Talk:Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania/Archive 4

Chronology
Jeffro, your substantial re-ordering of the article has made it more confusing. It's a mistake to break out, and insert lower in the article, the legal opinion gained by Rutherford. That opinion was crucial to his actions in appointing new board members and has to remain part of the narrative of events. You've also introduced Light After Darkness, the ousted directors' rebuttal, before any reference to the document they're rebutting and referred to "Pierson" before explaining who he was or why his view was important. The rebuttal from the ex-directors is best placed under its own subhead to better divide the two sides of the story. LTSally (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be better to have the information in chronological order. If I got some of that order wrong, that can be fixed, but it isn't an argument about not having it in the right order at all. At the moment it jumps around from January to June, then alludes back to January, and so on. It's all over the place.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Where? It goes January, February, June, July, October. There are two references back to the January 6 vote, in discussing Rutherford's defence of his powers, but this is hardly out of chronological order or "all over the place". LTSally (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on differences between now and before I changed it, it looks like you may have answered your own question. I notice I did get the date wrong about the rebuttal though, because I mistakenly had based the order on the date of a letter that the rebuttal had included. Sorry aboutthat.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)