Talk:Awake!

Languages

As with The Watchtower, the list of languages that has been added to this article 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) 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 09:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the list of people in the Nontrinitarianism article is entirely dissimilar, as the articles about those people are directly relevant to the topic. Articles about obscure languages have no direct relevance to an article about a particular publication available in that language.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned my opinion, and done it. If you have some other opinion I am leaving it with you, as I am not going to loss anything.--Logical Thinker:talk 09:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the non-notable list of languages to its own section assigns additional undue weight to the list, making it more subject to deletion. I have therefore reverted your change, however I will await comment from other editors before considering deletion of the list. The principle concern is that a long list of languages is unhelpful to general readers, and Wikipedia is not an index for determining availability of a publication in a particular language.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

rm POV insertion in History section

as a disclaimer, i am an ex-JW generally hostile to apologist active-JW edits. that said, this paragraph is mean-spirited, pseudoskeptic-POV, and irrelevant. if anybody wishes to defend it, ive pasted it here:

Between the World Wars, The Golden Age sometimes commented on medical subjects according to unscientific ideas of the day, regarding subjects such as aluminum cookware, vaccines and modern medicine.

PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If there were a notable reliable source making such a point, it would be appropriate to retain the information. Unless/until such a source is provided, I support its exclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Although this is an old thread, interestingly, I have a draft of a book which includes relevant information, but unfortunately in its official release it was cleaned out of any JW-specific content. Possibly that the publishing company feared lawsuits... The draft is not for public redistribution and no longer available on its official site. I'll try to look for more as time allows. —PaleoNeonate – 09:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Greek Consolation

I removed the image of a Greek cover of Consolation that was added by User:Pvasiliadis. The image in question would be more suitable in the corresponding article on the Greek Wikipedia (and the same image has already been added there). For the English article, if an image of one of the magazine's predecessors were to be included, it would be better to provide an English cover. An image of a non-English version of the older titles might be suitable if there were significantly more content about the translation of the older magazines into other languages. But such an expansion would only be warranted if there are suitable secondary sources. If it is desirable to provide an image indicating that the magazine is available in languages other than English, it would be better to show a non-English cover of Awake! rather than Consolation (or The Golden Age). However, because it is available in all major languages (and many others), it seems trivial to include an image of the magazine in just one non-English language and excessive to show it in many.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another editor has since added pictures of the old magazine titles in English. To improve the layout, I have moved those images to the right and replaced the JW navbox with the horizontal version at the bottom of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Golden Age

User:Amargor added detail about The Golden Age being published 'in violation of Russell's will'. It is not clear whether Penton specifically says this about Consolation or just about publishing new works in general. If the latter, this may be synthesis. It would help if a quote from the source could be provided here. If Penton does not specifically mention The Golden Age, it does not belong here, but the source would be suitable at articles such as Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917).

The same user also added critical comments about the content of The Golden Age. These appear to be suitably sourced, but such comments about old editions should remain brief. It would not be appropriate to turn the section into an exposé piece by providing every silly thing that ever appeared in the magazine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that Chryssides could be classified as critic of Jehovah's witnesses, and he is not quoting critics in these references but he is merely described what he think worse to be noted concerning Woordworth and what the latter wrote in the Golden-Age magazine. If he felt obliged to add this particular mention on opposition to orthodox medecine in his several articles concerning health, vaccinations and Woordworth in his dictionnary, this is for me because it was a core characteristic of the golden-age at this time.

For Penton, it is clear that he wrote that about the Golden-Age, i will try to search the source he quoted, to see if the primary source mention specifically a new magazine.--Amargor (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Chryssides' observations that you have added seem okay. They just shouldn't be seen as an invitation to other editors to overwhelm the article with criticisms.

Yes, please provide a quote. It may not be sufficient that it 'seems clear' to one editor. If it expicitly refers to The Golden Age as a breach of Russell's instructions, it may be appropriate to mention. However, if it is included, it should be indicated at the beginning of the History section with some brief context, and not just tacked on to the end of the existing sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Woodford was not a member of the editorial committee of The Watch Tower, hence the editorship of The Golden Age was not a violation of that element of Russell's will. However, I have retained the fact that Russell indicated that the Watch Tower Society was not to publish any periodicals in addition to The Watch Tower (but without the inappropriate exposé tone).--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources ?

