Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although valid issues requiring editorial discussion have been brought here, the consensus here is to keep. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of sources that might be used in other articles is not itself an article, and does not belong in the main namespace. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • too soon I'm not sure what this article is, and where it's going.
  • Is it a simple biography list, following a split? That seems strange practice – surely we list such a biography in the articles where these sources are cited, as necessary to support those article? It would be a problem for them if readers had to trail across multiple articles to check sources, let alone the maintenance. The only reason to split the content seems to be either because it was previously too big (we're just not that restricted for space) or because many of these were cited across multiple articles (and we can't afford to ever duplicate a byte). If this really was boilerplate content for multiple articles, then that's what the template namespace is for – although that would be unwiedly unless the lists were known to be staying the same across both articles long-term.
  • It's not an article. It's a bibliography. That is, it is an appendix from another article; it is not article content. There's no precedent in the manual of style for forking out appendices such as 'Bibliography' or 'Further reading' to separate articles. And it is unclear how anyone would know to find it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a literary critique of the many and various sources that are widely used in the study of Witnesses, then I think that would be an excellent article topic. However such an article relies on sourcing, and there's probably WP:CaseLaw on how such bibliographies are handled. Clearly the current article is nowhere near this as yet, but it's early days following a split and the author should be given opportunity to develop it.
I would appreciate comment from Alan Liefting on just why he's split this and what he's trying to aim for. I'd also say that whatever needs doing to this article, so soon after its split, a discussion of its deletion is not appropriate or urgent at this time. We surely don't want to blank this list from WP space altogether, other articles are depending upon it (wherever it's stored). As to tagging it for speedy deletion, then that's a far from helpful move. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the bibliography lists contain works by a particular author (and we already have List of Watch Tower Society publications), or about a broad subject (such as religion or history), and certainly not as a content fork. There still doesn't seem to be precedent for a separate article giving a bibliography about a very specific subject, especially where it is an attractive target for bias.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen in Category:Bibliographies by subject there are all sorts of arcane topics so topic such as the Jehovah's Witnesses is deserving of its own bibliography. And it is not a content fork - it is a split. And having List of Watch Tower Society publications is not a replacement for a wider set of publications. And finally, your concerns about "an attractive target for bias" are misplaced. That goes for all of WP and we have ways of dealing with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"experienced/respected/sensible User"? You obviously don't know me very well! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK then Alan, "crazed near-vandal, hell-bent on personally destroying Wikipedia's categorization system", if that makes you feel any better. I do happen to think you're right on this one though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's better! That is exactly what I want to do! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The title is encyclopedic but the annotations make this original research. Some sort of subdivision by date or topic would be beneficial, but as soon as opinions (very short unsourced essays) are offered about this book or that, it crosses the line, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the annotation would be an improvement. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing the annotations would be an even bigger one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the books serve as sources for their own annotations? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're an acceptable source for their own publisher, ISBN etc., but not much beyond this. Where a commentary on the books (which is why an article like this would become valuable) extends to "Prof. Deicide's book is a valuable history of the early development of the church, but his own opinions get out of hand when he accuses the Archdruid of sacrificing kittens", then that needs secondary sources, where WP:RS support the detail of why the book is important and what can be said about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not too concerned if it is deleted but I am leaning towards keep. Most of it was stuff commented out in a "Further reading" section the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was too much to have hidden away. And I am a fan of bibliographies. I was concerned that there would be a bias in the list but I added other stuff, and it can be fixed of course. The annotation should be removed as an improvement. I have to admit that creating the article was a sloppy job, and I am far from proud of it, but in my defence it is not my topic area. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this pseudo-article is retained, it does not mean that Further reading sections should be removed from other JW-related articles (as you did at the main Jehovah's Witnesses article). Also, books appearing in the various Further reading sections (if present) at different JW-related articles should be within the scope of each article rather than duplicating the same broad list across multiple articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets call it a bibliography rather than "pseudo-article" shall we? And note that there are a number of biblio pages so it seems the community is in favour of them. As for splitting info out of the Jehovah's Witnesses that was a valid move. What I should have done is left a link to the new article. Articles grow so we create new ones to avoid them from becoming bloated. I see that you have reverted my removal of the "Further reading" in the Jehovah's Witnesses article. If the new biblio is retained having that section is unneeded repetition and a link to a more extensive biblio would be better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Further reading section is an appendix, not content to be forked out to a separate article. Also, as previously stated, different JW-related articles may have different sources for further reading for each article's own scope. It is not helpful to point such articles to an attempted one-size-fits-all bibliography.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Further reading section is just that - a list of publication recommended by WP editors to the readers. They are not the same as references or sources, which are actually used in the article. A Further reading section can therefore be split of without affecting the integrity of the article. I am not suggesting the individual articles should not have a Further reading section, it is just that an overview biblio page is a good thing. BTW, I note that you are a fellow atheist (not that it has any bearing on this discussion). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:APPENDIX until you understand that the Further reading section is not part of the main article content.
