Talk:Kingdom song

Sing Praises to Jehovah

Some of this article's content is duplicated at the article section Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents#Sing Praises to Jehovah. From THAT article, I propose to remove many of the music details which are already discussed HERE, thus leaving that other article section to discuss the publication as it relates to JW adherents, rather than musicologists. If you wish to comment, please do so at that article's TALK page. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Provide notable sources, otherwise, delete and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents#Sing Praises to Jehovah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicated material from Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents#Sing Praises to Jehovah (see diff).
Apparently, JWs will have a new "current" songbook beginning in 2010, so that new songbook will likely replace most of what it currently says at the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents. Sing Praises to Jehovah will then be relegated solely to this article, I'd guess.
This article would benefit from attention, but it serves to gather information about all the songs (and songbooks) of Jehovah's Witnesses over the decades. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Recordings

This article should include an additional section for audio recordings of singing.
JWs had LPs for years, and some drama cassettes included singing roles. In 1996 in English, Singing Kingdom Songs was released on cassette and CD. In 2005, JW pubs referred to "certain recordings of Kingdom songs sung in a popular style that are presently being circulated among Jehovah’s Witnesses."
All that is of encyclopedic interest. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've put this on my extremely slow to-do list.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I created an article "Kingdom Melodies", which was about the orchestral (non-vocal) recorded versions of the songs, issued in a number of volumes over a number of years under the title "Kingdom Melodies" (not "Kingdom songs"). Someone then thought it fit to merge it with this article: I didn't agree, but couldn't really prevent it, so I had to grudgingly accept it, because I couldn't definitely argue that this merge was wrong - but along the way most of the content that I wrote has disappeared.

Should it be covered somewhere? - either in this article, or perhaps recreating the article "Kingdom Melodies"? If I can think of a place where it really fits, I might try bringing it back - I can probably retrieve it from early versions of the "Kingdom Melodies" article within the history. But I thought I might float the idea here before I go to all that fiddly effort to search for the material and then find somewhere to put it again.

I don't like it much when useful information is deleted by other editors - kind of makes me wonder why I bothered writing it in the first place. M.J.E. (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can resubmit material if you like. But if it is not properly sourced, not notable, or of poor quality, it may be deleted again. Anyone can edit Wikipedia; if it upsets you that your information may be deleted, the solution is to either learn to live with it or don't contribute. If you think the information might again be deleted, perhaps you could discuss the merits of the proposed content here first.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom Hall meetings

The intro is accurately describes "Kingdom songs" as 'hymns sung at meetings', and it is correct for 'meetings' here to link to the practices article which discusses ALL the JWs' meetings. However, later in this article here, the statement is made that 'a meeting has three songs', which is really only true for meetings at Kingdom Halls; it is NOT true for meetings for service held at homes, it is NOT true for Memorial commemorations, it is NOT true for assemblies, it is NOT true for conventions. Thus, insistently removing the link (here and here) to Kingdom Hall meetings seems to insist on removing information about the ACTUAL circumstances surrounding the type of meeting with three songs. By contrast, there seems no pressing NEED to remove the link. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Readers should not need a secret decoder ring to work out that the second link goes to Kingdom Hall because it is for meetings for worship only at the hall. If songs are only sung at the Kingdom Hall (which is not completely true), then the article should say so, not give an easter egg to make readers guess. The purpose of links to other articles is not to provide "information about the ACTUAL circumstances surrounding the type" of something - that is the purpose of the actual article text. Additionally, it is not especially notable that they don't sing songs at meetings for field service and other minutia (JWs sing two songs at the Memorial; they sing three songs per session at conventions and assemblies). It is an ambiguous and unnecessary link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The matter has been rephrased to remove that which had previously confused the editor.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no confusion. You're being pedantic, and you're simply insisting because there was resistance to your edit. There is simply no need to link to a minor section (which itself links back to the main section) when the main section about JW meetings is already linked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction you're claiming to make about meetings at Kingdom Halls compared to other meetings is not notable. Conventions are already mentioned separately in the article, and the sentence says what is 'typical'. Adapting the sentence for special focus on Kingdom Halls is not relevant in the scope of the article and reads poorly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, JWs do not have three songs at all their meetings (most of which are "typical"). The sentence in question should Wikilink to the type of meetings, and it could also be somewhat more specific. Rather than repeatedly removing links to Kingdom Hall#Meetings for worship (see here and here) and here), I've added the detail and linked more specifically. The previous unlinked sentence has been edited thusly:
* "Typically, Jehovah's Witnesses sing three songs at their formal meetings for worship." has been edited to:
* "Typically, Jehovah's Witnesses sing three songs at their midweek- and weekend meetings for worship."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The article already links to the 'meetings' section in the opening sentence, from which point the single paragraph about each of the meetings is readily visible. The additional links to the single-paragraph subsections are therefore superfluous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the lede's link is to the "Worship" section of another article. I have reinstated the links to the sections discussing the particular meetings.--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The link in the lead is sufficient coverage for linking to the 'discussion' (collectively comprising four sentences) about the meetings in question. Also, your links are to subsections of the already linked Worship section of the same target article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, within the scope of this article and with respect to general notability, the specific meetings held by JWs are not especially notable. Additionally, the usage of their songs as originally stated is "typical" of their usage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:LINK never mentions "notable" or "notability". I have reinstated the links to midweek- and weekend meetings for worship. Are these terms JW-specific (that is, "jargon")? At WP:UNDERLINK it explicitly states, "In general, links should be created to...articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions" [emphasis added].
And, again, these links do not duplicate any other link in the article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses practices#Midweek meeting and Jehovah's Witnesses practices#Weekend meeting (each of which comprise two sentences) are both subsections of Jehovah's Witnesses practices#Worship, which is already linked. Your earlier claim that "the lede's link is to the "Worship" section of another article" is simply wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have lodged a 3rd opinion request.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of a WP:3O respondent, it seems appropriate to summarize my view:

1. Jeffro77's preferred wording was vague; many typical JW meetings do not have three songs. Thus I've changed his ambiguous text by adding just three words to the article body. Textwise, that's it, "meetings for worship" became "midweek and weekend meetings for worship".
2. There is no other link in this article to either "Midweek meeting" or "Weekend meeting" (discussed at the JW practices article), so I linked from the two terms. That's it, "meetings for worship" became "midweek- and weekend meetings for worship".
3. Jeffro77 insists that there is already a link (in the lede) to a major section which includes the newly linked subsections. That major section? "Worship", that is, Jehovah's Witnesses practices#Worship. It's counter-intuitive to imagine a casual reader must go back through the article, click on a "worship" link in the lede, and then wade through a discussion of JW worship to find something about the specific meeting he may want to click on (especially when specific linkable subsections already exist).
4. Even if the new links did repeat a link in the lede (which they do not), WP:REPEATLINK states: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including...where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." Of course, the links I added are not repeated links, but would likely be allowed even if they did repeat links used in the lede.
5. Jeffro77 repeatedly complains that the links are not "necessary" and not "notable"; neither 'necessity' nor 'notability' is required for a link.
   

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to link to the specific meetings at all. The format and content of specific JWs meetings are not covered in reliable third-party sources and are not especially notable, so there is no need to link to the individual kinds of meetings at all. JWs' primary meetings have three songs; the absence of songs from brief, often informal, 'field service meetings' prior to preaching is unnecessary minutia. Further information about how songs are used at JW conventions is also already mentioned in this article. Inclusion of the links would be more appropriate at a 'JW-Wiki', but is not encyclopaedically beneficial here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Third Opinion- The links to the weekend and midweek meetings are fine, they do help people to understand more about the meetings, and that there are two types of meetings. As the links all link to different subsections of Jehovah's Witnesses practices, I don't think it's a case of repeatlink. And to the concerns of notability and lack of reliable sources, notability is not of concern when linking, it is the relevance to the subject that is important, and the subsections which are linked to both have many references. Anyways, I do not see how the links do any harm. Passionless -Talk 00:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In view of the third opinion, I will leave it per AuthorityTam's edit (although the Worship section is the parent of the other two subsections, and not a different subsection). It should be noted that there are only four third-party refs in the target subsections, one of which is about JWs prohibitiing independent thinking and has no direct connection with the format of JW meetings. Most of the refs are JW publications, which are primary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

sample audio

I have included two sample audio of kingdom songs under fair usage policy. Wikipedia encourages sample music in articles if it is possible. see below articles.

Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)

Hymn

Doxology

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Sacred Harp

Shape note

Adeste Fideles

Dies Irae

Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium

Tantum Ergo

Veni Creator Spiritus

Veni Sancte Spiritus

Victimae paschali laudes

I think the above examples are enough to convince my viewpoint..Flowerman75 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The low quality clips don't add much to the article though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SAMPLE, "Music samples can...illustrate the particular instruments or musical elements in a song in a way that a text description cannot."--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent article not better than article of march 2010

Dear contributors, I can't understand why current article for "Kingdom Songs" is so different to the article that was active in march 2010. Sincerely I think that it was beeter than current article... of course it could be improve. On February and March 2010 (I think) I sent some suggested changes to the article and also some bibliographic references about almost all the hymnals used by C.T. Russell in compiling his first two songbooks (Songs of the Bride, and Poems and Hymns of Dawn)... and also I gave two bibliographic references of my own work about this subject. These have been deleted in the current article. I think that at this moment there are no academic works published about this subject except my articles... and published in one of the best scientific digital repositories of the world (Digital.CSIC)< http://digital.csic.es/?idioma=en >. I am doing my doctoral dissertation about hymnals and songbooks used by Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students at the University of Barcelona (Spain) from an historical point of view... and I think that my references could be of help in this subject(despite they are in spanish language). Sorry, please, do not think I want that my articles must be quoted, but only I would like to know the reasons to delete them and also the reasons to have changed so much the article. Of course I cant share with you information about Kingdom Songs. Yours Miquel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplaza (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to promote your own work in Wikipedia articles. If your research becomes notable (published—preferably in English—and cited by reliable third-party sources), it could then be used in the article. However, it would be appropriate for you to add content based on other sources. See also WP:COI and WP:COS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The subject itself is already notable, so sources discussing it must primarily be reliable rather than notable per se. As the editor immediately above notes, guidelines prevent an editor from contributing original research directly; however, WP:SELFCITING explicitly states, "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source". Editor Maplaza should plainly cite where/when his work was published, and of course WP:NONENG states "When quoting a source in a different language [than English], provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. ...When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested".

If I recall correctly, much (most? all?) of the deleted analysis was both uncontroversial and of encyclopedic interest. Incidentally, while I'd agree that certain past iterations of the article were superior to the current one, such a general statement is not very useful. Perhaps one at a time, useful statements could be reinstated from among what has been deleted; if/when such an edit is contested, that specific matter can be discussed in a clearly-defined thread here at Talk.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Only to inform you, if it can be of interest to anyone, that my doctoral dissertation about "Musica y Testigos Cristianos de Jehová: aproximación histórica a sus himnarios y prácticas musicales" [English translation: "Music and Jehovah's Witnesses: historical approach to their hymnals and musical practices"] is now accessible at the CSIC institutional repository, the biggest research repository in Spain. Here you have a secure link: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/75500 It is in spanish, but with many english quotations and an english abstract. Yours Miquel Angel Plaza-Navas (Barcelona, Spain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplaza (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It is still not appropriate to promote your own work in Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom song v hymn

Although it does not currently address the name "Kingdom song", the article does mention that the term was in international use by the 1930s. The switch to the unique name seems a natural point to discuss (and vis a vis "hymn"), so I welcome others' efforts and hope to eventually research the matter myself.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sing to Jehovah"

• - "For example, we no longer speak of “the new order” but of “the new world.” And we now state that Jehovah’s name will be “sanctified,” not “vindicated.”"
• - "The Governing Body approved the publication of a new songbook entitled Sing to Jehovah."
• - "Because there are fewer songs to learn, it should be possible for us to memorize the lyrics of at least some of the new songs."
• - "This is in harmony with Paul’s counsel recorded at Ephesians 5:19.—Read."
• - "The lyrics of many of the songs have been composed in such a way that when you sing one line, you will almost be able to anticipate what comes next."
• - The Watchtower, Decemeber 15th, 2010, "Sing to Jehovah!" pages 23-24. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This explanation was provided in the, 2011 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses on pages 17-19:

• - "Wording has been selected that makes it easier to absorb the meaning of the song while it is being sung and to make the words easier to remember."
• - 'To help further with memorization, many of the songs have been shortened.'
• - 'Where appropriate, choruses have been added to provide meaning repetition.'
• - 'In addition, an effort was made to assign each syllable of each to a single note, rather than to place one syllable on note.'
• - '…some of the melodies needed adjustments to make them easier to sing... Some of the songs have now been lower in ptch so that the higher notes are easier to sing.'
• - In summary, some reasons for the changes:

• - In harmony with up-to-date doctrinal understanding/'theocratic language.'
• - Easier to memorize:
• - Shorten songs.
• - Choruses.

• - Easier to sing along with:
• - Changes in pitch.
• - Effort to assign each syllable of a word to single note.

• - International linguistic factors.
• - New songs, covering different theme. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an improvement to the article?? None of this seems especially notable. Have any third-party sources commented on these details??--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Can someone explain why the article is named "Kingdom songs" and not "Kingdom song"? In general, page titles should be singular, so I'm unclear how/why this is different. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)