Talk:The Watchtower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Texts / Witnesses (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Wikipedia gives preference to the most commonly used name over the official name. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" is a subtitle of this publication. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#subtitles, the name of this article should be "The Watchtower".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that cited reference specifically applies to BOOKS ("Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle"). By contrast, that same article, in a different section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals, reads thusly: "This guideline does not contain specific information on how to name Wikipedia articles on periodicals (magazines, newspapers,...). In most cases naming such articles will not be problematic"
Why fix something that isn't problematic?
Ironically, the suggested change might introduce ambiguity where there is none now; see Watchtower (disambiguation).
Interestingly, the only time "Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom" was called "a subtitle" by its publisher was in an account about a Chilean court case in the 1950s. Another publication called "El Atalaya" (spanish for "the watchman") objected to the title "La Atalaya" (spanish for "the watchtower"). The court ruled that the "subtitle" of the latter removed any possibility of confusion, and allowed it to stand.
The following quote shows the actual title of the magazine at issue.
"Offer the Magazines That Bear Witness to the Truth", Our Kingdom Ministry, December 2007, page 6,
"The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom and its companion magazine, Awake!, remain at the forefront of the Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making work. ...Since January 2006, we have become adept at using various presentations for the one monthly issue of Awake! Now we will take a similar approach to offering just one of the two monthly issues of The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom in our public ministry." [italics retained from quoted text]
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
You have omitted the last part of the sentence from your quote about the 'Periodicals' guideline. It continues, "nor incompatible with this guideline". That is, the policy for the titles of books also applies to periodicals, and there are no special additional guidelines for the naming of articles about periodicals. Additionally, under the illustrated example of the Origin of Species, the guideline states, "If an authoritative edition of a book has letters of various size on its title page, everything after the largest print is (usually) considered "subtitle" in the context of this guideline".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? Is the argument really that the article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is "incompatible with this guideline" at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals?
The guideline says, "In most cases naming such articles [on magazines] will not be problematic, nor incompatible with this guideline". The term "incompatible" is binary; it is or it isn't. I'd submit that neither article title (The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom nor The Watchtower) is incompatible with the guideline.
Furthermore, I'd submit that a measured consideration, seeking to avoid things "problematic" (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals), would tend to favor the unambiguous article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom as immeasurably superior to the ambiguous article title The Watchtower.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's unclear why you're asking about the "incompatibility" of the name of this article with the guideline. It is the naming convention of periodicals that is not "incompatible with [the] guideline" for the naming of books. I didn't say The Watchtower was incompatible with anything.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no significant issue of disambiguation. 'The Watchtower' is not currently a disambiguation page at all despite the misleading link you've given for the separate 'Watchtower' disamgibuation page, which is entirely unaffected by the proposed change. A simple {{otheruses}} template can be placed at the top of this article. Additionally, The Watchtower is the most commonly used title for this magazine. The smaller lettering of the subtitle, Watchtower literature's own usage of the term The Watchtower apart from the subtitle, and the Watchtower Society's indication of Herald of Christ's Presence as the magazine's previous "subtitle" all indicate the appropriate title of the article to be "The Watchtower" as indicated by Wikipedia's naming conventions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Watchtower literature mentions that Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is part of the "full title", which obviously includes the subtitle (km 1/02 p. 6,w02 1/1 p. 12,km 11/01 p. 4 par. 10). There are also various references to "Herald of Christ's Presence" (the magazine's predecessor) being the "subtitle" (jv chap. 10 pp. 133-134, ka chap. 11 p. 191 par. 15, w61 8/1 p. 476), and the same manner of naming is still obviously employed. Watchtower literature most often refers to the magazine as The Watcthower in formal contexts without inclusion of the subtitle rather than with.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is the full title, but people commonly colloquially shorten the name to The Watchtower, same as people often colloquially shorten long names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is the full title, which includes the subtitle. See above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This first paragraph repeated from above...
Furthermore, I'd submit that a measured consideration, seeking to avoid things "problematic" (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals), would tend to favor the unambiguous article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom as immeasurably superior to the ambiguous article title The Watchtower.
