main concern I first raise, that has lead to these processes. All along the way though, User:Jeffro77 has twisted what I had to say to suite his purposes: Taking what I had to say at the Project against religious bias away from that context, and then attacking me for referring to that context, by calling me a spammer for messaging members of that project, is to me good evidence of acting on bias. Saying I am referring to all of Christianity when I am talking about "this religion" on the "Jehovah's Witness beliefs" talkpage is another example of his twisting my words. User:Jeffro77 immediately misquoted me when her first saw that I was talking about the wording of the second lead paragraph, and started instead referring to the link I had added to take attention away from my actual concern, and everyone that has followed has critisized me for what he claims is my concern, not what I actually wrote at Project against religious bias. I was not aware that the projects was left behind when I first went looking for the correct channel to complain about the bias in the lead paragraph. But having found that resource I tried to make full use of it. If User:Jeffro77 hadn't been taking me out of context and twisting what I had to say from the start this would not have escalated to where it is, because this behaviour served only to fuel my concerns about bias in this/these articles. Left in the context of concern for bias, if you look at it from the start, he has reveal himself through his edits here. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. The article never said “a good news”, and no one has complained about your change to the article. The context was already evident from the supporting citation, but the introduction of “the” was an improvement. As with the wikilink, it is not the case that the word “the” was ever previously added and then subsequently removed from the phrase, due to alleged bias or for any other reason, since the term “good news” was added in 2009. Despite your false accusations that I have deliberately misquoted or misrepresented your intentions, you did initially only add the wikilink,[15] and it was a few minutes later that you added "the"[16], so it is not clear how I was expected to know your primary concern. I repeatedly said very clearly that there was no problem with your change. JW literature does not capitalise the term “good news” (even when referring to the gospel). (Also, various mainstream Bibles, including the "Good News Translation", contain the rendering "good news" without "the" at Luke 4:18. Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation also has "good news" without "the" at that verse along with Luke 3:18; and 16:16.)

  2. I am in no way responsible for the wording chosen by another editor (and a supporter of the denomination in question) 12 years ago.

  3. The WikiProject you posted on was labelled as defunct in 2012.[17] Everything you said at that page was copied to this page, with full context and clearly indicated as being moved from that page.

  4. Jehovah’s Witnesses is a denomination and Christianity is a religion. Your misuse of the terms is not my responsibility.

  5. You started this entire train wreck by crying out ‘bias’ over an edit you made that no one complained about. If you had just made the change and left it at that, reviewers such as myself would have casually thought, “oh, yeah, that’s better” and enjoyed the rest of our day.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Disseminating good news" is a deceptive minimizing spin on what they do, because it suggests something other than "The Gospel," AKA the Christian Good News. You will never get me to agree to anything different from that statement. Having accepted that it is deceptive, the bias is clear. You will never get met to agree to anything different from that either. There is no point in arguing with you, you just don't want to see it. 24.78.228.96 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  At this point, I don't really care if you 'agree'. You made an edit that was uncontested, and your opinion of me is irrelevant. If you have any actual concerns with article content, present those concerns. Otherwise, just go away. If you continue with any irrelevant personal attacks, you will be reported to admins.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  The previous wording that you insist is ‘biased’ was added by a pro-JW editor 12 years ago, so you ordinarily would need to take up your concerns with that editor. But the editor hasn’t been active for several years, so I guess you can just relax.—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the RfC tag, as the topic raised by the OP is entirely unsuitable as subject matter for an RfC: RfCs are intended to be used solely to solicit feedback regarding content matters, not behavioural issues and disputes--the RfC/U process was retired by the community seven years ago for exactly this reason. Since there is no live editorial dispute identified in this "RfC" prompt, let alone a narrowly defined one with a specific proposal/solution to !vote on or otherwise engage with to the benefit of the article, this entire discussion is not only not appropriate to the process, it really ought to be hatted. I suggest that if the OP still has concerns about the conduct of other editors here, they have the option to use WP:ANI or another appropriate forum for reporting behavioural issues. Although, frankly, viewing just as much of the exchange here as regards this thread and the related dispute, I would not necessarily recommend it as I think a WP:BOOMERANG block for a combination of disruption and CIR concerns would be the most likely outcome. In short, 24.78.228.96, I would take your win on the content issue (which if I am reading the forgoing discussion correctly, was not even being blocked with regard to your preferred approach) and walk with it. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of my edits

I'm thankful for everyone who took the time to explain the technicalities of Wikipedia. My intentions were never to buck the system or to misuse what I know. There used to exist an entire project dedicated to correcting the bias that crept into articles on religion here because there were contentious disagreements about how religion articles should be written on specific denominations because people with bias could hide behind user IDs and pretend to be in favour of improving an article while they sabotaged it with their edits. So when I read in the intro that this denominations activities were being minimized, "some news" which could mean anything rather than the Christian gospel "good news," I was struck with how what they do was being misrepresented, and I looked for help where ever I could, because it surprised me that this false bit of information and misrepresentation had been in the introduction of the article for so long, for 12 years it turns out. Whether it was added by a real JW or a false JW 12 years ago who can know. But my RfC was not about user conduct specifically. My point is the single most important bit of teaching/doctrine of this denomination had been misrepresented for a very long time, right in the introduction, and who knows how many other JW articles have this kind of sabotage in them? You can see from the above discussion that I tried to highlight that it was a concern for me, and it was just brushed under the carpet. My edit wasn't just adding an internal link, my edit wasn't just a small rewording, an addition of an internal link which had yet to be contested, but that I had to make it in the first place after 12 years. If you don't care about the correctness of the information in the article then it wouldn't matter to you that it had been wrong for 12 or so years. But the point is that all of Christianity revolves around "the good news" (AKA The Gospel) and if you take that away from Jehovah's Witnesses you're sabotaging their place as a Christian denomination, their place as Christians and Christianity. And that this article was misrepresenting an entire denomination's prime doctrine for 12 or so years, is a shame on this encyclopedia. Technically what I did may have been the wrong approach, backwards approach, but the record now exists of how my intention was received and how my points were minimized and/or twisted. Like saying it was "just a link" (paraphrase, see above) is taking what I wrote out of context by ignoring the other half. So I am thankful that this record exists, I'm sorry I'm not perfectly fluent in Wikipedia syntax & procedure, but I have no doubt in this case that the ends justifies the means. 24.78.228.96 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You're still complaining about a perceived problem over the inclusion of a link and one word, which has already been addressed. There is no actionable request here. Just to be clear, your claim that "the single most important bit of teaching/doctrine of this denomination had been misrepresented" is completely false, as the source added 12 years ago included a quote stating very clearly that the "good news" refers to the Christian 'gospel' and not some vague general sense. Perhaps, if you imagine there to be some broad problem with the way the denomination is presented in Wikipedia, you could focus on what you imagine to be the most serious concern rather than this ultimately mundane oversight that has already been corrected.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. JWs would deny that their organization is a denomination of Christianity, as they believe they are the only Christians in the universe. What most people call "Christianity" they would denounce as demonic. And they would deny that their belief system constitutes a religion. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:28EF:2259:6821:F44A (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter that JWs don't consider other Christian denominations to be 'real Christians', for the same reason that it doesn't matter that some other Christians don't consider JWs to be 'real Christians'. Your statement that "they would deny that their belief system constitutes a religion" is simply false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

God's throne in the Pleiades

This used to be taught - should it be mentioned? I don't think it has ever been officially denied. https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/34882/our-father-who-art-pleiades --2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:28EF:2259:6821:F44A (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No. A) It's a very old teaching that wasn't particularly prevalent or highlighted even when it was taught. And B) the website you gave literally denies it in the quote from the 1953 WT. Vyselink (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It certainly isn't noteworthy in the scope of their current beliefs. However, I have added it at Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)