Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses talk page (Discussion page).
(January 2009 - December 2009) - Please Do not edit!

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding project organization

Any comments regarding the structure and function of Christianity related material are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum#Project organization. Be prepared for some rather lengthy comments, though. There is a lot of material to cover there. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:18, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Comments regarding template and project

First, I have to say that, at present, Template:Jehovah's Witnesses is, frankly, bloated. There is no good reason that the template to the main article on a subject should contain a direct link to a four-line stub, as this one does. The purpose of these templates is to help people negotiate between the main articles regarding a subject. It's hard to see how some of these articles really even qualify as that, and, given their comparatively poor quality, I can and do think that this template needs some serious trimming.
One of the things I am going to try to do with all the articles includes as "core topics" within Christianity is try to help develop navigation templates to effectively and easily link all the articles which are required for someone to get a clear, comprehensive understanding of the subject of the main article. Right now, this template and project look like one of the best early choices. Which articles do the rest of you think are of the greatest importance to help someone new to the church gain a better understanding of it? Those are the articles that templates like this one should ideally contain. These are not necessarily limited to articles specifically about the JWs, though. Nontrinitarianism, Great Awakening, Adventism, among others, are articles which are arguably very important to an understanding of the JWs, and it is reasonable that the template should link to them as well. A few other points and questions, from what is basically an outsider who knows probably less about the subject of the JWs than many others:

  • Mexico, Brazil, Philippines, Germany, Italy, Congo, United States, and maybe a few other countries are all listed as having over 150,000 members in them. That would in the eyes of most people be enough for a separate article on, for instance, Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico. To date, I have seen no such "national" articles. Such articles could, I presume, be made based on RS material, and it would probably be in the best interests of the project to have them.
  • Which specific book(s) of the JWs, not counting the Bible itself, do you think does the best job of clearly and effectively conveying all the fundamental information regarding the JWs? Such a book or books should also be included in the template, and, arguably, seriously developed as it contains a lot of material relevant to the subject.
  • I do have a few other questions, primarily about the proposed changed navigation template. Specifically, how vital/important to the rest of you think that Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died and Saint Michael are to the understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and do you think these, and maybe a few other articles, should be included in the template? Also, I don't see any sort of article like List of Jehovah's Witnesses, listing most or all the individuals who have articles in wikipedia. Such a list is almost always included in these navigation templates, and is generally very important to the project.

