Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 36

Adherents
Popefauvexxiii: From the introductory language you have edited out the number considered "adherents" by Jehovah's Witnesses. You have asserted this information is misleading, depite its verification by reference material. Can you explain why you think verified information of the number considered as adherents by Jehovah's Witnesses is in some way misleading? If you have no valid explanation for your claim then readers and researchers have every right to have this information and it should be put back into the article. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Popefauvexxiii: I figured out what happened. On November 16, 2007 editor S7155 changed the statement from what we agreed upon. I had nothing to do with it. In the future, should you take it upon yourself to attribute something to me please make sure I am responsible first. -- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

use of the word affirm in the opening statement
the use of this word is not POV, it is synonymous with believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderpet (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Affirm means to verify as true, which is not the same as merely 'believe', and is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/believe Wonderpet (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderpet, please pay attention to how a word is most likely to be interpreted by readers, not merely how it can be. http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/affirm --Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes to "Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses"
I made some changes to "nationalism and holidays" because I have always thought references to our beliefs on sneezing or religious titles didn't fit that section. I put these references in other sections ("Christianity" and "death"). I really feel they might need another section to fit their purpose, but this is where I felt they fit best. Correction is welcome. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Spacing
Odd spacing problems under "Beliefs and Practices". I couldn't fix it...Smarkflea (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blood section
Some of the section on blood reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopaedia. Is it just me?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really see what's wrong with it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Lately this section has become less about beliefs and practices and more of an infomercial for "bloodless" healthcare providers and facilities. One irony of this is that "bloodless" is a marketing phrase with little resemblance to the product of these healthcare facilities and professionals. The term and the product is designed to cater to the perception of a patient population, in order to make money. Procedures and facilities that leverage the term use from and apply product from the donor blood supply all day, every day, including to Jehovah's Witness patients. The whole notion is a farce. Thankfully the higher ups in these organizations do not pretend that the donated blood supply is not tapped mightily by their facilities and healthcare providers. But it sure makes the patient's go home with a smile, even after having loaded up on everything and anything "blood," that has been sufficiently fractionated by artificial means first, of course.
 * Yes, 'infomercial' seems to be a good way to describe the current section. I might give it a trim later on.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

“Bloodless” products are safer to the extent that no blood is extracted and then reapplied or transfused in some way (particularly allogeneic blood) and this does not lead to morbidity or mortality. Otherwise, the standard of care is: first do no harm. Hence the real benefit of “bloodless” therapy is when these invent ways of eliminating or reducing the use of blood. This increases protection to patients and providers alike. But as things stand, “bloodless” centers use blood all the time. They are also selective about who and what they take as a patient. This is because they know bloody well that some patients need blood products forbidden by the Watchtower organization, and to refrain from giving those products to certain of these patients would lead to financial and professional ruin. Make no mistake. On one hand the term is designed to make money. On the other hand the term is about a plausible way to feel good about using from a donor blood supply one is unwilling to donate to themselves. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the beliefs and practices of the religion, except in respect to how the religion has led Jehovah’s Witnesses to behave.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

