# Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Anywhere in this article that refers to Jehovah's witnesses as a christian denomination, is factualy wrong. They do not believe Jesus is God, therefore they cannot be christian. Proof: Christianity name is derived from Christ name. 
Example from your article that is wrong : "Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of Christianity that is an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century." 
This is false. They are not a denomination of Christianity SusannahSuza (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Christian’s are considered to be those that follow Jesus Christ beliefs and teachings believing in his life, death, and resurrection as messiah. Outside of that are many different teachings of Christ divinity and understanding of the Bible. No where in the Bible is it taught Christian must believe “Jesus is God”, these are religious views and is bias towards a neutral article. Elicruze (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't multiple doctrine suggest that the Bible does teach that Christians should believe Jesus is God? For instance:
- Multiple passages that indicate Jesus is God, such as John 1:1, 14, John 8:58, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:15-17, Colossians 2:9, Isaiah 9:6, etc. It's stated in the Bible that anyone can claim to be God with mere words, so it mostly showcases the actions of Jesus that suggest divinity.
-  The title "Son of God" being a title for a divine being in Old Testament context.
-
The only reasoning I can see to keep the denomination part (instead of "sect" for example) is due to the fact that the organization considers themselves Christian. Dawnisurenemy (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
@Dawnisurenemy: Wikipedians don't intepret the Bible. To you, this may be the obvious conclusion, but obviously people have different interpretations because otherwise there wouldn't be people who believed in nontrinitarianism. What Wikipedia does is summarize reliable sources with due weight (and the label "denomination" is used, alongside others). We don't take sides on what's "right". To come to our own conclusions would be considered original research. Hope that helps, Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that the first sentence say “Jehovah’s Witnesses call themselves a nontrinitarian, millenarian and restorationist christian denomination” because it is much more neutral than the current one. It doesn’t lean one or the other. (my view is that it’s a cult). Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

No. Encyclopedic works such as the Encyclopedia of Protestantism call it a Christian denomination.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
That’s a Protestant work; not representing the whole christian world (the “call themselves” that I mentioned will be better). Especially Catholicism. Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
The opinions of rival denominations are not the basis for whether a denomination is considered Christian. However, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (volume 1, page 135) also classifies Jehovah's Witnesses as Adventists, which it classifies as Christian. No more 'no true Scotsman' fallacies thanks.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Every mainstream theological reference — Catholic, Protestant, academic — defines Christianity by Trinitarian belief. Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, so per reliable sources they fall outside historic Christianity. You’re welcome to cite a scholarly source saying otherwise — that’s how consensus works here. Augustus2714 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t a magisterial or authoritative doctrinal source — it’s a reference compilation that often summarizes rather than defines theological positions. It’s useful contextually, but it doesn’t establish what the Catholic Church or mainstream Christianity officially considers orthodox. If we’re talking about how Christianity is historically defined, the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds are the actual baseline, not a 20th-century encyclopedia entry. Augustus2714 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
You are not a magisterial or authoritative doctrinal source.--Jeffro77 Talk 04:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Not sure anyone will really care about this but I've done some digging after noticing this primary source [1]. I've since reinstated the academic source [2] but the discrepancy in titles seems to be that what I wrote is the name of the issue of the magazine while what Turtle-bienhoa wrote was the name of one of the two articles contained within it that was about children refusing blood transfusions. Again, not sure if this detail is really all that crucial, but I was wrong in a following edit summary and wanted to correct that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Turtle-bienhoa (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think I'm getting closer to feeling ready. Before I go ahead with a content split, do you think what's discussed at #Government interactions warrants one? A surprising majority of academic sourcing about JWs focuses on this so it's more difficult to work around than one might assume at a glance. I'd hate to split the content off and then have to write it back in. Something else that's been bugging me is the start of Jehovah's Witnesses#History. Should I have a separate classification section? Or maybe a scholarship one? There's a few other small things I'd like to touch up in the next few days but I think I've finished the bulk of what we'd be looking at for FAC. I'd really welcome your feedback before officially proceeding with that step. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You've put a lot of work into this, nicely done. I'll try to look over the whole thing over the course of a week or two: if I find copyedits to make I'll make them, but if there's something I don't understand that I would flag as a prose clarity issue at FAC, I'll note it here.  As to your specific questions: I assume you mean to ask whether you should split more content off of Government interactions? Because Jehovah's Witnesses and governments exists already. I do think a little more content could be spun off per WP:SS. An easy target may be trimming or removing material wherein JW's were caught up in action against broader targets, like bans on evangelism, while keeping material broad enough to be featured in JW's overall history. For instance, the Australian history feels broadly relevant, while the French paragraph lacks the context for me to feel it belongs here. A good rule of thumb is whether the history is mentioned in sources giving you an overview of the subject versus sources that may be reporting news.  The material you have on nomenclature seems fine to me, and I think you could reasonably title it "classification" or leave it as is. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I wouldn't nessecarily describe Jehovah's Witnesses and governments as a split in the traditional sense because there's not as much overlap between these two articles as there might otherwise be. The JW topic area as a whole needs a lot of work and I've mainly been focusing my efforts here so as to not get completely overwhelmed. The government interactions section is the one I'm most uncertain of because it feels like it's too fleshed out and yet not enough at the same time. I definitely could be using the 2018 Knox source more than I have. I'm thinking that some backtracking might end up being inevitable because it might be impossible to know what to cut back on without seeing the full breadth of possibilities. How about I try to seriously improve the child article in the next week or two while you're taking a look at the current state of things and then we can go from there? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
I get that - but it can be treated as a spinoff even if it didn't start that way. If you want to improve it, more power to you, but I don't think there's a problem with dumping the entire section into the spinoff and summarizing it here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I think it might be a bit more complicated than just dumping it into another article. It's probably easier for me to just improve it rather than try to better explain what I mean, which I can probably get around to in the next few days. It's the only part of the article in which I truly feel stuck right now. But please feel free to let me know what you think about everything else if you finish while I try to get around to that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I've started splitting some of this content into that other article, although I still have quite a bit of work to do on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Starting in 2021, a new crisis emerged due to the Governing Body's non-neutral stance on medical products. Many long-time Jehovah’s Witnesses decided to leave the religion. On July 24, 2025, three elders formed a committee to address the sins of eight members, and they were disfellowshipped.
Kinek (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
I fixed what I think was an error in formatting your request
Slomo666 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Kinek I do understand what changes you want. However, could you please tell exactly where the text should be added, and also find a better source. Thank you! Lova Falk (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I propose to delet the jw.org sign as if its their symbol. Why? It is only the sign of jw.org, not of the movement Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, they say they hate symbolism at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101976850: "The Bible, however, sets forth no visible symbol for Christianity. Christians today, therefore, must be on guard not to adopt such a symbol." That 1976 policy is still the policy. The movement did not have a symbol since removing their cross and crown symbol in 1928.
So, to use the jw.org logo here is as out of place as the infamous Wikipedia scandal of using the naval and civil ensign of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as their flag (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HgvB9aW98z8 ). 176.126.80.32 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No thanks, please don't delete the official symbol/logo of the organisation, as used on the organisation's official website by the organisation itself. I didn't bother looking at your off-topic youtube link as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Walter  Ego  13:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I repeat that the 1976 policy stands: Since the 1928 cross and crown, this religion (calling itself "Christianity" in the 1976 article) has no symbol. The jw.org logo is that of jw.org, not of the community "Jehovah's Witnesses." And the other link I gave just illustrates that it is just as false to use the jw.org logo for an alleged Jehovah's Witness cross-like symbol as it is to use an A-H naval ensign for the flag of Autria-Hungary. They are related but not the same.
There is not a shred of evidence on jw.org that the logo jw.org should represent the organization. All I see is that is represents jw.org. The argument that it just is on jw.org is a non-sequitor.
