text:
Talk:Angst

Angst in popular music
The article should mention angst in popular music as it has grown increasing familiar in popular music. However, if this is going to be added please don't add every band you feel is remotely associated with angst the only genres that should be mentioned are grunge as that is the first type of music that comes to mind when thinking of angst in music, nu metal also is known as music consisting of angst related subjects, and possibly emo. Those previously mentioned genres represent teenage angst but angst is also represented in hip-hop music but not so much teenage angst as it is african-american angst, 2Pac would be the first artist to mention when talking about african-american angst.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

I don't think that's necessary, because angst is a force in so much art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.40.107 (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree strongly - there are several bands, particularly from the 1980s, where angst has become a well-recognised element of their output. Probably the strongest case for this is 'Joy Division', where arguably the phrase 'angst-ridden' could be considered to be a precise description of their sound, but it is also a looming presence in many songs by The Smiths and Kirsty MacColl. In the Britpop era it is also very visible in many of the songs by Pulp... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.135.119 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

reference to Martin Heidegger's use of Angst?
Shouldn't there be a reference to Martin Heidegger's use of Angst in this article? Jumping from Kierkegaard to alternative rock is moving a bit fast...

I feel like this article should discuss teen-angst more clearly and widely, but I haven't got the words to describe what defines as teen-angst. The only point I can make is that bands that have angsty lyrics like Linkin Park are very popular amongst angsty teens who feel deep unity with what bands like that make. That's only an example, I know it's really subjective.

 * I thought the exact same thing as I read it, that's why I came to the talk page. I'll change the wording a little to make it more NPOV. Although it was funny... :P

I think we should remove the whole Kierkegaard bit -- at least from the intro. It implies too much of a religious agenda. It might fit in well somewhere down the line, perhaps in a new section labeled something along the lines of "Angst in philosophy." We could also throw Martin Heidegger's references into that section, as well. Grendel 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I found the bit about Kierkegaard and fear of failing in responsibilities towards God interesting. I haven't read Kierkegaard and, though I know what angst is generally, learned something new from the page.  I'm a nihilist but thinking of "God" as a sort of vague description of reality, I feel I understand the nature of angst better as a conflict between self and other. So, personally, I would like to see at least "Angst in philosophy" prominently linked if this page is turned into a disambiguation for angst in philosophy versus angst in bands or whatever.  Peterius

Emo
"possibly brought on by the physiological changes of puberty, in "whiney", melancholy music. See emo."

Angst is the German, Norwegian and Dutch word for fear. [...]

Jungian Angst
Carl Jung popularized Angst as an anxiety. He tended to describe it as a fear of mortality. When one realizes that he/she can die some of us tend to become concerned.

 * Teen Angst is nothing more than a concern for survival. Some have Angst all of their lives.

 * When angst = anxiety, I think it's safe to say we're all angsty at one point or another.

'Angst' is also a Dutch word
I had already changed this in this article, but apparently some people won't believe me - a native speaker of Dutch from Antwerp, Belgium - that also in Dutch the word for 'fear' is 'angst' (next to other words such as 'schrik'. ) I will again change this in the article and I will continue to do this in the future. Cheers. Gero. (this previously unsigned comment was written by Gero on 8 November 2005, 10:43)
 * It's also "anxiety" without most of the vowels. Is that notable? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since Dutch, English, German and Danish are all of the germanic branch of indo-european languages, it stands to reason that they all have basically the same word for a common emotion. Note also French angoisse, which again obviously has the same roots. 82.32.65.149 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But French doesn't belong to the germanic branch although it belongs to the indo-european languages. Therefore the debate is trivial. --82.82.176.247 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * French, while mostly Latin has notable amounts of Germanic substrate. If English (as Germanic language) reimports such words from French, things get confusing :-) 88.159.64.210 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, I'm Dutch and can affirm that "angst" is indeed also a Dutch word, and it's frequently being used. It has the same meaning as the German word Angst. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we can denote angst to be a Dutch word (being also a native Dutch speaker myself). Unlike in English, where angst is loanword, in Dutch it is not a loanword but has always existed in the language and is commonly used.  I do not think this is 'singling out Dutch' as is mentioned in an undo-commit of this page.  You might just as well say that this page now singles out German...  Tifoo (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger
This article definitely needs expanding, as it's laughably short, subjective and is of little use to anyone this way.