External Sites
Some of the external web sites should probably be referenced in the articles that they specifically relate to. It would be best if sites referenced by the main article are those that deal with JWs in a broad sense rather than about specific issues. In particular, I suggest that the "Reform on Blood" site be referenced in the JW and Blood article, and the "Pastor-Russell.com" site be referenced in the JW History article, not in the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've indicated before, I agree with the above perspective. --Richard (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sites
Recently editors have been culling through and removing links from the articles “Other sites” section. The one for AJWRB.org was removed despite it representing a population of Jehovah’s Witnesses, one that happens to disagree with the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine. To remove this web link is to disenfranchise individuals who are active Jehovah’s Witnesses who have done no more than express disagreement along with material showing why they disagree. If we accept that the majority view held among Jehovah’s Witnesses is one in lock-step with Watchtower’s blood doctrine, and for this reason remove the web link, then the removal is one of express POV editing. Lesser views of the same population deserve treatment and exposure in an article that discusses their population, so long as the treatment and exposure is not overdone. How can a single/basic web link be giving undue weight of treatment/exposure?--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See the section above for why the web site you refer to doesn't belong on this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffro77: According to what you write, a web site is a candidate for the “Other sites” section in this article so long as it “deals with JWs in a broad sense”. Wonderpet has been deleting web links that address Jehovah’s Witnesses in a broad sense but happen to present embarrassing and/or counter views. What criteria do you suggest editors apply to decide what sites to include and which to exclude? It seems a bit biased to simply delete articles addressing the religion in a broad sense simply because they offer a counter view.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no control over what Wonderpet does, and I do not agree with the removal of sites that are accurate but merely 'embarrassing'.
 * If a particular site is about JWs in a general sense, or covers many topics, it would be appropriate to reference it from the main article. Sites that focus on only one (or just a few) specific issues should be referenced as external links in the articles that relate directly to them, otherwise the section runs the risk of becoming a link repository.
 * Regarding the 'Reform on Blood' website, which I think should be referenced from the JW Blood article, I would recommend leaving off the words "Official site of", as such wording may (or rather, apparently has) mislead readers into believing the site (to claim) to be a Watchtower-endorsed site.
 * Wikipedia should not be seen to endorse sites that are specificially defamatory. (This may not always be clear-cut. Sites that specifically employ and encourage hate speech should not be referenced. This would not apply to sites that are merely 'critical', nor would it necessarily apply to sites (such as forums and discussion boards) that may have input from individuals that may sometimes be defamatory, so long as this is not encouraged or endorsed by the administrators of the site.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeffro. We should avoid sites that encourage hate speech, but that doesn't rule out a site that may be critical. If it's noteworthy it should be included. Dtbrown (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is so, then the links to Pastor-Russell.com should never have been removed. You can't get more "noteworthy" than that. It is the alternative view represented by Bible Students, the other "half" of the schism resulting from the issues that began to manifest themselves in 1918.  It has been added by other people and removed each time.  That is either censorship, an attempt to hide the truth, or to make it appear that someone or two individuals control this article and are dictating what should and should not appear, which is not unlike the attitudes expressed by JWs themselves.  There is no hierarchy that should exist to state whether or not a completely historically relevant website link be removed from the external links section when adding it is entirely in line and consistent with Wiki rules. The removals inexcusable. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See section above regarding "website links" and "External Sites" on the main article. Also, consider the inappropriateness of self-promotion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the pastor russell web site and found it to be of no value in an article about Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps it should remain on the bible students page, and perhaps on an article dealing with the bible students dislike for Judge Rutherford. but it does not belong here. Wonderpet (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Web site www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk
From an academic perspective the concern I have with this web site is that it appears to mirror a site that formerly had been removed under judicial review due to copyright violation. I believe the issue went beyond copyright infringement of text. As I recall some of the images were (are?) also copyright protected. Does anyone here know if the copyrighted material remains on the current web page? If the current web site contains all the material of the original site, then it would be inappropriate to have a link to it in the article. We should not patronize poor actors.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Books section
An anonymous editor is insisting on the removal of Crisis of Conscience. Aside from the book (which I have not read), presenting a critical view of JWs, is there any valid reason for its exclusion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read Crisis of Conscience. It provides a very interesting view of the inner workings of Bethel as well as being written by someone who was prominent in the organization. It is critical of some aspects of Jehovah's Witness religion but I personally think it is an interesting book and worthy of mention. - Stephoswalk (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffro77: Crisis of Conscience is a firsthand account of goings on within the highest level of the Watchtower organization. It is a well documented book. Watchtower apologists dislike the book because it contains information embarassing to the Watchtower.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Education
The following sentence in the article seems to have a few issues: "College and university education is discouraged if a student cannot balance his or her responsibilities, and if it is perceived as a threat to one's spiritual cleanness (due to an immoral atmosphere at some institutions, and a general promotion of materialism and other undermining influences on Scriptural faith)" 1) JWs are generally 'not encouraged' rather than specifically 'discouraged' from university (in print, though discouragement from further education varies regionally). (Though previous JW publications explicitly discouraged tertiary education - particularly leading up to 1975, the view has shifted since.) 2) They don't encourage it because students may not be able to balance responsibilities, not merelyif (which would suggest a case-by-case basis). 3) 'Spiritual cleanness' verges on jargon. 4) 'immoral atmosphere at some institutions, and a general promotion of materialism' are both POV. 5) 'undermining influences on Scriptural faith' is POV, and oversimplifies JW interpretations of scripture to 'Scriptural faith'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've probably considered this, but some of the Society's comments about these things are here. w05 10/1 pp. 28-30 pars. 11-12 Parents—What Future Do You Want for Your Children?

