Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses publications

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Christianity: Texts / Witnesses High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 June 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 June 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

1, 2

The reference to "Our Kingdom Ministry" Jan 2006 is an interesting one and I've amended the language to hopefully settle the conflict amicably. In the "Watchtower Library" compilation which is based on the North American publications the box referred to is titled "Ways to mention the donation arrangement". However I dug up the paper copy of the United Kingdom version (km-E Bi 1/06) and the same box is entitled "Ways to mention the donation arrangement if Householder Enquires How Our Work is Financed". Essentially as with many multi-national organisations different instructions are given depending on the laws of the country the instructions are intended for. Both sides are correct, remember

Thanks for the clarification. I've reworded it to have the broader context first with the more specific information afterwards.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in the archived section, which isn't meant to be altered - so I'm raising it again here. Summer Song wrote, in December, 2006:

Grammar

What is actually most correct? "Jehovah's Witnesses literature" or "Jehovah's Witness literature"? Summer Song 05:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I might reply, since this kind of thing bugs me rather, and I saw it (and commented) in another Jehovah's-Witnesses-related article which involved the possessive case of "Witnesses".

The answer is that neither is correct; it should be "Jehovah's Witnesses' literature". Perhaps the possessive case of "Jehovah", which is *within* the name of the organization, throws people off when "Witnesses" requires an apostrophe too, because this is the second article I've seen whose title is missing a required apostrophe. The reasons for both apostrophes are quite independent, so neither affects the other, and both should be present.

I am tempted to change it, but am afraid I might trigger an edit war over it - some people today don't seem to like apostrophes, especially in titles or names. If the adjacent apostrophes were really unacceptable (which they are not at all), then it would be better to rename it to "Literature of Jehovah's Witnesses". I prefer the double-apostrophe title, which is slightly clearer and more concise; but the other version would be better than a wrongly-punctuated title. M.J.E. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. As you were told at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_practices#Article_name, 'Jehovah's Witnesses' is a proper noun (singular) as the name of an organisation, and here functions as an adjectival modifier. It is not used here as a possessive, and does not require the extra apostrophe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this - see the other article for my reasoning, where I've responded to this.

It is no more correct here than it was there. In fact, it is precisely analogous in all respects. M.J.E. (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to disagree. The grammar is correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference here to Ray Franz is not particularly notable, especially when considering that the publication is out of print now for years and is no longer relied upon, being replaced by Insight on the Scriptures. I suggest reference to Franz be deleted, but for the reference to "Research for the Aid Book led to new interpretations of some concepts, providing a catalyst for changes in doctrine." I would suggest the subheading in general be deleted. Willietell (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced information in that section was retained from an earlier non-notable article about an out-of-print publication that was never available to the public. Because no context is provided to indicate significance of Franz' input, I don't particularly care if that statement is removed. The other two sentences indicating their first biblical encyclopedia and a catalyst for changing doctrines seem notable though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if there are no objections stated to the removal of the Franz reference in short order I will then make the adjustment. Willietell (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal

Someone sought to recently remove reference to Aid on the basis that it is 'not used by Jehovah's Witnesses'. However,

If it is considered that the internet meme is of insufficient notability to mention at all, which may be the case pending further discussion, the section about the DVD should be deleted altogether, as it has no other indication of notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up this section to bring it up to Wikipedia's standard. The information about the "Internet Meme" and "magic toys are Satanic" have been deleted since both are superfluous and tell you nothing about the series itself. The revision should present information about the series in a secular manner. P.S. I really need to remember to log in first before editing. I'll try an revert my edits and redo them with my name. Gorba (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standard is to present information found in reliable sources. The only secondary sources that say anything about this JW DVD are in relation to the Internet meme. As you have removed the only element that has any notability, I have deleted the section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to correct references describing the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses but the corrections are repeatedly reverted to the previous inaccurate points of view of an individual who doesn't have any understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. We are using and referring to our literature day in and day out, we know what we are talking about when we make corrections to the inaccuracies that litter this article.

Those reverting the corrections are doing Wikipedia a great disservice, as now I and many more know that the authority of which the information Wikipedia is comprised is not founded on accurate resources, but on the opinions of some who expect the users of these resources to learn something, but they themselves are unwilling to learn from those willing to teach them. How can Wikipedia be encyclopaedic while endorsing incorrect opinions?

