Jump to content

Talk:The Watchtower/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"Name"

I question whether the heading "Name" should exist as all of that information is related in detail under the heading "History". Otherwise, I think the sentence "Some have theorized that the name "Watchtower" has its roots in the Wiccan watchtower (magic) guardians." should be verified and the source added, and the weasel word omitted. Also, I think that if the origins of the name of the magazine are going to be further discussed, it would only be logical that the Witness's explanation of the name of the magazine be added for neutrality. How's this sound:

"The Watchtower's name is derived from Isaiah 21:8, 11, 12, with the first issue partially quoting this passage on its cover. Some have theorized, however, that the name "Watchtower" has its roots in the Wiccan watchtower (magic) guardians.[source needed]"

For accuracy in behalf of the article, here is some verification for the Witness' explanation of the name Watchtower in contrast to the Wiccan watchtower theory.

1) The cover of the first Watchtower Issue quotes the Scripture in Isaiah, applying the common meaning of the Biblical watchtower to the magazine, as can seen in the article in a picture under the heading "History" (easier seen when viewed in full size).

2) The inside cover of all current Watchtower magazines make reference to this common use of watchtowers in Bible times saying, "Just as watchtowers in ancient times enabled a person to observe developments from afar, so this magazine shows us the significance of world events in the light of Bible prophecies", as can be read under the heading "Purpose".

3)Watchtower articles have applied this same understanding. For example, the 7/1 1980 Watchtower states in a verse-by-verse discussion of the verses in Isaiah chapter 21;

"Isaiah was the one told to post the “lookout” to report on what he was due to see. Isaiah did not live on to be an eyewitness of what he foretold and of which he gave us a written account. So someone else from Isaiah’s own people would have to serve as the posted lookout. In the then far-off days of the impending fall of Babylon the Great a similar lookout has been posted. It proves to be the class anointed with Jehovah’s spirit, a class appropriately associated with the magazine that still bears the name Watchtower. The evidence is at hand to show that by means of Jesus Christ Jehovah God has appointed that “lookout” class. It has served in this capacity down to this portentous hour of the “night” that is casting its gloom over the whole world."

Hence, there is plenty of proof and source for the origin and idea of Jehovah's Witnesses naming their chief magazine The Watchtower. If the name of the magazine is to be further discussed under another heading, I think it only appropriate to include some of this information, or simply the sentence I suggested earlier. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.53.236 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 

 Looks like someone went ahead and removed the heading. Fine by me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.53.236 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Languages

I have removed the superfluous list of languages. The entire list is impractically long, and listing them alphabetically up to 'Italian' is nonsensical. Any notable information regarding languages or formats can be added to the 'Editions' section.

