www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎RfC: fix list
Natverber (talk | contribs)
74 edits
Line 175: Line 175:
*:::{{tqq|'''Jehovah's Witnesses''' is a nontrinitarian millenarian restorationist Christian denomination.{{dummy reference|6}} It is considered by some sources to be a protestant group, but it officially does not consider itself protestant.}}
*:::{{tqq|'''Jehovah's Witnesses''' is a nontrinitarian millenarian restorationist Christian denomination.{{dummy reference|6}} It is considered by some sources to be a protestant group, but it officially does not consider itself protestant.}}
*::[[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
*::[[User:Edward-Woodrow|Edward-Woodrow]] :) <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

== More details about congregation discipline and criticism on first page ==

I've seen [[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] you reverted my changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=1170658522&oldid=1170575773. Before reverting them again, I want to discuss this with you and the editors. All my changes are properly cited and referenced. If the level of detail is too much for starting the page, I suggest moving them to another section. But I would still suggest to keep basic details about disfellowship doctrine, and prohibition to contact to information against their doctrine here, since it's a big pillar under their doctrine, and similar weight as their other doctrines, like non-trinitary, etc. [[User:Natverber|Natverber]] ([[User talk:Natverber|talk]]) 13:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:12, 16 August 2023

Template:Vital article

Good articleJehovah's Witnesses has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 6, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 31, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

I would like to edit the place founded as this was founding in Jesus’ time because he was the founder. 2A02:C7C:A61D:9A00:CCE:5A34:B92D:156A (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cannolis: An IP editor can't request additional user rights anyways. That's something that can only happen if someone has a registered account. In regards to the actual change suggested... I don't see it likely that the edit would stay if it were implemented. If you take a look at articles about other Christian denominations, this is pretty consistent. The purpose of an encyclopedia isn't to imply any one religion is "right". What we currently have in the article is an accurate statement: Jehovah's Witnesses believe their denomination is a restoration of first-century Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Cannolis (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Jehovahs witnesses are not Christian they do not believe the core tenants of Christianity they believe that they become gods to some degree which is fundamentally against Christian doctrine 166.198.251.68 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No true scotsman would make this edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit the "become gods" belief is new to me. Vyselink (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous editor may be obliquely alluding to the '144,000', though it would still be a misrepresentation of what they believe. (Though it's also possible he's confusing JWs with elements of Mormon belief.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. Sarcasm doesn't come across well with typing. Vyselink (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need to update number of GB members

It’s 9 as of February 2023. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

@DayakSibiriak: I admit I don't completely understand the recent changes you've made to the ref formatting, but I'm slightly concerned about one thing. A New Introduction is actually cited as a source (in the gender roles section), so I don't think it should be in further reading. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If so, to move it to Sources. Thanks. DayakSibiriak (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was worried that moving it back would somehow mess up your other changes or there was some underlying reason that one source specifically was moved to further reading that I didn't quite get. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant descriptor

