Talk:Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

message: Discussion of any Watch Tower move from Brooklyn should be handled accurately, with a view to the careful language typically chosen by Watch Tower and other Jehovah's Witnesses agencies.
* Note: the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania moved its address from New York to Pennsylvania years ago (see here.)
* Note: The Warwick complex proposal is named "World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses" (that is, not quite "...of Watch Tower Society").
* Note: By contrast, the nearby Ramapo complex proposal actually is named "Watchtower Administrative Complex".
* Note: Tour brochures for the complexes at Wallkill and Patterson have called each an "extension of the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses".
So even if something called quote-unquote "Headquarters" is moved from Brooklyn to upstate New York, that doesn't necessarily equate to closing of the Brooklyn complex (their current tour information labels it simply "Brooklyn Bethel"). Local newspapers may infer and imply that, but frankly, it seems that editors here should be more cautious about jumping the gun on such matters. Right now, it seems likely to me that Jehovah's Witnesses will eventually have five complexes in New York State:
* Brooklyn: Brooklyn Bethel
* Wallkill: Watchtower Farms and Printery
* Patterson: Watchtower Education Center
* Warwick: World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses
* Ramapo: Watchtower Administrative Complex
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Do you agree the Warwick development is worth noting in the article, and if so, would you like to write it so it's presented accurately? LTSally (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the Watch Tower announcement to note its description of the "World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses". The presentation to the Town of Warwick Planning Board said the world HQ was "right now located in Brooklyn", and the subsequent story The Witnesses Leave. Then What? describes it as a move, or transfer of operations. However I'll leave it as stated. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article makes no statement about the fate of the remaining Brooklyn buildings including the current headquarters.LTSally (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, Wikipedia is not news. On the other hand, news of the proposed move seems notable, verifiable, and interesting.Yesterday I edited the recent pertinent additions to the article, but my edits didn't last long.I'd prefer editors to correct their own contributions on the matter anyway.So. Clearly, JWs plan to "move" something called "World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses". Will they move it to Warwick regardless of whether or not their project there is ever constructed? JWs never said that, so certain recent edits have unwarranted language. Furthermore, there seems no basis upon which to conclude that 850 people will be moved, or that the end of WT's presence in Brooklyn is imminent. It's even more ludicrous if the paper suggests that all Witnesses (100,000? more?) are leaving Brooklyn. Look at the WT quotes, and note the JWs' measured words. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle isn't exactly the New York Times; editors here do well to remember that while forgiving the newspaper if its headlines primarily communicate "Pick this paper! Read these ads!".Incidentally, just four months ago, the same paper said WT's Brooklyn staff was 1500; even if 850 of them did move directly from Brooklyn to Warwick, it seems entirely reasonable to think 650 might stay in Brooklyn. That same article noted that JWs "started using the Bossert again”; reportedly, the use is for their School for Congregation Elders, which could continue indefinitely.So, to reiterate: even if a sensational newspaper headline claims 'Witnesses are leaving Brooklyn' or 'WT is pulling out of Brooklyn', that doesn't change the actual reported facts (which are far less sensational).--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Confusion on my part ... I saw your edit summary that said you'd undone my edit, so didn't notice that you had actually edited rather than reverted it. There was no big deal with your edit, but I rewrote what I'd initially written anyway. I don't know that "sensationalist" is the word to describe the article, but what's here is the basic facts drawn from the WTS presentation to the local council. They want to build something, they want to call it something, there'll be that many people there. That's about it. LTSally (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is years future and dependent on much, I edited article to clarify that the new complex and move are "proposed" and "planned". --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from Brooklyn? 

message: I have created a spinout article, Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917, which is pretty well the content of the lengthy sections repeated in this article, Bible Student movement and Joseph Franklin Rutherford. The events of 1917 are now just a summary pointing to that article. If everyone's happy with the summary I'll do a similar trim on the other two articles as well. If anyone can improve on the name of the new article, please feel free to discuss it on that article's talk page. BlackCab (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinout article 

message: :The purpose of Wikipedia is not to hunt down information to support existing theories. It presents information from reliable sources. You have your theories about the relationship between Conley and Russell, but I don't see that the information you've just dropped in here adds to any knowledge of the subject. It also doesn't seem to have any bearing on your push to have a separate article for the society under its former name. BlackCab (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackcab if you refuse to participate in adding content or you believe everything is already known then please do not hinder the efforts of others. You have me completely wrong when you make these accusations. I just want a reliable history of Allegheny City and its prominent families. This does not need to be so adversarial and you really have nothing to fear from the truth. The first president did not leave the spociety that gave birth to the Jehovahs Witness in case that is what you think I am getting at. We need to build the history beyond the single sentence you seem to impose on Wikipedia about ZWTS. BradSp (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Provide sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Distrust between Wikipedia members

