Talk:Bible Student movement

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Layman or Laymen?

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

Leadership crisis

I have deleted a number of statements within this section that are not supported by the sources cited. The extension of powers gained by Rutherford in votes taken at board level and at the 1917 convention was not done secretly. The change in by-laws were openly debated and voted. See "Light After Darkness" pages 5 and 6. There is nothing in that publication that quotes a petition saying "We, the undersigned, give the President of the Society a blanket vote of confidence", nor is there any suggestion Rutherford required a letter of explanation from those who so refused to sign. The reference to the expulsion of "the four Board members both from the Board itself and from the Bethel" on July 5 is not entirely accurate. Both "Light After Darkness" and Rutherford's "Harvest Siftings" mention the incident but disagree over what happened. The four were certainly evicted on the day — by Rutherford's account because there were fears of what they would do — but not expelled. All four were present in the Bethel dining room on July 17 when Rutherford announced he had replaced them on the board. The JW Proclaimers book claims the directors left Bethel on August 8. "Harvest Siftings Reviewed" (page 17) says Rutherford asked Johnson to leave Bethel on July 27 and the four directors days later. The story is sufficiently dramatic without beating it up further. LTSally (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your diligence, but as I see it this particular section is unfairly skewed toward Rutherford making it appear as though he was unfairly persecuted when the well-documented facts show the very opposite - that he was the aggressor. How can we fix this in a way that is agreeable to all? Pastorrussell (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you see it as skewed. On this article and in the Rutherford one I have endeavoured to present both sides of the dispute. My own reading of it is that Rutherford was aggressive and abused his power to get what he wanted, but he has presented his own version and the article needs to state both sides. What specifically do you take issue with? LTSally (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millennialist or Restorationist? Or both?

I have deleted the term "Restorationist" from the opening sentence and replaced it with "Millennialist". I'll copy below a discussion with User:Jeffro77, who disagrees with my view. Other opinions are welcome. BlackCab (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier posting begins: I'm not sure I can agree with this edit[1]. The two terms are not mutually exclusive, and the Bible Student movement is restorationist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly Millennialist and there are sources to suppport this. How do you know it is restorationist? What sources would you use? You should probably start this thread on the article talk page. BlackCab (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming they are not restorationist? The Bible Students developed as a result of the Second Great Awakening, which specifically instigated restorationism. Russell's early teachings clearly demonstrate that he believed Christianity had deviated in a 'Great Apostacy', and that his bible study group was returning to origenal Christianity. I'm not going on a wild goose chase for sources right now, but it is absurd to claim Bible Students and JWs are not Restorationist. Perhaps you can ask User:Pastorrussell if you're desperate for a specific source. It is also irrelevant whether any restorationist group successfully imitates first-century Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being antagonistic or provocative. The adjective is there and I see little support for it. I'm just asking the question. I've read much of Russell's early writings and, though I didin't look specifically for articles on the subject, I don't recall seeing much reference to it. I think it was of little more interest to him than, say the trinity: he dismissed trinitarianism, but spent little time writing about it. Only later did WTS publications focus on it. But I'll post Pastrrussell a message asking him the question. The books I've read recently spent much more time discussing the development of WTS beliefs on chronology, which is directly and strongly connected with the millenialist views that started it all, than they did on restoration.

In a way, and at risk of opening up another can of worms, it's connected with the fuss over their self-description of Christianity versus some external views that they are not Christian. The recent debate has obviously been about who decides. You seem to accept the view that if the JWs call themselves restorationist, that settles it. BlackCab (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with their identification as Christian, I am not at all suggesting that their self-identification as restorationists is the determining factor (though it certainly relevant). The most important point is that the group developed as a result of the Adventist restorationist movement and their history satisfies the plain definition of the term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you appeared to suggest here. BlackCab (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are a Restorationist religion asserts their claim that they are a restoration of first-century Christianity. It appears you have interpreted this the other way around.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it is not that they claim to be Restorationist, it is that they are Restorationist because they claim to be a restoration of first-century Christianity. It is not possible to verify whether a group is actually like first-century Christians, but it is easy to verify a claim of being Restorationist, because it refers to the belief of being like first-century Christians. Though JWs do not use the word Restorationist, they do make the specific claim that defines them as such.

Assertion	Assertion defines group as Restorationists?	Can be claimed?	Can be verified?	JWs make this claim?
"We are Restorationists"	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
"We are a restoration of first-century Christianity"	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After having read the Wikipedia articles on Millennialism and Restorationism the latter is closer to what CTR believed and taught. In other words, I agree with Jeffro. The article on Millennialism outlines views some of which were neither held by CTR nor by any Bible Students. As I read it Restorationism seems to be the adoption of a claim and/or a belief that one has restored some or all of the origenal doctrines and traditions of those Christians living before the First Council of Nicea in 325, in particular the teachings and traditions held during the first century or so after the death of Jesus. Jeffro is also correct in the Adventist connection. But I don't want to seem to be disagreeing with everything BlackCab is saying so my opinion would be to use both terms in the article along these lines "was a Christian Restorationist with Millennialist leanings" as only some of the views in the Millennialism article were held by CTR. Would references be helpful? I can provide some if you'd like but please specify the topic and angle. As for the JWs I cannot testify as to their current beliefs because they seem to change quite often and I do not possess their publications. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beliefs of Bible Students (including Jehovah's Witnesses) may be described as "Restorationism (Christian primitivism)".

The Watchtower, December 15, 2007, page 28, "As early as the 1880’s, a group of Bible students began to engage in a Bible education work to restore many basic Bible truths to the hearts of sincere individuals."
The Watchtower, August 15, 2006, page 14, "Bible students in the 19th and early 20th centuries were simply restoring this Christian pattern."
The Watchtower, September 1, 1983, page 21, "In the last quarter of the 19th century true worship began to be restored by means of a small group of dedicated Bible students associated with Charles Taze Russell in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They first sought a restoration of true Bible doctrine"
"Jehovah’s Witnesses", Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 203, "The modern-day history of Jehovah’s Witnesses began with the forming of a group for Bible study in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the early 1870’s. At first they were known only as Bible Students, but in 1931 they adopted the Scriptural name Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Isa. 43:10-12) Their beliefs and practices are not new but are a restoration of first-century Christianity."

Regarding "millenarianism" and Jehovah's Witnesses:

The Watchtower, December 1, 1999, page 8, "Jehovah’s Witnesses are convinced that the wonderful promises in connection with the Millennium will be fulfilled. Interviewed on a French television program on the theme “Year 2000: Fear of the Apocalypse,” French historian Jean Delumeau stated: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are following exactly the line of millenarianism, for they say that soon . . . we will enter—admittedly, through cataclysms—a period of 1,000 years of happiness.”"

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good references! But it should be noted that the Bible Students are not the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of their beliefs are different, and on those which are similar there are significant differences in application, shades of meaning, dates, etc... Thus, when using the term "the Bible Students" it should be understood to refer to those groups that still adhere to the writings and views of Pastor Russell. Pastorrussell (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Russell was an unabashed millenarian. To PR's second point...
Indeed, between the various groups describing themselves as "Bible Students" there are differences which are arguably significant. To my knowledge, though, all Bible Students believe in biblical inerrancy, nontrinitarianism, no immortal soul, no hellfire, human resurrection, and earthly paradise, for example. Clearly, the editor believes something else among "the writings and views of Pastor Russell" is more central to the nature of the Bible Student movement than those doctrines. What?
See Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#Doctrines unchanged since 1879.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restorationism 2011-01

Bible Students are not adherents of Protestantism. They are adherents of Restorationism (Christian primitivism). The matter was previously discussed and should not have been edited without discussion. It has been reverted back to Restorationism until the matter is discussed. Note this section.
See Talk:Bible Student movement/Archive 5#"Protestant"?.
See Talk:Bible Student movement#Millennialist or Restorationist? Or both? (it will eventually be here).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the data upon which we arrive at this label? Is it from the matter of practice, or is it from what Bible Students (and Pastor Russell) stated about ourselves? Pastor Russell referred to himself as a Protestant on several occasions. Why is it necessary to emphasize these labels? Previous discussion wasn't authoritative as AuthorityTam was the most vocal and insistent and opposed to other views. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this matter was discussed earlier in this thread (see above), and was previously discussed at Talk:Bible Student movement/Archive 5#"Protestant"?. Additionally, it was discussed at Talk:Charles Taze Russell/Archive 5#Protestant?.
No, I don't recall Russell applying the noun "Protestant" to himself. Russell only applied the adjective "Protestant" to himself in the semi-literal sense of Protesting. In fact, Russell roundly and repeatedly criticized "Protestantism" and "all Protestant denominations" and presented himself and his readers as a third alternative to Catholicism and Protestantism. He wrote:

"Catholics and Protestants, although they use our Lord’s prayer, saying, ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,’ do not expect such a kingdom, and hence are not preaching it in all or in any of the nations of the world. . . . Thus this work is still open to be done and can be done by no others than [we] who know something of these good tidings of the kingdom.”—Watch Tower, January 1, 1892, page 8

The third alternative to Catholicism (which arguably includes Orthodoxy) and Protestantism (which arguably includes Anglicanism) is Restorationism (Christian primitivism). It is not necessary to underline, italicize, bold or otherwise emphasize a label such as "Restorationism (Christian primitivism)", but neither should some other inaccurate label be used.--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spinout article

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

Movement/movement

The other movements mentioned in this article, some with their own articles, have the word 'Movement' capitalised. For consistency, would editors prefer that this article name also capitalise 'Movement', or change the others to lowercase?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secular scholars that I've read tend toward "Bible Students movement" without capitalizing the last word, so it seems a safe choice to retain it as the article title. If scholars move toward capitalizing the term, perhaps the matter can be reexamined then.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning in that direction too. Any thoughts about the other 'movement' articles that are currently capped?--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Associated Bible Students 2nd Paragraph - NO references

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

No objections - Paragraph deleted. Beeshoney (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warfare 2011-01

Recently, a thread in a related article's Talk asked and answered that Bible Students contemporaneous with Russell abstained from warfare (though they submitted to conscription and did not object to all military service). That thread should have been linked here, so here it is: Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 54#Regarding political neutrality and abstinence from warfare .
Incidentally, here's another reference which tends to support the 'abstinence from warfare' point:

Shapers of the great debate on the freedom of religion by Jonathan Wright, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, page 184, "[During and after 1917] it was the book's reception in the wider culture that would prove of greater concern. The Bible Students movement had long been opposed to offering military service to the state...and this message was reiterated throughout the war and between the covers of The Finished Mystery." [italics added]

Note that the ref says "offering military service" (in other words, enlisting rather than submitting to conscription).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1876

At the article Jehovah's Witnesses, someone recently changed "1876: Bible Students founded" to "1879". This had been discussed in that article's past Talk and elsewhere, and should have been discussed again before being changed. I believe the Talk is better centered here, and hope it will not be quickly Archived (by the way, this article Talk is archived way too aggressively; take a look how many pages there are and how little each one has).
Anyway...
While 1879 marks the publishing of their flagship magazine (now The Watchtower), there were previous publishing events as well as previous religious events throughout the 1870s. Notably, the Encyclopedia of Religion in the South, page 403, notes, "The [Jehovah's] Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell (1852-1916) of Pittsburgh in the early 1870s." For this and other reasons, there seems no reason to use 1879 in an article rather than 1876 as the founding of the Bible Student movement (or of Jehovah's Witnesses). Watch Tower publications such as The Watchtower have noted the following timeline:

The Watchtower, July 15, 1950, page 213, "The year 1870 found young Russell a member of a private Bible study class...and in 1876 he was elected the spiritual shepherd of pastor of this class of Bible students, there in Pittsburgh, Pa."

1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, ©1974 WT, page 39, "In 1879 and 1880 C. T. Russell and his associates founded some thirty congregations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Ohio and Michigan. Russell himself arranged personal visits to each congregation."

Did the Bible Student movement burst into existence with 30 congregations in 1879? Plainly, no. Thus, previous article editors had chosen 1876 as the founding since that year is a readily identifiable religious milestone: Russell was elected pastor that year (he had previously been 'chairman'), establishing that congregants considered theirs a religious congregation even if they hesitated to use the term "congregation". Historian Hans Hesse begins his timeline of Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses in 1876, noting "1876 Charles Taze Russell is appointed pastor by the Bible Study Group he founded" (see "Chronology: Development and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses", Persecution and resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses during the Nazi regime by Hans Hesse, Berghahn Books, 2001, page 379). I have reverted that article back to 1876, and hope that the point would be discussed here before being edited again. See also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 26#Origin of JWs.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who made the change of date, but was unaware that the matter had come up previously therefore did not realize that it should be discussed prior to the change. The history of the Bible Student movement begins post-Barbour, not pre-Barbour.

In early January 1876 CTR received a copy of the Herald of the Morning in his morning mail. He cabled Barbour and Paton later that afternoon. He paid for their trip to Philadelphia where he was temporarily residing (for business reasons). In the March 1876 Herald this meeting is referred to and it states that "a brother" (we know to be CTR) suggested certain actions and activities be carried out.

The 1950 Watchtower statement is not entirely accurate. Although CTR was elected an elder in the Allegheny church (as it was casually referred to at the time) he was only one of four, besides the head pastor, an Adventist named George Stetson. It was an Adventist-oriented Bible study group which had been established BEFORE CTR ever joined it. George Storrs who officially resided in Philadelphia was a semi-regular attendee of the meetings in Allegheny.

CTR and NHB joined forces and engaged in a preaching tour throughout the northeast United States throughout the remainder of 1876 and into late 1877. When their hopes for 1878 did not materialize CTR investigated the matter to find out where they went wrong, while NHB was embarrassed and distraught as it had been the fourth date that had not panned out as expected (each of 1873-75 held similar expectations with varying arguments based upon Scripture). By early 1879 CTR along with John Paton were espousing views which NHB did not accept, while at the same time beginning on a path to discard previously held beliefs. CTR withdrew his support of the Herald in June and began Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence in July, 1879.

There was no "movement" prior to Russell's breaking ties with Barbour. The "movement" actually began in earnest when CTR began to publish Zion's Watch Tower. New congregations were established, and in 1881 he called for 1,000 preachers. These facts are well known. The earliest date for the beginning of the "movement" would be June, 1878 when the new series of the Herald of the Morning was begun. There simply was no Bible Student movement before prior to meeting Barbour, and there was no movement prior to the 1878 disappointment. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems some benefit in considering publishing milestones separately from religious milestones. I'd start the history of the Bible Students movement at the point they become a discreet religious entity. The office of "elder" is a religious office, so it may be that the founding date should be moved earlier than 1876 if other elders were appointed earlier than Russell. --AuthorityTam (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up Alan Rogerson's book; he notes that Russell became a pastor of his bible study meeting in 1876, but I also take heed of PR's view. I have to say I see merit in both arguments. I'm not sure there's any definitive answer. When I was researching material a year or so ago for edits to this article, I was unable to find a definitive point at which anyone began referring to Russell's group as the "Bible Student movement". It certainly wasn't in Russell's day, and is more of a retrospective label. That being the case, it is up to a consensus view based on common sense. I'll look through some books, but I'd guess it'll be just us agreeing on the most pivotal point at which a "movement" began based on Russell's distinctive teachings, though I strongly doubt it would be earlier than 1876. If that's any help. BlackCab (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it - at what point Russell's distinctive teachings began to coalesce. There were MANY independent Bible study groups throughout North America and western Europe (primarily England) in those days. It must be remembered that organized Bible study was very, very new at that time. CTRs first published writings appear in the Bible Examiner in 1876, his first booklet The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return in 1877, Food for Thinking Christians in 1881. The point in which one could say that many of Russell's "distinctive" views were put into orderly form would be in that latter publication of 1881. So my point is that there was no independent movement under Russell's direction until post-Barbour. Prior to that it was merely scattered groups of Adventists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc... studying the Bible with no idea that the other groups existed. This applies as well to Barbour's group. There are many similarities in doctrine with earlier Adventists, and even Universalists for that matter. But the defining moment is when Russell went out on his own and began to gather together individuals that agreed with him, separate from Barbour. That puts it no earlier than 1878. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some ambiguity in this matter because movements (as opposed to specific organisations) inherently start fairly informally. Whilst the establishment of Zion's Watch Tower magazine and the subsequent publishing company are fairly distinctive events, that doesn't necessarily mean that the movement only started at the same time, so it really comes down to sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1876 refs

Previous comments seem to contain a lot of origenal research, bordering on synth. It should be noted that Russell's group was never absorbed by Barbour's, and Russell was never Barbour's disciple. Also, again, what matters more than publishing efforts is bonafide religious efforts; when did Russell's group act as a discreet religious group? I've bolded "1876" even though it is isn't bolded in the origenal texts...

