Talk:Bible Student movement

message: I have asked a question at the Layman's Home Missionary Movement talk page about the spelling of the name of this group. It appears to be misspelled at that article and also in the Bible Student Movement article. Someone changed (corrected?) the spelling of the group's name in this article recently without explanation, but those edits were reverted. It should be fairly easy to verify. LTSally (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layman or Laymen? 

message: I have deleted a number of statements within this section that are not supported by the sources cited. The extension of powers gained by Rutherford in votes taken at board level and at the 1917 convention was not done secretly. The change in by-laws were openly debated and voted. See "Light After Darkness" pages 5 and 6. There is nothing in that publication that quotes a petition saying "We, the undersigned, give the President of the Society a blanket vote of confidence", nor is there any suggestion Rutherford required a letter of explanation from those who so refused to sign. The reference to the expulsion of "the four Board members both from the Board itself and from the Bethel" on July 5 is not entirely accurate. Both "Light After Darkness" and Rutherford's "Harvest Siftings" mention the incident but disagree over what happened. The four were certainly evicted on the day — by Rutherford's account because there were fears of what they would do — but not expelled. All four were present in the Bethel dining room on July 17 when Rutherford announced he had replaced them on the board. The JW Proclaimers book claims the directors left Bethel on August 8. "Harvest Siftings Reviewed" (page 17) says Rutherford asked Johnson to leave Bethel on July 27 and the four directors days later. The story is sufficiently dramatic without beating it up further. LTSally (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your diligence, but as I see it this particular section is unfairly skewed toward Rutherford making it appear as though he was unfairly persecuted when the well-documented facts show the very opposite - that he was the aggressor.  How can we fix this in a way that is agreeable to all? Pastorrussell (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised you see it as skewed. On this article and in the Rutherford one I have endeavoured to present both sides of the dispute. My own reading of it is that Rutherford was aggressive and abused his power to get what he wanted, but he has presented his own version and the article needs to state both sides. What specifically do you take issue with? LTSally (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadership crisis 

message: I have trimmed the section dealing with the events of 1917 to become a summary of a new spinout article, Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917, which was created to remove repetition at this article, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Joseph Franklin Rutherford. BlackCab (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinout article 

message: The other movements mentioned in this article, some with their own articles, have the word 'Movement' capitalised. For consistency, would editors prefer that this article name also capitalise 'Movement', or change the others to lowercase?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Secular scholars that I've read tend toward "Bible Students movement" without capitalizing the last word, so it seems a safe choice to retain it as the article title. If scholars move toward capitalizing the term, perhaps the matter can be reexamined then.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was leaning in that direction too. Any thoughts about the other 'movement' articles that are currently capped?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement/movement 

message: There are absolutely no references for this entire paragraph. Although it probably is true, it is Wikipedia policy to not have information which has no reliable sources supporting it. If no one can come up with some good references, I think this paragraph should be deleted. If anyone is against this, please say so below and why. If no one is against this for good reason, I'll delete the paragraph is one week from now, 13/06/2010. Beeshoney (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bible_Student_movement#Associated_Bible_Students|Wikipedia Associated Bible Students 2nd Paragraph]] - NO references 

message: Recently, a thread in a related article's Talk asked and answered that Bible Students contemporaneous with Russell abstained from warfare (though they submitted to conscription and did not object to all military service). That thread should have been linked here, so here it is: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#Regarding political neutrality and abstinence from warfare.
Incidentally, here's another reference which tends to support the 'abstinence from warfare' point:
* Shapers of the great debate on the freedom of religion by Jonathan Wright, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, page 184, "[During and after 1917] it was the book's reception in the wider culture that would prove of greater concern. The Bible Students movement had long been opposed to offering military service to the state...and this message was reiterated throughout the war and between the covers of The Finished Mystery." [italics added]
Note that the ref says "offering military service" (in other words, enlisting rather than submitting to conscription).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Warfare 2011-01