Obscurasky has claimed that this "claim is disputed" and requires a citation. [1] However, they were undoing an edit that did have a citation. From the outside looking in, it seems like they should provide support for their argument that Jehovah's Witnesses are somehow not Protestant, instead of just claiming this to be the case. A talk page discussion seems warranted given that they have reinstated their removal of the content twice. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support your reversion and agree that it's odd to remove a sourced claim and then demand a citation. I checked the cited source and it I don't see any issues, but I'm not an expert; if an editor has a problem with the source, then a discussion about the source should be opened. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a Restorationist denomination, it is certainly the case that Jehovah's Witnesses do not identify as Protestants (believing instead that they are uniquely the only true Christians, specially selected by Jesus). However, their polity and doctrines are a form of Protestantism at their foundation, specifically from the Adventist branch. The distinction that Jehovah's Witnesses are nontrinitarian does not mean they are not Protestants, and although the vast majority of Protestant denominations are Trinitarian, modern nontrinitarianism itself originates with the Protestant Reformation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the claim is disputed - 8.5 million JWs dispute it for a start (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-protestants/). And, yes it does have a citation, but many, many, citations also exist to say the opposite. It's simply not encyclopaedic to state something as a fact when there is no consensus for the claim, and particularly in this case, when the JW church itself says the opposite.
The claim needs to be removed from the lead, although I would support the inclusion of a section, within the main body of the article, which explains both sides of the argument.
Please could you remove it. Obscurasky (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already noted that as restorationists, they inherently do not identify as Protestants. The JW link you posted (which was written by the Watch Tower Society without any consultation of most of the ‘8.5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses’) is obviously not neutral. But more specifically, the first ‘reason’ they give is a fallacy of composition (‘we don’t believe everything that most Protestants believe so we’re not really Protestants’), but various Adventist denominations do not believe in the Trinity but are a branch of Protestantism, and various Protestant denominations do not believe in hellfire, variously opting for other beliefs such as annihilationism or other concepts of hell simply being ‘separation from God’. The second ‘reason’ is a false equivalence because ‘Protestantism’ has not simply been about ‘protesting the Catholic Church’ for many, many years. Aside from that, their development from Adventism via the Bible Student movement identifies the denomination within the overarching category of Protestantism. But you’re welcome to provide more objective sources (e.g., sociologists of religion or other scholarly sources, not JWs and not other denominations saying ’JWs aren’t real Christians’) that classify the denomination.—Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A religion being born from another religious belief is nothing new, but when a religion begins to differ in major ways a distinction must be made from acknowledging the roots of that and still calling it a part of that religion. My argument against using "Protestant" as a descriptor for the JW's is that by using that term, rather than simply acknowledging the historical development, people may get confused and consider them to be part of a belief system that they are really not. While I am not able to find any academic source that can state (nor would a proper academic state) that JW's are definitively NOT Protestant, some sources do make clear the divide.

Zoe Knox, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World", page 11: "The efforts of amateur historians B.W. Schulz and Rachael de Vienne to uncover the origins of the Bitble Students and trace their tansition to a distinctive community revealed not Russell's radical departure from the Protestant dissenters of the day but, on the contrary, many shared positions, at least initially, and a more organic process of community formation that previously appreciated. It was during the Rutherford era that the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses became further removed, indeed irrevocably separated, from other premillennial groups."

George D. Chryssides, "Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction". Chryssides makes a few references to the differences between Protestants and JW's throughout the work, although his main focus is on their history as branching off from Adventists. For brevity, from pages 128-130 he goes over several major differences between the two (briefly, as it is a very small book) such as: Christ's atonement can not be by faith alone (sola fide, P) but must be accompanied by good works (JW) (pg 129); belief in the trinity (P) as compared to Christ as a created being/angel (JW) (pg 129); bodily/physical resurrection of Christ after his death (P) as compared to a spiritual one only (JW); and life in heaven (P) as compared to a restored paradisical Earth (JW) (pg 130).

Both works mention the disbelief in a literal hell as well, which I don't think I need to provide evidence for atm as it's pretty well known to most here. As I only had these two books at hand that's all I can provide for now. But I think at the least that those two RS's (both academic non JW-sources) should at least put a bit of a damper on the "definitely Protestant" conviction for now. I would prefer the term not be put in until some sort of conclusion (with academic sources) can be reached either way, but as I have already reverted such a change once, I will hold off. Vyselink (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

