Talk:Kingdom song

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Christianity: Music / Witnesses Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christian music (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Some of this article's content is duplicated at the article section

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)[reply

]

I've removed the duplicated material from

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The guideline 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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

For the convenience of a

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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:COS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The subject itself is already notable, so sources discussing it must primarily be

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)[reply]