I welcome any responses regarding this proposal to change the template, as well as any responses to any of the other questions I asked above. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, for the statement made:Which articles do the rest of you think are of the greatest importance to help someone new to the church gain a better understanding of it?, is simply disapproved for anyone that is studying as a Jehovah's Witness, because the Governing Body discourages the use of other websites, for they can be apostate websites. They normally to direct someone to the [JW website] or the book Jehovah's Witnesses — Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (1993), witch gives the history of JWs.
I agree on this point, and note the insinuation that "someone new" would feel decieved and still consider themselves a new member, enough so that they would seek out other sources of info other than fellow members. Careful John, you are insinuating a new member would find contradictions to the JW teachings here, yet they would have to be referenced to JWs literature. To base the format perspective on (the use by) "new member"'s use is to suggest you can unconvert them. I'm all for cleaning things up, and back tracking I'll have a look at what you are refering to next. ...pardon my tangent commnets, I'm finding the stuff below a lot of wikibabble as I have the flu. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The translation of greek STAUROS (stake) to the Latin CRUX (cross) is a major contention for JWs and I am glad someone made a point of creating an article, which I haven't checked yet, but I am sure I can find plenty of LEXICON support online. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem to think that the template is intended for uses other than those I did, which is fine. I would only say, probably in response, is that the intention is to set up a different template, like Template:Saints, which is collapsible and able to be fit across the bottom of the page. The intention is to set up, wherever possible, a template similar to that for every article in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group core articles list. The articles to be included would be all those which are of "Top" importance to have a full, complete knowledge of the subject. The importance ratings would be used to determine the importance ratings for Christianity in general. Right now, I cannot think that all the articles included qualify as "Top" importance to achieving a full understanding of this subject.
By limiting the template to only those articles that are, we also will likely have a tendency to concentrate the content, where possible, in those articles, in effect making them the ones most worked on and improved. It's hard to believe that all those articles are essential for those purposes. While articles not included in the template might still qualify as "High" importance, not including the most pivotal of them will concentrate attention on those fewer articles which are included. That would tend to make those articles better in the long run. Remember, the average FA can take 20 minutes to read. Many people are going to limit the amount of time they spend on any subject, so combining the best information in the fewest articles is to everyone's advantage. So, for example, Theology of Jehovah's Witnesses, which doesn't yet exist, could in one article combine the requisite content of more than one other article. Also, such "Theology of" articles are standard for most major religious movements.
And I apologize for the line about the four-line stub. There is one such one a JW official, but it is not yet on the template.
Lastly, as the Category:Lists of Christians will indicate, just about every Christian WikiProject has at least one such article. It tends to be a way to easily link the names of adherents of the faith with some text included, making it a bit more substantive than just the category alone. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi John, I am having trouble understanding what you're saying about "limiting the template to only articles that are...[of top importance]". I think navigation templates should help readers navigate across the most important articles on a topic. If we want to encourage people to improve articles, we should do that via Project templates on the Talk Pages. Is this consonant with what you meant to say? --Richard (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure entirely what you're asking there. What I meant was that, basically, we have to realize that a lot of readers are only going to devote limited time to any subject. On that basis, it is in the best interests of every group to make a quick list of the comparatively few articles it thinks are the ones which a newcomer to the subject would need to read to get a full understanding of the subject. Then, if those articles are included in that template as among the most important articles, the articles included would be counted as "Top" importance for the group according to the assessment template, and those assessments would also be carried over in some way yet to be determined to the main Christianity project itself. This way we would, in effect, also work out some of the importance assessment problems, which have been a major problem.
This is not saying that there might be other templates linking together articles of "lesser" (less than Top-importance, anyway), articles. In fact, I think I know of various countries and the like which already have such templates. But I do think the "main" template should be limited to only those articles the editors working on the subject consider to be the most important articles regarding that subject. In some cases, they will probably include at least one article not directly related to the topic itself, which indicates the prehistory or origins of the subject, like Adventism or Great Awakening, like I indicated above.
Not sure if that answers the question, though. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going to disagree with your assessment that the template is "bloated" but, upon reviewing it, I think Corporations and Beth Sarim should be removed from the template. These are not likely to be important to the average reader. --Richard (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
And some of the others, particularly the links to the biographies of the officials, could be replaced by a single list of those officials. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that the infobox is bloated. Comprehensive, yes. Some links certainly don't warrant inclusion. I'd happily delete "Government interactions", "Supreme Court cases", "Handling of child sex abuse cases", "United Nations" and, among formative influences, the articles on Wendell, Storrs and Grew. All are either (a) of low importance, (b) unlikely to be read by the casual visitor, (c) not critical to an understanding of the religion or (d) well covered in such articles as Beliefs & Practices or Controversies. I like your idea of including some links to articles including non-trinitarianism and the Great Awakening; I don't see the need for links to Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died and Saint Michael; both are relatively minor beliefs in the scheme of things. Although there is no Theology of Jehovah's Witnesses article as such, material that would be covered in such an article is largely covered under Beliefs & Practices, Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses and, to a lesser extent, Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine. Good luck with your efforts and I'll support you as time is available. LTSally (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Minor, certainly not: The article in question on Michael seems to have been deleted so I can't comment on it directly, but Jehovah's Witnesses consider "Jesus" to be the "new name" in Rev.3:12 and "Micheal" to be the "old" one so-to-speak, and that is not a minor part of their beliefs. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The suggestions for removal from "Top" importance above, and, conceivably, from the main template, strike me as good ones. And, it should be noted, even if some articles were removed from one template, that's doesn't mean another one might not be created for them.
One of the other objectives is to try to set up parallelism. In effect, it would be a more effective link for Christian theology to have a link specifically to Jehovah's Witnesses theology than to an article covering both theology and practices. I know there is a Christian eschatology template as well, but that's a less significant subject than theology in general.
And, for what it's worth, having read the bios of most of the church's leaders, much of the most relevant information on their times in office could be easily added to the main "History of" article. In fact, that is the way it's done with most of the other Christian groups. There are often separate templates to navigate between the bios of the leaders. By combining the most important information on the history in the main article, though, we present the most essential data more quickly and coherently. John Carter (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On consideration of the template with regard to both article content and importance to the subject, I agree that it is bloated, and I pretty much agree with LTSally's suggestions. The template should help readers to get the best overview of the subject. It is therefore not very helpful to point to minutia, such as 'Our Kingdom Ministry', but inclusion of broader concepts relevant to the relgion such as Adventism would be reasonable.

