SECRET DOCUMENT: Publication Standards Manual

by Elsewhere 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • AuldSoul

    LOL @ shadow! That's funny! Give a full (verifiable) reference to an external source? Only in pseudo-scientific work like the Creation book. Not fodder for your average article, by any means.


    Maybe we should start sending articles. We can even credit authorship to elders we personally dislike.

    You might only be joking, but I am about to become several writers for the WTS. I think certain sisters should submit articles, as well. It would be SOOO cool if I can actually get one published. I'll have to seriously softshoe the doctrinal stuff in the copy, but the Scriptures I use will tell the tale to anyone who bothers to read them.


  • Finally-Free
    You might only be joking,

    Not entirely. If done carefully we may be able to get some people thinking.


  • AlmostAtheist

    In the first 20 pages, they twice point out that if the dictionary and their manual are in conflict, the writer should follow the manual.

    Why let some "worldly" authority dictate to Jehovah's Organization how it should present abbreviations and capitalize words? Who's the spirit-directed one here, dang it!

    Thanks for this, too cool.


  • What-A-Coincidence

    This reminds of one bethelite who would write articles and tried to get them published. He said he was sure he had one published but could not confirm because they always change the article around so that you can't claim it was yours. Well that sucks.


  • yesidid

    Problem is, all articles have to be submitted through the congregation to the branch.

  • jwfacts

    They don't follow the spelling part very well. I have often wondered the correct spelling on something and done a search on the Watchtower library, only to find various versions.
    For example the D word is spelt disfellowshipping 1/2 the time and disfellowshiping half the time.
    The O word is usually Organization, but sometimes Organisation.

  • Neo
    The author can write anything they want so long as it follows certain formatting, spelling, punctuation and other such guidelines. [Period] I have information from a source who verified that this is basically all the writers are given to write for all publications coming out of the WTS... everything else is based on what they personally feel is correct, unless of course they are willing to dig through piles and piles of old publications.

    Just a comment: writers can write anything that they feel is correct (including doctrinal stuff), but of course the material is reviewed and double-checked by a couple of higher-ups. Not so rarely the reviewers let things slip by that end up being published even if they are in direct contradiction to doctrine (like some old-earth figures). Maybe the most famous slip is the 1989 WT that mentioned 'the preaching work being completed in the 20th century'.

    Terrific job, Elsewhere! I love that couple of quotes!!


  • AlmostAtheist

    The Associated Press has a style manual describing this sort of stuff, too. So all of their articles come out in a consistent format. It's not surprising that the Watchtower has one, but it is certainly interesting to see what some of their standards are.

    The section on quoting sources is too fun to read. I loved this quote:

    29 Brackets are not carried over in quoted text.--See also “Quotes,” paragraph
    Not: “The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the
    [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole [obligation] of
    man.”--Ecclesiastes 12:13.
    But: “The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the
    true God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole obligation of man.”--
    Ecclesiastes 12:13.

    So while they are willing to admit within the text of the NWT that they've dicked around with the wording, they don't want to brag about it in general usage. 99 times out of 100, the R&F reads the "bible" in snippet-quotes from the publications. So those insertions/deletions/rewordings just slip by unnoticed. Well played, Watchtower!


  • Gozz

    On page 129:

    the term "Brainwashed" is disallowed. Almost correct; except that what's happening to JWs as a group is industral strength misinformation.

    All fo the part on disallowed terms makes for interesting reading. Surely, whooever wrote this never thoughtit'll make it to the public domain.


  • jstalin

    The document says:

    "The Living Bible, The New Living Translation, and The New Testament [Johannes Greber] should never be quoted in any publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses. "

    Any ideas why?

Share this