Talk:The Watchtower

message: Is there a source indicating that the specific intention of the PDF files is for the "importation into devices that can display text in ultra-large forms", or is that claim simply synthesis?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDF 

message: The list of languages that has been added seems to be little more than trivia. Other than promoting the magazine in obscure languages, there seems to be little point in the extended list. It would seem sufficient to indicate the number of languages in which the magazine is published, which on its own makes it clear that it is available in all common languages. If the list is retained, the links for most (if not all) of the languages require modification to avoid redirects and disambiguation pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be a promoting since Wikipedia is not censored. It may seem trivial, but good articles should be complete, and hence should give the reader an understanding of the languages in which it is available. For example many readers have secondary language as English. And it would be helpful for them to know that whether the magazine is available in his/her language. Still I won't object on moving the section to the bottom as a note or something, for example the peoples section in Nontrinitarianism article. The User:Belovedfreak had did a great job, she had already corrected the links.--Logical Thinker:talk 08:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Wikipedia is not censored has nothing to do with this matter, as it is not that the list of languages is in some way 'objectionable'. The list of languages is simply trivial. Wikipedia is not an index for people to check whether a publication is available in a particular language.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: User:Jeffro I did to intended to criticize you. I told that the article should be complete. That's why I said the trivial details could be placed at the bottom as it is less important still necessary to make the article complete.--Logical Thinker:talk 09:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement about criticism is ambiguous, but I didn't notice your alleged criticism of me. In any case, the fact remains that the list is trivial and Wikipedia is not an index. Please don't continue exactly the same conversation in both separate Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: ok I already mentioned my opinions and I am leaving further decisions with you--Logical Thinker:talk 09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple statement of the number of languages in which the magazine appears is sufficient. The list dominates the article. BlackCab (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed - there is no need to list any of the languages. Occuli (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the list; also at Awake!.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The stated purpose of the Watchtower is given in the article, prefacing it as "the magazine's mission statement". However, Jeffro77 wishes to omit from the entire stated purpose eight words, namely "It comforts people with the good news that..." He contends that the good news portion of the purpose is POV. However every statement in the "Purpose" is POV, Jehovah God being the supreme ruler of universe, God's Kingdom being a real government, etc. Since it is described as the "stated purpose" the entire statement is expected to be POV. So what makes the short line regarding comfort and good news different? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the unbalanced quotation mark before "God's Kingdom" made it look like the 'comfort and good news bit' was outside the quote. I've fixed it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stated purpose 

message: I´d like to change a picture that appears in < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Watchtower >. The picture < Watchtower_Magazine_English_issues.jpg > shows a cover of the magazine The Watchtower. But the picture shows a cover of an issue that is, sometimes, controversial. People who are not Jehovah Witnesses used to say that we are a sect that only talks about Apocalipse, and it´s not true. We talk about the God´s Kingdom. So, people who see that cover might think that we only talk about the end of the world, what is not true. We talk about the end of all suffering. So, please, I ask for someone change that picture and upload a new one. That´s my suggestion. < Watchtower_Magazines_Covers_English.JPG ‎> found at < http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Watchtower_Magazines_Covers_English.JPG >
Thank you!
Pauloinet (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I think that there is a problem with the rights to the image you linked to. I've tagged the image and left a note on your Commons talk page.—C45207 | Talk 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Low-resolution images to illustrate the style of a cover that cannot be conveyed textually are generally permitted under fair use. (Since the suggested picture has been removed, I can't comment on it specifically.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Sensitivity aside, the existing picture was uploaded and added to the article by a JW editor (User:Logicalthinker33). The magazine cover is typical of Watchtower content. The picture as used in this article does not attempt to assign any special attention to the specific content of that particular issue of the magazine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Ad hominem attacks on editors aside, what is your objection to the image? The editor who uploaded the picture was not banned for uploading that picture, and is a member of the religion in question. The other editor to whom you object did not upload the cover in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "insistence" on keeping the illustration. As has been pointed out, it is just just another Watchtower cover, added by an active JW, and actually quite appropriate: magazine cover stories frequently address the issue of when God's day of wrath will come, reflecting the central belief of the magazine's founder, CT Russell. There is nothing objectionable about the cover; and if you replaced it, will someone then complain that the different cover is also controversial? BlackCab (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good though to add the new cover of the Study Edition, with five available in PDF. They now have cover art, not a large watchtower.Juleon11 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to providing an updated image of the Study Edition. Covers should not just be cherry-picked for something that 'seems' 'less controversial' though. How about using the first 2012 issue of each? I'm not sure how the availability in PDF is relevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

text: You're continuing to comment about an editor who didn't add the picture. You also questioned the motives of the blocked editor who uploaded the picture, but the editor is a member of the religion in question, persistently made defensive edits about the religion, and was not blocked for anything to do with the image in question. Therefore, you have not yet provided any valid objection to the image. So, again, what is your objection to the image?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Pauloinet, 7 March 2011 