"11 Then there is the environment. University and college campuses are notorious for bad behavior —drug and alcohol abuse, immorality, cheating, hazing, and the list goes on. Consider alcohol abuse. ... When it comes to sexual immorality, ... Studies show that from 60 to 80 percent of students engage in this kind of activity. “If you’re a normal college student,” says one researcher, “you do it.”—1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:9, 10. 12 In addition to the bad environment, there is the pressure of schoolwork and examinations. Naturally, students need to study and do their homework to pass the exams. Some may also need to hold at least a part-time job while going to school. All of this takes a great deal of their time and energy. What, then, will be left for spiritual activities? When pressures mount, what will be let go? Will Kingdom interests still come first, or will they be put aside? (Matthew 6:33) ... How sad that some have fallen away from the faith as a result of succumbing to the demands on their time and energy or of getting entangled in unscriptural conduct at college!" Can some of this language be used?--Brotherlawrence (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (I replaced your reference with a blockquote, because the Talk page has no references section.) Your reference expresses JW POV, particularly on sexual morality, and so is not appropriate unless identified as a direct quote. If it were included, it would only be necessary to quote small parts rather than entire paragraphs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment
Some information on how Jehovah's Witnesses recruit members is required. I have added a brief section pointing out that they often ring doorbells, often on Sundays, so much so that jokes are made about it. This is true, although surely much more can be said; this section needs expanding and correcting, not deleting. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see how their recruitment practises are important, but the fact that people joke about it is nn. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they proselytise so strenuously this way that they, like no other group, are the subject of jokes for it is notable, and says something about their tenacity. Let's see how this section develops. Pol098 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that info is already stated at Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses. Plus they don't recruit people, they preach.  Also that link you added is not appropriate.  you can't just link to joke pages. -- Antonio Lopez  (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Antonio is right. It's already mentioned in the article, and the existing section wikilinks to expanded discussion of it. The recent addition should be deleted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the section, for the reasons given above. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no mention anywhere in the article on how people become members of Jehovah's Witnesses - they are just there. "... they don't recruit people, they preach": but where do they come from? Are there long-standing families of JWs, with the younger ones continuing? Do people opt to become JWs? How? If the detail is incorrect, then correct it. But a section explianing how JWs come into being is required. Pol098 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think how JWs come into being is required. It doesn't really add that much to the article. Naturally, there are two ways people can become JWs: they're born into it, or are converted. That's nothing special; its true of every religion. I don't think the section, as it is, is worth having in the article. It really doesn't add much. I would suggest putting something based on this sentence in the "Beliefs and practises" section: In particular a schedule of door-to-door canvassing is required where Witnesses distribute Watchtower literature and acquire donations. But the first sentence is tautological; so there is no use for it. And the subsequent sentences (to the one I think should be moved) are already covered in the "Opposition to JWs" section.
 * If you want to add a really meaningful, worthwhile section on how they recruit, I would look into Rodney Stark. I suspect he's written on it, since he studies NRMs so much. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- Antonio Lopez (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He keeps adding it. the article's talk is getting to big.  who archives this talk. -- Antonio Lopez  (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Archive complete! -- Antonio Lopez (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've implemented my suggestion, in the absence of objection. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deo Volente
Hi, how about Our Kingdom Ministry? Someone can create about this? Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses" article too long.
In the interest of shortening that article, one thing I noticed is that the 4th par. in the intro is repeated somewhat in the 'Beliefs and Practices' section below. Might one instance be eliminated? I refer to the personal name; the statements about Jesus; the 144,000; Armageddon; and post Armageddon. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doing what you propose will not appreciably shorten the article. More radical modifications will be needed to accomplish that.  However, I agree that the paragraph in question is not necessary in the intro.  I would propose moving the "Beliefs and Practices" section higher up in the article so that it immediately follows the lead.  That would eliminate the need for the paragraph in question to be in the lead.  Besides, I believe that just about everything in this article should precede the "History" section as people are more likely to be interested in JWs as the religion exists today than in its history.  It may be worth noting that, in other articles on major religions, "History" is never the first section in the article.  See Christianity, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam.
 * --Richard (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the "Beliefs and Practices" section higher and merged in what had been the last paragraph in the intro. I have also added subsection headings to make it more clear what is being discussed in each paragraph.  I have not had a chance to compare the "Beliefs and Practices" section with the main article.  I suspect that much of the detail in the "Beliefs and Practices" section could be moved into the main article if it is not already there.
 * --Richard (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the section on disfellowshipping, My feeling is that after a cursory statement, most of what is said could defer to the "Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline" article --Brotherlawrence (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the section on the website, could a statement in the intro simply point to the site. That could eliminate that whole section.--Brotherlawrence (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex abuse and blood

