Talk:The Watchtower/Archive 1

message: Is the fact that a publication is not for public distribution proof that there is a publication requirement placed on pioneers?  Let's get back on the subject folks!  
First, any organization on earth has the right to keep certain things in the private domain and certain things in the public domain.  Other than the book "Organizaed to Accomplish Our Ministry" which is limited to active Jehovah's Witnesses and "Pay Attention" which is limited to active elders, most all of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses are open to inspection by anyone.  In fact, a large majority of the inormation in BOTH of these publications have already appeared in articles in The Watchtower magazine over the years.
Second, since the "Our Ministry" book is readily available to all of Jehovah's Witnesses (active and inactive), wouldn't pioneers know whether they have a requirement placed upon them?  Again, what is the penalty for not meeting this supposed requirement?  As an elder and former pioneer, I can emphatically say that there is no such requirement and any arguement to the contrary is simply false and misleading and harms the integrity of this forum.
Let this be the end of the discussion, please!  Any mention of any requirements for placement of publications should remain out of this article as there is no substantiation for it in any authoritative venue.
--Woody3939 16:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not for Public Distribution 

message: I have been careful to address samrolken’s valid points smoothing out the style of prose:  1) the sale of the Watchtower and 2) the practice of dumping magazines.  If samrolken would like to clarify his points I would be happy to discuss this.  
At the same time I have added information on how the distribution of the magazine is organized.  (a process which differs from many magazines and so is valuable the this article)  
Samrolken’s point about magazine quotas is wierdly false so I have removed it.
The ideas about secret manuals seem off the planet to me.  Other wikipeople have commented that they are publicly available.  Anyways the subject doesn’t really belong in this article.  Perhaps the debate could be dicussed on a ‘Practices’ page.  
I’m concerned that samrolken’s tone is not NPOV.  Such conspiracy theories have led to hate literature in the past.  The resulting persecution has in turn had an impact on generations of witnesses.  I would like to question his background.  What is your motive, samrolken, for coming so close to sowing seeds of hate?  
cairoi 21:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My only intention in editing this article is to have it reflect factual information. I'm trying to add correct facts (and remove incorrect information). Where I've been shown to be incorrect in the past, I have accepted that... but people blindly removing content is not only rude, but against Wikipedia policy. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have had problems with content I have added, and have behaved very rude. I'm completely neutral here, and I've done a lot of good for this article. Simply discuss with me whatever you have an issue with, and do some research and bring some references to the conversation. If you want to help out here on Wikipedia, that's fine. However, you should all be careful not to cause reproach upon the name of your religion by behaving in an uncivil manner. Samrolken 00:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  samrolken 

message: cairoi edited the article to contain this text:
----
The Watchtower and Awake! were sold for for a small charge and then offered on a contribution basis in the United States until March 1, 1990, when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that religious literature being sold was subject to taxation. In the United States, distribution of Jehovah's Witnesses literature was at that time switched to a voluntary donation system.
----
The fact that the magazine was eventually offered on a voluntary contribution basis was made twice in that paragraph. The first time it was put in there was thanks to Zicar helping me straighten that section out. I don't see a need to make that point twice, and it is worded awkwardly all shoved into the first sentence. Samrolken 00:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed duplication in paragraph 

message: Cairoi edited the article to remove an explanation of jargon . I put "religious leadership" as a clarification as to the meaning of Governing Body, persuant to the Wikipedia policy that jargon be explained . I restored my original content that I feel was wrongly removed. Thanks. Samrolken 00:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored Jargon