message: As of January 2013, the public edition of The Watchtower (as well as Awake!) will be reduced to 16 pages. The 'official' announcement of this change is to be made some time this month (April 2012) after a 'special talk'. JW editors should be able to confirm once this has been formally announced so it can be included in the article. (Following the announcement, the letter announcing it (already available online) will be posted on noticeboards in JW Kingdom Halls, which are open to the public, uncontroversially deeming it a publicly accessible source).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On reviewing the article, there is no mention of the current number of pages, so this issue is moot.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The change can now be confirmed at  (download a pdf of a magazine published januar or later). The study edition is still 32 pgs. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchtower to become 16 pages 

message: Is The Watchtower monthly, biweekly or semimonthly? The Watchtower - public edition is mountly, but since this article is about both editions, I would suggest to keep it as semimonthly in the category tree. I don't concider it biweekly anyway and anyhow, because both editions combined is not published biweekly (except from through February). Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's semimonthly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

text: *Personally, I don't really see much difference between biweekly and semimonthly (I know, 26 vs. 24 issues/year, but in other category trees, like the one on academic journals, the difference is not made). Also, the article states at several places that the magazine is published monthly, so it seems a bit weird to categorize it differently. There are two different editions, which is not the same as two issues of the same magazine. There are also different language editions, we don't count those as separate issues either. So in my eyes, there are two different editions, each one being a monthly. We cannot just sum that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article may should have split? There are indeed distinct differences between the two editions, where the one edition is printed in far more exemplares. It would may have been needed three new articles if splited, as The Watchtower until the Study edition was introduced, is some kind of mix of the two current editions? Another issue is, the Study edition may not would be notable for its own article here. I tend to agree to Jeffro77 here, but have not really strong opinions either way, as both categories may to some extend are correct. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with having a single article on the different editions (for example, see Physica (journal)) even if they would be independently notable (as is the case with the Physica journals), if that renders a better and more coherent article (subjects need to be notable to get an article, but the other way around is not necessary). What is incorrect is to say: we have two more or less different magazines, each appearing monthly, so this has to be categorized as biweekly"... --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two editions of the magazine still present fundamentally the same kind of content (though the Public edition has been dumbed down a bit) as before the introduction of separate editions. Both editions of the magazine have the same full title, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and there are two issues published monthly. Since the introduction of the Study edition, The Watchtower (inside cover of the Study edition and page 4 of the Public edition) still states that it is published "semimonthly", and this is also reflected in the sequential issue numbers of each annual volume. The Study edition contains material for use at JW meetings, and is not typically distributed to the public, but prior to the introduction of the separate editions, The Watchtower always contained the study articles; though the 'members only' edition (though it's available online) has since said some things that are fairly unsavory (such as the battered wife who should show more love for her husband [15 January 2012, page 29], calling 'apostates' "mentally diseased" [15 July 2011, page 16], or obeying the Watch Tower organisation even if directions seem irrational [15 November 2013, page 20]), the type of material is not new. As such, it is not necessary to split the article here, because the differences are already well explained in the current article. There is not sufficient content specific to the Study edition to justify a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of greater concern than splitting this article is the fact that the article currently has only four secondary sources, one of which (bibletopics.com) most likley fails the criteria for reliable sources. I have replaced one of the sources that failed criteria for reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My, I didn't think that a seemingly simple question about categorizing publications frequency would generate so much discussion :-). Thanks to Jeffro77 for clarifying things and making the article more internally consistent. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeffro77: I can't see how your highly random selected examples of content samples alone do prove weather it is one or several different magazines or not. Awake!, and also other publications published by WTBTS do have content that covers what could have been from The Watchtower. Both editions are publicly available, but they are announced to have two different target groups. I won't though argue against the magazines being semimonthly if both editions do selfidentifying them as the same magazine, and states it is semimonthly. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'samples' were provided as evidence for the point about controversial content in the Study edition since the introduction of the 'members-only' edition, rather than to 'prove whether it is one or several different magazines'. Each of the 'samples' are instances that have garnered media attention, and were therefore not random as you claim. But the fact that the magazine does indeed explicitly state that it is "semimonthly" does definitely resolve your initial query.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

text: The public and study editions of the Watchtower as well as the Awake are distributed on a monthly basis. The only difference is the date. On the public Watchtower and Awake the date always reads as the 1st of the month while the study edition always reads as the 15th of the month. Since the 2008 launch of the revamped jw.org issues of all three magazines now appear months in advance online. You are free to visit http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ and verify. Gorba (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Study and Public editions of The Watchtower are issues of the same magazine, with consecutive issue numbers. All issues of the magazine explicitly state that The Watchtower is bi-monthly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mounthly, biweekly or semimonthly 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Watchtower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121009070103/http://archives.jrn.columbia.edu:80/2010/nyrm.org/2010/05/13/the-most-widely-read-magazine-in-the-world/index.html to http://archives.jrn.columbia.edu/2010/nyrm.org/2010/05/13/the-most-widely-read-magazine-in-the-world/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified