Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Proposed structure
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)
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)
Vote
Please vote for or against the adoption of this structure and sign your name with ~~~~.
- For --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)