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Wikipedia gives preference to the most commonly used name over the official name. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" is a subtitle of this publication. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#subtitles, the name of this article should be "The Watchtower".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that cited reference specifically applies to BOOKS ("Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle"). By contrast, that same article, in a different section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals, reads thusly: "This guideline does not contain specific information on how to name Wikipedia articles on periodicals (magazines, newspapers,...). In most cases naming such articles will not be problematic"
Why fix something that isn't problematic?
Ironically, the suggested change might introduce ambiguity where there is none now; see Watchtower (disambiguation).
Interestingly, the only time "Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom" was called "a subtitle" by its publisher was in an account about a Chilean court case in the 1950s. Another publication called "El Atalaya" (spanish for "the watchman") objected to the title "La Atalaya" (spanish for "the watchtower"). The court ruled that the "subtitle" of the latter removed any possibility of confusion, and allowed it to stand.
The following quote shows the actual title of the magazine at issue.
"Offer the Magazines That Bear Witness to the Truth", Our Kingdom Ministry, December 2007, page 6,
"The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom and its companion magazine, Awake!, remain at the forefront of the Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making work. ...Since January 2006, we have become adept at using various presentations for the one monthly issue of Awake! Now we will take a similar approach to offering just one of the two monthly issues of The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom in our public ministry." [italics retained from quoted text]
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You have omitted the last part of the sentence from your quote about the 'Periodicals' guideline. It continues, "nor incompatible with this guideline". That is, the policy for the titles of books also applies to periodicals, and there are no special additional guidelines for the naming of articles about periodicals. Additionally, under the illustrated example of the Origin of Species, the guideline states, "If an authoritative edition of a book has letters of various size on its title page, everything after the largest print is (usually) considered "subtitle" in the context of this guideline".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? Is the argument really that the article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is "incompatible with this guideline" at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals?
The guideline says, "In most cases naming such articles [on magazines] will not be problematic, nor incompatible with this guideline". The term "incompatible" is binary; it is or it isn't. I'd submit that neither article title (The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom nor The Watchtower) is incompatible with the guideline.
Furthermore, I'd submit that a measured consideration, seeking to avoid things "problematic" (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals), would tend to favor the unambiguous article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom as immeasurably superior to the ambiguous article title The Watchtower.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's unclear why you're asking about the "incompatibility" of the name of this article with the guideline. It is the naming convention of periodicals that is not "incompatible with [the] guideline" for the naming of books. I didn't say The Watchtower was incompatible with anything.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no significant issue of disambiguation. 'The Watchtower' is not currently a disambiguation page at all despite the misleading link you've given for the separate 'Watchtower' disamgibuation page, which is entirely unaffected by the proposed change. A simple {{otheruses}} template can be placed at the top of this article. Additionally, The Watchtower is the most commonly used title for this magazine. The smaller lettering of the subtitle, Watchtower literature's own usage of the term The Watchtower apart from the subtitle, and the Watchtower Society's indication of Herald of Christ's Presence as the magazine's previous "subtitle" all indicate the appropriate title of the article to be "The Watchtower" as indicated by Wikipedia's naming conventions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Watchtower literature mentions that Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is part of the "full title", which obviously includes the subtitle (km 1/02 p. 6,w02 1/1 p. 12,km 11/01 p. 4 par. 10). There are also various references to "Herald of Christ's Presence" (the magazine's predecessor) being the "subtitle" (jv chap. 10 pp. 133-134, ka chap. 11 p. 191 par. 15, w61 8/1 p. 476), and the same manner of naming is still obviously employed. Watchtower literature most often refers to the magazine as The Watcthower in formal contexts without inclusion of the subtitle rather than with.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is the full title, but people commonly colloquially shorten the name to The Watchtower, same as people often colloquially shorten long names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is the full title, which includes the subtitle. See above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This first paragraph repeated from above...
Furthermore, I'd submit that a measured consideration, seeking to avoid things "problematic" (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals), would tend to favor the unambiguous article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom as immeasurably superior to the ambiguous article title The Watchtower.
Ironically, the guidelines page itself gives an example of an acceptably short title, namely "On the Origin of Species", which is five words long Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles. That section on "subtitles" says this, "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes" [emphasis added]
The magazine's full title is only FIVE WORDS LONG! That's as short as the EXAMPLE given of a short publication name! Why the insistence on shortening it even more? And, if disambiguation is a goal, why INTRODUCE ambiguation? Without context, the diminutive article title "The Watchtower" is patently vague, which (if it was needed) seems obviously to qualify a five word article title as 'an exception for disambiguation purposes'
In a few weeks, this article will be six years old. Why the urgency to change the name now?--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
For most of the last six years, the title of this article was The Watchtower. The article was renamed, without any discussion, by User:Alexander Moritz in February 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Of the 19 other-language articles about this magazine, 10 do not include the subtitle in the article name, and at least 6 of the others were renamed by Александр (Russian for 'Alexander'), the same user who renamed this article without discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no irony, and the guideline does not proscribe a certain number of words as the determining factor. There is no ambiguity in the title The Watchtower. I won't enter any slippery-slope arguments about why anything shouldn't be changed simply because it's been wrong for a long time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify... Jeffro77 sees "no irony" in the guideline example title being five words while he simultaneously insists that the five word title of this article (verbatim the title of the magazine) must be shortened. Perhaps we use different definitions of "irony".