 * Separating this out from "article too long" as this is really more a discussion about content than about length of the article.
 * --Richard (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about eliminating the bulk of the reference to sex abuse in the 'congregational discipline' section and simply state something like - "The current procedure that is followed with allegations of abuse can be seen in the section: (Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse)" –(internal link)--Brotherlawrence (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the par. in the 'blood' section beginning with "Jehovah's Witnesses have highlighted" seems a bit anecdotal, and might be shortened or eliminated mostly, in my opinion. In fact, even the pars. after that are more POV than statement of belief. But I don't want to go overboard. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good. In the meantime, here are some quotes from Watchtower lit. that shows what I mean. The point being that our stand is not contingent on overwhelming people with facts about risk factors, it is solidly based on nonnegotiable Bible principles. The more important argument, from a Witness standpoint is the Biblical one. Discussion about risks is important in demonstrating the reasonableness of the Bible's prohibition, but that prohibition is not contingent on demonstrating medical soundness.
 * w77 10/15 p. 615 Benefits from “Joyful Workers” Assemblies "It was emphasized repeatedly that objection by Jehovah’s Witnesses to blood transfusions is not based primarily on medical grounds, but mainly on the fact that God’s Word commands Christians to ‘abstain from blood.’—Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29.
 * "jv chap. 13 p. 186 Recognized by Our Conduct ***The position taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is not based on superior medical knowledge originating with them. They simply have confidence that Jehovah’s way is right and that ‘he will not hold back anything good’ from his loyal servants"
 * jv chap. 13 p. 184 Recognized by Our Conduct "the position taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is a religious one, based on what the Bible says, and does not depend on medical risk factors"--Brotherlawrence (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tampering of this article - two versions
When I google "Jehovah's Witnesses" and click the Wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses) I sometimes get a corrupted article. This happens if I delete temporary internet files including cookies and don't log in. The article starts as follows:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international CULT new religious movement, they are very strange people who are so off the wall, they will make you feel happy you are not one of them, whose adherents believe it to be the restoration of first-century Christianity.[1][2] The religion was developed ..."

This is as opposed to the usual version that I pull up at the same address when logged into the website:

"Jehovah's Witnesses are members of an international Christian new religious movement, whose adherents believe it to be the restoration of first-century Christianity.[1][2] The religion was developed ..."