If someone is going to form an opinion on the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, they should read them first shouldn't they? They would see our candor and our tried and tested stand for Truth. If someone wanted a warts and all look at Jehovah's people they would find no more an honest consideration than in our publications. We simply want everyone to know the Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraMar89 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC) GraMar89 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not neutral, as they 1) attempt to distort the reason for the name change of the group, 2) provide an unnecessary degree of promotional detail about available media, 3) misrepresent their interpretations as 'Bible teachings', 4) misrepresent their instructions to mention the 'donation arrangement', 5) promote a specific edition of a periodical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro77, are you an employee of Wikipedia, what is your role here, please? Please explain, when does factuality have anything to do with someones opinion of what is neutral? (1) Jehovah allowing us to adopt his name had nothing to do with any kind of leadership issues. Please explain, where do you get this information? (2) Updating this article that discusses the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses with the advancement of current digital publications and methods unnecessary? Please tell me, how far behind the times should a Wikipedia article be? If these updates are not allowed then this article is about ten years behind the current progress and development of Jehovah's Witnesses' publications. (3) The Bible has an integrally established and reliable system for determining teachings. It has nothing to do with a personal interpretation. (Proverbs 3:5-7) The established principles of mathematics means that the mathematical argument 1+1=2 cannot be left to interpretation. The formula for getting to know and serve God and his purpose is very clearly set out in the Bible. I would be very happy to consider a Bible teaching you see as open to interpretation, please. (4) The donation arrangement is only discussed if the householder enquires, and it remains optional even after having explained it. The householder is also told where their small donation will go. Jehovah's Witnesses are very open and honest about all such things, you would see this if you read the Kingdom Ministry article, as well as others, that discuss this arrangement. Listen to how much the literature costs for a Bible Study in this video: http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/free-bible-study/video-bible-study/ (5) This article is designed to explain the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses, by way of implication and inference, which books, magazines, tracts, and videos isn't it promoting directly or indirectly, please? GraMar89 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who starts off with a claim about "Jehovah allowing us to adopt his name" probably shouldn't claim that anyone else has a questionable source of information. The article still states that video streaming and other modern methods of communication are used without unnecessarily promoting the site. Your claims about 'only one way to interpret the Bible' are immediately disproved by the number of Christian denominations, each with their own interpretations. (I could very easily go into more detail about doctrines being subject to interpretation both generally and in regard to specific JW beliefs, however,

Wikipedia is not a forum.) The statement about donations given in the article is sourced. And the benchmark for the article's coverage of specific publications is that they have been discussed in reliable third party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia is at its best with a truthful, factual, informational approach. This is the first time I've experienced this sort of discussion with Wikipedia. But, then again, it is the first time I've tried to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraMar89 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) GraMar89 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing here his frustration at having his edits reverted,

edit warring

and a behavior that could result in that individual being blocked from making further edits. Here are the problems I see with his edit:

• The simple, factual statement "Supporters adopted the name Jehovah's witnesses in 1931" has been changed to "Following an in-depth study of the meaning of God's name in the Bible, Jehovah, the significance it held in scriptures, and how God put his name to the outworking of his purpose throughout the Bible, the Bible Students adopted the name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931." This presents as fact an opinionated view based on a (poorly cited) primary source, a Watch Tower Society book. Apart from that JW publication, there is no evidence that there was an in-depth study of any of these matters: the decision emanated from the WTS president of the day and was supported by informal votes at a series of conventions. The statement goes far beyond the sort of facts an encyclopedia can include. The claim of what prompted the name change would need a reliable secondary source. All secondary sources I have read give an entirely different view on the reasons for the 1931 name change. In any case, the reason for the name change is irrelevant in this article.
• The description of What Does the Bible Teach is changed from a book "that outlines their primary beliefs and interpretations of the Bible" to a book "that outlines their primary Bible-based beliefs". The original wording is clear, accurate and editorially neutral. It is only a matter of opinion that their beliefs are "Bible-based". Trinitarians and other Christian denominations would disagree with this strenuously. JW doctrine is full of examples of distinctive, sometimes quite unique, biblical interpretations, some of which have been altered over the years, emphasising the importance of interpretation. The original wording is safer and avoids attempting to claim that the JW view is correct and indisputable. Like all religions, it is a belief only.
• The statement that JWs "are instructed to invite donations in countries where soliciting funds is permitted" is changed to "... and if a householder asks about donating the Witness will explain the donation arrangement and how (should they choose to) the householder's chosen amount would be used." This is unnecessary detail and also states as fact that JWs will carry out a certain course of action, which is purely conjectural. The original wording is vastly better.
• A book on creation, stated as being supplemented by two other publications, is now said also to be supplemented by "feature articles on current science realisations in the monthly distribution of the Awake! magazine. (see the back page of most articles in the Awake! magazine.)" Although Awake! may have some articles on scientific subjects, this magazine hardly needs to be described as supplementing a 250-page textbook on the basis that it may contain science articles that may or may not touch on creation and evolution. The word "realisations" is wrong and meaningless and the invitation to see the back of the magazine is unencyclopedic and promotional in tone. There is no justification to change the original wording.
• I have no objection to the sentence "Many of these publications are also available from their website in the Watchtower Online Library".