If you really want to know: Write to the Watch Tower Society as official Wikipedia official and ask: "Is the jw.org logo the jw.org logo or is it the symbol of Jehovah's Witnesses, replacing the cross and crown, contrary to the 1976 Watchtower article?" 176.126.80.32 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
No. The article uses the logo commonly associated with and representative of the organisation. Articles about organisations and corporations on Wikipedia typically include a logo, and it does not inherently construe 'religious symbolism' in the sense you're complaining about. Opinions about Bible verses are not relevant regarding this matter.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The logo is used, but not as representative of the group, which the 1976 article says is evil, a symbol, but rather as representative of the website. I also did not cite anything from the Bible. The '76 article did. 176.126.81.32 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
The logo is used in this article in the same manner that logos are used in other Wikipedia articles. The usage of the logo at this article is not relevant to whether JWs consider 'religious symbols' to be 'evil'.--Jeffro77 Talk 05:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I think the connection is relevant. As there is no caption in the wiki box that tells us it is merely the jw.org logo, one might readily falsely conclude it is a symbol of the religion. This is especially possible considering similar boxes (LDS Church, Catholic Church, SDA Church, etc.) that all feature the official symbols. One might think that that's also the case for this religion here. So, at least we should add a caption to clarify the correct information. ~2025-31136-90 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The logo is a symbol of their denomination. It is prominently featured on their literature, website and places of worship. Their use of the logo is no different to logos as used by other denominations.--Jeffro77 Talk 09:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
No. The jw.org logo is the logo of jw.org. And that is a website. It is not the denomination. The 1976 policy stands: The denomination has no visible sign, emblem, Standard, logo, symbol, etc. Contact the Watchtower Society in Wikipedia's name and ask directly: "Is jw.org your new symbol, after the cross and crown? Or is it the symbol of jw.org?" ~2025-32182-67 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Your source saying the denomination 'has no symbol' predates the existence of the JW.org logo by several decades. The logo is widely used to represent the denomination, including on their places of worship (which are not Watch Tower Society corporate offices or a website). It is not used in the article as a 'religious symbol'. Just stop.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Since the decades, there has been no official change. As such, the 1976 policy stands. Watchtower policy stands until it is changed.
Further, no evidence is provided how to interpret the logo. The argument was just: "They use it far any wide. Ergo, it stand for their group." That is a non-sequitor. The logo is widely used on their halls (but not inside, like a cross). But that does not mean they think it is the symbol of their group. I interpret it as just an ad for their website intended for newcomers, in which case it would not be a symbol for the group but for the website.
It is not used INhe article as a religious symbol. But it gives the impression itIN THE BOX  is their symbol (as if it is like that of the LDS or SDA Church). There is no caption, so nobody knows what on earth is meant exactly, anyway.
But, again, I would just ask an administrator of Wikipedia to contact the Watch Tower Society of PA or the Watchtower Society of NY. Surely, they know it is the website symbol, not the denomination symbol (there is none since the 1928 cross and crown removal). ~2025-35231-15 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
The use of logos on Wikipedia articles is commonplace, and has nothing to do with whether JWs 'use it as a symbol like a cross'. Your argument that 'nobody knows what on earth is meant exactly' is baseless (logos don't always obviously have a specific inherent meaning), but also wrong ('JW' quite obviously stands for 'Jehovah's Witnesses'). There is no support for your desired change, and your rationale is specious.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
"Your argument that 'nobody knows what on earth is meant exactly' is baseless (logos don't always obviously have a specific inherent meaning)" - That was not what I meant. Strawman. I said: Nobody knows what the logo IN THE WIKIPEDIA BOX means. Obviously, I do not care what Jehovah's Witnesses mean with the jw.org logo. But my argument is: Nobody knows what the logo IN THE BOX means. Is it a website logo? Is it a denomination logo? There is simply no caption in the box. (Other religious groups have such a caption, for example "official logo" or whatever for the LDS Church.)
"but also wrong ('JW' quite obviously stands for 'Jehovah's Witnesses')" - Strawman. Regardless: It does not say: JW. Look at the logo. It says: jw DOT ORG. So, it is: the WEBSITE of Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not use it for THEMSELVES as a denomination.
"There is no support for your desired change, and your rationale is specious." No, your arguments are strawmen.