Ironically, the guidelines page itself gives an example of an acceptably short title, namely "On the Origin of Species", which is five words long Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles. That section on "subtitles" says this, "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes" [emphasis added]
The magazine's full title is only FIVE WORDS LONG! That's as short as the EXAMPLE given of a short publication name! Why the insistence on shortening it even more? And, if disambiguation is a goal, why INTRODUCE ambiguation? Without context, the diminutive article title "The Watchtower" is patently vague, which (if it was needed) seems obviously to qualify a five word article title as 'an exception for disambiguation purposes'
In a few weeks, this article will be six years old. Why the urgency to change the name now?--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
For most of the last six years, the title of this article was The Watchtower. The article was renamed, without any discussion, by User:Alexander Moritz in February 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Of the 19 other-language articles about this magazine, 10 do not include the subtitle in the article name, and at least 6 of the others were renamed by Александр (Russian for 'Alexander'), the same user who renamed this article without discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no irony, and the guideline does not proscribe a certain number of words as the determining factor. There is no ambiguity in the title The Watchtower. I won't enter any slippery-slope arguments about why anything shouldn't be changed simply because it's been wrong for a long time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify... Jeffro77 sees "no irony" in the guideline example title being five words while he simultaneously insists that the five word title of this article (verbatim the title of the magazine) must be shortened. Perhaps we use different definitions of "irony".
Are there also different definitions of 'ambiguity' and 'disambiguity'? The title of the article as it is now is unambiguous. By contrast, Jeffro77 is advocating replacing that with a title of ONE WORD (a common noun at that!) with a definite article as the entire title. Why introduce ambiguation?
The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is a well-known magazine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
'The watchtower' is almost anything the watchman stands on. Which of the two titles is MORE ambiguous?
Even if "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" was accepted as a "subtitle" (and that's arguable) rather than simply the last three of a five word title, and even if Wikipedia's guideline on books does apply to magazines, under what circumstances does that guideline allow an exception?
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles, "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes" [emphasis added]
A "short title" would certainly include those of FIVE WORDS such as The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom.
It simply makes no sense to trade disambiguity for ambiguity just to save three words in a title.
Furthermore, there seems no reason to ignore what Wikipedia's naming guideline does explicitly say about periodicals such as magazines: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Periodicals, "This guideline does not contain specific information on how to name Wikipedia articles on periodicals (magazines, newspapers,...). In most cases naming such articles will not be problematic"
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You haven't clarified anything here. You've just repeated yourself. There is no irony, because a specific number of words in a title is not the determining factor. Harping on about how "The Watchtower" is 'a noun and a definite article' is pretty mundane stuff to try to bulk up your argument, but the fact remains that there is no ambiguity among existing articles in that title at all - The Watchtower is currently a redirect to this article, not a disambiguation page. The Watchtower is the main title of the magazine, and its most commonly used title - among non-Witnesses the magazine is not especially well known at all, and certainly not well known by the full title. Additionally, again you omit the key point of what the guideline says about the naming of periodicals - "nor incompatible with this guideline" - that is, there are no special guidelines for naming periodicals, and the guideline for articles on books normally applies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The current article title is clear and unambiguous. The suggested diminutive is ambiguous.
Why not just leave the unambiguous title as it is? As has been mentioned, the current article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is short, just five words. Why change it?
Do Wikipedia articles about magazines always drop "subtitles" from the Wikipedia article title? Consider two examples.
Have you ever seen U.S.News magazine or Better Homes magazine?
Are you going to campaign for those article titles to be shortened also?
Wikipedia has always discouraged ambiguity, so disambiguity is prime. Those who push for ambiguity should be the ones explaining the reasons for their urgency.
