Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses publications

message: 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 WP:GOODFAITH people.  Xmp (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Donations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You're welcome to disagree. The grammar is correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title is ungrammatical. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Aid to Bible Understanding 

message: Someone sought to recently remove reference to Aid on the basis that it is 'not used by Jehovah's Witnesses'. However, notability is not temporary, nor is the work's notability as indicated in the article dependent on whether JWs still use it. Additionally Aid to Bible Understanding was added to Watchtower Library in 2021.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent removal

message: The section about the DVD Become Jehovah's Friend—Listen, Obey and Be Blessed was added following the deletion of Sparlock, which does not have sufficient notability to warrant its own article. The result of that discussion was to redirect to this article with a brief indication of the internet meme that developed.
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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sparlockgate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Videos Not Publications? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 15:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehovah's Witnesses publications →  – I boldly moved this page to List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications but  objected after I did so. In order to be responsible with my extended rights, I have thus undone my undiscussed move. I think that this page clearly meets the defition of a list article and should therefore meet Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists) and start with "List of", like List of Watch Tower Society publications. It's possible I'm reaching too far here given this article has more prose. If so, I welcome the input of other editors. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 May 2024