Hopefully the edit-warring editor can engage here and a consensus can be reached. BlackCab (TALK) 23:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GraMar89 also claims to be correcting "inaccuracies", but it's not clear what these are. His edits are mostly an addition of unnecessary, poorly-cited and opinionated claims. BlackCab (TALK) 02:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GraMar89, the fact that JWs might care about people or have a sense of hope is neither unique nor relevant. Article Talk pages are not a place for preaching about how good you think any particular group is. I am not 'carrying any torches' and I have not been 'misled' by any 'propaganda'. It is not 'propaganda' to indicate that JW interpretations are no more 'special' than the interpretations of any other denomination, nor is it 'bigoted' to remove unnecessarily promotional material. Further, you may wish to review Wikipedia's policies regarding

primary and secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This ad hominem and straw man approach does this discussion and encyclopaedia no favours at all. Basically, a compilation of information formed in this way isn't based on what is right or wrong, but what is popular to the limitations of the majority, driven with a confirmation bias. Find out the Truth for yourself, have a Bible Study with us, please. May Jehovah show you the answers to your ongoing quest. (jw.org) Have a great week. GraMar89 (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll drop discussion on the issues I raised? Up to you. Jehovah has so far left Wikipedia pretty well to its own devices. BlackCab (TALK) 11:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We are using and referring to our literature day in and day out, we know what we are talking about when we make corrections to the inaccuracies that litter this article." Never, ever use the word "we" on Wikipedia. Information you post is suppose to be provided by individuals, not organizations. YOU are more than welcome to post information but you are not allowed to regurgitate organization dogma. Wikipedia is suppose to be an unbiased as possible. Gorba (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the section about Literature for members and the sub-section about the 'Evolution or Creation' book, this article is based entirely on primary sources. Even the claim about a book being mentioned in the Guiness Book of Records only cites a Watch Tower Society publication as a source rather than any citation of Guiness. If secondary sources cannot be provided for various details, information based only on primary sources will soon be removed, as it is probably perceived as promotional in nature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC);[reply]

The whole article is promotional in nature. BlackCab (TALK) 11:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial sections of the article are still in need of suitable secondary sources. As there as been quite substantial warning here—over a year—the level of detail about the JW 'study program' will be greatly reduced in the very near future if not suitably backed by secondary sources.

In a final attempt to give this article any suitable purpose, I have re-ordered the sections about specific publications to try to provide some context for which publications are listed. If there is information from reliable secondary sources about other notable publications, these could be added to the section. (This may include the Become Jehovah's Friend cartoon series, which has received commentary about it's 'Noah's Ark'[1] and 'anti same-sex marriage'[2] cartoons in what appear to be suitable sources; however, there do not seem to be suitable sources about 'Sparlock'.)

I have also restored a statement about Raymond Franz' involvement with Aid to Bible Understanding that was removed from the article in 2012,[3] as the statement forms the only basis for inclusion in the article.

The section about individual publications should not include statements sourced to Watch Tower Society publications saying that other sources have said positive things about them, or sources that only make passing comments about the existence of a publication. However, if reliable third-party sources contain discussion (whether positive, negative or neutral) about a publication, such could be included.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section that contained a video series called Become Jehovah's Friend. My understanding is videos are publications as well, especially if they're published on a regular or semi-regular basis. Can someone confirm so I know how to proceed? Also can someone clarify what's the purpose of this Article? It's seems like it should be expanded but at the same time there appears to be too much conflict between those who wish to contribute and those who feel information posted is too biased. Gorba (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videos could be considered 'publications' in the context suggested. But any such videos would need to be addressed in reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. The broader problem with this article, as I indicated in the section above, is that it is based mainly on primary sources, which do not establish notability. The article should not be used for

promoting JW literature.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]