While it's possible that all who came before were mistaken, those who argue for shortening the title of this article must insist that everyone else is wrong: everyone who tolerated the current title for six years was wrong, everyone who has tolerated the U.S.News article title has been wrong all these years, and everyone who tolerated the Better Homes and Gardens article title all these years has been wrong. If the argument is 'anything that might be construed as a dreaded "subtitle" must be expunged!', well, that's a faulty argument. In any event, "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" has never been acknowledged by the Watchtower Society as a "subtitle" rather than simply as the last three words of a five word title.
Furthermore, the very buildings the magazine is written in and printed in are owned by "the Watchtower", that is, "the Watchtower Society of New York". It's silly to pretend that a two word title "the watchtower" could not possibly be ambiguous to anyone, and must be preferable to the full title of the magazine the article discusses.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that Better Homes and Gardens is best known as that full title, though I'm not familiar with, and can't vouch for, the other journal you cite. There remains no ambiguity regarding an article entitled The Watchtower. Though the Watchtower Society may not have explicitly cited Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom as a "subtitle" (at least not in the information I have immediately available to me), they have explicitly done so in the case of Herald of Christ's Presence, which follows exactly the same construction, and the Watchtower Society has expicitly indicated that "The Watchtower" has been "continuously published" since 1879, which implicitly indicates that any other part of the title Herald of Christ's Presence and Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom have been subtitles. Do any editors other than AuthorityTam have an opinion here?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "and Herald of Christ’s Presence" was dropped from the magazine's title in 1939.
It was only after-the-fact (after it had been dropped) that it was described as having been a subtitle, using that term less than five times in sixty years.
Earlier, Jeffro made much of the definition of "subtitle" as defined at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#subtitles; it says there: "If an authoritative edition of a book has letters of various size on its title page, everything after the largest print is (usually) considered "subtitle" in the context of this guideline".
So, unless the article title The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom is being singled out for dimunition, a strict application of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#subtitles to magazines would quite plainly require that both U.S. News & World Report and Better Homes and Gardens must have their Wikipedia article titles truncated.
Would leaving the status quo be more "problematic" or less "problematic"?
Would leaving the status quo be more "ambiguous" or less "ambiguous"?
I submit that it's less problematic and less ambiguous to leave all three titles as they have been for several years, rather than truncate any of them.
That same guideline expects the naming of articles about magazines to (quote) "not be problematic".
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No strict application need be applied to the other magazines you cite, because they are known by their most common names. The most common name of the The Watchtower is The Watchtower, and its diminutive subtitle is just that. Of those non-Witnesses that have heard of the The Watchtower at all, most know it as only The Watchtower.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've known about The Watchtower for decades (sigh - tempus fugit), and never knew it had a subtitle. I'm supporting the rename. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The arguments against renaming are:

  • A claim that the subtitle is not actually a subtitle, despite the Watchtower's own indication of prior subtitles of the magazine published continuously under its main title for over a century.
  • A claim of ambiguity, though no article exists under the proposed name.
  • A comparison of the number of words in the article name, though no guideline specifies an exact number of words.
  • A straw man regarding other journals known by their most common names.