Are there also different definitions of 'ambiguity' and 'disambiguity'? The title of the article as it is now is unambiguous. By contrast, Jeffro77 is advocating replacing that with a title of ONE WORD (a common noun at that!) with a definite article as the entire title. Why introduce ambiguation?
The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is a well-known magazine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
'The watchtower' is almost anything the watchman stands on. Which of the two titles is MORE ambiguous?
Even if "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" was accepted as a "subtitle" (and that's arguable) rather than simply the last three of a five word title, and even if Wikipedia's guideline on books does apply to magazines, under what circumstances does that guideline allow an exception?
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles, "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes" [emphasis added]
A "short title" would certainly include those of FIVE WORDS such as The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom.
It simply makes no sense to trade disambiguity for ambiguity just to save three words in a title.
Furthermore, there seems no reason to ignore what Wikipedia's naming guideline does explicitly say about periodicals such as magazines: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals, "This guideline does not contain specific information on how to name Wikipedia articles on periodicals (magazines, newspapers,...). In most cases naming such articles will not be problematic"
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You haven't clarified anything here. You've just repeated yourself. There is no irony, because a specific number of words in a title is not the determining factor. Harping on about how "The Watchtower" is 'a noun and a definite article' is pretty mundane stuff to try to bulk up your argument, but the fact remains that there is no ambiguity among existing articles in that title at all - The Watchtower is currently a redirect to this article, not a disambiguation page. The Watchtower is the main title of the magazine, and its most commonly used title - among non-Witnesses the magazine is not especially well known at all, and certainly not well known by the full title. Additionally, again you omit the key point of what the guideline says about the naming of periodicals - "nor incompatible with this guideline" - that is, there are no special guidelines for naming periodicals, and the guideline for articles on books normally applies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The current article title is clear and unambiguous. The suggested diminutive is ambiguous.
Why not just leave the unambiguous title as it is? As has been mentioned, the current article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is short, just five words. Why change it?
Do Wikipedia articles about magazines always drop "subtitles" from the Wikipedia article title? Consider two examples.
Have you ever seen U.S.News magazine or Better Homes magazine?
Are you going to campaign for those article titles to be shortened also?
Wikipedia has always discouraged ambiguity, so disambiguity is prime. Those who push for ambiguity should be the ones explaining the reasons for their urgency.
While it's possible that all who came before were mistaken, those who argue for shortening the title of this article must insist that everyone else is wrong: everyone who tolerated the current title for six years was wrong, everyone who has tolerated the U.S.News article title has been wrong all these years, and everyone who tolerated the Better Homes and Gardens article title all these years has been wrong. If the argument is 'anything that might be construed as a dreaded "subtitle" must be expunged!', well, that's a faulty argument. In any event, "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" has never been acknowledged by the Watchtower Society as a "subtitle" rather than simply as the last three words of a five word title.
Furthermore, the very buildings the magazine is written in and printed in are owned by "the Watchtower", that is, "the Watchtower Society of New York". It's silly to pretend that a two word title "the watchtower" could not possibly be ambiguous to anyone, and must be preferable to the full title of the magazine the article discusses.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that Better Homes and Gardens is best known as that full title, though I'm not familiar with, and can't vouch for, the other journal you cite. There remains no ambiguity regarding an article entitled The Watchtower. Though the Watchtower Society may not have explicitly cited Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom as a "subtitle" (at least not in the information I have immediately available to me), they have explicitly done so in the case of Herald of Christ's Presence, which follows exactly the same construction, and the Watchtower Society has expicitly indicated that "The Watchtower" has been "continuously published" since 1879, which implicitly indicates that any other part of the title Herald of Christ's Presence and Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom have been subtitles. Do any editors other than AuthorityTam have an opinion here?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "and Herald of Christ’s Presence" was dropped from the magazine's title in 1939.
It was only after-the-fact (after it had been dropped) that it was described as having been a subtitle, using that term less than five times in sixty years.
Earlier, Jeffro made much of the definition of "subtitle" as defined at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#subtitles; it says there: "If an authoritative edition of a book has letters of various size on its title page, everything after the largest print is (usually) considered "subtitle" in the context of this guideline".
So, unless the article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is being singled out for dimunition, a strict application of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#subtitles to magazines would quite plainly require that both U.S. News & World Report and Better Homes and Gardens must have their Wikipedia article titles truncated.
Would leaving the status quo be more "problematic" or less "problematic"?
Would leaving the status quo be more "ambiguous" or less "ambiguous"?
I submit that it's less problematic and less ambiguous to leave all three titles as they have been for several years, rather than truncate any of them.
That same guideline expects the naming of articles about magazines to (quote) "not be problematic".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No strict application need be applied to the other magazines you cite, because they are known by their most common names. The most common name of the The Watchtower is The Watchtower, and its diminutive subtitle is just that. Of those non-Witnesses that have heard of the The Watchtower at all, most know it as only The Watchtower.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've known about The Watchtower for decades (sigh - tempus fugit), and never knew it had a subtitle. I'm supporting the rename. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The arguments against renaming are:

  • A claim that the subtitle is not actually a subtitle, despite the Watchtower's own indication of prior subtitles of the magazine published continuously under its main title for over a century.
  • A claim of ambiguity, though no article exists under the proposed name.
  • A comparison of the number of words in the article name, though no guideline specifies an exact number of words.
  • A straw man regarding other journals known by their most common names.

So far, there are 3 in support of renaming (Jeffro77, Resurr Section, Dougweller), 1 against (AuthorityTam), and one unclear (Anthony Appleyard).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against changing the name because People should not be removing God's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklemetti (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Your rationale has no validity here though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Support rename to The Watchtower as well. While it's true that "TWAJK" is the official title and has been for over 70 years, even the magazine itself and the Watch Tower literature that cites it nearly always (over 99% of the time) refer to it as The Watchtower. Additionally, its title has always used primarily the words Watch Tower and Watchtower ever since its inception back on 1 July 1879 - nearly 130 years ago. Glenn L (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

absence of controversy

This article should have a section on controversy related to predictions that the magazine has made (or that others have claimed that the Watchtower made) about the end of the world that never came true. There are many cited examples here.Brian0324 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your not thinking specificly of this magazine by itself, but of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. They've had some controversy. See here: Jehovah's_Witnesses#Criticism_and_controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soc8675309 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely that would come under the articles based around doctrine and controversies rather that this article which is to tell you what The Watchtower is? --Zikar (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The controversy page is rather large. It would be reasonable for the publication article to refer to some of this. I added a wikilink to avoid redundancy.Brian0324 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added an {{expand}} template to the section. However, if the section is to be maintained at all, it should be shown (with reliable sources) that The Watchtower magazine has specifically been the target of controversy, rather than JW publications and doctrines generally, per Zikar's comment above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The publishers of The Watchtower have hardly experienced an "absence of controversy". By contrast, publication of The Watchtower magazine itself has been remarkably free from controversy particular to the magazine itself. There seems no reason for this new section except as an additional outlet for JW "controversy" material, already discussed in more logical places such as
Controversies_regarding_Jehovah's_Witnesses and
Jehovah's_Witnesses#Criticism_and_controversies.
As mentioned above, criticism has almost never complained about the magazine particularly. Even when the board was imprisoned in the United States in the 1920s, the magazine was allowed to continue. Criticisms have concerned beliefs and practices which are not limited to the magazine and which do not suffer from a lack of Wikipedia coverage. Compare...
Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse#Cover-up_allegations
Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions#Critical_views
Eschatology_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses#Controversy
Charles_Taze_Russell#Criticisms_and_controversies
Unfulfilled_religious_predictions#Jehovah.27s_Witnesses
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I've added the 'expand' tag to give editors (particularly the editor who added the section) the opportunity to justify the claim that the magazine itself is controversial, but I anticipate that the section will ultimately be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The publication has been the target or controversy mainly due to what it predicted that did not come true. Why bother adding a tag to expand if you think it needs to go away? I just didn't think it needs to have a huge section if the subject is covered in other articles as stated above. It just seemed like a conspicuous absence in light of the history of JW writings and their impact.Brian0324 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As stated, the tag is to give you, the editor who introduced the section, the opportunity to back up the claim that the magazine is itself controversial. If this is not done, the section will be removed. Examples of controversy that might relate to the magazine could be things like 'most of the issues end up in landfill' or 'they use toxic ink' (these are fictional examples, not actual claims). Issues of controversial JW doctrines do not belong at this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion here is about the magazine not about the teachings that the magazine promotes.--Vassilis78 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If there is a section on "Content" with a purpose statement quoted then clearly the subjects that are addressed by the magazine are within the scope of this article. If the magazine is noteworthy for its predictions about the future then there is warrant to include it in the article.Brian0324 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The magazine is noteworthy for its being the major publication of the teachings of Jehovah's Wintesses. As such, it refers to every aspect of (1) the Bible (historical, exegetical, ethical) and of (2) the Christian life and ministry.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Few of the false predictions to which you provided the above link were in the Watchtower, and when books have drawn attention to those predictions, adverse comments have been more about the organization or spokesmen making them rather than the medium through which they were delivered. This article is not the place to discuss that controversy. LTSally (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Watchtower/Archive_5&oldid=1073893452"