I repeat: The 1976 policy is still in place. There has been no symbolism since 1928 (considered evil). The jw.org logo is the logo of jw.org, not that of the denomination Jehovah's Witnesses that happen to use jw.org (but they also use Watchtowers, which also have logos, so?). If you deny that and say the 1976 idea is overturned, there is a simple possibility: To settle the dispute (jw.org logo vs. Jehovah's Witnesses logo), the administrators should contact the WTB&TSoPA or the WB&TSoNY. I remain convinced they will confirm my interpretation. I deny what was written by Jeffro77 and remain totally unconvinced until I see the evidence. Otherwise, the 1976 policy stands. ~2025-35240-63 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guidelines about use of logos are not subject to Watchtower 'policy'.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
The Watchtower Society is (one of) the official representative(s) of the denomination. Here is an analogy: A country uses a flag. Some think it is the naval ensign. Others say it is the official state flag. If I propose to just contact the country to make sure what it is, would you object, "Oh, the country has no say over Wikipedia!"? No, that would be a totally bad retort. If you have people that can tell you what they themselves think about their own logos, it is useful to get their views ABOUT THEIR OWN LOGOSf course, this does not mean that Wikipedia is now "subject"  to my country in my analogy. Regardless, a user already edited the page to say it is merely the website, not their official denominational symbol. Maybe that will be accepted by some people here. If there is an other editor that will remove the caption or change it to say, "official logo of Jehovah's Witnesses," and the dispute continues, my proposal to get their official stance stands. ~2025-35739-44 (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I thought analogies were supposed to be a simple example of something!!! That's just a throwaway comment, but note that you have not made a case for the removal of the logo. - Walter  Ego  13:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Dropping some notes here, as promised. Some of these may be easy to address, some less so. I haven't looked deep into the source material: in some cases we may already be at the limit of what the sources can say, but perhaps someone who knows the sources can dig things up. Also, I'm posting these piecemeal. I'll be back. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a few terms in the lead piped to terms that aren't identical to the layperson. For instance; "hellfire" goes to "Hell in Christianity"; so does this mean JW's reject the concept of hell, or something more subtle, that perhaps requires a footnote? Same with "inherent immortality" going to "christian conditionalism". The degree of explanation that technical term requires is a frequent point of contention at FAC, and the lead in particular requires concision, so I don't want to ask for a gloss
"Limited in Western Academia" is perhaps necessary if that's what the source says, but the implication that Eastern academia may have analyzed JWs is odd.
In Demographics, I wasn't able to find "getting no further than high school graduation" in the source.
More broadly, the statistics there are fine, but some contextualization or commentary from secondary sources would be nice.
"Colportage" is technical enough that a gloss would be nice.
Same with the photo drama.
The demographic changes post-1917 are a little confusing to me. I can't access Penton. Gruss talks of three-quarters leaving between 1921 and 1931, which is not quite "by the 20s"; and the latter is an awkward construction anyway. This may be simplest to present as two different estimates about two different periods, with in-text attribution and the sources moved appropriately.
A minor formatting note that when you use multiple page ranges from the same book, you can use sfn formatting or similar to allow readers to click to the full bibliographic entry from the shortened footnote: I noticed the Gruss source doesn't do this, perhaps there's others.
Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:
Yes, JWs do reject the concept of hell entirely. The only nuance is how they treat a specific word that is usually translated as hell to mean something else.
The source says The serious academic study of NRMS only began when newer groups gained public attention in the West, notably the Unification Church, the children of God (subsequently The Family International), the Church of Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement). The neglect of NRMs in theology faculties was no doubt due to the contempt which their ideas were held, and it was left to sociologists to treat them as social phenomena. As a result, the older minority religions, sometimes called the 'old new religions', were left behind, and the attention focused on societal issues, often at the expense of beliefs and practices. Other sources tend to be a bit more explicit about the lack of academic study, particularly Knox. Do you think I should check that and maybe replace the ref?
Read all five pages of the report and I don't see it either. I think it was cited to NPR when it was first added to the article, which says that Linderer's story is a common one for children raised as Jehovah's Witnesses. Pew Research shows that only 9 percent of Witnesses get undergraduate degrees. That's well below the national average of 30.4 percent and the lowest of any faith group. The likely reason for this trend is the religion's official warnings against college. [3] If that's the case, not sure why it was rearranged in with the rest, as the year of that research isn't clarified in the source. After a lot of digging, it seems to be a reflection of this 2016 summary by Pew Research. [4]
Not sure there's much of that? I searched "Jehovah's Witnesses Pew Research" and most of what came up was forum posts and not reliable sources. There's a PBS article that just summarizes the findings but with no additional commentary.
What do you mean by "gloss"? Do you want me to add some context?
I'm not as familiar with the Gruss source but I can access Penton. Do you prefer the construction in the text before [5] or would you prefer something else entirely? Only one of the page snippets linked in the Penton source was accessible to me through Google Books and it simply says "thousands left", without specifying further. I know I have a physical copy of the book somewhere but I've been doing winter cleaning so give me a few more days to find out where exactly it is and I'll double check if either page in the physical edition corresponds with it.
I generally used sfn for citations that I added to the article but I can try to see how consistent that is if it's something I need to do.
Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I've found the book and hope to address that last bit in the near future. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel your article and references smack of negative bias. 
I contribute financially to Wiki but I couldn't  continue conscientiously support an encyclopedia that hasn't consulted the source for positive information on JW such as JW.org. What you will learn:
- Jehovah's witnesses are not Premilleniumist. We  believe Jesus is ruling in heaven and will continue to rule from heaven during his millennium. We don't believe he needs  return to earth to rule effectively 
-JW are  ALL volunteers.  Including the ones personally serving their own Cong. For example many who volunteer to support their congregation do so willingly sacrificing their time and energy on a weekly  to design  Bible based material  so that our congregations on an international  scale never miss the support of 2, (approx  1.5 hr) meeting times a week.
- yes we don't celebrate holidays based on pagan beliefs. But we do dance and enjoy the  company of friends at weddings, anniversaries and other informal gatherings
- we don't pass a collection plate nor tithe, etc. We can choose to financially support this international work of preaching by voluntary contribution according to our personal circumstances
-JW are organised  to  provide INTERNATIONAL disaster relief.
-  you touch on a positive truth that JW have fought for freedoms. Yes they've  taken many cases to the highest courts in many countries to legalize freedom of thought and religious beliefs for all citizens 
- Shunning? JW have an area of service we informally call 'Cart Witnessing' This is a community service staffed by volunteers (on a daily basis) who are JW. It's primarily set up to gently remind those who have left our religion whether by choice or who have been removed for serious wrongs and don't  accept responsibility for their actions (ie; adultery, child abuse) to  return, because "...God(Jehovah)forgives in a large way" Isaiah 55:7. (in any translation of the bible). We don't approach people while at the cart but we enjoy conversation with ones who do approach the Cart

Shunning? We don't use that term but we do Remove members, as a final resort. I'm  a long time baptised member of JW. I have many close family members that were raised JW's but aren't in our religion now,that I'm in contact with on a daily or other basis because I deeply love  them the way I know Jehovah does too
Pls reference JW.org to learn more so that you can report with integrity ~2025-33348-48 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see which sources are preferable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. This article relies on a lot of academic sourcing, which does indeed describe certain practices such as shunning, in accordance with our neutral point of view policy. Jw.org is a primary source and the duty of an encyclopedia is not to repeat a religion's own claims as truth, but to summarize in a proportionate way what reliable sources say. If you're looking at another example of what this can look like, may I suggest reading Disconnection (Scientology). If you're trying to make a specific edit request, I encourage you to use this process. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Whether you contribute to Wikipedia or not (or rather to the the WikiMedia Foundation, as Wikipedia does not solicit for funds directly) will have absolutely no bearing on article content, for reasons that should be obvious, and. I'd have to suggest, may also concern 'integrity'. As for the rest, It is a core principle of Wikipedia, that it is a tertiary source - rather than doing our own investigations of subject matter through primary sources (i.e. those published by the subject), we instead almost entirely base article content, with due regard for balance, on secondary sources - publications independent of the subject we deem reliable and (depending on what they are being cited for) having the relevant knowledge. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to do as you suggest. Feel free to contribute, or not (the WMF is anything but short of funds, and there a good few Wikipedia contributors, including myself, who are unhappy with the way the WMF solicits funds by implying that the servers are likely to be shut down any time soon). Just understand that Wikipedia works the way it does because the volunteers here have arrived through consensus, at the policies which, when properly applied, provide the sort of content our readers seem to desire. That isn't open to negotiation here, and I see nothing to indicate that this article has been singled out in any obvious manner for negative treatment. If it comes across as unsympathetic to JWs that is almost certainly due to a broader perception from society as a whole. We are under no obligation to engage in spin on the behalf of any organisation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)