So far, there are 3 in support of renaming (Jeffro77, Resurr Section, Dougweller), 1 against (AuthorityTam), and one unclear (Anthony Appleyard).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am against changing the name because People should not be removing God's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklemetti (talkcontribs) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Your rationale has no validity here though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support rename to The Watchtower as well. While it's true that "TWAJK" is the official title and has been for over 70 years, even the magazine itself and the Watch Tower literature that cites it nearly always (over 99% of the time) refer to it as The Watchtower. Additionally, its title has always used primarily the words Watch Tower and Watchtower ever since its inception back on 1 July 1879 - nearly 130 years ago. Glenn L (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Is there a source indicating that the specific intention of the PDF files is for the "importation into devices that can display text in ultra-large forms", or is that claim simply synthesis?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


The list of languages that has been added 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) 09:57, 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 08:24, 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 09:13, 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. Please don't continue exactly the same conversation in both separate Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
ok I already mentioned my opinions and I am leaving further decisions with you--Logical Thinker:talk 09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
A simple statement of the number of languages in which the magazine appears is sufficient. The list dominates the article. BlackCab (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - there is no need to list any of the languages. Occuli (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the list; also at Awake!.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The stated purpose[edit]

The stated purpose of the Watchtower is given in the article, prefacing it as "the magazine's mission statement". However, Jeffro77 wishes to omit from the entire stated purpose eight words, namely "It comforts people with the good news that..." He contends that the good news portion of the purpose is POV. However every statement in the "Purpose" is POV, Jehovah God being the supreme ruler of universe, God's Kingdom being a real government, etc. Since it is described as the "stated purpose" the entire statement is expected to be POV. So what makes the short line regarding comfort and good news different? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the unbalanced quotation mark before "God's Kingdom" made it look like the 'comfort and good news bit' was outside the quote. I've fixed it.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pauloinet, 7 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I´d like to change a picture that appears in < >. The picture < Watchtower_Magazine_English_issues.jpg > shows a cover of the magazine The Watchtower. But the picture shows a cover of an issue that is, sometimes, controversial. People who are not Jehovah Witnesses used to say that we are a sect that only talks about Apocalipse, and it´s not true. We talk about the God´s Kingdom. So, people who see that cover might think that we only talk about the end of the world, what is not true. We talk about the end of all suffering. So, please, I ask for someone change that picture and upload a new one. That´s my suggestion. < Watchtower_Magazines_Covers_English.JPG ‎> found at < >

Thank you! Pauloinet (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I think that there is a problem with the rights to the image you linked to. I've tagged the image and left a note on your Commons talk page.—C45207 | Talk 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Low-resolution images to illustrate the style of a cover that cannot be conveyed textually are generally permitted under fair use. (Since the suggested picture has been removed, I can't comment on it specifically.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pauloinet, that's a request that shows an astonishing level of sensitivity. The illustration doesn't purport to show anything other than a cover of The Watchtower. I don't think there is any way of identifying a "typical" WT cover and in any case the subject matter is certainly not atypical of WT covers. The JWs are very much interested in the "end of the world". Your objection could be raised about any WT cover. In this case it was a magazine cover, so it's an appropriate illustration. There's certainly no need to remove it. BlackCab (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sensitivity aside, the existing picture was uploaded and added to the article by a JW editor (User:Logicalthinker33). The magazine cover is typical of Watchtower content. The picture as used in this article does not attempt to assign any special attention to the specific content of that particular issue of the magazine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue needs to be revisited since the user that uploaded the picture is banned. He may have had nefarious reasoning when he chose that image. And BlackCab, your insistence on the continued use of this image calls to question your motives and it seems it may not be neutral. --Ironious (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks on editors aside, what is your objection to the image? The editor who uploaded the picture was not banned for uploading that picture, and is a member of the religion in question. The other editor to whom you object did not upload the cover in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no "insistence" on keeping the illustration. As has been pointed out, it is just just another Watchtower cover, added by an active JW, and actually quite appropriate: magazine cover stories frequently address the issue of when God's day of wrath will come, reflecting the central belief of the magazine's founder, CT Russell. There is nothing objectionable about the cover; and if you replaced it, will someone then complain that the different cover is also controversial? BlackCab (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be good though to add the new cover of the Study Edition, with five available in PDF. They now have cover art, not a large watchtower.Juleon11 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No objection to providing an updated image of the Study Edition. Covers should not just be cherry-picked for something that 'seems' 'less controversial' though. How about using the first 2012 issue of each? I'm not sure how the availability in PDF is relevant to this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no attack made. He is what I said by the very definition of the word. But seeing as how my comment was edited out, I can see how this is going to go. Some people cannot be reasoned with. I already pointed out my issue with the image yet Im asked again what my issue with it is. Anyway, it was just a thought, a thought provoking thought.