” It was during the Rutherford era that the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses became further removed, indeed irrevocably separated, from other premillennial groups.” Premillennialism isn’t another word for Protestantism. Not all Protestants are Premillennialists. Jehovah’s Witnesses is one denomination whereas Protestantism is a major branch of Christianity encompassing thousands of denominations so a simplistic assessment of ‘differences between the two’ is a bit misleading. Christadelphians share many beliefs with JWs, and, like other Adventist groups, also come under Protestantism.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that JWs have a view distinct from sola fide is also incorrect. JWs believe that 'true faith' will be 'demonstrated' by 'works', but they do not say that salvation is obtained through the works. Their book, Reasoning From the Scriptures (page 359) says, "The entire provision for salvation is an expression of God’s undeserved kindness. There is no way that a descendant of Adam can gain salvation on his own, no matter how noble his works are. Salvation is a gift from God given to those who put faith in the sin-atoning value of the sacrifice of his Son. ... Obedience simply demonstrates that their faith is genuine. ... A person does not earn salvation by his works. But anyone who has genuine faith will have works to go with it—works of obedience to the commands of God and Christ, works that demonstrate his faith and love. Without such works, his faith is dead."--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seems to be getting bogged down in argument and fine detail when the key-point here is that there's clearly not consensus for including the descriptor. I'll leave it for a day or two, in the hope that someone will come up with an acceptable compromise edit, but it can't remain in its current format. Obscurasky (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it can't remain in its current format? That's your opinion. I'm open to discussing things but the way to make changes isn't to insist that you will let anyone do anything. I'm concerned that you keep saying that a sourced descriptor needs to be removed. Maybe it's just your phrasing, but please keep in mind that no one individual is in control over what an article should or should not contain. Consesus can change, but the way to do that is seeking broader impartial participation like an RfC. Otherwise it's edit warring to get your way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think you're missing the point. I am trying to promote a neutral pov - I'm not advocating the article should say JWs are 'not' Protestant, and I'm certainly not trying to take control over what an article should or should not contain. It's nothing to do with what I (or you) believe, it's about what the consensus is. Please read this article. WP:CON. Obscurasky (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impresssion that "protestant" was in the article for longer than it was and that it was the removal of the text that was new. So my perspective on the flowchart was a bit different and that the status quo should be held until there was a consensus for removal. Taking a look at the page history again, I think I get what you're getting at. I'll remove it until there is a better consensus for or against the text's inclusion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The denomination certainly does fall within a branch of Protestantism (and the suggestion below that compares minor denominations with major branches of a religion is fallacious). But the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses is in the Adventist branch of Protestantism could probably be addressed in the body rather than just overtly stated in the lead without elaboration.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jeffro's above: differences between the two are how we determine whether something is correctly called by a name. Otherwise we should call Protestants "Catholics", as they broke from Catholicism over major differences in beliefs, but if you look at what they do/do not believe, the two have far more in common than they do differences. The argument could be made they fall under the umbrella of Catholicism, and therefore should be called Catholic, and I would say that it is just as wrong. JW's have a shared history, some shared beliefs, and were heavily influenced by Protestantism, but that does not make them Protestants. Similarly, the Protestants have shared beliefs, were heavily influenced by, and have a shared history with Catholicism, but that doesn't make them Catholics.

