Template talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

message: I have added the navigational template to each of the articles currently mentioned on the template itself (except those already added by Joshbuddy). There are three articles about people on the members section where I have not yet added the template - Charles Taze Russell, Edmond C. Gruss & Robert Countess. 
All of these people are not exclusively related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Do we still add the JW Template in such circumstances? Lucille S 06:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure on the procedure here. I think we should only add it to articles that are exclusively concerned with JW. joshbuddytalk 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Template

message: Please see the image file for its permissions. Other religion articles use their logo. It helps identify the religion. joshbuddytalk 14:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd like to see the Tetra up there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tetragrammaton.png.  Just a thought.  Duffer 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the image used in the template needs to be exclusive to JW's - just an overall representation. Take for example the template for Buddhism. They have used the Dharma Wheel. This wheel is representative of all Dharma based religions including both Hinduism and Jainism. As such there is no real reason not to include the Tetragrammaton in the template. I do think that we should choose one image or the other though. It would not be impractical to include both. Lucille S 00:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason why it must be exlusive to JWs, but its preferable that it is as specific to the subject at hand as possible. Buddhism is a far broader term than Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, it would be comparable to putting the cross up on the template because JW's are "christian". The logo is very clear about who its identifing. The tetragrammaton would be less so. Speaking of which, I'm going to borrow that image for the main page I think. :) joshbuddytalk 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with either, it was just a thought.  Though one thing that I strongly feel should be included in the template is a link to the Tetragrammaton article (on second thought, the Tetra and Jehovah wikis are some scary articles...).  What do you guys think?  Duffer 00:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, if articles get this temaplate, they should be in this template. Specific articles like Jehovah and Tetragrammaton would be more appropriate as See Also to their specific areas. The raison d'etre of this template is help people navigate the JW pages. Taking them somewhere where the template doesn't exist seems kinda.... weird. joshbuddytalk 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: What about the New World Translation? As far as I know there are no other religions that rely on this text. 
Also the Project page contains quite a list of articles on JW literature. Do you think we should add the Watchtower, the Awake! and either the List of Jehovah's Witnesses literature or the Jehovah's Witnesses literature articles. The JW religion is quite well known for its literature. It might be important to add a link to at least one of the last two and then people can go from there. What do you think? Lucille S 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NWT should probably be added. I don't want to open the floodgates of adding various articles about literature, but the NWT seems like a special case. joshbuddytalk 23:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section on literature under beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses are far too bibliophilic to ignore their printed works in the series template. I am not aware of issues surrounding this, but im willing to argue for it if need be. --PopeFauveXXIII 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Add or Not to Add

message: I re-added James Penton to the notable former JW section. My rationale for this is as follows:  The notability of a Former member of any religion is determined by how their status-as-former-members relates to the theory, practice or history of that religion. Therefore, michael jackson is both notable and a former JW, but not a notable-former-JW because he is much more notable for many reasons other than being a former JW, and none of them are directly related to BEING a former JW.
*Ray Franz was a member of the governing body who was expelled in shame and subsequently wrote a book about this and his experiences within the highest levels leading up to this event. Obviously, notable primarily for BEING a former JW.
*Olin R. Moyle, high ranking org member, had a falling out with then-president Rutherford which quickly transformed into a libel lawsuit. His notability might be debatable, but the notability he has is definitely JW related.
*James Penton, former JW and author of two scholarly works related to Jehovah's Witnesses, definitely falls into these two categories tightly, and i am more than willing to defend this assertion.
This DOES break down, essentially, to a critics section. JWs are a controversial religion with many critics. only three are really notable enough to even consider including, and i dont think thats disproportionate. NPOV is achieved though collaboration between POVs. when a subject IS actually openly controversial, neutrality can only be achieved by directly addressing the controversy itself. This is the fairest way of doing that.
also
i reorganized the 'beliefs' section, and changed the tetragrammaton link to a link to the 'jehovah' article which reads God's name, and prioritized it as the first link in that section. my rationale for this follows:
*neither the tetragrammaton article nor the jehovah article are directly tagged with the JW template, however, Jehovah is less scholarly and treats the derivation from the tetragrammaton as well as a history of the term's use, which i find infintely more relevant.
*the name Jehovah's Witnesses is a very uncharacteristic name for a religion, and as such draws the first attention to anyone who is introduced to it. Unaffiliated persons reading this series will be far more interested in the content of the J article than the T article, for the reasons mentioned in the first point.
I also think that because of the interest generated by the name Jehovah, somebody (not me, as i am mostly uninterested in the topic) really ought to shine a little more light on its use by Jehovah's witnesses in both the Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah articles.
I welcome any and all commentary/dialogue on these two edits.
—PopeFauveXXIII 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes 

message: You have edited the template to include a link to www.jwbrothers.org. Are you associated with this web site? If so, how? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if someone else re-adds this weblink to the JW infobox, it should be removed, as it is not an official Watchtower site.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jwbrother]] 

message: There seems little sense in including both the Watch Tower Society and Watchtower Society under "history" in the template, since both redirect to the same page. A casual reader would know of no appreciable difference between the two, be uncertain about which link to click on, and then discover, if they returned to click on the other, it takes them to the same page. Would it not be more practical to replace both with one link to Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses or, alternative, delete the subsidiary New York corporation? LTSally (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the confusing duplicate links with a single link in the more relevant section of organizational structure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchtower Society 

message: IMO there is not point in adding new WT presidents to this template. I think the title of the section "Watch Tower presidents" forces editors to keep up with new presidents even though new presidents are irrelevant today. Presidents don't have the power they used to have on doctrinal decisions. I suggest to remove W.H. Conley, D. A. Adams and Robert Ciranko and rename "Watch Tower presidents" to something like "Prominent Past Members" or  "Prominent Past Figures" . Again I am not here for a debate just a thought. --Roller958 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Ciranko. Navigation templates are for links to articles that exist; Ciranko is not of sufficient notability to warrant an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Ciranko). However, presidents of the Watch Tower Society are certainly relevant. Readers can visit the links in the navigation box to see to what extent the individuals contributed to the development of the movement, and it does not seem appropriate to arbitrarily remove names from the list where articles exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchtower presidents