Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi, I have written a short paragraph regarding two notable belarusian Jehovah's Witnesses who hid a Jewish young woman during the Shoah and were recognized Righteous Among the Nations. While little doubt exists about the fact being of encyclopedic interest, I'm not exactly sure where - in which article - it would fit best.

Perhaps this is the best place to talk about it. Please note that the honorific was awarded because "they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God" and they believed so as "devout JWs".

--Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As you've already been told, people of any religion might see their own religious persuasion as their primary motive for helping others, but that does not make their religion especially notable in such instances. The account you provide is only relevant within the context of Righteous Among the Nations, and it would probably not even be necessary to mention their status as JWs there. The Righteous Among the Nations article does not give any special attention to the religious affiliation of any other people who helped Jewish people, even in cases of helping thousands of Jewish people. This account of 2 JWs helping 1 Jewish girl may be noble, but is not especially notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you have any chance to read the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations or you just keep repeating your personal opinion no matter what? BTW, please, avoid referring to the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations as to a "Jewish article", as you have done here - that sounds a rather racist remark to me. Also, please stop accusing me of advertising JW's religious affiliation as this is clearly not the case: as you well know the basic idea of Yad Vashem is "He who saves one life, it is as though he has saved the entire world", I'm sure you are aware that during the Shoah those who helped the so called "Jews" were very few and maybe that's why all of them are, according to the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations, encyclopedic? "You've been told" is a quite poor stylistic choice - but I guess that's what you're used to. Thank you for your continuing attention and your shining wiki-love. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got no idea why you're going on about racism. The article Righteous Among the Nations is clearly a Jewish topic—that is a simple statement of fact regarding the context of the article, with no kind of value judgement attached at all. Just as the article does not mention the religious affiliation of all the other people who helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, so there is no special need to highlight the religious affiliation of two JWs who helped one Jewish girl. To do so, without doing the same for the the religious affiliation of all the other people credited as being Righteous Among the Nations, would not be balanced. See also WP:SOAP.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the Encyclopedia in question more or less inherently has a Jewish learning. That is not a criticism of it, simply a recognition of fact, as the term is pretty much exclusively used by Jews. And, in general, we don't go into the religious opinions of subjects unless those religious opinions are in some way directly relevant to the subjects for which they are noted. While they were JWs, it is a bit of a stretch to think that their being JWs played an important role in their doing what they did - they could just as easily have been members of any of a number of other Christian groups. And, as we haven't yet cited the religious views of the other RAN, I can't see any particular reason to mention that these 2 were JWs. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to make my initial proposal more clear: my opinion is that a short paragraph could be added in some article related to the behaviour of Jehovah's Witnesses during WWII, in particular their very clear and rather compact refusal of the Nazi regime. For an interesting point of view, read here. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, your proposal was about an honorific applied to two particular JWs who helped one Jewish girl, which is not directly relevant to the religious organisation as a whole. Though the individuals felt a moral obligation to help others, there was no specific edict by the religion to help Jews in particular.

Your proposal had nothing to do with JWs' rejection of the Nazi regime, and that topic is already covered at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany and Purple triangle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to add a short paragraph like this in the context outlined here, i.e. as a notable example of the rejection of the Nazi regime by JWs during WWII.

If I did not make it clear before it is because I thought it was totally obvious - maybe I was mistaken. If I have decided to make it clear now it is because of the extreme level of conflict with Jeffro77, such that now I reckon it is advisable to be more explicit than I was before. Now I will leave this talk as I don't find this interaction with Jeffro77 any productive, given that he only talks about what he considers notable, never about what relevant sources consider notable, being the latter, at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters.

--Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is still not especially notable in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses, nor does it clearly demonstrate that the actions of two people helping one girl were specifically in defiance of the Nazi regime, or simply because they felt a moral obligation to help people in general.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, Jeffro77, The Encyclopedia is quite direct on this point: "they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God" and they believed so as "devout JWs". There's no need of your opinion on the matter, sources suffice, unless you have other sources reporting something different.

Furthermore, the JWs didn't "defy" the Nazi regime, they just "disobeyed". Massively. That's why thousands of them got murdered, out of a very tiny population. As far as I know, the JWs don't "defy" any political system as they believe the Kingdom of Jehovah is near and will replace the Kingdom of Satan, i.e. this world, so they don't need to fight, just be good, obey their god's commandments, resist and wait.