Not sure how to report this tampering with the website, so I'm posting this observation here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersquid999 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Layout
Uhhhh... is the entire article supposed to be in a box? Dookama (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive
Came in to check progress on the article since my last edit on 10 January. Despite over 200 edits since, the net change is 'long article' tag and the number of members. Not terribly encouraging.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
I've noticed that the vast majority of this article is written from a Jehovah's Witness perspective. I think more input from outside sources are needed for an unbiased description. Shaneroosky (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Do you think the article on evolution is not closely guarded by darwinists? and the article on days of our lives, is it not being kept from vandalism by fans of the show? 70.190.103.36 (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Term: Jehovah's Witnesses
Anyone know where this originated? Check out the The Valley of Berachah and read this. Interesting stuff, that seems to tie in well with what I've read about JWs. Read 2 Chronicles 20:22-27. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The linked article appears to have no direct tie in with Jehovah's Witnesses, other than being another religious group that happens to use the name 'Jehovah'. There is nothing as to the origin of the term 'Jehovah's Witnesses' therein. The term is derived from Isaiah 43:10.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline" - deletion?
I just linked an edit of this article to the "Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline" page and removed some of the material in this article on disfellowshipping. Not sure how to handle this, but still, much of what I removed seems excessive to me. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Prosecution in Singapore
This section is a news item in this article. It is not about Jehovah’s Witnesses in general. This information belongs in the article Persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Name of G-d Written in Hebrew
I realize that this may not be the intent, but showing the name of G-d in its original Hebrew is offensive in anything other than sacred texts like the Torah, Tenakh, Bible, etc. If you could please simply show the Hebrew characters and their names and describe the order they fall in as Yud Hei Vav Hei rather than show the actual written Hebrew name of G-d I would be eternally thankful. You can accomplish the same goal of relaying the data without insulting us Jews. Thank you...

--JC Rauch (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Boker Tov! I'm sorry to say, my friend, the JW's have used the name of god on their magazines before in the original written form before, and they will do it again.  They never show respect to any religion except for their own.  Don't hold your breath for any JW to do otherwise.  Just ignore this fringe Christian church and live your life.

ColdRedRain (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's just not going to happen. Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group or individual. While it strives to be respectful, it will not omit information or content out of regard for anyone. -- Good Damon 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! I see some letters next to each other that offend me! God, get over it already. Don't take yourself so seriously.... please; it causes more harm than good. 198.179.142.6 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about he posts a link to freeminds.org on the section about Judaism for good payback? ColdRedRain (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

205.240.78.20 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal Decision
Regarding the statements: Stating that such is a 'personal decision' is ridiculous. It is also "a personal decision" for someone to kill another person, but to state such is to ignore the context of the consequences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Baptized Witnesses who violate the prohibition on blood are subject to organized communal shunning. However, it is a personal decision on how their "own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy.""

Prosecution in Singapore
I have moved section about Singapore to the appropriate place. Does it need to be included at all? Singapore is not the only country where JW literature is banned, so it is odd that this particular location should be given special attention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's unnecessary. It shouldn't add to this already-long article when it can go in Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...or make a new article The Banning of Jehovah's Witnesses & add. -- Avinesh Jose  T  08:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is sufficient for that purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeffro, I think you have not moved it yet there, did you? -- Avinesh Jose  T  09:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I've done that now. Please feel free to do so yourself next time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Books
All books listed under "Further reading" and "Books" that have links are negative books concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. For a balanced information positive and/or neutral informative books should be added.--Saujad (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or we could just delete the section, seeing as how there are plenty of reference which people can read along with the external links. There's no need to provide an additional list of books when there are plenty of references which can serve as further reading for those interested. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl I am in agreement with you. But if some want to keep this section there are many informative books in print but none are listed here. Here is a link to a long list of Books: http://www.theocraticlibrary.com/ Many are written by non-witnesses just to inform the public about this Religion.--Saujad (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)