message: I believe "1870s" is superior to "late 1870s" because the earlier term is explicitly supportable from references (see below).
* "The [Jehovah's] Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell (1852-1916) of Pittsburgh in the early 1870s."Encyclopedia of Religion in the South, page 403
* "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a religious movement that grew out of the Bible Student movement developed bv Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), of Pittsburgh, Pa., in the 1870s."The Encyclopedia Americana: International Edition: Volume 1, 1998, Grolier, 1998, page 12, 
* "Jehovah's Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell in the 1870s at Pittsburgh, Pa."The Canadian Encyclopedia by James H. Marsh, Hurtig, 1985, page 915
* "The modern-day history of Jehovah’s Witnesses began with the forming of a group for Bible study in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the early 1870’s. At first they were known only as Bible Students"Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 203
Editors should note that two of the four refs above explicitly state "early 1870s", directly contradicting "late 1870s".Does any ref explicitly claim "late 1870s"? If some refs claim "early 1870s" and some refs claim "late 1870s", would not "1870s" be preferable to either? Incidentally, reference works more commonly list Bible Student movement (and Jehovah's Witnesses) milestones such as Russell's congregation chairmanship, election as pastor, and writing/editorial work (rather than his temporary association with Barbour, which many works ignore altogether). Thus, mention of Barbour and 1878 was recently removed from the infobox at Jehovah's Witnesses.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to simply stating '1870s' per the three independent sources above. There are probably many steps taken by Russell that could be seen as significant in the movement's gradual development, so I don't think it's essential to mention his contact with Barbour in the infobox. (Slightly curious about why (only) the Reasoning book warrants a copyright symbol here.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All reliable and trustworthy references relate the formation of the movement with the late 1870s.  AuthorityTam for some reason has blinders on and is unable to recognize what made Russell different.  The date he began to teach in a church means nothing.  He didn't start or motivate a movement by that, and had no intention to.  As said by me in a previous post had a person died on 31 December 1876 having know Russell he would not have been able to recognize him embarking on a unique religious movemetn.  He "broke out" only after Barbour.  You can find references for anything, anywhere, any time.  But we don't just rely on references we also compare those references to known facts and history.  To say that the Bible Student movement began pre-Barbour would be like saying that Jesus began Christianity when he debated with the Jewish leaders at age 12, or like saying that the Lutheran church began when Luther was ordained a Catholic priest.  We have to look at the documented, verifiable history before a reference can be counted as valid.  Bible study was brand new in the 1800s, and topical Bible study only began to "catch on" in the mid-1860s.  What "is" the Bible Student movement?  It had many defining characteristics, but at the core was the movement to break away from the churches, recognize Christ as invisibly present, that the harvest of the Christian age had come, and the time of the end had arrived.  Russell only had all of his defining characteristics in 1879, and codified them in 1881.  It's not a difficult concept here.  Pastorrussell (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just going to drop it and let AuthorityTam win again.  I don't enjoy debates with people that are biased.  Perhaps I am a bit myself but am trying to be objective.  Pastorrussell (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1870s