I also wholeheartedly agree that Heidegger's "Angst" (the realisation of the inherent purposelessness of existence) should be elaborated upon.

Angst in latin?
I have heard rumours that "angst" originally has come from the Latin word "inner pain" or something in that direction.

Help?

Reply: OED says it's Germanic in orgin. Reply: from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=angst :

angst 1944, from Ger. Angst "neurotic fear, anxiety, guilt, remorse" from O.H.G. angust, from the root of anger (q.v.). George Eliot used it (in Ger.) in 1849, and it was popularized in Eng. by translation of Freud's work, but as a foreign word until 1940s. O.E. had a cognate word, angsumnes "anxiety," but it died out.

Funny you mention Latin origin. In Portuguese there's the word "angústia" (stifling feeling, anxiety, inner pain).

swedish
The swedish word is "ångest", and is a commonly used word in everyday life. --Striver 10:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) But isn't it also ultimately derived from lat. angustia/angustiae, straits, difficulties, place where one is pressed? 89.172.18.236 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

dread
why the heck is dread redirected to angst, dread should have its own page.

 * Then make one?

 * You buffoon!

"dread should have its own page." "Then make one?"

Are you kidding me? Someone make a page about dread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.197.50.143 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps the original comment was made by somebody who dreaded creating new articles

 * I think it is rather difficult to distinguish Angst in Heidegger's sense from Dread when dread is used to describe a profound sense of disquiet that has no specific object. Angst similarly has no object. From conversations with Dutch speakers I know that angst in Dutch (see above) is associated with a transitive emotion: one has angst of/for something. English is not similarly limited and apart from the alienating effect that the use of Angst in English has I think dread is a fairly good equivalent Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Holden Caulfield
Hi, Angst is personified in our culture by someone besides K. Cobain (who is mentioned in the article): Holden Caulfield (who is not mentioned). I think he should be mentioned but don't have a reference offhand that indicates him as the typical example. Spebudmak 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind, The Catcher in the Rye is mentioned after all, sorry Spebudmak 00:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Angst in music? C'mon! I'm not even going to discuss that one, it's got to go. Do all emotions have sections devoted to music? It's all about someone trying to sneak in POV.

Incorrect German translation
I'm German and the examples at the beginning of the article are incorrect for current German. Maybe they are correct for German some hundred years ago. Today it is: The verb form of Angst is uncommon (Ich ängstige mich vor). The verb form of Furcht (Ich fürchte mich vor) is used, but the noun (Ich habe Furcht) is very uncommon and would seem very strange in a normal sentence. The only usage I know would be ironic by a person who mockingly pretends to fear something. --84.178.108.182 09:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fear ... = Ich habe Angst vor ...
 * I have fear. = Ich habe Angst.

Will change the article to reflect this, since I also noticed that. "Furcht" is rarely, if ever, used in modern German. Feel free to expand or remove as seen fit. --84.60.213.137 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I've spent my whole life in Germany and maybe "Furcht" is not used much in colloquial language, but it's commonly used in political speeches, in the news media, literature, film and actually even common conversations (of course depending on what kind of people do talk to each other). It's true, almost nobody would say "ich habe Furcht" (I have fear) but usage like "es gibt Furcht..." ("there is fear" i.e. among certain people) or "er hat Furcht vor..." ("he's afraid of..." i.e. animals) is absolutely common. Especially when it comes to discussing serious fear (that's maybe a case for a psychologist) it's absolutely normal to use "Furcht" (for example: "er hat große Furcht vor Fremden" - "he has great fear of strangers"). And additonally there are the verbs "sich fürchten" and "befürchten" based on the word "Furcht" which are even used in colloqial language. So in my eyes claiming that the word "Furcht" isn't used any more, is simply wrong. --F4LL0UT (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ok.. here is the next german to answer. you are both kind of right. "sich fürchten" and "befürchten" is used pretty often. but using "Furcht" to express serious fear. i don't think so. maybe rarely in the news or media, i doubt that it's used often though.