Since the honorific, in itself, is notable, for the only reason that it has been awarded the fact is certainly a bright, very notable example of JWs's passive resistance against the Nazis. Perhaps you are aware of more notable examples? If so, can you bring them into this discussion? I'm waiting impatiently.

Also, I would recommend to insert examples of JWs murdered for refusing to obey and recant their religious views. Few cases, of course, for example one for each country?

Obviously, the story of the two belarusian JWs cannot be mentioned in the main article, provided that there are something like 24000 like them, and the two are certainly not notable compared to the others.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Encyclopedia says it was important to them (that is, to the 2 JWs). That doesn't mean it's especially notable here. As already mentioned, persecution of JWs by the Nazis is covered at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany. However, you haven't indicated that the two JWs who helped the Jewish girl suffered as a direct result of helping her, and if they did, as you say, it would only be a very small part of how the Nazis affected JWs (which has nothing to do with JW attitudes towards Jewish people). Additionally, as you've also stated, the two people apparently helped the girl because they felt an obligation to help people, not because they were merely passively resisting the Nazis.

People of many religions have received the honorific, and the religions of those people goes unmentioned. It is therefore not especially notable or surprising that two JWs did. The 2 people should be counted at Righteous Among the Nations (they probably already are), but it would be unbalanced to note their religion there if not noting the religious affiliations of others.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia acknowledges the motive of the two JWs, i.e. considers it notable, literally "deserving to be noted": in fact it is noted in the Encyclopedia. Because it's notable in that context.

The two JWs saved a Jewish woman at the risk of their life, while the Nazis all around were setting alight the neighbouring villages, in search of Jews and partisans. It's quite difficult to argue that this is not a noble act of resistance against the Nazis: if they had been caught they would have been executed on the spot. Vasiliy Ivanov's wife disagreed with him, so they also risked to be exposed as JWs due to the family conflicts their choice caused.

You say: «Additionally, as you've also stated, the two people apparently helped the girl because they felt an obligation to help people, not because they were merely passively resisting the Nazis». Actually I never stated that, rather the contrary, would you mind to read more carefully? Where did you read that they just intended to help people? You have a source for that? The source mentions their "deed of rescue" from the Nazis. A bit more than your devaluing "help": they didn't help a needy old lady cross the road. They risked to be killed by the Nazis to "help" a woman they didn't know, hiding her, protecting her, assisting her, rescuing her from the Nazis.

Are you aware of any other case more notable than that of Vasiliy Ivanov and Irina Levikina? Cases of JWs opposing the Nazis, I mean. Since I've already asked and you have not replied, I guess not.

I agree that the fact should not be mentioned in the main article where it would be certainly not notable. That's why I proposed to report it on some JWs related article, where it naturally belongs to.

--Not A Pipe ¬| 07:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The actions of two individual JWs, acting on their own conscience, and not on any specific edict by the religion's leadership, to help a Jewish girl is not particularly notable in relation to the Jehovah's Witnesses religion generally. Nor is there any reason to suggest that this particular action was specifically an instance of 'opposing the Nazis', rather than the actual stated motive of a sense of obligation to help others. If you disagree, you could seek a third opinion or perhaps a request for comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To provide a comparison for you, occasionally specious arguments are raised that some JWs have committed murder, irrationally concluding that there is some 'notable' broader issue about JW murderers. However, that is not the case. Even in cases where a mentally ill person might believe their actions were consistent with JW beliefs, it is not notable of the religion. This example demonstrates a bad thing, whereas the other act was a good thing, but neither were as a result of any specific direction by the JW religion, and so are not notable from that context.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the religion of the JWs for which, unlike you, I have little interest. I'm talking about an extremely small religious minority, savagely persecuted by the Nazis in the context of the Holocaust, which massively disobeyed. It's as simple as that: they just disobeyed. Unlike others, they would have been safe if they had recanted: but they did not. Because the Kingdom of Jehovah is near, of course. They had a choice and made the right choice: Jews, Gipsies, homosexuals, etc. did not have a choice, they were not in the camps by their own choice.

As you certainly know, this is an interesting topic in historiography: some say that a confrontational approach against Hitler would have been "counterproductive" causing more casualties and more damages; others say that the situation was as bad as could be and therefore a direct determined counter-attack would have quickly eroded the wide consensus Hitler enjoyed within German and many European societies.