Including JWs and excluding redirects, there are only two 'Beliefs and practices of...' articles so I would support any change to 'Theology of...'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro, can you explain what your last paragraph means? What are you proposing?LTSally (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There are only two articles on Wikipedia with titles beginning with 'Beliefs and practices of...', so it's a bit non-standard, and it would be more consistent to have an article about the 'Theology of' Jehovah's Witnesses instead. That said, the current title does suit content of the article better, as not all of the content is strictly theological. So I'm not sure I'm proposing anything, but I would be supportive if someone wanted a more consistent name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually Sally said it was not bloated, and I agree it is not bloated. I've looked at other templates and that looks average to me, unless I am looking at the wrong thing. I'm not trying to be contradictory here, it just seems the issue should be clear. Structure / Format / Bloated size, these are different issues are they not. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I seemed to have gotten side-tracted, bu a lot has happened, so I read over, and I must agree with GabrielVelasquez and LTSally, the template in no way is bloated, but in fact is exactly comprehensive, it gives an organized list of pages related to the subjected stated, therefore serving its purpose. It also allows someone to find something out about Jehovah's Witnesses, mabe that they never knew. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, it is organized. The question is how to determine which are the most essential articles, and ensuring that they be included in it, and possibly that people don't mistakenly think that every article included on it is of roughly similar importance. Regarding some of the articles, there is already a fairly standard practice of creating a template listing all the heads of any denomination, which is separately put on the bios of those individuals. Template:Popes, Template:Coptic Popes, and others exist along those lines already. Clearly, if there is material which is very directly relevant to the "History of the Jehovah's Witnesses" in any of those articles, that article is itself not yet so long that it couldn't also be included there. And, if there isn't, then there is a real question as to how important the article is. That is one reason why I think the bios of the church's leaders could easily be removed, as there is no explicit information in any of those articles at this time which is and must be uniquely in those articles which warrants their inclusion. Of course, as I have stated, I am in no way an expert on this subject, and am more than willing to accept being told where I am wrong. A
Also, as should be noted, we in the Christianity Project are right now trying to begin the standardization of the various templates relevant to the core articles of Christianity along the lines I first proposed. Part of the intention is, given the huge breadth of the subject, that these templates be used as the determinants of "Top" importance to the subject, and that would then be used to help determine their importance to Christianity, dependent on the relative importance of the core topic itself. If we were to do that, it would help if they were all agreed. And, of course, like I said, the fact that a given article might not be included in one template doesn't rule out its being in another. In fact, if we ultimately wind up successful, I anticipate that there will be "level 2" navigation boxes of some structure yet to be determined for most of the topics, which I think most of these other articles could reasonably fit into. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some trimming of the template on 12 April. Would anyone like to see more back in there? Less in there??--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the trimming, but two suggestions. (1) Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses should be reinstated on the grounds that Witnesses attract controversy in the same way Scientologists and Latter Day Saints do, and many readers visiting the main JW article particularly may be seeking information on the causes of that controversy. (2). Both Wendell and Grew should be deleted from the Formative influences section. Neither rates more than a passing mention in the main histories of the religion: Grew was an influence on Storrs, but it was Storrs who directly influenced Russell, while Wendell was simply the man leading an Adventist Bible study group into which Russell happened to wander. The meeting itself became a catalyst for Russell's explorations of Bible chronology, but Wendell wasn't. Once mention of that fateful meeting is dealt with, Wendell disappears from the narrative of Russell's religious history. But otherwise it's looking good. LTSally (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also agree to changed. LTSally's suggestion that "Controversies" be restored makes some sense to me, but I'm not the one to make that call. Also, I could myself very easily see moving Miller to the history section and removing the other two entirely, as well as the separate section. I regret to say that I personally find including biographical articles about people at best tangentially related to the topic, like the notable former witnesses, unfortunate because much of the material in those biographical articles doesn't relate directly to the JWs. I tend to think the inclusion of the "Controversies" article, or maybe the creation of a separate "Criticism of" article, would work just as well. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the wrong category as well (related to above)

I don't want to throw this in the mix above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adventist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Protestant_denominations_navbox_templates
I think Jehovah's Witness would beg to differ on being a branch of protestentism.
I could find the referencing if someone insisted but the consider themselves a return to early Christian ways am I right?
I may be misunderstaning this as actually a scizm issue, thus the main factor being what the founder was before?? Older witness will admit to being a branch off of millerites so I am not sure. maybe someone just needs to clarify this for just me. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree as a Witness, that we do not consider ourselves Protestants, but just Christians, and the other religions that proclaim to be Christians, but a part of Christendom (If anyone felt that I am being malicious, please correct me). But the people who study the history of religion, categorize Jehovah's Witnesses as a part of the Restoration movement, which they say broke off from Protestantism, which broke off from Catholicism. See the chart on Category:Adventist Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You have a point. Personally, I'd include in the Category:Restorationism instead. Unfortunately, we have to go by what the sources say, and, according to the sourced second sentence of the article on Adventism, "The Adventist family of churches are regarded as conservative Protestants." Personally, I disagree with that statement, but it's sourced. It should also be noted that it is not always the case that every "supercategory" which applies to the parent category of one topic necessarily applies to the child subject. In fact, particularly in Christianity, which I know best, that's true in a lot of cases. One other thing I am personally trying to do right now is ensure that each article is placed in the categories most specifically applicable to it. But, as it stands, Category:Jerusalem is a third-generation subcat of Category:Bible, so they don't always make sense all the way up and town the line. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Newer sources refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as a Restorationist movement than generally a Protestant one. They differ from the mainline Protestant Churches to many basic points like the total rejection of the Trinity dogma, the hope for eternal life of the righteous ones on earth, the death of the soul upon someone's decease, etc. -- pvasiliadis  18:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have "no-included" the categories in the template. Unfortunately, we don't really have a separate "Restorationism" category of navboxes. That basically leaves the Category:Christian denomination templates. Would that be acceptable? John Carter (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

