Dtbrown , 1 January 2007 (UTC) Quotations found in the publications referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses" are almost always written in the context of members in the plural rather than in reference to the organization itself; it would be tedious and pointless to provide references to those quotations.A few times, "Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" is employed, and this is always used with "is".--Jeffro77 , 1 January 2007 (UTC)I think if it can be shown that JWs do use the singular when referring to themselves as an organization that would be significant and would affect what we do here..--D L Means , 12 March 2007 (UTC)You are incorrect.Jehovah's Witnesses do not regard the 'Watchtower Bible and Tract Society' to be their religious organization, but rather as a legal corporation used by the religion, 'Jehovah's Witnesses'.Billy pilgrim99 , 1 March 2007 (UTC)I have previously indicated the amgiguity caused by Jehovah's Witnesses by using the same term to refer to both the religion as a whole, and to groups of individual members.
I think it's better to say "Jehovah's Witnesses are an international Christian religion" instead of adding the "is the name of" to the sentence.
--CBrewster , 14 February 2007 (UTC) I see we have gone back to "Jehovah's Witnesses is" in the opening sentence of the lead.
Didn't we achieve some sort of compromise in the past? Dtbrown , 23 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I changed it out of habit as part of a broader edit.
And I believe if we searched hard enough we'd find that JW publications do the same.
Dtbrown , 1 January 2007 (UTC) A simple compromise might be to also refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as the "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" or more simply "Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." There are both terms that Witnesses use to identify with, and could be used in places where the writer insists on using "is." But for cases where the term is "Jehovah's Witnesses," the correct word is definitely "are." --CBrewster , 14 February 2007 (UTC) Definitely?
Hottscubbard , 27 January 2007 (UTC) I believe most people view those as traditional Christian doctrines.