As for the descriptor source, Bergman's article, I wonder if anyone has actually read it (I did just now) or if they just saw the title, as other than the title it doesn't appear to actually call the Witnesses "Protestants". Indeed, his writings on the Witnesses are rather perfunctory, giving just a basic history really. He seems to pay more attention to the Seventh Day Adventists, and compares the SDA's and JW's most often with each other, and as breakoff's from Miller's Adventist movement, and almost never with Protestant's specifically. The one example I found was the following line, about the SDA's not the JW's: "Although the Seventh-Day Adventist theology is a blend of liberal Protestantism, fundamentalism, and the unique elements added by the Millerite movement..." (page 43). The source link is missing a few pages (37, 39 & 44, which may have a more direct comparison with the JW's, I just don't know) but I have ordered the book and should have it within a week or so, so I will be able to more fully research it when I have it in hand and don't have to read a truncated version online. However, as of now, it doesn't appear, past the title, to actually call JW's Protestants. Vyselink (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is culturally popular to exclude JWs as a Protestant denomination because mainstream Protestants (and Christians generally) object to JWs' rejection of the Trinity (though other Adventist nontrinitarian denominations also fall under Protestantism), and JWs themselves object to being called Protestants (such as on their PR FAQ page, which contains misleading details, as do their FAQs about whether JWs shun and whether JWs are creationists; the existence of the FAQ page is ostensibly because JWs are actually a denomination within Protestantism but want to appear separate).
The suggestion that 'maybe Bergman doesn't really call JWs Protestants" is misleading at best. The chapter title unambiguously refers to JWs as a "branch of Protestantism", which isn't some play on words. The purpose of the chapter is not to argue that JWs are or are not Protestants (but rather, to discuss the denominations in the context of the book's title, "America's Alternative Religions"), and it is evident from the context that the author plainly considers them to be a branch of Protestantism. I don't have access to the full text, but JWs are given more than a perfunctory consideration. Of the chapter in question (pages 33-44, all but 3 pages of which are available in the Google Books preview), in which SDAs and JWs are given fairly equal consideration.
George D. Chryssides also classifies JWs as Protestants. His Christians in the Twenty-First Century includes JWs in the chapter on Protestantism. I do not have access to the full text (only a Google Books preview), but the "Conclusion" section of chapter 11 (i.e. the chapter specifically about Protestants), alludes to JWs among Protestant denominations discussed and suggests that there is more discussion of the denomination in that chapter (not available in the extract). Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses (for which I can't access the full text) also alludes to JWs as a Protestant denomination.
The Encyclopedia of Protestantism (Hans J. Hillerbrand) also includes JWs among Protestant denominations; I do not have access to the text but its index indicates more than a passing mention (pages 977-982).
Alec Ryrie's Protestants: The Faith That Made the Modern World says in its introduction, "So in this book "Protestant" includes those who are often shut out of the party, such as Anabaptists, Quakers, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Pentacostals." Later in the book, it refers to "the one major Protestant group that openly defied the Nazi state: the Jehovah's Witnesses." I can't preview more than snippets, but it unambiguously considers JWs to be Protestant.
Of course, none of them claim JWs are 'mainstream' or 'typical' Protestants, which is not in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many books identify JWs as a “Protestant sect”. [2].—Jeffro77 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we end up putting Protestant in so be it. But identifying another religion as a "sect" is pejorative, typically implying that the group has committed some sort of heresy, so sources that name them a "Protestant sect" rather than as a denomination, or heck even just as Protestant, raises a red flag for me. Also, after a quick look at the list provided (not an exhaustive look I'll grant you) many of these seem to be by people who are not scholars of new religions. Natalie Goldstein appears to be a science textbook writer. Marley Cole has a few issues, notably their works are from the 1950's and therefore highly outdated. Pavel Polian is a geographer and historian of forced migration. William Rubenstein is a legitimate historian, but not of new religions. Donna Faulkner is a competent biographer. Alan Irwin is a sociologist.... What I'm getting at is many if not most of these are simply repeating the same things that have been said. They seem to be following received wisdom, rather than making informed and educated decisions on their own. Just because something gets repeated ad nauseam doesn't make it true.
That being said, the Chryssides, Ryrie and Hillerbrand references in your previous post do hold quite a bit of weight. I will have to give that some thought. Vyselink (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest that this article call them a ‘sect’ (though it is not the case that ‘sect’ Is always pejorative, or that the sources in the search result all use the term pejoratively). I demonstrated that many books call JWs ‘Protestant’. The more specific phrase (“Protestant sect”) simply makes it easier to show relevant search results, excluding results that might separately contain the terms ‘Jehovah’s witnesses’ and ‘Protestant’.—Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was was to question sources that use the term, as few of what I would consider RS's (scholars/academics) would use the term in that manner. As a historian however I can tell you that its primary usage has been as a pejorative, regardless of its intentions by a few or its technical meaning (see the first sentence). Some people also don't use cult pejoratively, but it's primary usage has always been as such.
But to be unambiguously clear, if I in any way implied that you were being pejorative Jeffro I apologize as it was not my intent nor is it my belief, as you and I have edited a few things over the years and I have always found you to be professional even when we disagree, and I in no way thought you were suggesting that we insert 'sect' into the definition. Vyselink (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be described as Protestant?