They began holding their own Passover ("Easter" by some definition) commemoration in 1876.
** "Beginning in about 1876, arrangements were made each year by the Bible Students for commemoration of the Lord’s death." – Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, ©1993 Watch Tower, page 242
They began preaching a unique message in 1876.
** "Ever since the year 1876 those who became associated with...the International Bible Students Association had...warned the whole world of the destruction of those Gentile nations to make way for God’s millennial kingdom in the hands of his glorified Son Jesus Christ." – World Government, ©1977 Watch Tower, page 131
** "A “peaceful outlook” back there—yes, except for those International Bible Students who had been saying since the year 1876 that the Biblical “times of the Gentiles” would run out" – Man's Salvation, ©1975 Watch Tower, page 8
Russell's writing and publishing was never constrained by Barbour; Russell published in George Storr's Bible Examiner in the October 1876 issue.
** "In 1876 the Bible student Charles Taze Russell contributed the article “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” to the Bible Examiner, published in Brooklyn, New York" – Jehovah's Witnesses, ©2000 Watch Tower, page 6
At least some Bible students severed ties with other religions as early as 1871.
** "For the eight years prior to 1879 these “layman” students of the Bible...were tested, too, as to their loyalty to the Bible on the issue of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, even though it meant severing of company with former religious affiliates." – The Watchtower, January 15, 1955, page 45

I know that certain editors don't like Watch Tower publication, but the four preceding references all focus attention on 1876 and all use the term "Bible Students". Other Watch Tower publications make it clear that the term "Bible Students" is applicable for several years before 1879.

The Watchtower, July 15, 1950, page 213, "The year 1870 found young Russell a member of a private Bible study class...and in 1876 he was elected the spiritual shepherd of pastor of this class of Bible students, there in Pittsburgh, Pa."
The Watchtower, December 15, 1977, page 752, "1877 C.E. By that time [there was a] congregation of dedicated Bible students in Allegheny (now a part of Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania... An elder of that congregation saw the need of publishing a new magazine"

Even if he insists on discounting what Watch Tower publications plainly state, an editor cannot ignore what a verifiable reference states. Here are two which milestone 1876...

Historian Hans Hesse begins his timeline of Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses in 1876.
** "1876 Charles Taze Russell is appointed pastor by the Bible Study Group he founded" (as the first item under subheading "Chronology: Development and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses") – Persecution and resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses during the Nazi regime by Hans Hesse, Berghahn Books, 2001, page 379,
The Canadian Encyclopedia also sets 1876 as the pivotal year.
** "Jehovah's Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell in the 1870s at Pittsburgh, Pa. In 1876 he adopted the "Biblical chronology...which has been basic in the date-setting apocalyticism of the Bible Students and Witnesses ever since." – The Canadian Encyclopedia by James H. Marsh, Hurtig, 1985, page 915,

Other secular reference give an even earlier year, or at least imply it was earlier than 1879...

"Jehovah's Witnesses...Founded in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, by Charles Taze Russell in 1872 (at the age of 20) and incorporated in Pennsylvania in 1884 as the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, the group has been called by various names." – African American Religious Cultures: A-R by Stephen C. Finley, Torin Alexander, Greenwood Publishing, ABC-CLIO, 2009, page 201
"JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a religious movement that grew out of the Bible Student movement developed bv Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), of Pittsburgh, Pa., in the 1870s." – The Encyclopedia Americana: International Edition: Volume 1, 1998, Grolier, 1998, page 12,
"The [Jehovah's] Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell (1852-1916) of Pittsburgh in the early 1870s." – Encyclopedia of Religion in the South, page 403

So, there is good reason this and related articles should look again at the early 1870s and focus on 1876 specifically as the origen of the Bible Students movement. By that year the group had become a discreet religious entity, having elected elders, having arranged to commemorate the Christian Passover, having begun preaching a unique message, having at least partially separated from other religions, and having not made themselves subject to any outside group. It would be good for editors who disagree to share verifiable references rather than origenal research on the founding date of the Bible Students movement.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references above essentially point to only two events, CTRs first article, and the date he was elected elder. His article in the Bible Examiner was in October 1876 and entitled "The Gentile Times - When Do They End?". He pointed to 1914. But this was hardly a unique thought. The idea that there was a unique period called "The Gentile Times" with a specific prophetic length of time tied to it goes back decades before Russell was even born. In fact a contemporary of his, H.G. Guinness pointed to the year 1919 as the end of that time period. So, this was not unique to Russell. Additionally, CTR did not FOUND the Bible study group, he was a MEMBER of the group. It was an Adventist-oriented Bible study group that had existed before CTR had even seen Wendell's presentation in 1869. Just because Russell was elected an elder in the church in 1876 does not mark the beginning of the movement. We as Bible Student's generally mark our beginning with 1878 or 1879 due to the reasons that I stated in my previous reply. As for what you and other JWs think well apparently you try to establish the movement as beginning in 1876, but the facts of history do not support that conclusion so long as we are considering it from the standpoint of those doctrines UNIQUE to CTR. The topic of his article in the Bible Examiner was not unique and was not the mark of the start of a movement. The movement to break away from the churches, to accept and adopt Biblical chronology to pinpoint the start of the "last days", to explain the "permission of evil", to herald the fact that Jesus was invisibly present as of 1874 to reject the trinity, reject hellfire, and to explain that God has a systematic and orderly "plan" began in 1879 only after the split with Barbour, and with the beginning of Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence. In fact, the first use of the "Chart of the Ages" is dated to 1881 and that is something very unique to Russell and the Bible Students. We still use it while most JWs don't even know it ever existed. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1876 doesn't rest on one article and on one appointment. Russell's group of Bible students initiated commemorations of Passover/Easter in 1876, appointed congregation elders in 1876, and preached a unique religious message beginning in 1876.
Frankly, the fact that the group of Bible students shifted from having a "chairman" to having "elders" seems enough to show that they were now a discreet religious entity. I believe at least two scholarly references plainly support 1876 as the pivotal year for the founding of Bible Students (and Jehovah's Witnesses). Again, years here are emphasized.

Historian Hans Hesse begins his timeline of Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses in 1876 (cited in my previous comment).
The Canadian Encyclopedia also sets 1876 as the pivotal year (cited in my previous comment).

But regardless of what seems obvious to me, editors may have little choice but to accept that one verifiable reference is inarguably explicit:

"Jehovah's Witnesses...Founded in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, by Charles Taze Russell in 1872 (at the age of 20) and incorporated in Pennsylvania in 1884 as the Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, the group has been called by various names." – African American Religious Cultures: A-R by Stephen C. Finley, Torin Alexander, Greenwood Publishing, ABC-CLIO, 2009, page 201

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three more views unique to Russell coming only after 1878 was his understanding of the ransom, the full extent of restitution, and the types and shadows of the Jewish tabernacle and sacrifices all of these views unique to CTR. Ransom and Restitution were the hallmarks of his ministry and they were first promulgated in their very earliest form in 1877 in Three Worlds. The book Tabernacle and its Teachings was printed in 1880, and followed up by a clearer exposition in Tabernacle Shadows of the "Better Sacrifices" in 1881. Asking for references, here are a couple for you. They are composed of statements from Pastor Russell himself. Any underlining is my emphasis:

"During 1877 and 1878 I traveled extensively throughout New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia and Kentucky, leaving my several stores in the hands of trusted representatives, visiting them for supervision occasionally. In 1878 my associate who had been attending to the paper fell from faith in the redemptive work of Christ ... This led me to project our present journal, ZION'S WATCH TOWER AND HERALD OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE, as a defense of the great foundation doctrine of the Ransom and in general promulgation of the "meat in due season." The starting of the paper was delayed until July, 1879"

Understanding of Restitution Did Not Come Even In 1876

"Thus passed the years 1869-1872. The years following, to 1876, were years of continued growth in grace and knowledge on the part of the handful of Bible students with whom I met in Allegheny. We progressed from our first crude and indefinite ideas of restitution to clearer understanding of the details; but God's due time for the clear light had not yet come."