message: I have removed the alleged contended date for The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return. I can't find any recent reference in WTS literature claiming that it was published in 1873. The following statements appear in WTS literature:
*2010 Watchtower Publications Index - "Dates (Calendar)", "1877 ... Russell publishes The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return"
*The Watchtower, 1 May 1999, p 8, "“These Things Must Take Place”", "a subject that seized the attention of C. T. Russell back in 1877. Russell, who later founded the Watch Tower Society, wrote The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return"
*The Watchtower, 1 January 1955, p 7, "Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878)" (quoting Harvest Siftings, 1894) "We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists who were ... teaching that the world ... would be burned up in 1873 or 1874, whose time-settings and disappointments ... brought ... reproach upon us. These wrong views ... led me to write a pamphlet—The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, of which some 50,000 copies were published.”" - this statement refers to 1873 and 1874 as being in the past at the time the pamphlet was written.
*Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, p 47, "Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)", "Russell wrote the pamphlet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. It was published in 1877."; similarly stated on pages 132-133, 557, 575; page 718, "Noteworthy Events in the Modern-day History of Jehovah’s Witnesses", "1877 ... C. T. Russell publishes the booklet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, at the office of Herald of the Morning, in Rochester, New York"
*Our Kingdom Ministry "Theocratic Ministry School Review" (multiple choice question), page 6, "27. In (1877; 1879; 1881), Charles T. Russell published the booklet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, and in (1877; 1879; 1881) he began publishing Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence."
I'm not sure where the 1873 claim came from, but it was obviously wrong, and doesn't appear to have originated with the WTS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the WTS is indeed the one who originated the claim.  The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses pg 36 states, "Earnestly endeavoring to counteract such erroneous teachings, in 1873 twenty-one-year-old C. T. Russell wrote and published at his own expense a booklet entitled "The Object and Manner of the Lord's Return."  Some 50,000 copies were published and it enjoyed a wide distribution."  But the facts belie such a conclusion.  I have a copy of this booklet and it clearly states that it was printed by the Offices of the Herald of the Morning, 1877.Pastorrussell (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three official histories that were published by the WTS: (1) Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose in 1959; (2) Pages 35–256 of the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1974; (3) Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom in 1993.  It is interesting that many facts conflict between the three of them.  Pastorrussell (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not conducting a full search for 1873 refs. However, the refs I have provided showing 1877 (including the 1894 statement showing that it was after 1874) indicate that the WTS doesn't really contest 1877 as the correct year, so any anomalies stating 1873 can be disregarded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's alright.  Hopefully I didn't come off as critical, I was only trying to be helpful. I am a nerd after all and have a reputation to live up to :)  Pastorrussell (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't being critical that bothered me. But you have a tendency of trying to make Russell/Bible Students look good and Rutherford/JWs look bad. This is called bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've tried not to do that, but perhaps have not done as good a job as intended.  But there are some important matters to keep in mind: it really does depend on the context.  I was the first one that added the controversies section to the CTR article and have tried to be objective.  The simple fact is that there were vast differences between Russell and Rutherford, and these are well documented, not my opinion, and are also stated by researchers.  Russell was repeatedly accused of immorality by the media and his critics, but the truth is that all of it originated from only one statement by his wife which was later proven in court to be unjustifiable and false.  So an unbiased researcher would note the court case, the accusation, any evidence to support it, and then the rebuttal and supporting evidence.  Outside of his wife no associate of Russell's ever made a charge of immoral conduct, and always insisted that he was a man of good character.  Early in his ministry there were associates of his who claimed that he was a very exacting manager, but their paper only presented one side of the story and when Russell printed their personal letters in defense they were shown to be the ones in the wrong.  An unbiased researcher would note the accusations, any evidence to support it, and then the rebuttal.  I've done that for both.  When it comes to Rutherford and the JWs all researchers of note comment on the differences.  There were numerous associates of JFR who accused him of alcoholism, and immorality.  The religious structure of the WTS today is nowhere near that of the days of Russell.  For sure nobody is perfect, and nobody is spotless, but if a person or organization has a good reputation and any accusations proven false in court or shown to be exaggerations you can't search for mud under the guise of balance.Pastorrussell (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not contending that either Russell or Rutherford were 'saints' (in the figurative sense, and certainly not in any hypothetical literal sense), and I am well aware of revisionism present in JW literature. However, sometimes there is simply no need to spring to Russell's 'defence' when there hasn't been any specific 'attack', nor a need to highlight some minor JW error such as the 1975 yearbook reference when other JW references quite clearly show the correct year. Nor is it necessary to give too much attention to how different the two groups are to each other, with the implication that one is necessarily 'better' than the other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that this is just a difference in perspective, or certainly a misunderstanding.  I provided the reference not to show you up, or to make the JWs look bad, or defend Russell.  In my mind I was simply being helpful by providing a reference because you said you didn't find any that pointed to the 1873 date.  My comment that the history books have differences in them was an innocent statement without any malice intended.  One thing I've learned over and over again is that words on a computer screen (especially forum or board posts more than chat text) often read differently than how a person speaks, especially among those who don't know each other and don't know their form of speech.  I have no malice toward the JWs although I disagree with them.  I also have no biased desire to make Russell look good even though I agree with him.  It was simply a presentation of facts and nothing more, and apologize for making it seem otherwise.  Pastorrussell (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object and Manner 

message: The current article is quite heavily weighed toward Russell's developing eschatological chronology; the article somehow managed to completely ignore Bible Student theology regarding the soul, hellfire, biblical inerrancy, clergy, ordainment, and the holy spirit. I hope to do something on this, but welcome the efforts of others.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology

message: Over a year ago Jeffro77 decided that Jehovah's Witnesses literature "does not acknowledge the continued existence of other Bible Student groups". When the unsourced opinion was deleted along with a reason and source, it was swiftly restored. The source given, namely the 1980 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 51 gives a clear example of the complete opposite of his opinion:
"Naturally, all of this was a big test for the brothers in France, Belgium and French-speaking Switzerland. A few, mostly in Switzerland, followed Freytag, who founded a sect with himself as “the Lord’s messenger.” With the financial support of his followers, Freytag later bought a big country house outside Geneva from which he ran his sect. It still exists in France under the name of “The Friends of Man.”"
So what is the justification for leaving in an unsourced, completely false opinion? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no indication in the source you cite (which is over 30 years old) that Freytag's group claimed to be 'Bible Students' as part of the Bible Student movement. Freytag's group separated from the Bible Student movement. Freytag's separation from the Bible Student movement was not associated with the presidential dispute that resulted in the Watch Tower Society's tendency to ignore other Bible Student groups. There is also no indication that "The Friends of Man" is affiliated with any modern Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I did some further searching online about Freytag's group. It is mentioned in an article about the Bible Students' history on a Bible Students Ministries website (http://www.biblestudents.net/history/daughters_tower.htm), which is clearly not affiliated with the Watch Tower Society. That article does not explicitly refer to Freytag's group as a group of "Bible Students". Additionally, and more to the point, that article states, "The Society has even gone so far as to    state that Bible Students no longer exist, that they have died out and none remain."--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: When referring to "Bible Students" in a historical context, Watch Tower Society literature generally includes wording such as "as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known" (e.g. The Watchtower, 15 December 2010, page 27), and never refers to other existing Bible Student movement groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording "as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known" only refers to Bible Students affiliated with the Watchtower Bible and Tract society, before 1931 they simply were known as "Bible Students". That's just a fact. It isn't meant to engulf splinter groups that the Watchtower Society has never endorsed. The Alexander Freytag quote was just an example of a direct acknowledgement of the continued existence of a splinter group, but if you insist on splitting hairs and saying that particular group aren't quite part of the "Bible Student Movement" then I'll try to see what else I can dig up once I get back home on Sunday.  The Yearbooks aren't shy about explaining where divisions took place, and who decided to leave to form their own groups. What I object to is the claim that Watchtower publications say that no other Bible Student groups split off. That simply is not true. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is amusing that you deliberately ignore the fact that I've cited a Bible Students source which directly states that the Watch Tower Society ignores the continued existence of Bible Student groups. Aside from that, you're welcome to present a contemporary Watch Tower Society source that specifically indicates the continued existence of Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Your objection to "the claim that Watchtower publications say that no other Bible Student groups split off" is irrelevant, as no such claim has been made. The statement to which you initially objected (about which you are wrong) is that the Watch Tower Society "does not acknowledge the continued existence of other Bible Student groups."--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it equally amusing that you simply take their word for it. I don't put any more stock in their unsourced opinion then I put in yours. I have given you an example that directly contradicts both statements which you then ignored on technical reasons, so I will do some further digging. And what I meant is that I believe the statement in question will be taken by most people to mean that Watchtower publications say that no other Bible Student groups split off. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How any reasonably educated person would understand "does not acknowledge the continued existence of other Bible Student groups" to mean "no other Bible Student groups split off" is beyond me, especially when the immediately preceding sentence in the article refers to those groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter at all to me whether you 'put any stock' in what I've accurately stated. It is also not necessary for me to 'take their word for it' (in reference to the Bible Students source I also cited), because it is verifiable by searching contemporary Watch Tower Society literature. As I have stated before, you are welcome to cite Watch Tower Society literature which indicates the continued existence of other Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acknowledgment of continued existence of other Bible Student groups 

message: I have removed the subsections about Goshen Fellowship and The True Faith Jehovah's Witnesses Association. These Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups are appropriately covered at the relevant article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: JW splinter groups

message: The WP Russellite page links to this one for, "the religious group".  However, except for a quotation embedded in a citation, the term, "Russellite", is not mentioned on this page.  Is this an oversight, is the term considered inapropriate, or what? Downstrike (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Russellites was only an informal term for early Bible Students so I'm not sure that a great deal of elaboration is required. It might warrant a single brief statement somewhere in the main text though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russellites? 

message: I made an edit under this section, with this note on the edit:  /* StandFast Bible Students Association */ Removed inaccurate citation, moved accurate citation</br>
First, I removed this citation (ref1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 119/ref), because the only possibly relevant text I could find on page 119, either isn't actually supporting the war bond indifference accusation, or isn't recording Russell's pacifist teaching, but rather quoting the Bible book of Isaiah:</br>
:During World War I questions arose among the Bible Students as to the position they should take regarding military service. Some refused to participate in any way, whereas others accepted noncombatant service. Related questions arose about whether to buy war bonds and stamps. Failure to do so sometimes resulted in persecution, even brutal treatment. When Jehovah’s servants of today consider any program or activity of the nations, they act in harmony with such Scriptural principles as that set forth at Isaiah 2:2-4, which concludes with the words: “And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.”</br>
</br>
I moved this citation to a more relevant position by Rutherford's name and ascribed indifference, rather than at the end of the sentence:</br>
(ref"Could Not Talk of Loan", The New York Times, April 29, 1918, As Retrieved 2010-03-02, "Rutherford, the President, sa[id] that the buying of bonds was not a religious question, and that the [IBSA] association did not oppose the purchase of Liberty bonds by the members"/ref)</br>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.102.17 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  StandFast Bible Students Association 