--Ironious (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You're continuing to comment about an editor who didn't add the picture. You also questioned the motives of the blocked editor who uploaded the picture, but the editor is a member of the religion in question, persistently made defensive edits about the religion, and was not blocked for anything to do with the image in question. Therefore, you have not yet provided any valid objection to the image. So, again, what is your objection to the image?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchtower to become 16 pages[edit]

As of January 2013, the public edition of The Watchtower (as well as Awake!) will be reduced to 16 pages. The 'official' announcement of this change is to be made some time this month (April 2012) after a 'special talk'. JW editors should be able to confirm once this has been formally announced so it can be included in the article. (Following the announcement, the letter announcing it (already available online) will be posted on noticeboards in JW Kingdom Halls, which are open to the public, uncontroversially deeming it a publicly accessible source).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the article, there is no mention of the current number of pages, so this issue is moot.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The change can now be confirmed at [2] (download a pdf of a magazine published januar or later). The study edition is still 32 pgs. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous editor recently added a paragraph suggesting that the reduction to 16 pages was simply a return to the magazine's format prior to 1950. However, issues prior to 1950 contained about 14,000 - 15,000 words (without pre-printed study questions), and issues from 1950 until 2011 typically contained 12,000 - 17,000 words (gradually reducing over time, and including pre-printed study questions). The new Public Edition has about 4,000 - 5,000 words; the current (32-page) Study Edition also has less content than the pre-1950 Watchtower magazines. The edit also put unnecessary focus on the website, which is out of the scope of this article. I have therefore reverted the edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Habakkuk 2.1a Relevant?[edit]

The important Adventist writer Ellen Gould White, in her book The Great Controversy, happens to cite this verse, which begins, "I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower ...." Does anyone know whether that quote was a direct inspiration for the use of the term "Watchtower?" Terry J. Carter (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, page 260, in an article, Name and Purpose of The Watchtower, specifically makes the connection with Habakkuk 2:1. This could be mentioned in the article as a single sentence.
I'm not aware of any direct connection with White's use of the verse. This claim would require a specific source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mounthly, biweekly or semimonthly[edit]

Is The Watchtower monthly, biweekly or semimonthly? The Watchtower - public edition is mountly, but since this article is about both editions, I would suggest to keep it as semimonthly in the category tree. I don't concider it biweekly anyway and anyhow, because both editions combined is not published biweekly (except from through February). Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's semimonthly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't really see much difference between biweekly and semimonthly (I know, 26 vs. 24 issues/year, but in other category trees, like the one on academic journals, the difference is not made). Also, the article states at several places that the magazine is published monthly, so it seems a bit weird to categorize it differently. There are two different editions, which is not the same as two issues of the same magazine. There are also different language editions, we don't count those as separate issues either. So in my eyes, there are two different editions, each one being a monthly. We cannot just sum that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Then the article may should have split? There are indeed distinct differences between the two editions, where the one edition is printed in far more exemplares. It would may have been needed three new articles if splited, as The Watchtower until the Study edition was introduced, is some kind of mix of the two current editions? Another issue is, the Study edition may not would be notable for its own article here. I tend to agree to Jeffro77 here, but have not really strong opinions either way, as both categories may to some extend are correct. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no problem with having a single article on the different editions (for example, see Physica (journal)) even if they would be independently notable (as is the case with the Physica journals), if that renders a better and more coherent article (subjects need to be notable to get an article, but the other way around is not necessary). What is incorrect is to say: we have two more or less different magazines, each appearing monthly, so this has to be categorized as biweekly"... --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The two editions of the magazine still present fundamentally the same kind of content (though the Public edition has been dumbed down a bit) as before the introduction of separate editions. Both editions of the magazine have the same full title, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom, and there are two issues published monthly. Since the introduction of the Study edition, The Watchtower (inside cover of the Study edition and page 4 of the Public edition) still states that it is published "semimonthly", and this is also reflected in the sequential issue numbers of each