'Former JWs' category

I have removed several entries from [[Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses]]. Please note that for inclusion in this category, the notability of the individual should be relevant to their former-JW status. If a person's former status as a JW is what makes them notable (e.g. Franz), they belong in the category. If they are only notable for other reasons (e.g. Dwight Eisenhower, Michael Jackson), apart from which we would otherwise not know they were former JWs, they do not belong in this category. This is especially the case for individuals who were simply raised as JWs and have shown no particular interest in the religion themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning (or lack of) seems to be missing some logical steps: how is Dwight Eisenhower not notable, How is Michael Jackson not notable?? My first impression is that you are trying to clean up any shame on Jehovah's witnesses that might be highlighted, but honestly that is not an encyclopedic goal. I'll remind you that some people walk away from the Jehovah's Witness faith for no reason related directly to them/it. (1) Shame aside, remind me please how you can use the notability policy the way you are.? (2) Motives aside, Raised or Baptised seems to be the distiction you are making, and you know you don't have to be baptised to be called one of Jehovah's witnesses, just a publisher, which can even be a child. --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you did sound a little harsh there. And that's wrong, you have to be baptized to be officially considered a Jehovah's Witness Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
GabrielVelasquez, I can offer no response other than what I have already said above, which invalidates your claim that my reasoning has anything at all to do with 'shame'. If a person's being raised as JW is entirely incidental to the individual's encyclopedic notability, then they shouldn't be in the category, otherwise the category gets filled with people that have no real relevance to the category beyond trivia. Your accusation is even more ridiculous, because I have not at all claimed that Eisenhower or Jackson are not encyclopedically notable (otherwise I would have suggested deleting their articles entirely, which would be stupid), but rather, I have indicated that their encyclopedic notability has only trivial links with their being formerly associated with JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The only comment I would have regarding the two individual named, Eishenhower and Michael Jackson, is that it may be that they have been repeatedly noted several times for being former adherents of the JWs, and would thus be notable on that basis. Honestly, I can't say anything conclusively about that one way or another, given the almost staggering amount of information there is out there regarding both parties, which is also why I can't be sure that they aren't thus notable either. But I do think that, if there is a standard volume of reference for the JWs which does list individuals who had left the faith at some point during their lives, then those individuals could reasonably be included. Having said that, I cannot be certain such a source exists, so it might be a moot point. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Various points should be considered when claiming that a person is notable as a former JW. Were they ever really 'adherents'? Or were they merely associated with the religion through no choice of their own, such as by the choice of their parents? People even loosely associated with JWs receive more attention for such affiliation than they would for affiliation with larger religious groups purely because the religion is considered 'unusual', but a list of names on such a basis is trivia. There would hardly be any practical purpose of a category of 'former Catholics', unless the contents of such a category were somehow notable for their status as former Catholics, and in any encyclopedic sense, the same is true of JWs. Wikipedia:Categorization of people states:
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Jeffro77, is right at his points. -- pvasiliadis  18:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember back in 1983, when a cousin of mine was head over heels in love with Michael Jackson, she said to me then that he was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know where she got this info, but it seems to common knowlegde that he considered himself an "adherent" and I would start by checking on where this idea came from instead of first taking an axe to the list. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not an acceptable source, but this page] discusses MJ's status as a JW, and he's one of those listed here, which probably isn't itself an RS but might be useful anyway. The Globe and Mail ran a story about him, which is only available in full by purchase, but apparently part can be found here. Jackson himself seems to acknowledge his status as a witness in this piece by him here, at least a few books seem to mention it in at least passing here, and some journal articles here. Not sure if any of that helps, but at least some of them look RS, particularly the one written by Jackson himself. Whether they're sufficient is another matter. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Passes "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;"; doubtful as to whether this covers "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.". Both criteria need to be met for category inclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You used the term adherent earlier and I find it amusing that it doesn't have an article in this encyclopeadia, but I did check Wikitionary and found under adherence (uncountable)

  • 1. The close physical union of two objects
  • 2. Faithful support for some cause