  • Option A: Yes
  • Option B: No

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No: In my considerable experience, Protestant would refer to Trinitarian churches/denominations which accept the Œcumenical creeds and understand themselves as part of the church catholic (but not of any Catholic Church!). DBD 20:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, except the question is malformed. Jehovah’s Witnesses as a denomination is routinely classified as a Protestant denomination by scholars and sociologists, and it is an intrinsic aspect of their historical development, polity and eschatology (Adventist). The real issue is whether the article should say it is a Protestant denomination (and also how it should be presented) because various groups don’t like calling them Protestants (employing various ‘No true Scotsman’ and other equivocation fallacies). But Wikipedia is not censored.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC question was posed within a Wikipedia-specific context, I was trying to be concise. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Protestants are those Christian groups who do not recognise Papal supremacy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Jehovah's Witnesses are as protestant as LDS, which is not at all. Just because a church does not recognise the authority of Rome that does not make them protestant. AlanStalk 02:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, they're as Protestant as other Adventist denominations, including non-trinitarian Adventist denominations. Unlike LDS, JWs regard only the Protestant canon as scripture.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No , but nor should they be described as 'not protestant'. There's widespread disagreement on this and the inclusion of a paragraph explaining both sides may be helpful. Obscurasky (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my reasons are given in the above discussion. Explaining the Protestant background/shared history is something that should definitely be done, but defining them as Protestant is incorrect, imo. Vyselink (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) – Providing only yes/no options needlessly straitjackets the possible outcomes here. In fact, tertiary sources don't all agree on the definition of Protestant, and some include multiple meanings, a narrower one, and a looser one, like Collins, which includes this one: "Protestant (in American English) : 2.b. Loosely – any Christian not belonging to the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church". Per WP:NPOV, we are supposed to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and WP:DUE explains how to do that. Limiting choices in the Rfc to only two may lead to an outcome that violates WP:NPOV, and if that is the case, the result here would be void, as consensus cannot overrule NPOV. To avoid this possibility, you should add a third option above ("both, in proportion", or something). Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathglot: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. The edit that kick-started all this discussion was this one. If no one can agree on what Protestant means, your answer seems like a shade of no to me, so I don't think this straitjackets the discussion. I'd just consider your !vote to be like Vyselink's, give some brief context about the JWs ties to other religious movements in the background subsection of history. If people agreed with your interpretation (which I'm not sure is so clear cut), many other articles that simply use Protestant as a descriptor would need to be discussed as well. Maybe it'd be something to clarify at Village Pump/Policy? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it is a shade of no, but not a pure no, so maybe like Vyselink or Obscurasky. As far as other articles, I don't think other articles that include Protestant as a descriptor would be affected, but some that exclude it might. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds a lot like what I said in the section above that it should not be just stated without elaboration, but nor should it be omitted altogether. The lead sentence is not necessarily the place for it though.—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for some perspective here's what the JW's have to say about the matter. I think a lot of protestants would agree with them that they are not protestants. I grew up a protestant and I don't believe them to be protestants. AlanStalk 12:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When push comes to shove, while a religion's thoughts on itself should be at least acknowledged, in the end they are irrelevant when confronted with the facts. While I believe that Protestant should not be used as a descriptor, it is based on RS's and academic work. Were the JW's definitely Protestant and the RS's said as much, I would not have voted no, regardless of what the JW's or other religions thought. Vyselink (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: coming in from RFC/A, so I don't know the background of this discussion, but... why can't we do what we usually do: say what reliable sources say on the matter. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edward-Woodrow: If I had to sum up why the RfC is started... I'd say that some reliable sources do say that Jehovah's Witnesses are Protestant, others omit the descriptor but also don't say they aren't, and officially JWs themselves don't consider themselves to be Protestant. So there's a disagreement about whether the word 'Protestant' should be used in the lead like it was before a few reverts back and forth or if there needs to be more nuance than that further in the article. Or you could read some of the above discussion and come to your own conclusions. There's not a lot of people active in this topic so I was kind of hoping greater participation might help? Two heads are better than one and ten are better than three. I'd like to think it'd make for a stronger consensus, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not something like:
    Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian millenarian restorationist Christian denomination.[6] It is considered by some sources to be a protestant group, but it officially does not consider itself protestant.
    Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More details about congregation discipline and criticism on first page

I've seen Jeffro77 you reverted my changes here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=1170658522&oldid=1170575773. Before reverting them again, I want to discuss this with you and the editors. All my changes are properly cited and referenced. If the level of detail is too much for starting the page, I suggest moving them to another section. But I would still suggest to keep basic details about disfellowship doctrine, and prohibition to contact to information against their doctrine here, since it's a big pillar under their doctrine, and similar weight as their other doctrines, like non-trinitary, etc. Natverber (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=1170669529"