annual volume. The Study edition contains material for use at JW meetings, and is not typically distributed to the public, but prior to the introduction of the separate editions, The Watchtower always contained the study articles; though the 'members only' edition (though it's available online) has since said some things that are fairly unsavory (such as the battered wife who should show more love for her husband [15 January 2012, page 29], calling 'apostates' "mentally diseased" [15 July 2011, page 16], or obeying the Watch Tower organisation even if directions seem irrational [15 November 2013, page 20]), the type of material is not new. As such, it is not necessary to split the article here, because the differences are already well explained in the current article. There is not sufficient content specific to the Study edition to justify a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Of greater concern than splitting this article is the fact that the article currently has only four secondary sources, one of which ( most likley fails the criteria for reliable sources. I have replaced one of the sources that failed criteria for reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
My, I didn't think that a seemingly simple question about categorizing publications frequency would generate so much discussion :-). Thanks to Jeffro77 for clarifying things and making the article more internally consistent. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Jeffro77: I can't see how your highly random selected examples of content samples alone do prove weather it is one or several different magazines or not. Awake!, and also other publications published by WTBTS do have content that covers what could have been from The Watchtower. Both editions are publicly available, but they are announced to have two different target groups. I won't though argue against the magazines being semimonthly if both editions do selfidentifying them as the same magazine, and states it is semimonthly. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The 'samples' were provided as evidence for the point about controversial content in the Study edition since the introduction of the 'members-only' edition, rather than to 'prove whether it is one or several different magazines'. Each of the 'samples' are instances that have garnered media attention, and were therefore not random as you claim. But the fact that the magazine does indeed explicitly state that it is "semimonthly" does definitely resolve your initial query.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The public and study editions of the Watchtower as well as the Awake are distributed on a monthly basis. The only difference is the date. On the public Watchtower and Awake the date always reads as the 1st of the month while the study edition always reads as the 15th of the month. Since the 2008 launch of the revamped issues of all three magazines now appear months in advance online. You are free to visit and verify. Gorba (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Study and Public editions of The Watchtower are issues of the same magazine, with consecutive issue numbers. All issues of the magazine explicitly state that The Watchtower is bi-monthly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The page 2 of both say "semi-monthly", and anyone has access to both on line and if you go to the meetings once a month - the paper edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juleon11 (talkcontribs) 13:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Use colon to separate main title and subtitle[edit]

I am changing "The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" to "The Watchtower: Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" (note: the latter includes a colon). Reason: it is standard practice to use a colon to separate the main title from the subtitle, even though it is almost always the case that no colon precedes the subtitle on the title page. See . Mksword (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The publisher of the magazine never uses a colon in the full title, even when referring to the full title in prose. It never has a colon. The unrelated style guide you have linked has no bearing on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The Watchtower, 1 January 2008, page 5: "In fact, note that the full title of this magazine is The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom." No colons, dashes, smiley faces, or any other superfluous punctuation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Note that "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" is truly a subtitle; it's not a clause modifying the word "Watchtower". Watchtowers do not announce anything. Furthermore, look at the magazine's front page and you see that the words "Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" are on a lower line than the main title, and are in a much smaller font.
Many guidelines state that a colon is to be used to separate the main title from the subtitle. Here are some more examples of such guidelines: , , , , , The Writer's Harbrace Handbook .
I notice that one of the footnotes in the "The Watchtower" article is as follows:
{ {cite journal| url = | title = The Watchtower: Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom| publisher = Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania| date = January 1, 2015| accessdate = October 17, 2014} }
Behold the colon in the title field of that footnote. That footnote was originally created, with the colon, on 28 March 2011 by User:C45207.
And I notice that the WorldCat entry for "The Watchtower" ( states the magazine's title like this: "The Watchtower : announcing Jehovah's Kingdom" (notice the colon). Mksword (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor stylising the title with a colon in a footnote in 2011 is not remotely interesting. The actual title as explicitly indicated by the publisher of the magazine in prose when directly describing the title of the magazine trumps general style guides.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
And for the sake of completeness, I do notice the WorldCat's nonstandard spacing around a colon and the lowercase a in the subtitle, but that is no reason to adopt that usage here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, in the traditional sense, announcements were indeed issued from watchtowers. That was kind of their purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Watchtower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)