The case of the JWs is interesting for this reason: they disobeyed in mass. Of course they were decimated. The historiography is relatively poor because JWs don't talk about this, they wait for Jehovah and that's enough for them. Nonetheless historians are carrying out research on the subject and they are discussing this point: if the major religions had behaved like the JWs did, would have Hitler been defeated earlier? Could that choice prevent the Holocaust from happening? If interested you could read Sybil Milton's article in Walter Laqueur, Judith Tydor Baumel, The Holocaust encyclopedia or Christine King's lecture (for example where she says «The Witness story demonstrates, however, that it was possible for even a very small and politically powerless group of people to make a firm stand against what they quickly identified as evil … the fact that the vast majority were willing to face imprisonment and death rather than, as they saw it, deny their God, did make a difference»). If requested I can provide many other sources on this subject, in the unlikely hypothesis anybody was interested in writing an encyclopedic article …

Now, since history is made by people, my opinion is that this particular topic should be covered and few notable cases should be shortly mentioned: people who, due to their religious beliefs, were executed or, like the righteous belarusians, people who silently opposed the regime (in this case notable because awarded a notable honorific).

--Not A Pipe ¬| 17:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated, more than once, persecution of JWs under the Nazi regime is already addressed at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, as previously mentioned, the two people helping the other person was certainly a noble thing to do, but is not "a notable example of the rejection of the Nazi regime by JWs during WWII". Your assertion is a causation fallacy. Though the two people almost certainly rejected the Nazi regime, that is not the stated reason for them helping the girl, which was instead, because they felt an obligation to God.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably the matter should be discussed in Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany.

As to the second period of your comment, I'm not exactly sure what it means. I have many sources about JWs rejecting the Nazi regime not because they intended to reject the Nazi regime but because they intended to serve their god (For example: «In response to Nazi efforts to destroy the group, Jehovah's Witnesses became an island of spiritual resistance to the Nazi demand for absolute German commitment to the state», also this and this and this and this). Many sources consider these as valid examples of JWs massive opposition to the Nazi regime: they did it directly on Jehovah's command. The Nazis persecuted the JWs exactly because they perceived their motives as subversive. As to the Righteous Among the Nations, they are such exactly because, for their deeds of rescue, they risked to be killed by the Nazis. According to the Yad Vashem: «Bystanders were the rule, rescuers were the exception. However difficult and frightening, the fact that some found the courage to become rescuers demonstrates that some freedom of choice existed, and that saving Jews was not beyond the capacity of ordinary people throughout occupied Europe. The Righteous Among the Nations teach us that every person can make a difference». Rescuers, unlike bystanders, opposed the Nazis and made a difference. It's quite outrageous to suggest the contrary.

Now, Jeffro77, are you seriously trying to decide which are valid reasons to oppose the Nazis and which are not? BTW, are you aware that the title of Righteous is NOT awarded to those who saved Jews not as such but as part of their activity of resistance against the Nazis?

--Not A Pipe ¬| 13:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion that any particular example of JWs helping someone is a specific expression of 'opposing Nazis' is original research, and is therefore not relevant for article content. Do you have a source specifically stating that the two JWs helped the Jewish girl to oppose the Nazis? Or are you just drawing your own conclusion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reported sources mentioning examples of JWs who made choices - which were not intended against the Nazis, only to respect Jehovah's commandments. Such choices are considered against the Nazis by the sources (and, historically, by the Nazis in the first place) - not by the JWs. Many other sources exist mentioning many other examples. I never said that the two belarusian JWs intended to oppose the Nazis, they just intended to serve Jehovah: sources specifically say that all and each Righteous helped the Jews' efforts to resist against the Nazis, they did so with heroism, accepting the most extreme personal risks, accepting to live a clandestine existence, always fearing denunciation by neighbors or collaborators, they acted against the accepted conventions and beliefs and made a difference, etc. Original research? You must be kidding. As sources say: «In response to Nazi efforts to destroy the group, Jehovah's Witnesses became an island of spiritual resistance to the Nazi demand for absolute German commitment to the state». The two Righteous are just an eminent example of a typical behavior of the JWs: disobeying the Nazis whenever the contrary would have offended Jehovah, it was a form of passive resistance.