I would deduce it is the second meaning you are refering to. I point this out because you use phases above like "associated with" and my understanding is that is pretty broad with Jehovah's Witnesses. An unbaptized pulisher can say "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and I'm getting the sense (as Buɡboy52.4 said above "you are wrong") you are making these "faithful" people lie about there status as "one of Jehovah's witnesses." As I said above which is not so wrong in the context, even a child who is not baptized can say "I am one of Jehovah's witnesses" if he is going door to door, ie a publisher. Get this part straight first I would suggest. I have to find the time to look at your research John, sorry, but if in any of that he said "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses" then he is was a publisher and therefore an "adherent," thank you. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? You seem to be ignoring the two required criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia categories about people, particularly the 2nd one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is entirely unremarkable that an encylcopedia does not have an entry for the word 'adherent'. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the word on its own has no encyclopedic value.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Wiktionary includes the word "adherent" here with the definition "A person who has membership in some group, association or religion."
Wiktionary does not belong to Wikipedia. Both are separate Wiki projects operated by the Wikimedia foundation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks (rolls eyes). I hadn't intended to begin a discussion of Wiktionary's ownership, and only mentioned the Wiktionary definition of "adherent" because someone earlier (GabrielVelasquez) had seemed unable to find anything there but a definition of "adherence".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is doubtful that the other user was unable to find the other entry, as doing so simply involves typing that word. It is more likely that the definition for the other term had wording that they felt was better suited to their purpose. If you have a message only for a particular user, it is better to put it on their User Talk page instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It seemed like this thread could benefit from a cited definition for the word "adherent" (an earlier editor had seemed unable to provide one for reasons which seem more like an oversight than a scheme).
Yes, it is best when messages to a particular editor are put on that editor's Talk page rather than here. It would be wrong to respond to an individual here by writing something here like "you should do 'this' or 'that'."--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the rules for listing "former JWs" just be consistent with what has been done listing former adherents of other religions? For example, the article List of former Roman Catholics begins, "This page lists individuals in history who were at least nominally raised in the Roman Catholic faith and later rejected it or converted to other faiths." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorityTam (talk • contribs) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The rules for inclusion in a Category are already stated above. Comparison of the former JW category with an article containing a list is invalid. If you wish to create an article about former JWs, go ahead, but ensure that it is notable and sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't believe and I hadn't meant to argue that the rules for Categories should be the same as the rules for articles. I had meant to suggest that a Wikipedia-ish question pertaining to JWs might be resolved by examining how the Wikipedia-ish question was resolved pertaining to another religion (Wikiproject or not).
So then, being painfully explicit, this thread discusses Categorizing persons by Religion as it pertains to Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses. So... what has been done, for example, in interpreting the rules by such Categories as:
Category:Former Latter Day Saints; or
Category:Former Seventh-day Adventists; or
Category:Former Roman Catholics?
I will now back away slowly...--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Those particular categories fall outside my regular purview. However, if it has come to your attention that those categories do not adhere to the criteria for inclusion of persons in religious categories, then you should fix them, rather than trying to use a breach of a rule as support of another breach of the rule.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course it would be wrong to repeat the mistakes of others, but it seems weird to assume that they've made mistakes. There may be something to learn from what others have done for Categories of other religion's former adherents.--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The Talk pages for the other categories in question indicate that there were already existing discussions about the suitability of inclusion in those categories for the same reason, and that there had been previous requests for the 'former religion' categories to be deleted entirely. So, no those categories are hardly in a position to lead by example.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal preference would be to create a list of members of the JWs and add the name of MJ to the list, as a baptized witness who later converted away, and keep the MJ article out of the category. However, I can't see any objections to contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson and asking the editors there for their opinions on the matter, and any additional evidence they could present one way or another. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good as far as MJ specifically. An article with a list of (former) JWs should still have specific criteria for inclusion - probably that the person is baptized, but this can be discussed separately if/when that article is created; however, former JWs should not be included in a list of active JWs. Inclusion of individuals in the category should be determined on a case-by-case basis, with regard to the established criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that, if there were to be a List of Jehovah's Witnesses, that those who later left the faith should be kept in a separate section from those who did not. Until former members are sufficient to merit their own list, however, the converts away are often included in the list under a section titled something like, in this case, "Former Jehovah's Witnesses". I can't myself address the matter of being baptized, because I'm not anything like an expert on the subject, but I would want to make sure that if such a criterion is included that it not seem to remove from the list some of the founders of the church, who might well have been baptized outside the JWs or, conceivably, have died before their anticipated baptism as a JW. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, hearsay or anecdotal evidence of a person's baptism is not acceptable. A reliable source should be provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the question here is if someone's association with Jahovah's Witnesses as one or not is one's personal opinions and may not be fully accurate unless proven by asking the person in question, which would POV, and is not important for an encyclopedia or for the knowledge of the the viewer. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
A person expressing their own religious belief is not a violation of Wikipedia's 'POV' principle. However, for inclusion in Wikipedia, an editor asking that person would constitute original research. Such an expression from an individual needs to be in a reliable source, and needs to be relevant to their encyclopedic notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD noticeboard

I have created a new section on the project page as a noticeboard for articles listed for deletion. There is a number of Jehovah's Witness-related articles on Wikipedia not properly categorised as such and missing from the list of articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses that are of poor quality and needing deletion. If you can categorise them as you find them, add them to the list on the project page and follow the instructions for listing them for deletion if they deserve to be deleted, and also list them at the noticeboard, it would allow members of the project to improve the standard of JW-related articles. LTSally (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Alexander Thomson nominated for deletion

If you're familiar with the range of Wikipedia articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, you've likely come across the name Alexander Thomson a few times. He wasn't a Witness, but he (very) occasionally had favorable things to write about Watch Tower publications. By no means was he a shill.

