So I am no expert for sure. 3 things though.
1. I don't know if using the "name" JWs use is really wrong. I have seen it spelled out in very old churches in europe for myself, so it was used in that past. Hard to say it's not been in use for a long time, maybe not as long as they claim?
2. No one has issue with using the name and pronunciation of Jesus which has similar grammar.
3. Your source. I don't trust other religious sources in general any more than the WT, and the article has not references you can check.
It is infuriating how the WT crapps on everyone else, especially in light of how they had done nothing original themselves. Everything they have written about and the majority of the core beliefs were Pirated from others.
For years I would argue when some article came out about history or science or such, that by the way I had heard about many months before on NPR (someone there has there radio tuned to WNYC), reminding people that the WT does not have a research department breaking new ground in Medicine, History, Science. The friends get the idea that the geniuses in brooklyn discover this stuff on their own, and don't just plagiarized things.
I think the bigger issue with the "name" in the new "slippery sword" is how many times they put it in where it was definitely NOT! So much for "he who adds or takes away."
Religion is just a destructive deceptive and corrupt force on man.