--Not A Pipe ¬| 11:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You're saying JWs opposed Nazis generally and two JWs helped a Jewish girl, and concluding that the two JWs did so specifically to oppose the Nazis (rather than what the source actually says about them). This is called synthesis. As stated previously, you're welcome to request a third opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article "Annihilationism" has a blank section on the Jehovah's Witnesses needing filling. Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the main groups worldwide who support this doctrine - that the unsaved are ultimately destroyed - thus it is crucial they be included in the article. If some/someone could describe there what JW's believe on this topic, and also a brief history etc. of the movement's views on it, this would greatly improve the article. Thank-you! Colin MacLaurin (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Possibe debate on JWs in May newsletter regarding Jehovah's Witnesses?. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it might actually be in the best interests of this project if perhaps the project talk page might be turned into a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard. I think that might be true of several of the Christianity projects and groups, actually. By saying this I am in no way indicating that the group is not competent to deal with the material, but I have seen in general that as basic content on any given subject is developed and created, thereafter interest drops off a little, and there are fewer editors to handle questions that might arise. I was wondering what the rest of you might think about such a proposal to get more attention to questions which are currently posted here.

Also, although this is a lesser point, if such were done, maybe a revision to the main project page might not be a bad idea as well WP:FMH might serve as a rough idea as to how a revised project page might look.

I would welcome any responses, positive or negative. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. My only concern would be that JW-related issues might get 'lost' in a broader scope.

Much of the JW Project page content is fairly stale, and it would certainly benefit from an overhaul. I did a fairly superficial cleanup of deprecated material on the Project page in 2011, but it's still not brilliant. Bringing it into line with something like WP:FMH looks like a fairly big task. I might have some time to make a start on the weekend, but I certainly won't complain if someone beats me to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, there is no rush. If there is however such an intention, one of the things I could personally at least try to do is consult the few reference sources related to the JWs, like Historical Dictionary of the Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, and if such were wanted, I could add citations to a possible list of missing and extant articles in such sources, indicating which encyclopedia- or dictionary-type sources have substantive articles on that topic, preferably with references to secondary sources clearly available. That might make it a bit easier to at least find sources for any articles that might be missing, and, maybe, make it easier for development, peer review and improvement of existing articles. John Carter (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

hello,

the nominator of this article is not very active, so if possible you could help to fix the issues I have raised in its review page to avoid being failed. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have a look at this tomorrow BlackCab (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started these subpages. Please place comments on their respective talk pages. Those pages and this one are on my watchlist.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Links: watchtower.org to jw.org
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Links: jw-media.org to jw.org
  

—Wavelength (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I was looking forward to make links correct, especially for those publications available online. I will do that in all JW related projects in next couple of daysRoller958 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. I understand that a large portion of the Witnesses' headquarters in Brooklyn was sold around 2011, and that some of the headquarters functions are now in Patterson, NY (in Putnam County). I don't normally work on JW stuff. Can someone look into this and update history and organizational sections of the articles? All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania#Property ownership.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear from your request what other updates would be required. Can you be more specific?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