Someone (see diff) has moved to delete the article about Thomson, claiming that he is not notable (is not worthy of even a brief encyclopedic article). That seems odd to me, because Thomson is listed among only twelve persons having "played a significant role in the work of the Concordant Publishing Concern", publishers of the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible. He edited and wrote much Bible commentary under his own bylines, some of which is still in print. He contributed and edited articles in Unsearchable Riches[1] (now in its 100th year). Primarily because of having had his scholarship so substantially influence a notable Bible, Thomson is himself notable.

I have no sentimental attachment to Thomson, but I believe he is notable enough to keep from deletion. Feel free to add references to improve the article, or chime at the article's Talk regarding whether or not you'd prefer Wikipedia delete its article about this Alexander Thomson.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If he had not said things favourable about JWs, would you still move that the article be kept? Has he done anything notable other than as a self-published author? If the Concordant Publishing Concern is notable, it should have its own article, and it would be appropriate to briefly mention Thomson along with anything notable about the other twelve.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course the Concordant Publishing Concern is notable. Thomson was not merely self-published, and is still in print. More than forty years after his death, there are several "groupie" websites featuring Thomson's writings; I think I recall one claims to be about to release "The Differentiator Revisited".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
My best guess: Watchtower advocates like that Alexander Thomson said some nice things about the New World Translation. The more notable is Alexander Thomson then the more notable the nice things he said about the New World Translation. Hence we have the birthing of an article suggesting Thomson is a scholar of ancient Hebrew and Greek, but never quite saying by what standard he is a scholar of biblical languages. If my guess is correct then it is no surprise that requests for verification have been left unanswered. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"...Watchtower advocates like that Alexander Thomson..."?
The better solution is to improve the article with additional references; it's silly and ignorant to pretend they don't exist.
The interests of the Wikipedia community are not served by deleting the article. It's a shame when the personal agenda of an individual overshadows the concerns of the community.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I have been trying to improve the article by requesting reference material that substantiates claims made in the article, and related claims made by you on the article’s talk page. You fail to respond with answers in each case. Eventually you refused. You created the article page! One would think an editor who took time to create an article would take time to properly verify what it says with reliable secondary sources. Why on earth you refuse/fail to offer source verification for your own assertions I have no idea. If you think requests for verification is “personal agenda” then you have no business editing encyclopedic content. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Elsewhere, I've noted that my time is not unlimited; I choose to budget little of it to the demands of Marvin Shilmer.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Then please budget a little time to verifying what you write. This all that is asked. It is not a demand of my making. It is a demand of Wikipedia standards for all editors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I already noted the then-existing references support my assertions. I had and have no interest in an unproductive argument with someone like Marvin Shilmer.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: “Someone like Marvin Shilmer”? What is that supposed to mean? If that is not a personal attack then it is perilously close to one. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The sources you alluded to do not verify your assertion that Alexander Thomson was a translator of the Concordant Version. Those sources do not even speak to such a thing. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: My guess is you would be surprised to learn who most recently introduced Alexander Thomson's regard for the New World Translation into the article on that translation.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I wish I had the kind of time to pursue such a question.
From what I recall, it wasn't me who "introduced" Thomson into any article. The NWT article already mentioned him[2]; I simply clarified which Alexander Thomson it was (see Alexander Thomson (disambiguation)).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If you knew who introduced Alexander Thomson’s statements of the New World Translation then you would know your insinuation of a personal agenda is misplaced.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: It is irony that you have so much time to explain why you don’t have time to offer verification for things you write/say, yet you have so little time to offer verification for what you write/say. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The article is an WP:orphan ("a page with few or no links from other pages.")
  • The cited references do not indicate Thomson's qualifications, and do little more than suggest that he was a self-published author who helped to revise the Concordant Literal Version.
  • The endorsement from his friend contains several statements that are POV or otherwise unnecessary in an encyclopedic article: "unusually able", "To him belongs the credit of realizing that even a perfect translation is in practice worthless unless properly used.", "Perhaps some of his critics realized this.", "shows how wise A.T.", "his masterpiece: the splendid series". Instead of using the long-winded quote, the ideas should be placed in the relevant sections of the article (if the article should be retained at all)
  • The Differentiator is not established as a notable publication.
  • The statement, twelve persons described as having "played a significant role..." is not particularly helpful; the fact that a cited website happens to list 12 individuals does not make that number noteworthy, nor does the "selection of obituaries" indicate a helpful or exhaustive list of contributors to that translation. Listing the other obscure individuals in the footnote is doubly uninteresting.
  • The name of the article should not contain years (and also should not contain 'scholar' without verification). If there is no notable suitable qualifier, he probably isn't notable enough for an article.
(fixed)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact that a single piece of Thomson's work for the Concordant Publishing Concern is still in print is not notable.

Based on these facts, I suggest the article be either very significantly improved, or deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia endorse one Church as uniquely vailid over others?