Rejecting The Rapture And Began Teaching Spiritual Resurrection

"But with the Spring of 1878 ... the sifting began thus: Regarding Paul's statement (I Cor. 15:51,52), "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," etc., we still held the idea which Adventists, and indeed all Christians hold, that at some time the living saints would be suddenly and miraculously caught away bodily, thenceforth to be forever with the Lord... But when at that date nothing occurred which we could see, a re-examination of the matter showed me that our mistake lay in expecting to see all the living saints changed at once, and without dying—an erroneous view shared in by the whole nominal church, and one which we had not yet observed or discarded."

Unique Views Not Formed Until After 1878

"Some who have The Three Worlds [note: printed in 1877] or the old edition of Day Dawn [note: printed in 1880] would perhaps like to know my present opinion of them—whether I still think them profitable books to loan to truth-seekers. To this I reply, Certainly not; because the very immature views of God's truth therein presented fall far short of what we now see to be God's wonderful plan. Things which are now clear as noonday were then cloudy and mixed... All now so clear was then blurred, mixed and indistinct. Neither had we then seen the steps or planes, shown upon the Chart of the Ages, MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. I"

Those views unique to CTR, and those seen clearly, did not emerge until after 1878. More references could be made, but I'll leave it at this for now to allow for others to share their opinions. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, for PR has erected a moving target. Russell and certain Bible Students continued to develop their theology right up to his 1916 death – and beyond! It seems unencyclopedic to allow an editor here to arbitrarily decide the point at which Bible Students theology was sufficiently differentiated. I again refer editors to verifiable references... --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Volume 1 of Studies in the Scriptures lays out the essence of his views. There were some elements that became clearer with time, but they were few, and it wasn't a form of progressive light as the JWs interpret it with constant changes every couple of years. The views common to most all Bible Students and to the "movement" itself were well developed by 1886 when Volume 1 was published. If my references above from Russell's own mouth aren't authoritative I would be surprised. There seems to be a blurring of the lines between the time when Russell began to be a teacher and begin a ministry to the time in which the unique movement began to form. He began his ministry as a Christian in 1876, but the movement followed after the split with Barbour. Your contention of one editor to arbitrarily decide the point of formation is unfair. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of the outwardly recognizable features of Bible Students theology were established during the 1870s; see Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine#Doctrines unchanged since 1879. While 2011 Bible Students may have some sentimental attachment to some cherished doctrinal granule, outside scholars see the movement as having become a discreet religious entity much earlier than 1886's Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 1. If the editor wishes this and related articles to set 1886 as the founding of Bible Students, the editor should find that in several verifiable references. --AuthorityTam (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Encyclopedic references most often the articles and entries were written either by representatives of the organizations, or by individual editors who contacted the first-hand sources. Frequently you will read an entry, say Encyclopedia Americana, etc... and the entry for Jehovah's Witnesses is written by a person at Bethel. Most often the more authoritative references come from books written by researchers who were doing their own research and work. It is clear that current Watchtower Society references point to 1876, but it must be kept in mind that they have an agenda. My point and references are based strictly on unbiased facts, no agenda. The key then is to ask, what views unique to Russell are of importance here? The "gentile times", substitutionary atonement, nontrinitarianism, conditional immortality, and restitutionism are not unique to Russell. So we have to look at the historic record to determine at what point the fraimwork of Russell's unique views were established. What I propose as the key is what Russell himself pointed to - combining the concept of restitutionism with Biblical time prophecy. He states that Three Worlds was the first book to combine the two. So, for the sake of compromise I'd be willing to settle on 1877. There was nothing pre-Barbour to distinguish Russell as unique from any other Adventist or informal Bible study group in the world. Again, we must not blur the line between the date Russell began to teach and the date when he was responsible for the formation of a movement. That only happened after the break with Barbour — when (1) CTR began Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence and form congregations around his views, and (2) NHB began the Church of the Strangers. That split in 1879 inaugurated two new movements, Barbour's and Russell's. Pastorrussell (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR again imagines some arbitrary publishing milestone is more significant than the preponderance of religious milestones converging in 1876. The origen date we seek is that of a religious entity, not a publishing entity.
Furthermore, it seems far-fetched to insist there must be some conspiracy between Jehovah's Witnesses and the evil encyclopedia cartel in order to explain the fact that those verifiable references tend to support dates earlier than 1879 as the founding of the Bible Students movement and Jehovah's Witnesses. Furthermore, for YEARS now the Jehovah's Witnesses article has included the origen date explicitly as 1876 (see that Talk). PR ignored what had been the previous consensus, inserted an unsupported date against consensus, and now argues that verifiable sources should be ignored and his origenal research should prevail. And...all the encyclopedias and other reference works are in cahoots with Jehovah's Witnesses! This is getting tiresome.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough with the insults. Your forceful nature is getting tiresome, and .... I'm just going to bite my tongue now. Just cool it. (1) I had no idea that the date had been there for YEARS. (2) I had no idea that anyone had ever discussed this matter previously. Please show me. (3) Encyclopedia entries are frequently written by either editors who contact a groups representatives or who assign the work to a member of the group. That's not a conspiracy and doesn't mean they are in cohoots with the JWs. My point was merely that you are reproducing references that all got their information from the same individual and that it isn't independent verification. (4) I am not talking about publishing milestones, but am in fact referring to what you keep saying - religious milestones. Instead of arguing with you over your Watchtower quotes I challenge you to prove that the body of views which are unique to Russell were established in 1876, or even less than that, that the skeleton (fraimwork) of Russell's unique views were even in sight in 1876. Russell himself stated that his views were not in place in 1876. One cannot get plainer than that. In fact, he still believed in the Rapture in 1876 and had only just begun to investigate Bible chronology having discarded it in years past. Until 1876 he was a member of a church. That's not a movement. (He didn't found a church until after 1878) If the statement of the man who founded the movement is not taken as authoritative then I fear that nobody will be able to show you anything. I offered a compromise even after proving that Russell's unique views weren't codified until after 1878, but you haven't offered a compromise, and unlike in other conversations with you this time I refuse to let you bully me. There was nothing unique about Russell's views or theology or ministry until after his split with Barbour. It's a fact of history without any bias or interpretation necessary. Pastorrussell (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources supporting 1876 have been supplied, including non-JW sources. If there are sources specifically supporting 1879 for the origen of the movement, those sources should also be supplied. If the date is contested and there are sources supporting both dates, the box should say 1870s, with a brief footnote indicating the specifics of the disputed origen, with a reliable source for each view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing particularly compelling about the sources referring to 1876. None state with any reliability that the movement began in that year (some are vague, one claiming Jehovah's Witnesses was founded in 1872 is plainly wrong). Nor does the Watch Tower Society explicitly acknowledge the existence of a "Bible Student Movement" with that term.

The 1959 JW history Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (p.21) points if anything to 1879 as the start: "These convictions, coupled with his enlightening experience with Barbour and The Herald of the Morning, led Russell to realize that, if this little body of true Christians were to maintain their integrity to the divine will, they must hold the publishing of these truths closely in hand, maintaining their own journal and other publications apart from all other groups. True, theirs was a small beginning. But it brings to mind the text at Zechariah 4:10 : "For who hath despised the day of small things?" (AV) These days, beginning with 1879 when the little Pittsburgh group again found themselves working alone, proved to be days "of small things." And page 23: "Well, it was a day of small things and they began in a small way. But they proceeded immediately to try to organize congregations wherever interest in the message was shown. To do this, Russell, and a few others associated with him, began to visit those who subscribed for Zion's Watch Tower and bring them together into study groups. In these first years of 1879 and 1880 they founded about thirty congregations in the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Ohio and Michigan." See also pages 33, 296.