"Furcht usually refers to a material threat" => bullshit. Furcht is barely used at all. "while Angst is usually a nondirectional emotion" => what? it both means exactly the same.maybe in some weird literal professors will see any diffrence, but believe me, the majority of people won't
 * Some more thought: The German words for several phobias, include "...angst": "Höhenangst" (acrophobia), Flugangst (fear of flying), Platzangst (claustrophobia and agoraphobia) &c. Those may be "nondirectional", but the article at the moment is just overgeneralizing. The normal way to say "I'm afraid of him." is "Ich habe Angst vor ihm.". So "Angst" can be very directional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospalh (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that someone has put "rage" as a translation for angst. I was under the impression that it was an incorrect translation as it sounds similar to the English word "anger". Pez098 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am German: “fürchten” is used very often, it is always directional, you can't just feel “Furcht”, you always “fürchtest” something. Most people use “Angst haben” (to have angst) nearly synonymously, but there are people caring about the difference using Angst for a feeling not necessarily including a direction. And in contexts of psychology and philosophy you will always differentiate. Notice that “Furcht” about something does not necessarily imply feelings, e.g. “ich befürchte eine Finanzkrise” (“I fear that there will be a crisis”) or “ich fürchte die Benotung” (“I fear the grading”), but you may not have any emotions about it, being apathetic. But when I say “ich habe Angst vor der Krise” (“I fear the crisis”) or “ich habe Angst vor der Prüfung” (“I fear the exam”), that does necessarily mean that there are specific feelings of Angst, which may even appear undirectionally (same for phobias). People saying it would be outdated, are right that “Furcht” is rarely used, many people talk about “Angst” when they mean “Furcht”, on the other hand “fürchten” is a quite common word, while “ängstigen” is nearly never used (less common than “Furcht”). May I remove the dubious-label? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

 * “Angst” does not imply that there is no threat. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's just look at what the DUDEN says:

"In der Fachsprache der Psychologie und Philosophie wird im Allgemeinen zwischen Furcht als objektbezogen und Angst als unbegründet, nicht objektbezogen differenziert. In der Allgemeinsprache wird dagegen Furcht meist als gehobeneres Synonym zu Angst verwendet." (http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Furcht)

That means: "In the technical terminology of psychology and philosophy, generally a distinction is made between 'Furcht' as being related to an object and "Angst" as being unmotivated, not related to an object. In common language [not: "colloquial language"!] "Furcht" in most cases is used as a [stylistically] elevated synonym to 'Angst'."

As a native German speaker (and professional author) I'd say: That's just it. Since Wikipedia should use common language, the second paragraph of the article is completely misleading. - Thus, I've chanched it.

--80.121.132.64 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a word on teenage angst
I came to this article being redirected from teenage angst, but there is not a sentence on it. The article only claims that angst usually refers to teenange angst and then goes on to explain all the other uses (art, music) in detail and does not give one single fact on teenage angst. --84.178.108.182 09:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal - merge from Existential dread
I suggest that any useful information from Existential dread be merged into this article, perhaps with a redirect. This article already discusses Kierkegaard, and does it in a better way than "Existential dread". Anarchia 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Angst in Music - not very accurate?
"Angst was probably first discussed in relation to contemporary music in the mid to late 1980s and 1990s. In the 1980s "teen angst" was expressed in music to a certain extent in the rise of punk, post punk, and Alternative music with which it is currently more associated, and was probably first used in reference to, the grunge movement and the band Nirvana."