In numerous places I read something similar to "Witnesses are taught" that world is under the influence of Satan. I oppose such wordings, it is suggesting that Witnesses are forced and they got brainwashed. Such wordings should be replaced with "witnesses believe". Please show me if any relevant discussion regarding this has been done in past Roller958 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See these two discussions: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 39#Jehovah's Witnesses believe ... (2008) and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 23#'Believe' vs. 'are taught' (2006). The phrase that members are "taught" something has no negative connotations and is more accurate than the sweeping generalisation and assumption that members all "believe" something." BlackCab (TALK) 23:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22we+are+taught%22&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading over the project page I see that there are sections that do need updating and improving however. BlackCab (TALK) 23:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What was the consensus? The links shows different opinions on the subject. Perhaps we could add some guidelines here. @User:Wavelenghth what are you suggesting? Jehovah's Witnesses are taught by Jehovah's Witnesses. They claim that they are taught by Jehovah, taught by Jesus, taught by Holy Spirit, taught by Bible, taught by the Governing Body, in congregations they are taught by other members and so on. The question is the POV in suggesting that they are not believing what they were taught. Especially in the context of a criticism section suggesting "mind-control". What is the criteria to know if JWs are not believing what they were taught? Roller958 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That link provides evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses accept that they are taught various doctrines. Another link (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22we+believe%22&p=par) provides evidence that they accept that they believe various doctrines. On the whole, the difference between "Witnesses are taught" and "Witnesses believe" is probably negligible, but some learners might have doubts (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22doubts%22&p=par). See also http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22brainwashed%22&p=par and http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=%22mind+control%22&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The writings of the religion are in no way "evidence that they accept" doctrines. It is hard to fathom how you infer a POV or a suggestion that they actually do not believe those doctrines. True, there is a system of enforced unity (with dissent resulting in charges of apostasy) but given the range of possible beliefs held by individuals it is safer and accurate and neutral to say what they are taught -- in other words, the official doctrine. BlackCab (TALK) 02:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an issue that arises due to the organisation's (intentionally?) ambiguous use of the name Jehovah's Witnesses to describe both the singular name of the organisation whose members are taught by the Watch Tower Society, and the plural form of the members who are expected to believe what is taught. In uncontroversial instances, it can be appropriate to simply say Jehovah's Witnesses believe, especially if taught would otherwise be used over and over again. However if wording may imply that all JWs accept an idea that is controversial or it is not clear whether the statement is referring to the organisation or plural members, it is preferable to say they are taught. For example, it is probably okay to say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's name is Jehovah, but probably not suitable to say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that shunning is a loving arrangement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So you BlackCab and Jeffro77 are saying its editors own discretion to decide if they were taught or they believe. Its against Wikepedia guidlines. If you feel many don't believe what is being officially taught, show a statistical report or a survey. Not just handpick on your own. Ill add that to this guidelines, feel free to edit Roller958 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which particular Wikipedia guideline do you have in mind? I'll raise the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and neutrality. It is a verifiable fact that JWs are taught that the world is under the influence of Satan. Let's see your reliable, independent statistical report that all JWs believe that teaching. Until that's produced as a demonstrable fact, it's a subjective opinion. You are once again demonstrating your conflict of interest in trying to advocate for the views of this religion. BlackCab (TALK) 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you determine "subjective opinion"? Own your own opinion? That's a conflict of interest. Which would be WP:Original Research in combination with NPOV. In the presense of an accusation that Jehovah's Witnesses are mind-controlled, its not neutral to suggest they are only taught.Roller958 (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre. I have made no mention of mind control. That was you who raised it. Your arguments are specious. BlackCab (TALK) 03:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording that has been added to the WikiProject page is misleading, and worded in such a way to suggest that taught should be avoided, even though it is verifiable. Instead it asserts that it is preferable to say believe, which is not verifiable, except for very basic core beliefs (such as God's name is Jehovah).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworded the statement. There is nothing controversial in saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are taught Witness teachings. Conversely, it can be controversial and unverifiable to imply that all members accept a particular belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I notice Internet Archive has a rather largish number of PD works related to the Jehovah's Witnesses available as per this page. It would certainly be one way to maybe help revitalize this group to, maybe, get some of the PD works available elsewhere, maybe at wikisource, and use them to develop content here as merited. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess that this may be the best place for a central discussion. I have noticed helpful FAQs at the top of some pages such as the ones on evolution (i.e. Talk:Evolution/FAQ), which can be easy to look up to have an idea of the existing consensus, basic procedures and/or related discretionary sanctions (there are other templates for that too for use on topics like US politics or pseudoscience-related articles).
It would probably be more difficult to achieve this on a non-science related topic, but I wondered if it would be doable. If we had one, I also have no idea if it would be read and acknowledged by new editors, or ultimately useless... Every once in a while, a new editor shows up hoping to majorly revamp articles with the possibility of endlessly reopening old debates, usually with the same conclusions, wasting a lot of time for everyone.
Of course, if such a FAQ existed, it would need to be updated as necessary when consensus forms for a change on a particular point; perhaps that RfCs-style sessions could occasionally serve for this. Just an idea. Talk page histories could probably serve for an initial draft if attempting this. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is the skeleton of a FAQ, which could eventually be moved to Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/FAQ if it eventually is considered useful. Feel free to edit. The first question is mostly an example taken from the talk page, it can be split or rewritten as well. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it may be a good idea to specify in the edit summary when text from the talk page is copied into this FAQ. If a lot of text is borrowed (even if copy-edited) there's a special template we can use for attribution too, if I remember. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much time available at the moment to discuss in any depth. There may be some value in this proposal. My main concerns would be that 1) a previous consensus does not automatically mean that a new consensus about an issue is not permitted, 2) the subject is inherently not as objective as science-based topics (as you've already indicated), 3) the types of editors who often appear may not be likely to recognise previous consensus that conflicts with their position. Anyway, can discuss in more detail another time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It would also need to be general enough not to become an article by itself. Other question ideas might be about the founding (answering the common Jesus/Jehovah founder edits), Jehovah name, the NWT, etc. And I'm not even sure yet if it's worthwhile work; it may be if it's short enough. See you later, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 22:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Ciranko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Ciranko until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —PaleoNeonate - 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that these were currently manually updated on the WikiProject JW page. In case bot-automated article alerts would be considered useful, (example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts), it would be possible for this project, by subscribing it (Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Subscribing). This works via categories (generally added by WikiProject tags on article talk pages). I think that adding the following to Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list would work:

 {{ArticleAlertSubscription
  |project=WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses
  |talksubcategories=Jehovah's Witnesses articles by importance
 }}

And would create and update Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Article alerts, which could be transcluded on the main project's page. However, since the WikiProject is a subproject of WikiProject Christianity and uses its template, these should already show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts (along with non-JW related Christianity alerts). It would also be possible to link or transclude those more general alerts, alternatively. I noticed that Ciranko was not listed there and wonder if its talk page was tagged with the Christianity/JW banner (only an administrator could now check that). —PaleoNeonate – 21:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be useful. I don't monitor the WP Christianity article alerts as the scope would be a bit much, and I'm not sure they would be suitable transcluded at the JW WP page for the same reason.

Regarding the two recent maintenance pages, I didn't initially update them in the manual section of the WikiProject since the pages were created by an editor who openly stated that he wasn't interested in actually carrying out the maintenance and I was the only editor who did anything about the actual maintenance, and possibly the only other editor even aware of the subpages at the time. I had forgotten about them since, and was only notified about them when a well-meaning editor added an irrelevant comment about the number of languages the JW website has some content in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Configuration entry added, will wait and see what the result is before transcluding (updates are daily I think). —PaleoNeonate – 02:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: the page has been created although no current event is listed (probably normal as the current pages for deletion are probably not marked with the WikiProject tag). I added transclusion on the project page, feel free to move/reorder. Other possible future improvements:

• Assessment log (example: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log)
• TODO (maybe with "requires immediate attention" option/category, example: (Wikipedia:SKEPTIC#To_do)
• Toolbar at right with links to various project-important resources
• Easier/more prominent access to important maintenance categories such as:
  • Category:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Category:Jehovah's Witnesses articles needing attention
• I noticed that Category:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses members‎ appears bogus, the userbox/topicicons may need to be improved. —PaleoNeonate – 12:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox. It may take some time for the transcluded templates on individual User pages to update the category.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

True, I'll check the category state in a few days, if there still appears to be a problem I'll also take a look at the userbox (which I've not done yet). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to work fine, although the update is still in progress. —PaleoNeonate – 19:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The assessment log and statistics are now linked under resources and I added categories that appeared to be missing for them to be updated (maybe they still did). Monitoring those two pages to see if they really work is a good idea. —PaleoNeonate – 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The assessment log functionality appears to have successfully resumed (today an update was made for a template assessed in July). —PaleoNeonate – 02:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A tasks page list was added. Feel free to change it to reflect current project goals. As for the "needing attention" category that's linked there, these depend on the |attention=yes parameter of the WikiProject template on article talk pages. —PaleoNeonate – 20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• So article alerts appear to work, it now lists a category that was nominated for deletion. —PaleoNeonate – 14:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the article alerts. I wasn't aware of this option. It looks as though it should be much better than doing things manually.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome. A limitation to remember is that the alerts will only include pages which have the WikiProject tag on their corresponding talk page (or which are explicitly put into a related category). —PaleoNeonate – 06:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Divine Name in the New Testament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I raised some concerns at Talk:Divine Name in the New Testament#Watchtower publications. It's also possible that I'm wrong and that the article should be renamed to something like The Divine name and Jehovah's Witnesses. I also previously noticed sources which may not be reliable used there (self-published at Lulu). More eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 01:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you notice the section at the article's Talk page where I have previously suggested redirecting to Sacred Name Bibles? In that section, I also noted the original intent of the article as a JW POV fork. The article was originally called Jehovah in the New Testament, but was changed to Tetragrammaton in the New Testament in 2006, which it remained (apart from some very shortlived name changes—Tetragrammaton in the New Testament hoax and Jehovah in the New Testament of the New World Translation—in mid 2006) until last month.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That is very interesting and explains a lot, I had not noticed. The Sacred Name Bibles article, at least in its current state, appears to mostly be about the Sacred Name Movement, which also currently only minimally mentions the JWs, Rutherford and has no mention of the NWT (but the previous article does). It all appears related though. Perhaps that merging some content may be better than only redirecting. It would also be nice to find more sources about the relation between the JWs, NWT and that movement (so far there is there)... —PaleoNeonate – 05:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that "Divine Name" is a POV term that should not really be part of the article name. Suitable content could be merged to Sacred Name Bibles (which already has some mention of JWs), and the article's history as a JW POV fork doesn't prevent that. The JW use of the name Jehovah in the New Testament is already presented at relevant articles, such as New World Translation, and I don't believe it warrants a separate article.