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic Church → Catholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude talk 12:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed structure

I've just noticed the page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed structure, which seems to be pretty much abandoned, with no notable edits since 2005. What are other editors' feelings regarding either deleting the subpage, or updating it so it reflects a more current consensus?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles contains an outdated and incomplete list of JW-related articles by category. Please indicate whether this should be updated, or whether its significance is sufficiently incorporated within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Articles_related_to_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses (with changes as deemed necessary).--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have placed {{prod}} tags on both the pages mentioned above, as there seems to be no interest in maintaining them and they are not consistent with the project's current structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Christianity coordinators elections

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

The notability of individuals such as Don Alden Adams seems fairly limited, and being president of the Watch Tower Society does not on its own constitute encyclopedic notability. CEOs of corporations do not generally warrant an article unless they, rather than just the corporation, are notable in the media. Where third-party sources are not available for individual JW presidents (as there are for Frederick Franz), I recommend the articles be deleted and redirected to the JW corporations article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. The position of presidency no longer carries much significance -- because he is not on the Governing Body he presumably has no input into doctrinal positions or decisions on the content of magazine articles, books or convention programs. It would appear to be a purely administrative position. The absence of any references to him in non-WT publications counters any claim to notability. The same could be said for Carey W. Barber and Martin Pötzinger. If you want to propose an AfD for Adams I'll support it on those grounds and see what happens. LTSally (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I have redirected most of the Governing Body members back to the GB article. Aside from being members of the GB, much of the other information about these people, only available in JW literature, is similar to information about any number of other JW 'life story' articles, none of which meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. These articles should not be restored, except for individuals who have significant mention in reliable third-party sources, or (as a concession), can be demonstrated to be especially notable in the development of JW doctrine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Don-Jam (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) I think that's a rather arbitrary approach really. For a person to be notable, they don't need a worldwide notability. If they are particularly noteworthy within a subset of people, that should be acceptable within wikipedia's scope.

If not, then all the articles on various Star Trek episodes should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Even without considering WP:Other stuff exists, the comparison with Star Trek articles is misplaced. (If you would like to suggest deleting articles about Star Trek episodes, you might suggest doing so at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. Good luck.) Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not establish notability in the manner you suggest. Additionally, the individuals in question are not "particularly noteworthy" even among the minor religious group in question. It is unlikely that most JWs could even name all the GB members. The articles in JW literature that discuss the GB members are no different to hundreds of other JW 'life story' articles that discuss other long-time members of the religion, and do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is merely an assertion on your part. In any case, I was not talking about every specific GB member. JWs are hardly a 'minor religious group' either. Individuals such as Martin Pötzinger (a former GB member) has other areas of notability, being a concentration camp survivor (as was his wife Gertrud). He is referenced in a WT video "JWs stand firm against Nazi assault" and was mentioned several times in the WT in relation to his camp servitude.

Other individuals who might be described as 'famous' within JWs are the Kusserow family, W.R. Brown, A.D. Schroeder, A.H. MacMillan, Kathe Palm, Mitsue Ishii, Stanley Jones and Harold King, for example. Rather than restricting the candidates for notability amongst JWs, I would propose *expanding* it...

You assert that comparison with Star Trek episodes is misplaced. Why so? These episodes are notable within only a small subset. Smaller quite likely than JWs.

Most Catholics could not name all the Cardinals of the RCC. Should they then be removed for non-notability? That you speak with such a voice of authority on this matter is from my POV a little troubling and possibly heavy handed. Many areas on wikipedia could do with tightening re: notability, but this hardly stands out as the most pressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you consider such people as Martin Potzinger as "famous". We all have people we admire, but they don't all warrant an article in an encyclopedia. The bottom line is whether individuals meet WP:GNG. If they don't, they don't get an article. I've just Googled Potzinger and found one passing reference to him in a book. You may have a hard time arguing that this is "significant coverage", or that articles in The Watchtower count as being "independent of the subject". Similarly for W.R. "Bible" Brown, a true hero of the revolution, but ... in the broad scheme of things (i.e. outside Wacky Watchtower World) a blip. LTSally (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
An alleged perception of 'fame' of particular individuals among JWs is not Wikipedia's criterion for notability, as such does not constitute a reliable secondary source. More specifically, these individuals fail to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for articles about people.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Both Poetzinger and Brown have been covered extensively in WT publications, which are secondary source material as they are not authored by the subject. It is absurd to consider all material written by JWs about JWs as 'primary sources', just as it is absurd to consider all references by musicians about other musicians as 'primary sources'.

LT Sally's remarks about the 'Wacky' whatever indicates he/she's unfitness to contribute to this project.

Again nobody wishes to defend or comment on the scores of other 'limited notability' articles within Wikipedia, which demonstrate non-notability to a greater degree.

In addition, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." This must apply to JWs as much as Catholic Cardinals, rabbis or macrame practitioners, as it evidently applies (according to the policy) to 'pornographic actors'. So individual JWs who have made a great contribution to JWs are non-notable, but 'famous' pornographic 'actors' are to be considered notable? This is either a flaw in the policy, or in the interpretation thereof. This arbitrary and selective approach to notability smacks of antipathy towards JWs rather than true encyclopaedic necessity.