I don't think this is accurate. Not sure about specific references, but punk had been around since the '70's, and angst in music has been around a very long time (probably more than a century, I remember hearing some incredibly dark/dissonant/expressive/morose opera music in a class in college, which was contemporary with atonal music and the Dada art movement of the early 1900's. WWI and the flu epidemic cause artists to have a very dark view of the world...), even in rock music, I would think any discussion would have to include not just punk but other early alternative groups like Joy Division, Bauhaus and the Cure, which go back to the 70's. Pink Floyd's music was rather angst as well although it tends to get lumped in with Art Rock/ Prog Rock... Johnakinjr01 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. In fact I'm beginning to wonder if a stronger word than recentism in Wikipedia is necessary sometimes for some edits. LastWeekism? Check Wagner's Tristan, and as far as contemporary music, much of early Dylan was specifically about angst about the Bomb - check out 'Masters of War'. --Straw Cat 13:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Apart from the other bands already mentioned, talking about teenage angst and music and not mentioning The Smiths and Morrissey seems very strange. ! Rps (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Angst is a latin word???
So if Angst is a latin word - please post a link to or a screenshot of a latin dictionary.

If you can not do so, I suggest you change it to "Angst is a german loanword ....". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=angst : This links was allready posted, why don't you read it?

I would do it myself, but my english is not so good. --78.51.2.64 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit this page, however, I'm removing the passus about Kafka and Nazism; the guy died in 1924! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.5.0 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mahler and Kafka
"However, it is the Jewish artists, Gustav Mahler and Franz Kafka in music and literature that have embraced the theme of angst so highly in their work that they have become synonymous with the term to the point of popular joking and cartoons today."

Mahler died in 1911, Kafka in 1924, well ahead of the Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.64.210 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with dying before 1933? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Way before even yes. The problem is that when dead, it is hard to write the compositions during heavy Jewish prosecution that way as the text claims. Assuming they mean the Nazis with that, since they are mentioned in the same paragraph. 88.159.64.210 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Was that article a target for vandalism? I really doubt that Dr.Phil introduced the word angst and ButtFurcht is also not the german word for fear (it is only Furcht). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.83.225 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No corresponding concept in German?
The lede states: "Note that there is no directly corresponding concept in the German language." For one, corresponding to what is unclear (to me, at least); and since German language knows both "Furcht" and "Angst" (as stated in this very lede), I don't really see what this sentence is trying to say. Delete? -- DevSolar (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

[@introduction] there's also the word "angoisse" in french which means as much as a horror kind of fear.
--2003:D3:73CD:C400:1882:AB14:7353:3E6E (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

munch, not quite right...
the scream isnt about the person in the image screaming, the person isnt screaming. its about the scream of nature, beauty and the entirety of it all....maybe it is a suitable image anyway but maybe not... 90.129.198.69 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Angst


text:
User:Kab sam

They are the rules through which our culture maintains itself, keeps itself alive, and it is by building our of these patterns of events, that we are people of our culture.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Kab sam


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses

Watchlist and Recent changes
Hi,

Despite we could watch several pages singly, it is unserviceable. On the WP:JW page is stated this is "advised" watchlist for the project. Are there really all articles which mentioned "Jehovah's Witnesses"? There are no changes and no watch since starting the project. I am also wondering if this "recent changes" really work? (I saw allways "no changes" there).

Other main issue is about precisely which wiki-pages are really watched by so called "JW recent changes" page? (Are there watched changes in all --Categories related to Jehovah's Witnesses--??--Articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses--?--Articles referring to Jehovah's Witnesses--?--).

Best solution is IMHO to watch "all pages in Wikipedia which just referring word "Jehovah's Witnesses" on wiki-pages there".

Another WikiProjects are watched by the toolserver.org, or other ways. However I find that server (toolserver.org) not work or recently cancelled.

Thx. Greetings. --FaktneviM (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have occasionally updated information on the JW WikiProject page to which you refer, but I'm not personally responsible for it. Much of the information on the Project page is several years old (from before I started). There is probably much on the page that could be updated. You're welcome to make corrections to the WikiProject page; however, changes that relate to guidelines for JW-related articles should be discussed at the Project page's Talk page first.
 * The list of articles on the Project page provides a starting point for editors new to the JW WikiProject. The deprecated 'recent changes' subpage you mentioned has not existed for quite some time, and simply redirects to the JW WikiProject page. I don't routinely use the Project page, because the relevant articles related to the JW WikiProject are on my own Watchlist. I have not investigated other methods of keeping track of articles.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now done some cleaning up of the Project page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh..a big cleanup of project. I think rather over-cleaned :(
 * Project´s talk page looks "dead". :( So I rather to write somewhere surely active....
 * Are you sure "To Do" is fulfilled? I propose two new tasks few days ago.
 * And I am recently trying+testing to create something like "WP:JW welcoming template" for all editors, who edited JW-related articles (at least once), are not vandals and they perhaps would like to contribute in the project. Something like "invitation to the project". Some minor template should be also placed to main JW article....or other high important articles of the WP:JW project.
 * --FaktneviM (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if you want to make changes, go ahead.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your suggested 'tasks', your suggested use of scriptures is ambiguous but seems to indicate a 'Watchtowerish' presentation of scriptures not consistent with a neutral view. Your second suggestion implies an arbitrary age limit on Watchtower sources, regardless of whether there has been any change in stance since.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. It will be clearly stated, that is JW´s (more accurately WTBTS alone) interpretation (insights, understandings) of the Bible. Bible verses should be probably cited entirely (to avoiding bias and incorrectness).
 * Second suggestion implies rather for urgent up-to-date of sources. Did not propose "age limit". By the way, I think period after 2000 CE is well referenced by sources in both, case of doctrines and practices as well. I do not suggest rigid line, but should be clear that statements from 1950´s (as they are usually used in JW articles on Wikipedia), especially with relating to controversies, are irrelevant to nowadays practices and beliefs. Moreover if WTBTS claimed something in history, it will be correct to ask them if this is still supported opinion. In a case the specific doctrines were not changed (still are valid), historical references will be still supported and valid in articles as recently are.
 * Yeah, but I actually need to know your and others opinion and response to my concept. /// Who is "director" :)) of WP:JW project? And who is responsible (or at least could help) with creating proper, relevant and working watchlist for project members? --FaktneviM (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no single person responsible for the page. You should discuss at the Project's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Section moved from my Talk page.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding age of Watchtower sources, you suggested a limit of 15 years in your original text. A strict age limit cannot be applied. Articles should use the most up-to-date references, however if a particular doctrine has not been changed in many years, there may not be more recent references.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'To do' page has since been deleted. I had not noticed that you had made changes prior to the request for deletion of the outdated page. However, it is more likely that other editors involved with the JW WikiProject will be watching this page rather than the 'To do' subpage.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 * As it was written: "″In a case the specific doctrines were not changed (still are valid), historical references will be still supported and valid in articles as recently are.″" = when the old data are still valid, there is no reason to bother of that.

 * --FaktneviM (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To do
"To Do" page could be achieve in my personal archive: - Finished tasks (or close to implement):
 * Adapt the current articles to the adopted structure.
 * Create stubs for the articles, adding JehovahsWitnesses-stub stub tag to the article, and JWProject to the Talk page.
 * Move content from main articles to sub articles, replacing with a short summary and link to sub article.
 * Add references to Watchtower publications for all doctrines/practices information.
 * Add all articles to the WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles page by category.
 * Use the recent changes to check these articles, for improvements, vandalism, or other changes.

In contemplation: -- --FaktneviM (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Use Bible verses with cotradiction of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines teaching whether agree with it or not. Examine JW doctrines with Bible itself in relevant JW articles.
 * Verify if references in articles are still relevant with recent doctrine or not. If previous teaching was referenced and currently is outdated or wrong, find more recent references, 15 years old at maximum, from various sources and apply these changed doctrine/practice facts. Keep JW related articles relevant to nowadays practices or doctrines, which were proposed before and have been changed.