Common history of the groups would be out of scope of the articles already discussed here, but should be covered in suitable articles relating to history of the relevant Adventist groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Project News: An admin is admonished
• Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
• Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
• Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

• Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
• Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
• Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 04:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
• Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
• Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 08:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hmm this article's wording claims that it's a denomination, but the official website is still jw.org. Is there anything particular about JWs in Italy for this article's existence to be justified? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've submitted an AfD for this article. JWs in Italy do not form a significant proportion of the population of Italians or of JWs worldwide, and it isn't an 'Italian denomination' at all, receiving all its direction from the US headquarters. This type of article can generally be deleted, especially if not supported by secondary sources. However, it is not always straightforward; e.g. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just !voted there. —PaleoNeonate – 12:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm I'm still surprised for the "no consensus" 2015 close, as in my impression, there were 3-4 valid delete and 1-2 possibly valid keep... —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

607 BCE, registered to "Watchtower South Africa, 1 Robert Broom Drive East, Krugersdorp, +27-11-761-1000" (tag). If someone can, it would be nice to verify if the text was not a copyright violation (I can't currently use the fancy tools). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a direct copy and paste of the whole thing, but parts are lifted from the two-part series “When was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed” appearing in the October and November 2011 issues of The Watchtower. Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest.—Jeffro77 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, an admin revdeleted the diffs, —PaleoNeonate – 18:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Depending on how discussion at Talk:Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania#Society v society goes, we might want to update the main wikiproject page's advice via the headings "Watchtower Society versus Governing Body" and "Watchtower Society versus Watch Tower Society". I also doubt the usefulness of including the list of "recently deleted" articles prior to 2017. Maybe it'd be best to remove it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Those sections discuss separate issues to the use of "the Society" versus "the society". But something relevant probably should be added at the project page about that matter also.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Though I see there are some references to "the Society" in those sections that could be more consistent with not using JW jargon.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I know it has been very quiet for the past few months, but I have done a bit of work anyway.

You can read it at jw.org talkpage. But basically I requested to make jw.org a stand alone page, in stead of it being a redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's over 15 years ago that it was voted to be a redirect, and correctly so, as it wasn't notable yet. I think that we're way past that now, and I gave some reasons, links and the added languages on Wikidata to prove my point.

Now I do not want to write it, as I might be seen biased. But perhaps you guys have any interest in writing a small article? There is enough to take from the Polish edition (pl:jw.org) as well as Tomedes etc.

Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  22:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It should remain a redirect. The web page itself is not notable in secondary sources, and an article about the website itself would be primarily promotional, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 Talk 01:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The article on the Polish Wikipedia has been written almost exclusively by one editor, whose edits on the English Wikipedia are also almost all about promoting JWs.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have created a template called {{JWStatistics}} so statistics can be updated in one place and automatically updated across articles (once the template is included in the articles). When annual figures are released, the figures then only need to be updated in the one template.

The template takes one mandatory parameter and one optional paramter. The required parameter is the type of information required, one of the following

• branches - number of branch offices
• lands - number of 'lands' reported
• congregations - number of congregations worldwide
• memorial - number who attended the memorial
• partakers - number of memorial partakers
• peak - peak of number reporting preaching activity
• publishers - average number reporting preaching activity (this is the more reliable number per Watch Tower Society sources)
• increase - the percentage increase over the previous year
• baptized - the number of new baptized members
• pioneers - the number of members reporting as 'pioneers'
• auxiliary - the number of members reporting as 'auxiliary pioneers'
• hours - the number of hours of preaching reported worldwide
• studies - the number of Bible studies reported worldwide (includes Bible studies conducted by JWs with the children)

The optional parameter is "approx", and will show an approximate figure instead of the exact figure.

Examples:

• {{JWStatistics|congregations}} produces "119,652".
• {{JWStatistics|publishers|approx}} produces "9 million".

