Talk:Awake!/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Added Awake! pic

Just added a pic of Awake! [[1]]

---

I would actually like to see another picture. Maybe a bigger one?

Summer Song

I would like to see another picture be published here. Maybe someone's private picture rather than this. Summer Song 05:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who actually writes "Awake!"?

Who writes the articles and who decides what will or will not be included? -- 84.58.44.81 12:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bunch of anonymous people.Tommstein 07:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

magazines are writen by the Brooklyn, NY, US Bethel's writing department, the Governing Body members and they accept some articles from other bethels's perssonnell - but all articles are censured by the Governing Body. - as i was told by witnesses - user:tothaa, 80.98.211.195 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A general interest magazine?

Since Awake! uses scriptures in many of its articles, I would say that calling it "general interest" doesn't really convey the right impression. I'm not sure exactly what I would suggest instead, but general interest doesn't sound like a magazine that promotes Bible morals and teachings in many of the articles. Comments? --K. 07:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the way I look at it, it is general interest, just looked at from a biblical standpoint... although often it has many section not related to religion in itself (moves on to religious bits later) For example, this Awake I have at hand deals with Movies, it gives a brief history of theatres in the US, describes the ins and outs of movie making, how marketing works, explains the rating systems etc only then moving onto the "What entertainment is suitable" line of discussion... next is a cool little story about some peeps adopting an injured sparrow and a scripture or two at the end, the next article focuses on butterflies of the Tropics... next is an article on Cibwa salt... then one on to 'Should Icons be used in Worship'... then an article on the flying squirrel... a few more articles, one being about food comes to the small article page thing called Watching the World that's more random bits of news than anything... over all I think it's very general interest. --Zikar 15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, though I'm not saying it doesn't cover general interest topics. My point is that it seems quite clear that the magazine has a religious agenda. On page 4 of the magazine under Why Awake! is Published, is says: "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world that is about to replace the present wicked, lawless system of things."

Even the WT site presents the Watchtower and Awake! together stating: "Bible-based magazines with the largest distribution in the world. The Watchtower and Awake! both build confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world. Each is published semimonthly; attractively illustrated." [2]

Due to this, I think the intro shouldn't say it is a "general interest" magazine, but simply a magazine published by JW. See examples (Ensign (magazine), The Friend and The Plain Truth). --K. 07:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe add something like "That covers general interest items from their point of view" or something... not that it really matters... --Zikar 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Something like that would be better, IMHO. ;) --K. 07:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Can the magazine still be considered general-interest, given that in 2006 it's going to start being a glorified Watchtower-lite? Has the first 2006 issue even come out yet? Just writing about things that aren't the Bible doesn't make a magazine general-interest; the Watchtower has such articles too sometimes.Tommstein 07:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zikar,

Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we all think it is true."

You also aren't allowed to include original research. So looking at the articles yourself and writing a description of them overall is not allowed.

Also, if you use a publication as a source about itself, it must not be the primary source for the article. Wikipedia's words, not mine.

Mandmelon (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to three years ago ;) --Zikar (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)