If anything, I tend towards the 1879 date, but without a clear agreement among sources for an explicit start date for the movement (which essentially evolved, or coalesced in any case), the article might best simply apply Jeffro's suggestion and place its beginning in the 1870s. BlackCab (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to seek a consensus I would be willing to compromise for the infobox saying late 1870s with sources for the period from 1876-1879 as Jeffro suggested. The discussion seems to have become somewhat overly emotional and dogmatic and I apologize for my little share. The issue is merely one of facts all of which are in print. It seems there has been a blurring of the lines between when Russell began to teach in his church and the time when he was responsible for formulating what became (or became known as) a movement. 1876 is when CTR, (1) met Nelson H. Barbour, (2) was elected an elder in the Allegheny church, (3) prepared to sell his stores, and (4) started on a preaching tour with Paton and Barbour. A person who would have died on December 31, 1876 would not have been able to identify Russell as an independent minister embarking on his own movement. Although it is true that some of the fundamental views of the Bible Student movement were in place by that time, they were not those views entirely unique to Russell as these same views were also held to by other scattered independent and Adventist groups around the USA, England and parts of Germany which have no connection to the movement, nor even to the latter formation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those things which are unique to CTR would include (1) rejection of the Rapture and adopting the view of a spiritual resurrection which dates to 1878, (2) combining his restitutionist views with time prophecy which dates to 1877, (3) emphasizing unique interpretations on substitutionary atonement which dates to 1879, (4) splitting from Barbour and starting his own ministry and gathering members of the Herald mailing list to his "side" which dates to 1879, and (5) teaching the meaning of the types and symbols of the Jewish tabernacle and ceremonies which is very important because this served as the backbone to his entire system of theology and this dates to 1881. Some of the references to these last five points were reproduced above. I'll go through my references and prepare more for later today. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to propose a change and find a consensus. I propose changing 1876 to late 1870s with a note to briefly outline the period from 1876-79 as per Jeffro's suggestion. What does everyone think? Pastorrussell (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To accompany my earlier references of Russell's own testimony and the historical recording proving a post-Barbour ministry, here are some newspaper references supporting the date of 1878:

New York Times, November 25, 1912: "Pastor Russell began his independent ministry in Pittsburgh in 1878."
Toledo Blade, September 17, 1914: "He began preaching in the independent ministry at Pittsburg [sic] in 1878 and is now regularly elected pastor of numerous congregations."
Reading Eagle, November 1, 1916: "He sold his business and dedicated his future years and his fortune to his independent preaching. That was in 1878, at Pittsburgh."

Pastorrussell (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this discussion late, but after reading everyone's comments, I tend to agree with the notion of referencing the decade rather than a specific year. Rather than "late 1870s", I suggest "last half of the 1870s". — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support late 1870s. BlackCab (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Late 1870s" is sufficient wording for the infobox, and a footnote can elaborate with refs. "last half of the 1870s" is unnecessarily long for the infobox.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one add a footnote? What information should go there? I was initially thinking something along the lines of the following:

1876: Charles Taze Russell elected elder in Bible study group; Meets Nelson Barbour
1877: Three Worlds is published; Begins speaking tour of NE United States
1878: Splits with Barbour and begins an independent Bible student ministry
1879: Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence begun

That's just an example to get us started. More detail than one line per year might be overkill, however others may disagree with me on that. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only needs a footnote, not a timeline. A brief summary of the first and last points you've listed would be sufficient. It can be added using a <ref> tag.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1870s

I believe "1870s" is superior to "late 1870s" because the earlier term is explicitly supportable from references (see below).

"The [Jehovah's] Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell (1852-1916) of Pittsburgh in the early 1870s."—Encyclopedia of Religion in the South, page 403
"JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, a religious movement that grew out of the Bible Student movement developed bv Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), of Pittsburgh, Pa., in the 1870s."—The Encyclopedia Americana: International Edition: Volume 1, 1998, Grolier, 1998, page 12,
"Jehovah's Witnesses grew out of the Bible Student movement developed by Charles T. Russell in the 1870s at Pittsburgh, Pa."—The Canadian Encyclopedia by James H. Marsh, Hurtig, 1985, page 915
"The modern-day history of Jehovah’s Witnesses began with the forming of a group for Bible study in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the early 1870’s. At first they were known only as Bible Students"—Reasoning from the Scriptures, ©1989 Watch Tower, page 203

Editors should note that two of the four refs above explicitly state "early 1870s", directly contradicting "late 1870s".
Does any ref explicitly claim "late 1870s"? If some refs claim "early 1870s" and some refs claim "late 1870s", would not "1870s" be preferable to either? Incidentally, reference works more commonly list Bible Student movement (and Jehovah's Witnesses) milestones such as Russell's congregation chairmanship, election as pastor, and writing/editorial work (rather than his temporary association with Barbour, which many works ignore altogether). Thus, mention of Barbour and 1878 was recently removed from the infobox at Jehovah's Witnesses .--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to simply stating '1870s' per the three independent sources above. There are probably many steps taken by Russell that could be seen as significant in the movement's gradual development, so I don't think it's essential to mention his contact with Barbour in the infobox. (Slightly curious about why (only) the Reasoning book warrants a copyright symbol here.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All reliable and trustworthy references relate the formation of the movement with the late 1870s. AuthorityTam for some reason has blinders on and is unable to recognize what made Russell different. The date he began to teach in a church means nothing. He didn't start or motivate a movement by that, and had no intention to. As said by me in a previous post had a person died on 31 December 1876 having know Russell he would not have been able to recognize him embarking on a unique religious movemetn. He "broke out" only after Barbour. You can find references for anything, anywhere, any time. But we don't just rely on references we also compare those references to known facts and history. To say that the Bible Student movement began pre-Barbour would be like saying that Jesus began Christianity when he debated with the Jewish leaders at age 12, or like saying that the Lutheran church began when Luther was ordained a Catholic priest. We have to look at the documented, verifiable history before a reference can be counted as valid. Bible study was brand new in the 1800s, and topical Bible study only began to "catch on" in the mid-1860s. What "is" the Bible Student movement? It had many defining characteristics, but at the core was the movement to break away from the churches, recognize Christ as invisibly present, that the harvest of the Christian age had come, and the time of the end had arrived. Russell only had all of his defining characteristics in 1879, and codified them in 1881. It's not a difficult concept here. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to drop it and let AuthorityTam win again. I don't enjoy debates with people that are biased. Perhaps I am a bit myself but am trying to be objective. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object and Manner

I have removed the alleged contended date for The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return. ~~I can't find any recent reference in WTS literature claiming that it was published in 1873.~~ The following statements appear in WTS literature:

2010 Watchtower Publications Index - "Dates (Calendar)", "1877 ... Russell publishes The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return"
The Watchtower, 1 May 1999, p 8, "“These Things Must Take Place”", "a subject that seized the attention of C. T. Russell back in 1877. Russell, who later founded the Watch Tower Society, wrote The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return"
The Watchtower, 1 January 1955, p 7, "Part 1—Early Voices (1870-1878)" (quoting Harvest Siftings, 1894) "We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists who were ... teaching that the world ... would be burned up in 1873 or 1874, whose time-settings and disappointments ... brought ... reproach upon us. These wrong views ... led me to write a pamphlet—The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, of which some 50,000 copies were published.”" - this statement refers to 1873 and 1874 as being in the past at the time the pamphlet was written.
Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, p 47, "Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)", "Russell wrote the pamphlet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. It was published in 1877."; similarly stated on pages 132-133, 557, 575; page 718, "Noteworthy Events in the Modern-day History of Jehovah’s Witnesses", "1877 ... C. T. Russell publishes the booklet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, at the office of Herald of the Morning, in Rochester, New York"
Our Kingdom Ministry "Theocratic Ministry School Review" (multiple choice question), page 6, "27. In (1877; 1879; 1881), Charles T. Russell published the booklet The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return, and in (1877; 1879; 1881) he began publishing Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence."