--Jeffro77 Talk 08:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: If you ever feel like beating me to it, some other JW articles that could be significantly improved are:

• Jehovah's Witnesses congregational discipline – outside of the legality section, most of the cited sources are primary ones.
• Apostasy (2017 film) – the reception section could easily be expanded
• Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses
• Jehovah's Witnesses and governments
• Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses – adding stuff about Singapore here would be welcome
• Memorial (Jehovah's Witnesses) – this article is really short

More broadly, there are some articles that could probably have a JW section like Federal headship. That article could be improved in various ways and not just from a JW angle so I think your efforts there would be amazing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Clover, I think I'll focus on the Memorial article for the time being and slowly work my way up. So much work to be done, if only we had even more hands on deck! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Feel free to add yourself to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Members. Hopefully I'll be done unpacking from Poland/doing laundry in the next few hours and then I'll tell you about all the books I have and you can try to find ones I don't have access to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been desperately trying to find Curry's book (Jehovah's Witnesses: The Millenarian World of the Watch Tower) but so far I've only come across one used book listing for $200+ 😵‍💫 KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe don't buy it then 😅 I might be able to find that book in a local university library if you really have your heart set on it. So I've taken a look at what I have at home and my entire collection so far is:

• Apocalypse Delayed (third edition) by James Penton
• Crisis of Allegiance (second edition) by James Beverly
• Dissent on the Margins by Emily Baran
• Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz
• Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich by James Penton
• Jehovah's Witnesses and the Secular World by Zoe Knox
• Judging Jehovah's Witnesses by Shawn Francis Peters
• Jehovah's Witnesses and the Nazis by Michel Reynaud and Slyvie Graffard
• State and Salvation by William Kaplan
• Jehovah's Witnesses: A New Introduction (this is the book I handed to you to read at the airport).

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Very impressive collection... I have been able to get GBook previews on some of those titles! J. A. Beckford's The Trumpet of Prophecy looks rather useful too despite being somewhat dated. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: have tidied up the Memorial page somewhat, now what I'd really like to do is add some primary source material, such as what Russell himself had to say about the matter. Would also be nice to have more photographs. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Be very careful with primary sources, please. See WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, but I think it's acceptable if we use primary sources to, for instance, quote verbatim what Russell had to say about mainstream Christianity's communion vs the Memorial (assuming such sources do exist). It's like when you're trying to write about the plot of a notable comic book series -- sometimes the best sources are the books themselves. Note also the qualifiers "evaluative", "interpretative" etc. -- but we wouldn't be endorsing any of the organisation's claims here? Anyway, I have yet to find a comprehensive source about the history of the ritual, secondary or otherwise, that really takes us through how the Memorial evolved from 1876 to date. If you have any suggestions, please fire away! Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well the problem you run into with that is if you're citing a primary source, you're usually interpreting it in some way. That's why we can summarize what reliable sources say about Russel but we generally wouldn't want to cite him directly. If we start adding citations to primary sources instead of removing them, I'm under the impression that there's a good chance that practice would be ripped to shreds at FAC if we ever get there.

As far as I'm aware, there's no book specifically about the history of the memorial practice but this is a topic that has SIGCOV scattered across various book chapters and journal articles. I can try to find further examples if you'd like? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a specific scenario in mind, which revolved around Russell's own pronouncements about the Memorial (or whatever it was first called then--based on what I've seen so far there wasn't a fixed name and I've seen some Watchtower entries referring to this event with more elaborate names). Or the very first Memorial: what did it look like, did they celebrate ome kind of communion prior to that. For what it's worth I generally avoid primary sources too but for this specific topic I haven't been able to find much else. Further examples would be wonderful, yes. In the meantime I've begun work on Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that maybe we're talking past each other and if I actually saw what you were trying to implement, I might have a different stance. You are experienced editor, after all. I'll try to take a serious dive at JW sources today and I'll let you know if I find anything. I tend to bounce around a lot when it comes to my editing so it can be a bit difficult to get myself to focus when I need to. Anyways, thank you for starting that article! It's sorely needed. I'd suggest adding something to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments or Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses about that if you haven't already (I need to check my watchlist 😅). I do think the general approach of "Jehovah's Witnesses in country" is likely a better idea than splitting the content everywhere. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This newly mainspaced relatively extensive article deals significantly with the Tetragrammaton, as studied by a Jehovah’s Witness, appears to be in need of various improvements. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing. Thank you—Alalch E. 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yahweh#Requested move 8 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)