Books and magazines of the Watchtower Bible Society has been considered in wikipedia as primary sources concerning the jehovah's witnesses issue and to be avoided as much as possible. This article is full of this kind of references.--Amargor (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not quite the case that primary sources should be "avoided as much as possible", but it is certainly the case that secondary sources are preferred. Please feel free to add suitable secondary sources. They would be most welcome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article structure ?

Some new detail has been provided, but the order isn't great and can't really be improved without additional information. It would benefit from better structure and a bit more background around why it was originally commissioned, with that information along with details about the selection of the editor given first.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that explaining the reason of the 3 differents names of the magazine during its history, the goal of the golden-age at the beginnig, its first editor, or what an historian like CHryssides has noted concerning what it was notably said in the golden-age are destroying the structure of the article. All are about the history of the magazine and are under the right subtitle "history" for me.--Amargor (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem was just the structure of that paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Knoxx citation of page 37 of Jehovah's witnesses and the secular world

"Systematic door to door ministry, with pairs of Witness fanning out over neigboorhoods or regions, was a key innovation of the Rutherford era. The Golden-Age was launched in 1919.(...) The broad range of topics was designed to appeal to a general readership, one beyond the existing membership. The Golden-Age was the key publication used during this ministry." So, have i misunderstand what Knoxx has said ? Is this information interesting ? Please, don't delete abruptly what i hav written when it is sourced by acadamics writer, ask reference, if you think that i misunderstand it. Concerning the reasons of the edition of this new magazine, you could see the goals of Golden-Age directly in the first number of this magazine, and it is clearly link with the new activity of predication.here--Amargor (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't "abruptly delete" it, I just moved the sentence slightly and re-worded. You can put "systematic" back in the sentence if it's that important I guess.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, i wrote to quickly.Amargor (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Danish name in 1930

I have removed this text, it seems very anecdotical for me: (In 1930 it was published in Danish under the name New World.).--Amargor (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It is explicitly stated in the cited source. I'm not sure it's particularly significant though. I support leaving it out unless it can be supported by a secondary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

A separate section for medical views ?

I could be agree to separate the medical approch of the Awake magazine in a separate section, but before that i want to note two points. First, we must aggregate the new and the old medical approch if the Awake magazine. Second this part could become very important as we can talk about a lot medical's cures that Woodworth and Rutherford have promoted in the column of the CGolden-Age/COnsolation magazines, is it really what you want ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amargor (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I was concerned about with the inclusion of outlandish statements that appeared in The Golden Age. It quickly turns into dredging up every 'embarrassing' thing that ever appeared in the magazine followed by equally tiresome apologetics trying to 'defend' JWs. Not that it had quite gotten out of hand yet, but we're only one day in.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my answer to the question about a section for medical views is No. Awake! is not and does not purport to be a medical text, and such a dedicated section would constitute undue weight (and it would encourage the king of nonsense described in my previous response).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro. There is no point in having a "medical views" section from a decidedly non-medical magazine. This sentence that is currently in the contents section is more than enough:

"It has also presented medical opinions of various medical conditions. Conditions that have been featured in Awake! include dementia, stroke, infectious diseases, bipolar disorder, and postpartum depression."

Vyselink (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A question of autorship ?

If i understand the idea in the deletion of this subtitle, the mention that the authors are anonymous since 1946 has disappeared too, and this a singular aspect of the Awake compared to a lot of religious magazine.--Amargor (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it was moved to the History section. Can you pay more attention to what I've actually changed? This is not the first time you have made incorrect statements about what I have edited.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok you're again right. Sorry.Amargor (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Discontinued 2020?

Was Awake! discontinued in 2020? If so it would be a good idea to update the article, —PaleoNeonate – 21:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be premature per WP:CRYSTAL. There was an announcement in November 2020 stating that publication of Awake! would be delayed in 2021. To my knowledge, there has been no official announcement that the magazine has been discontinued.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see an official discontinuation letter either and had only noticed the lack of new issues (so assumed there might have been such a statement). If there wasn't, we should indeed wait. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)