This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
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.
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)