message: I have reverted a well-intended recent change by User:Mdmcginn, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, introducing Jehovah's Witnesses that early in the lead before providing any information about the development of the group assumes prior knowledge of the later group. Secondly, JWs also previously used the same names, so it is technically inaccurate to imply that only other groups have used the various names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is suitable coverage of JWs in a large number of articles dedicated to that subject. The Bible Students article should primarily focus on existing Bible Student groups, and their historical development. JWs diverged from the Bible Student movement and are tangential to this article's primary purpose, and are already given adequate coverage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to JWs in lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110133622/http://www.filmsite.org/milestones1910s_2.html to http://www.filmsite.org/milestones1910s_2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110133622/http://www.filmsite.org/milestones1910s_2.html to http://www.filmsite.org/milestones1910s_2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716051854/http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm to http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501085845/http://www.biblestudents.net:80/studies/sits/volume6.pdf to http://www.biblestudents.net/studies/sits/volume6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907051808/http://www.e-cepher.com:80/books/fotm/ to http://www.e-cepher.com/books/fotm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713151740/http://www.kingdomherald.com/downloads/1959_Jehovahs_Witnesses_in_the_Divine_Purpose.pdf to http://www.kingdomherald.com/downloads/1959_Jehovahs_Witnesses_in_the_Divine_Purpose.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707185103/http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/barbour%20midnight%20cry.htm to http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/barbour%20midnight%20cry.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714102029/http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/barbour%20herald%20of%20the%20morning.htm to http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/barbour%20herald%20of%20the%20morning.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724030213/http://www.jehovahswitnesstruth.com/emphatic%20diaglott.htm to http://www.jehovahswitnesstruth.com/emphatic%20diaglott.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320020952/http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/3worlds.pdf to http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/3worlds.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925043728/http://www.heraldmag.org/ to http://www.heraldmag.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803103854/http://www.cmfellowship.org/docs/faq.htm to http://www.cmfellowship.org/docs/faq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501085845/http://www.biblestudents.net/studies/sits/volume6.pdf to http://www.biblestudents.net/studies/sits/volume6.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e-cepher.com/books/fotm/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding this edit, it is inherently impossible to find an explicit statement positively indicating that they ignore something (beyond the period immediately associated with the events involved; i.e. 1930 would not count). However, they do frequently state in their literature that "Bible Students" is merely a name by which "Jehovah's Witnesses were then known" (an oversimplified misrepresentation), which in itself is probably sufficient to indicate that they ignore the continued existence of other Bible Students. That said, the part of the sentence adds little importance to the article and it can probably remain as is if other editors agree.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splinter groups 

message: Please indicate which of the following statements best conveys the necessary point in a neutral manner:
* The book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom published in 1993 by the Watchtower Society stated that the name change was also required because as they “progressed in their understanding” of the Bible, “they clearly saw the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
* In 1993, the Watch Tower Society stated that the name change was also required because of "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
* In 1993, The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania published the book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom which stated that the name change was also required because they felt "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
* Some other wording...
Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely convinced that the additional sentence is required at all, as it does seem like a jab at other denominations without really adding anything substantive. Apart from that, I would think a primary source is probably okay for providing their own view about themselves (so long as properly attributed)? I'm not sure that a comparable secondary source would necessarily exist as they would generally be based on what was actually said at the time. There is already a secondary source for the previous sentence about the name change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes attributed and not self-serving, then if WP:DUE so it depends on context and consensus; although only an essay, WP:MISSION is a pretty good guide for instance (I'm not saying that this quote is necessarily a mission statement, however)...  I'm ambivalent about the inclusion so will leave it for you/others to determine, —PaleoNeonate – 05:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I just noticed one essay example: "we are the industry leaders" that struck me as similar to: "we are the holders of truth" ("the rest of Christianity/Christiandom is corrupt", etc).  —PaleoNeonate – 06:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It certainly shows the general attitude of the Society in relation to other interpretations and groups...  —PaleoNeonate – 05:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text: There are certainly times where the subject of an article has controversial views, and in those cases it is necessary for those views to be presented (with clear attribution) even though they are not neutral. But I am not entirely convinced that this is one of those times. The statement indicates that JWs officially view other denominations with contempt, but since JWs are not the main subject of this article, I'm not sure it is necessary to highlight that view here. I'm also aware that people both for and against JWs could be motivated to retain the statement, either because they support the notion that rival denominations are 'fraudulent' or to emphasise how 'awful' JWs are. (I am not saying that those are the only possible motivations for retaining the statement.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Input from additional editors requested