 * The old 'to do' items from several years ago have little relevance to the current state of the JW-related articles.
 * It would be original research to "examine JW doctrines with Bible itself".
 * As stated previously, it is not practical to set a 15-year limit on references.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I am curious if you carefully red my response here. See 1st paragraph of that revision. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments relate to what is immediately above. There is no need for a new section, nor is it necessary to provide a link to your comment immediately above my previous response.
 * If you think I have misunderstood your comments, you may need to improve the quality of your English.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you were blind. I thought other reason for you to miss it. --FaktneviM (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the two tasks under "In contemplation":
 * The first sentence of the first task makes no sense in English. If you're proposing to add scriptures to every JW doctrine, then that won't work. The Beliefs and Practices sections of the Jehovah's Witnesses article contain a summary of their teachings, but that would be become far too long if every teaching provided a scriptural basis. "Life after death" and "Rejection of blood transfusions" already contain the judicious use of scriptures and I don't think the article suffers for the lack of any others. Perhaps the spinout articles, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Jehovah's Witnesses practices could include more scriptures if necessary to explain, but they are already long and detailed articles and it would be at the risk of making them too long and burdened with detail.
 * If the second sentence of the first task suggests a detailed analysis of each teaching based on the Bible, then that's beyond the scope of the article.
 * Feel free to discuss any cited sources you believe are outdated or have been superseded. Most have undergone vigorous discussion already, so my guess is that those that remain are relevant and appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not clear exactly what FaktneviM wants to do. Perhaps he should be bold and make an edit demonstrating what he means. Of course, Wikipedia articles are not Watchtower articles, and should definitely not cite scriptures (either in parentheses as is done in Watch Tower Society literature, or within ref tags) as if those scriptures 'prove' the 'correctness' of JW beliefs. If a specific scripture is discussed, it can be cited, but if a JW belief is discussed, it should have a source that discusses that belief (such as a Watch Tower Society publication [other than a passage of scripture from the NWT]), and not simply with a scripture that JWs interpret a particular way.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To do - new article
Thank you both, guys. I didn´t know you respond here after my reminder in JW article talk.

You both and others working hard in main JW article many days and due that I don´t want to contact you there.

I have an idea, I will create an article labeled sth. like Jehovah's Witnesses's understandings of the Bible or with other name. ((( use other words, which are relatively more controversial -commentary, -exegesis, -interpretation, -reading, -insight ))). In this article I´ll try to summarize all JW teachings, which have influence on their beliefs and practices, and which they claim have source in the Bible itself and no in their subjective opinions. Personally, I am very inquisitive how this ´test´ result.

Creating article, citation verses, searching for sources probably will take few months. You know, I am slow, in general, due my no-health. When I try to release ´first revision´, you will be welcome if you´d like to help on that article. Until that time, I will be most probably quite quiet. I am pretty sure you are glad. I´ll take my m:wikibreak now.

I hope that main article gain Good Article status, because all very experienced project members working hard for that. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask for grammar.... If "Jehovah's Witnesses" is name of group, so name of our articles should be "Jehovah's Witnesses´s publications/practices/beliefs/etc." Or not? Thank you for an explanation. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, though I suspect you'll just be duplicating material in Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. You will probably need to sharpen the name of the article: your proposed title isn't the best of English grammar and without knowing exactly what you have in mind, it's difficult to suggest an option. Note also that the article will need to depend on third-party sources, or it may fail Wikipedia requirements on notability. The article will also, for the sake of balance, need to incorporate the views of other reliable sources on the validity of JW doctrines, which will necessarily contain some contrary views. I'll be happy to look at it and comment on it when you're ready. And thanks for nominating the JW article for GA status: it has become the catalyst for much-needed review and repair. BlackCab (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The suggested article sounds like a POV fork. If you have additional information, you should probably add it to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and the other relevant articles instead—a list is available at WP:JW. I don't think JWs' internal 'understandings' of the Bible have sufficient notability to warrant a special article in addition to those that already exist.
 * I have recently explained the grammar of certain article titles elsewhere. Where the proper noun Jehovah's Witnesses is used as an adjective, no apostrophe is required.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not, in fact, deserve on GA nominating. our teammate Fazilfazil did nomination on 1st July of 2011. I only supported it, with neutral response in his newly created topic section, see here. My main contributions to articles were so far concerned on anti-vandalism fight, and some productive-edits I made in "Jehovah's Witnesses by country" through IP adress before, and later as FaktneviM user in "Demographics of Jehovah's Witnesses", "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", "Old Aramaic language", "Aramaic language", and few of other contributions inc. talk pages, which, some of them, were productive. However, I was more useful, in globally, for other Wikipedia topics (non JW-related). I still think, my main contribution was my call for article protection to admins on 11th May and it was heard positively next day. I was relatively heavy scary about this could lead to even bigger domination control over articles by you both and could lead to sort of censorship, while previous state was, in fact, sort of censorship as well. In ´after time overview´, I recognize it was very beneficial, because now we haven´t to focus on vandalism, but on content. Despite I even strengthen your might, I recently feel happy for that step. Thx for relative support for my plans. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