message: There is a quite a bit of duplication in the Overview and Foundation sections of the article. I recommend that the Overview section be removed, with information distributed to the lead and the Foundation section as necessary. Additionally, I recommend that Foundation be renamed History.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead with this. No information has been deleted, only moved.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: No problem with having the History section first.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview and Foundation sections 

message: The list of current directors was added when this article was created, and no sources were ever cited. According to a quick search in Social Security Death Indices, Richard Abrahamson died in 2004, yet he was still listed as a director. Is there any reputable source for finding out what the present membership of the board of directors is?
Also, I made a slight edit to Alexander Macmillan. He is not mentioned in reports of the annual meetings after the 1936 yearbook; it appears that when his three-year term expired in '38, his seat on the board was replaced. 99.99.28.50 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 3 of the June 15, 2010 Watchtower explains, "In 1976, all activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses were brought under the supervision of the six committees of the Governing Body." And on chapter 15, page 234 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom book it reads. "In the early 1970’s, careful thought was given to further reorganization of the Governing Body. Ever since the incorporation of the Watch Tower Society in 1884, publishing of literature, supervision of the global evangelizing work, and arrangements for schools and conventions had been cared for under the direction of the office of the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. But after careful analysis and discussion of details over a period of many months, a new arrangement was unanimously adopted on December 4, 1975. Six committees of the Governing Body were formed." There has been no director or president since 1976. The Governing Body collectively manages the organization. Gorba (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't copy and paste the same chunk of text under two separate sections of the Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

text: The "Proclaimers' book refers to the society's board of directors; these directors in turn select the society's officers. You're wrong. BlackCab (TALK) 08:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directors 

message: The Watchtower of December 2013 lists "L. Weaver, Jr." as President, if I am reading it correctly. I have downloaded the pdf from jw.org.  I do not have much experience with editting Wikipedia, thus I will defer to other editors to follow this up. Randyg271 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 3 of the June 15, 2010 Watchtower explains, "In 1976, all activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses were brought under the supervision of the six committees of the Governing Body." And on chapter 15, page 234 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom book it reads. "In the early 1970’s, careful thought was given to further reorganization of the Governing Body. Ever since the incorporation of the Watch Tower Society in 1884, publishing of literature, supervision of the global evangelizing work, and arrangements for schools and conventions had been cared for under the direction of the office of the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. But after careful analysis and discussion of details over a period of many months, a new arrangement was unanimously adopted on December 4, 1975. Six committees of the Governing Body were formed." So to answer your question there has not been a president since 1976. Gorba (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Watch Tower Society does indeed still have a president, and his name is L. Weaver, Jr. The change Gorba refers to is that the Governing Body are no longer the directors of the corporation. Weaver is essentially a figure-head under the control of the Governing Body, but he is the corporation president nonetheless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current WT President? 