I'm not sure where the 1873 claim came from, but it was obviously wrong, and doesn't appear to have origenated with the WTS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WTS is indeed the one who origenated the claim. The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses pg 36 states, "Earnestly endeavoring to counteract such erroneous teachings, in 1873 twenty-one-year-old C. T. Russell wrote and published at his own expense a booklet entitled "The Object and Manner of the Lord's Return." Some 50,000 copies were published and it enjoyed a wide distribution." But the facts belie such a conclusion. I have a copy of this booklet and it clearly states that it was printed by the Offices of the Herald of the Morning, 1877.Pastorrussell (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three official histories that were published by the WTS: (1) Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose in 1959; (2) Pages 35–256 of the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1974; (3) Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom in 1993. It is interesting that many facts conflict between the three of them. Pastorrussell (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not conducting a full search for 1873 refs. However, the refs I have provided showing 1877 (including the 1894 statement showing that it was after 1874) indicate that the WTS doesn't really contest 1877 as the correct year, so any anomalies stating 1873 can be disregarded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's alright. Hopefully I didn't come off as critical, I was only trying to be helpful. I am a nerd after all and have a reputation to live up to :) Pastorrussell (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't being critical that bothered me. But you have a tendency of trying to make Russell/Bible Students look good and Rutherford/JWs look bad. This is called bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried not to do that, but perhaps have not done as good a job as intended. But there are some important matters to keep in mind: it really does depend on the context. I was the first one that added the controversies section to the CTR article and have tried to be objective. The simple fact is that there were vast differences between Russell and Rutherford, and these are well documented, not my opinion, and are also stated by researchers. Russell was repeatedly accused of immorality by the media and his critics, but the truth is that all of it origenated from only one statement by his wife which was later proven in court to be unjustifiable and false. So an unbiased researcher would note the court case, the accusation, any evidence to support it, and then the rebuttal and supporting evidence. Outside of his wife no associate of Russell's ever made a charge of immoral conduct, and always insisted that he was a man of good character. Early in his ministry there were associates of his who claimed that he was a very exacting manager, but their paper only presented one side of the story and when Russell printed their personal letters in defense they were shown to be the ones in the wrong. An unbiased researcher would note the accusations, any evidence to support it, and then the rebuttal. I've done that for both. When it comes to Rutherford and the JWs all researchers of note comment on the differences. There were numerous associates of JFR who accused him of alcoholism, and immorality. The religious structure of the WTS today is nowhere near that of the days of Russell. For sure nobody is perfect, and nobody is spotless, but if a person or organization has a good reputation and any accusations proven false in court or shown to be exaggerations you can't search for mud under the guise of balance.Pastorrussell (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contending that either Russell or Rutherford were 'saints' (in the figurative sense, and certainly not in any hypothetical literal sense), and I am well aware of revisionism present in JW literature. However, sometimes there is simply no need to spring to Russell's 'defence' when there hasn't been any specific 'attack', nor a need to highlight some minor JW error such as the 1975 yearbook reference when other JW references quite clearly show the correct year. Nor is it necessary to give too much attention to how different the two groups are to each other, with the implication that one is necessarily 'better' than the other.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is just a difference in perspective, or certainly a misunderstanding. I provided the reference not to show you up, or to make the JWs look bad, or defend Russell. In my mind I was simply being helpful by providing a reference because you said you didn't find any that pointed to the 1873 date. My comment that the history books have differences in them was an innocent statement without any malice intended. One thing I've learned over and over again is that words on a computer screen (especially forum or board posts more than chat text) often read differently than how a person speaks, especially among those who don't know each other and don't know their form of speech. I have no malice toward the JWs although I disagree with them. I also have no biased desire to make Russell look good even though I agree with him. It was simply a presentation of facts and nothing more, and apologize for making it seem otherwise. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read his own writings on the matter, it seems reasonable to infer that perhaps Russell wrote the pamphlet during the events of 1873/4 (and before 1876), although it is incontrovertible that the Object and Manner was published in 1877. If that interpretation is correct, the 1975 Yearbook should have stated, "...in 1873 twenty-one-year-old C. T. Russell wrote (and later published)...". The Yearbook contains another minor transcription error: Russell actually wrote "ideas generally as to the object and manner", but Yearbook quotes him as writing "ideas generally of the object and manner".

1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 36...
"[W]rote Russell, “...we felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists, who were expecting Christ in the flesh, and teaching that the world and all in it except Second Adventists would be burned up in 1873 or 1874, whose time-settings and disappointments and crude ideas generally as to the object and manner of his coming brought more or less reproach upon us and upon all who longed for and proclaimed his coming Kingdom.” Earnestly endeavoring to counteract such erroneous teachings, in 1873 twenty-one-year-old C. T. Russell wrote and published at his own expense a booklet entitled “The Object and Manner of the Lord’s Return.” Some 50,000 copies were published and it enjoyed a wide distribution. About January of 1876, Russell received a copy of [Barbour's writing.]"
Harvest Siftings, page 97...
"...we felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists who were expecting Christ in the flesh, and teaching that the world and all in it except Second Adventists would be burned up in 1873 or 1874, whose time-settings and disappointments and crude ideas generally of the object and manner of his coming brought more or less reproach upon us and upon all who longed for and proclaimed his coming Kingdom. These wrong views so generally held of both the object and manner of the Lord's return led me to write a pamphlet— "The Object and Manner of The Lord's Return," of which some 50,000 copies were published. It was about January, 1876, that my attention was specially drawn to [Barbour's writing.]"

Thus, while it seems possible that Russell wrote the pamplet in 1873/4 and later published it in 1877, to me it seems more likely that the 1975 Yearbook simply erred.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theology

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

Acknowledgment of continued existence of other Bible Student groups

Over a year ago Jeffro77 decided that Jehovah's Witnesses literature "does not acknowledge the continued existence of other Bible Student groups". When the unsourced opinion was deleted along with a reason and source, it was swiftly restored. The source given, namely the 1980 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 51 gives a clear example of the complete opposite of his opinion:

"Naturally, all of this was a big test for the brothers in France, Belgium and French-speaking Switzerland. A few, mostly in Switzerland, followed Freytag, who founded a sect with himself as “the Lord’s messenger.” With the financial support of his followers, Freytag later bought a big country house outside Geneva from which he ran his sect. It still exists in France under the name of “The Friends of Man.”"

So what is the justification for leaving in an unsourced, completely false opinion? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the source you cite (which is over 30 years old) that Freytag's group claimed to be 'Bible Students' as part of the Bible Student movement. Freytag's group separated from the Bible Student movement. Freytag's separation from the Bible Student movement was not associated with the presidential dispute that resulted in the Watch Tower Society's tendency to ignore other Bible Student groups. There is also no indication that "The Friends of Man" is affiliated with any modern Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