Eusebius12 (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, another conspiracy. Decisions on notability at any article are initially made by editors who contribute to that article. Any inequity (WT heroes vs porn stars) is due more to the different thinking of editors at those articles. If there's a dispute it can be raised at the appropriate noticeboard where opinions can be sought from a wider range of editors with no particular opinion on the subject. LTSally (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact is, we're not talking about musicians (or some other arbitrary group) talking about other individuals in a different group of a particular field. To use the example of porn stars, a closer analogy would be to use quotes about a particular porn studio's articles about its own performers as primary sources for articles about those individuals. Those would not establish notability on the subject, just as JW literature promoting its own members in life-story articles (though the life story articles about GB members are not more prominent than countless other JW 'life story' articles about equally non-notable members) does not consititute notability in secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
JW articles about high-ranking JW members are neither "independent of the subject" nor "intellectually independent".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So your contention is that only 5 individuals or so in the complete history of a 130 year organization with 7 million people, meet the test of notability? That is for being Jehovah's Witnesses? Is this kind of pettiness really necessary? I understand your bureaucratic zeal, but may I suggest it is better served in pruning more egregious examples within wikipedia, and not targeting a faith group that is already the target for prejudice. Perhaps talents could be better employed in those directions.

Just to note also, "A person, who fails to meet these additional criteria, may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability" Several individuals, including the Kusserows (subject of a BBC documentary), Brown, Poetzinger, and others have been referenced numerous times, not merely single articles. This does not apply to every GB member, indeed there are not even biographies available of every GB member. I would oppose the idea of creating an article for a person merely because they were a member of the Governing Body.

Another point worth noting is that WT articles have a wide range of (anonymous) authorship. References to certain prominent individuals may stretch over decades. Individuals are considered notable even if they are not notable outside their community, e.g. Catholic cardinals and Islamic philosophers. For you to be so restrictive with regard to JWs when no such stringent scrutiny appears to apply to any other faith based group is imbalanced. It is worth noting also that the magazines Watchtower and Awake! have massive distribution. Indeed those notable for 'being' JWs (as opposed to famous JWs) are a special case, since JWs (as an organization) on the whole discourage individual JWs from being 'sources of information' and thus providing secondary sources. Nevertheless, references to WR Brown, the Kusserows, the Poetzingers and others do exist outside the confines of official JW publications. It would be difficult to establish whether or not any material about any individuals from any faith based groups were 'truly' independent...If a Catholic writes about another Catholic, is that considered primary source? This seems to be your contention about individual Witnesses, that if a Witness writes about another Witness, then it is primary source material. This seems quite absurd frankly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebius12 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is suitable coverage of some of these individuals in reliable independent sources, then by all means create the articles. However, please note that a trivial passing mention of an individual in an independent source does not constitute suitable notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The distribution of The Watchtower and Awake! is not being contested, and those subjects have their own articles. However, those publications, produced by the Watch Tower Society, are not sources "independent of the subject" for discussion of past or present Watch Tower staff, and those articles give coverage of other JWs who certainly fail Wikipedia guidelines for notability; coverage in such articles therefore is not a reliable benchmark for establishing notability. Some notable JW personages, such as Rutherford, Frederick Franz, Milton Henschel etc already have articles, though some of those articles could also benefit from additional independent sources to establish notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There would be a difference between information published in Watch Tower Society literature about Watch Tower Society members and a Witness independently writing about such members, if that Witness were a 'reliable source' per Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"I suggest it is better served in pruning more egregious examples within wikipedia, and not targeting a faith group that is already the target for prejudice." Dealing with notability issues elsewhere on Wikipedia is the business of contributors to those articles. We're here because we're interested in these articles and so it's here that we'll strive to apply Wikipedia's policies on notability. The argument that WT articles have anonymous authors is irrelevant. The authors may just as likely all be the same man. In any case the source of the articles is the same — The Watchtower and Awake, which are not independent of the subject. The Wikipedia articles on Russell and Rutherford may make extensive use of information from the Watchtower, but they are sourced from a much wider range of sources that clearly demonstrate the notability of those men. In the case of Poetzinger, Brown and assorted GTB members, they are the principal subject of articles only in the publications of the organization they served. It's rather like your local church newsletter making copious mentions of a pastor ... if he gains no mention outside of that newsletter, is there an indication of his notability outside his own newsletter? LTSally (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses by occupation categories

Such categories are more or less standard for most religious groups, but I don't think I've seen any that deal with the JWs per se. Provided that there are sufficient articles for creation of categories, and that would mean in my opinion at least three articles for categories that specifically relate to Christianity (JW theologians or philosophers, for instance), maybe more for occupations not directly related to Christianity, would there be any objections to creation of some such categories? John Carter (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely there would be a broad enough selection of articles for JW categories on this basis. No individuals are purported by the group to be "JW philosophers" or even "JW theologians", though the GB could be roughly squeezed into that mould of the latter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Jehovah's Witnesses

We really would benefit from having an list like this. Adherents.com here isn't itself a reliable source, but it might provide some information on a few other individuals. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses/Archive_5&oldid=1137378086"