Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed structure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bases covered? 2 Vote 2.1 Result of vote 2.2 Voting rules 2.3 Comments

[edit] Bases covered?

From reading through the proposed structure, it looks like the tree follows logically and includes everything I noticed that was missing. I did notice that under meetings there is no mention of Assembly, Convention, Annual Meeting, or International Convention. There will be some overlap between certain categories, but that shouldn't be a terrible weight of duplicate information. It seems well thought out. Do we consider the bases covered and just dive into creating the pages? (new to Wikipedia, so I don't know the formalities/etiquette)--Evident 13:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Usually it's best to get some more input (positive or negative) before making such big changes to the articles. Encourage some of the other participants to comment, and if we have a go-ahead, you're welcome to get started! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

K.: There was a pro-JW book by former Governing Body member, A.H. MacMillan, entitled Faith on the March. Perhaps it should be added.

Done. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Since one of the most important thing as viewed both form "inside" and "outside" is the publishing and preaching activity, I think that an article on "Publishing and preaching activities of Jehovah's Witnesses" is necessary (alternatively use "proselytizing" in place of "preaching" -- I am not a native speaker so I do not have a feel for what is more NPOV). This should cover the history and evolving of these two critical aspects and also provide an overview of the current state. (It also might require merging information from some other current articles and their eventual deletion, but this is something that is going to happen with the currently proposed structure anyway.) Except for this, I think everything else is fine. Soukie 07:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There is a Witnessing article, which is the common English term used by Witnesses to indicate preaching/proselytising. Do you suggest calling it Proselytizing (Jehovah's Witnesses)? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, there are Watchtower articles that discuss this specific point. They directly state that they do not proselytize. The appropriate term choices, according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses would be: "Evangelizing", "Witnessing", or "Preaching and Teaching." Of these, I think "Evangelizing" fits best what Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are doing through publishing and teaching efforts. Respectfully, Evident 15:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I know the WT claims that JWs don't proselytize, but that's another thing entirely. ;) But Jehovah's Witnesses and evangelism or Jehovah's Witnesses evangelism is fine by me. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I almost made a comment about that same thing. They probably avoid the word "proselytizing" because it's outlawed in a lot of countries. That way, they can say, see, we don't proselytize, we witness (or some other synonym), you've got us all wrong. Kind of like how they 'don't solicit;' it's all a big word game. Not that any of this has a bearing on (or that I especially care) what we name the article, since Wikipedia is intended for the general non-Witness population.Tommstein 03:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Any of the titles seems fine. My concern was that with all the exceptional level of publishing activity (the volume of printing of books and magazines, number of languages), into what article are we going to put the infomration on this publishing activity? It might be reflected in the title of the article where this is going to go. But this is not a big issue with me. Maybe we can wait and see. Soukie 07:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got a quick question. The lists go at least three levels deep in some places. Is the intention for each link in the proposed outline to represent a different page, or for each link to represent a subsection of the article it is nested within?Tommstein 12:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Each link is supposed to represent a separate article. At the moment, most of the listed topics are covered in the Practices, Doctrines or main JW article, but aren't covered in sufficient depth, mostly due to lack of space. They need their own articles to allow the space to cover the issue properly. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the proposed structure is making the whole thing a little too complicated. I think that too many matters have been proposed for separate articles. The proposed structure should at lest be a little less fragmented.Summer Song 14:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but at the moment, the Practices, Doctrines and main JW article are way too long by Wikipedia standards. They need to be split up, if only to allow for appropriately-sized articles. In addition, splitting the topics like this allows for a much more in-depth explanation of Jehovah's Witnesses than can fit in a few articles. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Summer Song — I understand your concerns, however the article isn't really supposed to read like a brochure for Jehovah's Witnesses. That is what it currently reads like. The "breaking up" is designed to address specific aspects of the religion as separate parts of a whole, which will (hopefully) serve the purpose of helping the articles maintain an NPOV. It will also make it easier for someone to quickly find out particulars on a specific point regarding Jehovah's Witnesses rather than having to plow through tons of copy to reach the desired point. Respectfully, Evident 13:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well said. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 21:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a concern about the revision. I think it would be beneficial as long as the various parts are skillfully linked to each other. I'm assuming that a person who types in "Jehovah's Witnesses" into the Wikipedia search will easily see the tree and each article will clearly link back and weave to other articles. We don't want to have good articles hidden or hard to find. If we are careful to do that I would support it. DTBrown 14:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Voting for the adoption of this structure closed at 0:00 UTC, Friday, 25 November 2005.

• For --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• For «» Evident 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• For --Mini 13:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• For -- Soukie 07:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - Tommstein 05:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• For -- Dtbrown 14:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• For --Greyfox 02:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain -- CobaltBlueTony 19:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result of vote

• Votes for: 6
• Votes against: 0
• Votes abstaining: 2
• Result: For (by a vote of 6/0, with 2 abstentions)

[edit] Voting rules

• Votes timestamped 0:01 UTC and after on 25 November 2005 will not be accepted, and members not having cast a vote before then will be counted as abstaining.
• Votes will be tallied after the close of voting, with abstain votes discarded, and a majority declared based on for vs. against.
• If a majority votes for, the new structure will be adopted, and work shall begin to adapt the current articles to the new structure.
• If a majority votes against, discussion will commence on an alternative structure.
• If there is a tie, discussion will commence on whether to modify the proposed structure so as to be adopted, or whether to develop an alternative structure.

[edit] Comments

Konrad, at what point do we consider those who have not voted to be abstentions and move forward? Just curious. Respectfully, Evident 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's really best to get a majority of the participants of the project at a minimum. I suppose the best thing to do is put a closing date on the vote, and alert those who haven't voted yet. It's been 7 days, and CobaltBlueTony said he needs more time, so how about one more week: 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't wait on me. I'm just neutral about how we do it. Consider it a vote for if you want, since I don't oppose it.Tommstein 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please wait for me. I have to review it undistracted, and since I've moved recently, and currently am working overtime to make up time lost, I haven't had serious time to consider it fairly. Thank you for your anticipated patience. - CobaltBlueTony 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Can I assume, at least, that the content required for many of the pages will be desired in some form, even if moved to another page at a later time? I have already contributed Faithful and Discreet Slave and Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations, I was going to start working on JWs and Bible Chronology next, if we know the content will be needed somewhere. It will be an exhaustive project and sourcing will take a lot of time, I wouldn't want that much effort wasted. Respectfully, Evident 01:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to start work on any of the proposed articles-- just remember that until it is approved, the structure may change and some of your work may need to be merged, expanded or summarized.

Your work so far is a good start, especially the F&DS article, as it it uses extensive references. This is absolutely necessary to avoid revert wars. The only thing I would say to keep in mind is that the articles read okay for a Witness, but for an outsider, are a little esoteric. Make sure you explain clearly any use of JW terminology and Bible scriptures, as the reader may not be familiar with the Bible or JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest we add the book A People For His Name by Timothy White to the proposed structure. It's a rare book but one that both Witnesses and non-Witnesses have used in their research. Dtbrown 14:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as I probaly won't write to many articles any way why not I can wait--Greyfox 02:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that November 8 deadline was 10 days ago.Tommstein 05:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am abstaining because I cannot see any benefits or problems. I shall wait and see if, depending on whether problems arise, if they are due to the structure -- which I cannot foresee. - CobaltBlueTony 19:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Votes timestamped 0:01 UTC and after on 25 November 2005 will not be accepted, and members not having cast a vote before then will be counted as abstaining. How is the deadline nov 8? Like it really matters now.--Greyfox 03:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)