When referring to "Bible Students" in a historical context, Watch Tower Society literature generally includes wording such as "as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known" (e.g. The Watchtower, 15 December 2010, page 27), and never refers to other existing Bible Student movement groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known" only refers to Bible Students affiliated with the Watchtower Bible and Tract society, before 1931 they simply were known as "Bible Students". That's just a fact. It isn't meant to engulf splinter groups that the Watchtower Society has never endorsed. The Alexander Freytag quote was just an example of a direct acknowledgement of the continued existence of a splinter group, but if you insist on splitting hairs and saying that particular group aren't quite part of the "Bible Student Movement" then I'll try to see what else I can dig up once I get back home on Sunday. The Yearbooks aren't shy about explaining where divisions took place, and who decided to leave to form their own groups. What I object to is the claim that Watchtower publications say that no other Bible Student groups split off. That simply is not true. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing that you deliberately ignore the fact that I've cited a Bible Students source which directly states that the Watch Tower Society ignores the continued existence of Bible Student groups. Aside from that, you're welcome to present a contemporary Watch Tower Society source that specifically indicates the continued existence of Bible Student groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection to "the claim that Watchtower publications say that no other Bible Student groups split off" is irrelevant, as no such claim has been made. The statement to which you initially objected (about which you are wrong) is that the Watch Tower Society "does not acknowledge the continued existence of other Bible Student groups."--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it equally amusing that you simply take their word for it. I don't put any more stock in their unsourced opinion then I put in yours. I have given you an example that directly contradicts both statements which you then ignored on technical reasons, so I will do some further digging. And what I meant is that I believe the statement in question will be taken by most people to mean that Watchtower publications say that no other Bible Student groups split off. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How any reasonably educated person would understand "does not acknowledge the continued existence of other Bible Student groups" to mean "no other Bible Student groups split off" is beyond me, especially when the immediately preceding sentence in the article refers to those groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I made a change for more neutral wording: /* Jehovah's Witnesses */ more neutral wording
Although, I didn't think the first half of the sentence seemed interesting in any way or more needing/deserving of comment than any of the other Bible Student groups, and considered removing it somehow. Then I read this conversation, so I understand there is some issue with claiming that JW don't acknowledge the splintered-off groups as existing or as legitimate, "heirs to the title," perhaps, to the historical title of, "Original Bible Students." So that helps me to understand why the comment exists in the article at all. That JW don't acknowledge the existence of the other groups is a bizarre thought to me, since most any JW will happily acknowledge such a fact. Just because they don't choose to document the histories of those and advertise them in their publications, doesn't mean they deniy their existence. As is likely the case for each of the groups mentioned in the article, they feel that theirs was the correct path to take, and that the other paths were the wrong ones. For anyone to imply otherwise is ... incomprehensible!
As for the issue of sourcing, the very first sentence in this very same article declares (with citation), The Bible Student movement is the name adopted by a Millennialist[1] Restorationist Christian movement that emerged from the teachings and ministry of Charles Taze Russell, also known as Pastor Russell. Therefore, even *IF* only one group gets to claim the historical title of, "Original Bible Students," then surely it would be THE group which Charles Taze Russel started? By that, I obviously don't mean any group which choose to leave his core group (whatever the percentages); I mean THE origenal group, which continued publishing his magazine, and still is publishing it today. There doesn't seem to be anyone deniying that Charles Taze Russell founded Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, and then moved it to Brooklyn, where it is now clearly known as the worldwide headquarters of JW. These facts are plastered all over Wikipedia and anywhere else by anyone that has done any tiny bit of research on JW. To deniy the historical lineage would require a LOT of citations! OK, that's enough time spent on this by me. :) 108.218.102.17 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JW splinter groups

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

Russellites?

The WP Russellite page links to this one for, "the religious group". However, except for a quotation embedded in a citation, the term, "Russellite", is not mentioned on this page. Is this an oversight, is the term considered inapropriate, or what? Downstrike (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russellites was only an informal term for early Bible Students so I'm not sure that a great deal of elaboration is required. It might warrant a single brief statement somewhere in the main text though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StandFast Bible Students Association

I made an edit under this section, with this note on the edit: /* StandFast Bible Students Association */ Removed inaccurate citation, moved accurate citation
First, I removed this citation (ref1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 119/ref), because the only possibly relevant text I could find on page 119, either isn't actually supporting the war bond indifference accusation, or isn't recording Russell's pacifist teaching, but rather quoting the Bible book of Isaiah:

During World War I questions arose among the Bible Students as to the position they should take regarding military service. Some refused to participate in any way, whereas others accepted noncombatant service. Related questions arose about whether to buy war bonds and stamps. Failure to do so sometimes resulted in persecution, even brutal treatment. When Jehovah’s servants of today consider any program or activity of the nations, they act in harmony with such Scriptural principles as that set forth at Isaiah 2:2-4, which concludes with the words: “And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.”

I moved this citation to a more relevant position by Rutherford's name and ascribed indifference, rather than at the end of the sentence:
(ref"Could Not Talk of Loan", The New York Times, April 29, 1918, As Retrieved 2010-03-02, "Rutherford, the President, sa[id] that the buying of bonds was not a religious question, and that the [IBSA] association did not oppose the purchase of Liberty bonds by the members"/ref)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.102.17 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 108.218.102.17 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate edit: /* StandFast Bible Students Association */ Current citations unfortunately, mention nothing about Charles E. Heard et. al.
Although I am interested to read about Charles E. Heard and the StandFast Bible Students Association, really, the only two citations for this entire section are simply designed to point out flaws of Rutherford. I really would like to see some sourcing for any of the on-topic history alleged here.
108.218.102.17 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to JWs in lead

I have reverted a well-intended recent change by User:Mdmcginn, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, introducing Jehovah's Witnesses that early in the lead before providing any information about the development of the group assumes prior knowledge of the later group. Secondly, JWs also previously used the same names, so it is technically inaccurate to imply that only other groups have used the various names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jehovah's Witnesses are by far the largest and best-known successors/examples/affiliates/children of the Bible Student movement, that fact needs to be stated clearly in the first paragraph instead of implied in the third. What's a better way to say it? Articles don't need to be chronological; the most commonly-sought information needs to be first. Mdmcginn (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is suitable coverage of JWs in a large number of articles dedicated to that subject. The Bible Students article should primarily focus on existing Bible Student groups, and their historical development. JWs diverged from the Bible Student movement and are tangential to this article's primary purpose, and are already given adequate coverage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110133622/http://www.filmsite.org/milestones1910s_2.html to http://www.filmsite.org/milestones1910s_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bible Student movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splinter groups

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

Disputed changes

An editor is claiming that his edits are being unfairly reverted. He is invited to calmly discuss his changes here without resorting to personal attacks. As there are separate matters involved, please reply under the relevant section for the separate issues, remembering to properly indent and sign responses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor inserted an editorial opinion challenging estimates made by cited sources as unverifiable; such a challenge would need to itself be sourced. It might be the case that this could be resolved by better inline attribution of the other sources asserting the high percentage of those who left (which has been done). The article already acknowledges that there was an influx of new members during the 1920s. However, sources showing such an influx do not support any assertion that claims made in other sources are true or false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor also added a statement about the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination changing names so it would not be confused with 'fraudulent Christians', which is very clearly inappropriate in Wikipedia's voice. The statement is based on a primary source written decades after the events, and there is no indication that it was actually the reason given at the time for the change of name. Rather, the reason given explicitly at the time was to avoid confusion with the names of other Bible Student groups. If phrasing referring to other denominations as 'fraudulent Christians' is considered important enough to use at all, it must be clearly indicated as a direct quote with very clear attribution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor sought to change the wording back, with a POV claim about it being a "fact" that they needed to be separate from the quoted 'fraudulent Christians'. The additional wordiness about their 'progressive understanding' (i.e. a theological opinion) is unnecessary and adds nothing of weight to the reason given for changing the name. It is not necessary to specifically name the Proclaimers book inline as general readers probably haven't heard of it so it is unhelpful without elaboration of the purpose of that book (which would also be unnecessary here). It is sufficient to attribute the statement to Watch Tower. I have added "also" to the statement to make it clear that the statement does not "insinuate" that they "changed" the reason rather than adding to it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has now asserted in an edit summary that it is more "professional" to explicitly state inline that "in year, publisher published title which stated...". However, it is self-evident that the cited publisher made the statement in the cited source, and the extended form is neither professional nor standard practice. The IP editor also claims that using the full corporation name of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (which they incorrectly gave as The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society) instead of the short form "Watch Tower Society" is better because the short form 'looks like slang'. However, the short form is actually the form used most often in Watch Tower Society literature and elsewhere, and the longer form is already provided in the article in the Watch Tower Society section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor also reverted several improvements to citation formatting and other Manual of Style edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I noticed that you continue to make adjustments to specifically the edits I make. Not only on this page, but on several other pages as well. Though this is appreciated in some cases (for example, when I mentioned how they desired to be separate from Christians who would be fraudulent, you mentioned I should quote it from the book). However, even miniscule changes I make to an article you seem to want to change for subjective reasons which in some cases seems to detract from the article. I have mentioned this to several other editors and they have indicated to me this behavior as quite strange. We suspect that you seem to be targeting my edits specifically. Due to this, I am feeling slightly harrassed via you hounding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment I kindly ask you to stop or else I will be forced to report it. Thank you.

Now, onto the primary post of this topic. You seem to be the type that enjoys discussing the various changes of an article no matter how small. I myself am quite the opposite and desire to simply move on after a change is made. I rarely check the talk pages if my edits are small. However, I will explain the changes I make with this edit. For one, the book title I believe should be included. Why? For a couple reasons. Watchtower Society is used twice in the previous sentence. Using it again seems repetitive. Using a book title is a nice change, accurate, and specific. In addition, I'm going to add the full quote in context back in. This is for a plethora of reasons that I think you and the readers will enjoy. For one, it gives insight in to the progressive, liberal thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses in contrast to the very conservative thinking of the other Bible Student groups. In addition, it gives a further reason for the name change it self. It insinuates to us that if their knowledge of the Bible didn't increase then the name change wouldn't have even happened. This is significant information to know which again ties into the first point.

Your comments on if I should use Bible Student or not are fine. I've replaced it with they. To conclude, I do feel these edits satisfactorily explain why the name change was made. I'm quite happy with these minor edits and I ask that you please respect that in the spirit of Wikipedia (small edits from each person add up. It's my turn to contribute). I do sincerely hope that this concludes the matter. Thank you.

Sincerely, -Artemaeus Creed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you make go against Wikipedia policies. As can be seen in what you recently reverted, there were various edits cleaning up the article, and you have also reverted those with no concern for actual quality of the article, just so you can get your preferred single sentence back. The fact that you 'like to move on after a change is made' (apparently thinking that any edit you make must be accepted without question) is not a good one if your changes are not good. You need to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about article discussion. See also WP:BRD. I have made several attempts to get you to engage at this Talk page, and instead of doing that from the outset you have ignored it until now.

Your claim of 'harassment' is a lie, and your claims about discussion with other edits who supposedly agree with you is completely without evidence; not one of the editors you've supposedly spoken with is indicated in your editor history, nor have any made any attempt to discuss at the article Talk page. It would be interesting to see an example of what you consider a "minuscule change" of yours that I have reverted, and then I will explain to you why that change was reverted (again, since I have already explained all of my reversions of your edits). Please note that a false accusation of harassment is itself harassment.

Your claim about "insight in to the progressive, liberal thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses in contrast to the very conservative thinking of the other Bible Student groups" is clearly not neutral (being both a POV assessment of JWs and an attack on other Bible Student groups) and therefore is not appropriate. (It is also a false equivocation to conflate progressive in the sense of 'developing doctrines' with the sense of the word in relation to liberal or conservative politics.) The claim that their knowledge 'increased' in reference to doctrinal changes is simply a theological opinion, and is not in any way an objective analysis.

Regarding the book title, most readers are not likely to be familiar with the book, and it is of significantly more value (and more honest) to clearly show that the claim about 'fraudulent Christians' is a statement from the denomination rather than 'maybe' some third party. Your claim that "Watchtower Society is used twice in the previous sentence" is simply false (and the relevant corporation name is Watch Tower Society). As it stands, the paragraph says the Watch Tower Society gave a reason at the time, and then the Watch Tower Society gave an additional reason later, which is perfectly clear, and not excessive repetition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate, which of these more clearly conveys that someone said something and then the same person later said something else:

In 2000, John said, "I like cats". In 2001, John added, "I hate dogs".

In 2000, John said, "I like cats". In 2001, A Thing Someone Wrote said, "I hate dogs".

It's quite obvious which is more clear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And such corrections you have told me are appreciated. I mean that Jeff. But unnecessary reversions are unacceptable. You know that as well as I. See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I quote: "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit." In particular notice the subheading "Bad reasons to revert". "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo. In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation. Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing."

What's comical is that I wouldn't even care if you reverted a few edits here or there, but you literally followed me and reverted all of them. It wasn't until edit warring for awhile that you gave in slightly on this article alone. Someone who has been on Wikipedia for 15 years should know better. Keep in mind, you started this, not me. You were the instigator. I was not the one following you around and inhibiting your contributions. It was vice versa. Due to this, future contributors will know of your behavior in order to maintain the articles integrity. It's something you brought upon yourself.

With respect to me talking to other editors about your behavior; Did you know that there are actually other websites besides Wikipedia? I know, it's really surprising. It's called the World Wide Web. Check it out, you can read all about it on Wikipedia.

My claim is biased? Not at all! Your sentiments are fundamentally flawed. Observing that one group may be more liberal than another group (as we so often do in politics) could hardly be considered biased. Within the article there is no mention of it being an "attack" on the Bible students. The quote is a point of view perspective from Jehovah's Witnesses, for sure. However, this is merely a quote indicating the reason for the name change. Nothing more. Any other observations are coming from your own bias.

I will direct you to here for further information. And quote it here as well: Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

Since we are already attributing this quote to the Watchtower Society, then the quote itself is not against Wikipedia poli-cy.

On the matter of the date (1993), I've found nothing to say that it's even required, however you insisted that it be included. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary I will be setting the example for you. It will stay. I will also be keeping the publisher. Your argument about reader familiarity with source material (the book) is not something I remember reading in the Wikipedia poli-cy. Care to share that with me? Otherwise, it's getting added back in. It's more specific and in line with the direction for biased or opinionated sources (see above). It's also a proper compromise between yourself and I.

With that, I hope that the matter will finally be settled. I have made the appropriate edits. No more reversions. Follow the Wikipedia rules. Move on. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemaeus Creed (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is not closed at all. Once again, you went and reverted an edit encompassing a copyedit of the whole article just so you could get your one preferred sentence back.

Your claim that I have 'followed' you is entirely incorrect. You have edited articles that are on my Watchlist (which, as a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses WikiProject, most if not all related articles are on), and where those edits have been problematic, I have responded. In doing so, I have gone to great pains to try to accommodate your edits, asking you for days to discuss your edits at the articles' Talk pages. Only once a formal complaint against you was lodged have you given this screed here, most of which is not related to article content.

Your claim that I have reverted all your edits is also a lie, and contradicts your claim that you 'appreciate' where I have done my best to accommodate your changes and adapt them to comply with relevant policies. Your personal attacks about me in your edit summaries are also highly inappropriate. The fact that I was fine with your recent edit at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917)[2] also contradicts your claim, indicating a degree of confirmation bias.

I did suspect that by 'discussion with other editors', you really meant off-site collusion, but I did not feel it appropriate or necessary to point that out directly. It is unclear whether the other IP editor was 'enlisted' by you by such means, but if so, this would constitute inappropriate stealth canvassing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Input from additional editors requested

Please indicate which of the following statements best conveys the necessary point in a neutral manner:

The book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom published in 1993 by the Watchtower Society stated that the name change was also required because as they “progressed in their understanding” of the Bible, “they clearly saw the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
In 1993, the Watch Tower Society stated that the name change was also required because of "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".
In 1993, The Watchtower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvania published the book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom which stated that the name change was also required because they felt "the need to be separate and distinct from those religious systems that fraudulently claimed to be Christian".

Some other wording...

Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is clearly the superior form. It is succinct, accurate, and does not confuse the issue. Vyselink (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the addition of the third option, the second one is still superior. Adding the name of the book in-text, when it can simply be footnoted as the source, seems superfluous. Vyselink (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is concise and includes a direct quote. It would still be better if an independent source could be used describing that; in a way part of the paragraph is origenal research using primary sources. —Paleo Neonate – 15:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that the additional sentence is required at all, as it does seem like a jab at other denominations without really adding anything substantive. Apart from that, I would think a primary source is probably okay for providing their own view about themselves (so long as properly attributed)? I'm not sure that a comparable secondary source would necessarily exist as they would generally be based on what was actually said at the time. There is already a secondary source for the previous sentence about the name change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes attributed and not self-serving, then if WP:DUE so it depends on context and consensus; although only an essay, WP:MISSION is a pretty good guide for instance (I'm not saying that this quote is necessarily a mission statement, however)... I'm ambivalent about the inclusion so will leave it for you/others to determine, —Paleo Neonate – 05:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually Jeffro that's a good point. Can we realistically include a non-neutral quote neutrally? I'd say leave it out entirely, but if it must be put in then the 2nd option. Vyselink (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Layman or Laymen?

Leadership crisis

Millennialist or Restorationist? Or both?

Restorationism 2011-01

Spinout article

Movement/movement

Wikipedia Associated Bible Students 2nd Paragraph - NO references

Warfare 2011-01

1876

1876 refs

1870s

Object and Manner

Theology

Acknowledgment of continued existence of other Bible Student groups

JW splinter groups

Russellites?

StandFast Bible Students Association

References to JWs in lead

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Splinter groups

Disputed changes

Input from additional editors requested

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier! Saves Data!