question
Hi folks, Is there a reason is listed as part of your project? No issues if there is, I'm just not seeing anything in the article to explain it. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing obvious, and nor can I see a reason for its inclusion in the Christianity project. I've deleted the JW component of it. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Key symbol?
Why does the user template have a key as its symbol? Wouldn't something like the tetragrammaton be more appropriate? StandFirm-JW (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

POV and Attack tag for article Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs
I have tagged the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs as a WP:attack WP:COAT WP:POV after having recently suggesting the article for deletion, however after the article was submitted for deletion, the tag was removed in less than a single day, not really allowing for discussion or any attempt by concerned parties to even begin to attempt to correct this page which does not adhere to WP:NPOV and uses obscure, out of date "facts" to disparage Jehovah's Witnesses, thus violating WP:cherry. If anyone is interested in saving this article by contributing to improve it so that it conforms to WP:NPOV and is not simply an attack page directed against the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, please visit the page and discuss this in talk in the heading "this is an attack page".

Also, I do not know who the pages author is, therefore I am posting the template here:

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Willietell (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

 * The talk page of the article is clearly the appropriate place to discuss your concerns. I have invited you there to raise them. Since Wikipedia articles genereally do not have a single author, it is standard practice to post courtesy messages at the talk pages of significant contributors to the article when proposing deletions and posting the type of warning you have above. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Willietell claims that the deletion tag was removed after less than a single day. The template was actually on the article for about 41 hours, from 11 December 02:24 until 12 December 19:02 (times are UTC). No one else, including the admin who removed the more recent inappropriate tags, agrees with Willietell's claim that the article is an 'attack page'. He needs to discuss (not complain, not accuse, discuss) at the article's Talk page.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (It appears that Willietell may have been referring to his more recent attempt here to have the article speedily deleted as an 'attack page'. I had not previously noticed that attempt, which was quickly dismissed by an administrator who quickly determined that the article is not an 'attack page'.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now submitted this page for speedy deletion after discovering it is a copyright infringement of the web page: http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs) 02:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Willitell, you are fast approaching a report for disruptive editing. The Watchtower Information Service website has simply reproduced the Wikipedia article. Your attempts to have this page deleted are becoming tiresome. Please stop your childish behavior. BlackCab (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 * This is not childish behavior, copyright infringement is a serious issue, this article has a copyright of 1999, and unless the Wikipedia article is older than that, there is a problem here. Willietell (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is you and your increasingly desperate attempts to force the deletion of an article about your religion that contains information you don't like. There is very clearly no copryright violation: any website may freely use material contained in Wikipedia articles and the WTIS website has done just that. The "Beliefs" page, like the "Practices" page, was created in August 2010 as a split from a combined article, "Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses". That page had existed for years. You are gaming the system and you will be reported if you persist. BlackCab (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable 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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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?-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Annihilationism
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)

Possible debate for May Christianity newsletter
Please see Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to project page
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.-- Jeffro 77 (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)

Joseph Franklin Rutherford
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)

Subpages about link updates
I have started these subpages. Please place comments on their respective talk pages. Those pages and this one are on my watchlist. —Wavelength (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Links: watchtower.org to jw.org
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Links: jw-media.org to jw.org

 * 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)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
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)

WikiProject X is live!