message: The line references this paragraph from page 229 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom book. "Hence, at the business meeting of all shareholder-voters of the Society on October 2, 1944, it was unanimously voted that the Society’s charter be revised and be brought into closer harmony with theocratic principles. Membership would not now be unlimited as to number but would be between 300 and 500, all of whom would be men chosen by the board of directors, not on the basis of monetary contributions, but because they were mature, active, faithful Witnesses of Jehovah who were serving full-time in the work of the organization or were active ministers of congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Voting within the organization is what Witnesses did in 1944, but that 70 years ago. Jehovah's Witnesses today no longer vote either within the organization (appointments) or outside the organization (elections). Wikipedia prides itself on being current with information in an unbiased manner. I asked that this line please be removed since the use of it is extremely out of date. Gorba (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Proclaimers" book definitely says the shareholder-voters voted on the proposal. That's how the decision was made. What are you suggesting is wrong? BlackCab (TALK) 08:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is simply presented as "The number of voting shareholders of the corporation is limited to between 300 and 500 "mature, active and faithful" male Jehovah's Witnesses." The word "is" is used instead of "was". "Is" implies present tense. Also the date October 2, 1944 is omitted. The grammar of the entire sentence makes it sound like this is what happens today not something that happened 70 years ago. Witness's today do not vote or hold elections within the organization. So the information is misleading. Gorba (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The body of the article notes that the charter was altered in 1944, which is what the Proclaimers book also refers to. There is nothing in the Proclaimers book to suggest there has been any subsequent change in that arrangement for shareholders of the society. Are you aware of any more recent changes? The Watchtower used to (and possibly may still) publish a notice calling members to attend the annual meeting and members were reminded to return their proxies if they could not attend. Proxies are used when voting takes place. When I attended JW meetings a show of hands was often taken for resolutions on distribution of funds and, on a couple of occasions, decisions about new kingdom halls. That's a form of voting and I presume the same holds true at the annual meeting of the society. BlackCab (TALK) 07:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  RE: "Are you aware of any more recent changes? The Watchtower used to (and possibly may still) publish a notice calling members to attend the annual meeting and members were reminded to return their proxies if they could not attend." I have been with Jehovah's Witnesses for 39 years. I have NEVER seen such a thing in any of the Watchtower issues. Again this is something that was done 70 years ago. It is no longer practiced today. This date, a critical piece of information about this "voting activity", is - as you say - is buried in the article and omitted from the sentence I am referring to. In order for the information to be timely and unbiased the date needs to be presented in the same sentence or the sentence itself needs to be removed because it is out of date. Raising a hand in support of a resolution isn't voting and here's why. Each congregation has a bank account that is used to care for needs like paying the water, sewer, electricity, and other things. Each congregation determines its financial decisions. The decision never falls to one person or a small group of people. Every member of the congregation matters. So before any large sum of money is committed to anything whether they be improvements to the Kingdom Hall property, providing financial support for travelling circuit overseers, or sending large donations for the world wide work all of this is presented to the members of the congregation. Members of the congregation then raise their hand simply to acknowledge support for the resolution. This is not the same as voting. Anyhow back to the the original comment. I am formerly asking the either the date "October 2, 1944" be added to the sentence to add context or the sentence be removed because the practice is obsolete. Gorba (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Raising hands to show support for a motion is a vote. I know JWs don't vote in political elections because they are deemed "worldly", but they can and do vote in such things as union elections, union votes and school parents' associations. There would thus be nothing odd about shareholders or members of the WTS voting at an annual general meeting of the society. Re your "I have NEVER seen such a thing" comment: I found a reference to proxies in a 2001 Watchtower on the online Watchtower Library (WT July 15 2001, page 28). So until at least 13 years ago, votes were very clearly taken at those meetings. That being the case, the situation probably exists today, so the article is still correct. But if you have anything to contradict that (other than "I have never seen such a thing") please let me know. BlackCab (TALK) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I will find out more information and get back to you. Gorba (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting shareholders 

message: Is not this the logo of this organization? 190.62.184.177 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a logo of the corporation. No context has been supplied to indicate whether it is current.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: I would like to see the source for the claims about alleged subsidiaries of this corporation.
IBSA UK database don't mention about a parent corporation.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC US database don't mention about a parent corporation --Roller958 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already been provided a Watch Tower source that explicitly identifies the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which supervises the worldwide activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses" (Our Kingdom Ministry, December 1984, page 4).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't prove its a legal subsidiary. I recommend to remove that word. There is no legal binding. The world wide activity is supervised by Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (including administrative activities). Governing body may be using the letter head of this corporation, other than that there is no legal binding. That's what the KM meant. Show me the proof otherwise. The charter of IBSA found in link above states clearly that its independent and no other corporation is supervising it. Period. --Roller958 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective of any formal 'legal binding', the source I already provided explicitly indicates that the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania ... supervises the worldwide activity". No claim has been made that that applies to the setting of doctrine. If you don't like the word subsidiary because of legalistic implications of the term, it could be replaced with subservient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Citing company searches that don't show parent corporations for any company is not compelling evidence of anything.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I highly question if parent religious corporation does mean they are legally binding. Its simply suggesting that other corporations were created in a similar line, with the similar name with the original corporation in Pennsylvania. They are managed independently and run independently. For example corporation charter of IBSA, of Watch Tower Society UK, of Watch Tower Society of Australia all clearly shows they are managed by Jehovah's Witnesses in respective countries. Amendments where done according to history. If you look at the details New York Corporation is registered as "Domestic" (which is the home). If its a foreign corporation of Pennsylvania, it should show foreign. Compare that with New York WTS extension in Florida. --Roller958 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter that you 'question' the explicit statement. It is a direct statement, and there is no indication anywhere to the contrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiaries

message: I am intrigued by this edit by , who takes exception to the opening statement of the article and states that the WTS "does not develop doctrines for the religion". Trawling back through the article's history, I confess that it was me who added that statement some years ago, but I am now having second thoughts about it. Although Fusioninc's complete edit is unnecessarily florid, I wonder if he has a point. Does the society actually develop doctrines? In broad terms it certainly did so in the past, when there was no clear delineation between "the society" and the Watch Tower leaders such as Rutherford and Knorr. Those men were the president of the Watch Tower Society and also fulfilled the role of head of the church, creating and altering doctrine at their whim. Now? The Governing Body are not strictly speaking the society, though the common reference to the upper echelon as  "Watchtower" blurs that distinction. It may be better to state that the society administers the religion and develops policies. BlackCab (TALK) 12:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessarily incorrect myself. If you look at the 2003 Charter, it says, in the Statement of Purpose at the end, that "As stated in it's charter, Watch Tower's corporate purposes are: ......... [to] do any and all other lawful things that its Board of Directors, in accordance with the spiritual direction of the ecclesiastical Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, shall deem appropriate in harmony with these purposes". (available as a PDF here, pg 65 of the 67 pages). If the society, including its Board of Directors, is under the control of the GB, which is what it states above, then in a real sense the GB is the society, and therefore makes the changes. My opinion only of course. Vyselink (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I did have similar thoughts. It would probably be more accurate to say the Society disseminates doctrines rather than develops them. That said, when Geoffrey Jackson testified at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, he was very quick to assert that even publications such as Shepherd the Flock of God are written by Society staff and then the publications are put before the Governing Body for approval. However, that (and the formal separation of the 'Governing Body' from 'the Society' itself) seems to be more about avoiding accountability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of doctrines 

message: I have updated the article to reflect the fact that no specific year is available for the start of Ciranko's tenure as WTS preisdent. The only available source says Ciranko was already incumbent in April 2016.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current president 

message: I'm trying to decide whether or not it would be of note to add a line or a section to the 'criticism' section mentioning Watchtower's Bible and Tract Society's subpoena to Reddit to obtain user Darkspilver's  identity after he posted a copy of an ad from their magazine and an internal spreadsheet on a former/anti-JW subreddit. I think that the event is somewhat notable, but I'm having trouble finding mainstream sources and wanted to get a consensus/second opinion. These are the two articles I've found that could be used as a source, but I'm uncertain as to their reliability per WP:RS.
*Source one: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637264/redditor-anonymous-court-case-watch-tower-copyright
*Source two: https://gizmodo.com/court-rules-redditor-can-stay-anonymous-in-significant-1834975558
Thanks guys. Praefect94 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems non-notable to me. Also, neither of those sources actually give the case name or which court it was, so that information would be needed at the least. In my opinion, it is both not-notable and also, as of now, not properly sourced. If you can find better sources and make a good case for notability please do so. Vyselink (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My biggest problem was finding any sources that weren't the EFF, who are a party to the case. There is the YouTuber/lawyer Leonard French who has done videos on the lawsuit, but I don't think that would be enough to meet RS requirements, or to prove notability. Thanks for your input, though! Praefect94 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I also searched a few large papers but found no mention.  —PaleoNeonate – 09:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye out for it becoming more prevalent, but I'll hold off on adding the section. Thanks guys. Praefect94 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchtower's Reddit Subpoena Regarding User Post 

message: I was able to find the list of directors on the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, , it lists Robert Ciranko, Danny Bland, Enrique Ford, David Schafer, Richard Devine, Robert Luccioni and Mark Noumair. Khronicle I (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Directors 

message: As this is in danger of 3RR, thought I'd quickly start the conversation.  argues that "Society" should be lowercase, via his interpretation of  MOS:INSTITUTIONS and WP:SSF (I'll allow him to more fully flesh out his argument). I counter that MOS:CAPS, as stated in the lead, applies here: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." and also with MOS:INSTITUTIONS under Full Names, "Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources". Vyselink (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikiquotes, the term "the society" appears twice, both times in lower case. I did not easily find anything in upper case from independent sources. And by "independent sources", we obviously do not mean jw.org. Chris the speller yack 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The expression "the Society" tends to be JW jargon, and the term should not be capitalised in Wikipedia articles when referring to "the society" as a generic term. I have updated the article to generally use the full name "Watch Tower Society" where the use-mention distinction is involved, as well as for the first instance per paragraph (except where this is superseded by the previous condition) and in quotations. Consideration should also be given to whether there may be ambiguity regarding some other society or society generally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 9 books about Jehovah's Witnesses that I can take a look at to see if Vyselink's assertion is supported or not supported by those sources in particular. It's definitely part of JW jargon, I'm not sure if it's used elsewhere. If it is, I'd second the MOS:CAPS. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Society" is not "a shorter but still specific form". As previously stated, the JW jargon form shouldn't be used generally. Use the full form initially, and then refer to the society generally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Society v society