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 WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

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

Brooklyn real estate sales and Patterson NY
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.-- Jeffro 77 (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?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Witnesses are taught vs Witnesses believe
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 (2008) and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 23 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (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).-- Jeffro 77 (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.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Works available for Wikisource
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)

Talk page FAQ
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.-- Jeffro 77 (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)

Nomination of Robert Ciranko for deletion
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 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. — Paleo Neonate  - 16:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Article alerts
I noticed that these were currently manually updated on the WikiProject JW page. In case bot-automated article alerts would be considered useful, (example: WikiProject Skepticism/Article alerts), it would be possible for this project, by subscribing it (Article_alerts/Subscribing). This works via categories (generally added by WikiProject tags on article talk pages). I think that adding the following to Article alerts/Subscription list would work: And would create and update 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 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). — Paleo Neonate  – 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.-- Jeffro 77 (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). — Paleo  Neonate  – 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: Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skepticism articles by quality log)
 * TODO (maybe with "requires immediate attention" option/category, example: (SKEPTIC)
 * 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. — Paleo  Neonate  – 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.-- Jeffro 77 (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, — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to work fine, although the update is still in progress. — Paleo  Neonate  – 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.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The assessment log functionality appears to have successfully resumed (today an update was made for a template ). — Paleo  Neonate  – 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  parameter of the WikiProject template on article talk pages.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 * So article alerts appear to work, it now lists a category that was nominated for deletion. — Paleo  Neonate  – 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.-- Jeffro 77 (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).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Divine Name in the New Testament
I raised some concerns at Talk:Divine Name in the New Testament. 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, — Paleo Neonate  – 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.-- Jeffro 77 (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)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 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.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ichthus May 2018 is available

 * 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)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
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.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist  10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus June 2018 is out now!

 * 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)

Ichthus July 2018 is out now!

 * 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
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, — Paleo Neonate  – 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 Articles_for_deletion/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_Sweden.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just !voted there. — Paleo  Neonate  – 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... — Paleo Neonate  – 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Need to specify current teaching
In the article Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, we need to specify the current teaching. The 2008–10 doctrine on "this generation" referred to anointed from Jesus time and into the indefinite future (see for example the entry for 2008 in https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/generation.php#2008). Therefore we need to clarify that the current doctrine refers only or exclusively to those anointed in 1914 and their anointed contemporaries. We need this clarification in the text because the 2008–10 doctrine implicitly (logically) includes these two groups as well. User Jeffro77 opposes this; but I do not understand his arguments. What do other people think? Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

 * It is not helpful to start the same discussion in two separate places. It would be helpful if other editors instead reply at the relevant Talk page, Talk:Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
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)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
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)

RfC on ecclesiastical titles
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)

Interesting
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, — Paleo Neonate  – 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.— Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, an admin revdeleted the diffs, — Paleo Neonate  – 18:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
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 and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * 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)

Main wikiproject page update?
Depending on how discussion at Talk:Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania 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.-- Jeffro 77 (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.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

jw.org
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.-- Jeffro 77 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.-- Jeffro 77 Talk 02:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

JW Statistics template
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: -- Jeffro 77 Talk 08:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * produces "".
 * produces "".


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wine Philosophy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Wine Philosophy
Otherwise inoffensive essay, but still a statement of unattributed POV. (One unmentioned POV might be that wine should contain a high percentage of alcohol.) No article links to this, so I have no clue why we even need the subject. -- llywrch 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, It's no use now but with better words it might worked. Inter 19:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - it looks like an advert for the external link to me. CDC   (talk)  20:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV isn't a deletion criterion (although this is pretty POV; no sentence in a Wikipedia article should have "should" or "ought" as its main verb) but this looks to me like original research and possibly subtle advertising. Also, I'm still not sure exactly how the material relates to the title. If wine connoisseurs' Weltanschauungs really have certain distinctive characteristics, I would not be opposed to an article describing that, but that doesn't seem to be the intention of this article. — Ливай | ☺ 20:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless. What's next, Car philosophy, Toothpaste philosophy? Junes 00:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Clear delete. Josh Cherry 20:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a "New World" imbiber, I know all too well this is bollocks.  Edeans 00:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Category:Communes of Saône-et-Loire

title: Category:Communes of Saône-et-Loire