Why would you add something that has no bearing on the discussion?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Further reading section is an appendix, not content"
If we all accept that statement, then does it not indicate that this appendix could quite reasonably be kept as a free-standing page, under a title that equates to "Reading list on Jehovah's Witnesses"? That's an article that could have its own sections: doctrine, theological commentary, pro- and contra- critiques from outside. Such a topic certainly has value to readers (given my doorstep traffic in recent weeks, I'm actually in need of it myself).
In physical book publishing, an appendix is bound at the rear of the book, traditionally printed on separate signatures. In some large publications, the appendix is often a separate volume. I see no a priori reason why a section, even online, being an "appendix" means that it can't be a separate page title in wikispace, rather the contrary in fact.
Some disjointed comments:
  • Such a reading list should (modulo WP:IMPERFECT) include commentary on the texts listed, as such reliable, sourced commentary is made available. It should also group the texts according to their publisher (at least as official Witness or non-Witness) and by the broad slant of their content. A reader looking for social history vs theology shouldn't have to wade through the lot.
  • Each Witnesses article still needs its own Bibliography and Further reading sections. These are big articles, both are justified. This article as a stand-alone doesn't remove those sections. I see real problems (as already noted) with doing so, because it makes the bibliography less accessible and because the relevant per-article reading list is probably a small subset.
However an overall list, as a stand-alone, this article still has its own value.
  • I'm puzzled by some omissions from this list (I've recently been tidying technical cite formats in Jehovah's Witnesses). Beckford and Hoekema are frequently cited in that article, yet they're not in this bibliography. Is there a deliberate reason?
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for those omissions is that, as stated before, the author of the page (Alan Liefting) lifted the content for the Bibliography 'article' from Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, and as such is primarily a list of sources critical of the group. Presenting such a list as simply a general list of sources about the groups clearly has problems relating to neutrality. (Obviously, that problem can be fixed, if it can be demonstrated that the article actually provides any benefit.) Further, it remains that even if the 'article' is retained, it does not replace the purpose of the actual articles having their own Further reading sections, with works that are directly pertinent to the different scopes of the various articles. That said, there probably isn't much purpose for retaining it as an article at all, though there may be some benefit in something similar as a subpage of the JW WikiProject itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The semantic arguments about the word appendix and comparisons with a printed book are irrelevant. Wikipedia's Manual of Style fairly clearly indicates where appendices go.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley acknowledges that the presence of this 'article' does not remove the need for the Further reading sections at the individual articles, which I've pointed out from the outset. Yet when this article was created, the author removed the Further reading section from other articles. The other articles should indeed have their own bibliographies, making this article a redundant orphan. If not deleted, on the grounds that it may provide a resource for research for additional content, a suitable alternative would be to move it into the WikiProject namespace, as already suggested. However, since such a list would also be present at the main JW article, that also may not be necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your points here seem like directions for editing it, not deleting it. I see value to a "reading list", as a stand-alone article, for topics that are as large and complicated as the Witnesses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments about editing it were in response to your query about obvious omissions. However, the main thrust of what I said was that if it is retained, it is not a replacement for the Further reading sections at the articles themselves, and is likely to be orphaned anyway. Whilst it may be useful to have such a resource for editors, that would probably be more helpful as a WikiProject subpage.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we bring it to standard as a resource for readers, then it serves editors too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've stated that you agree that the other articles should retain their own Further reading sections (though Alan seems to disagree). On that basis, why is there any need for a separate bibliography, when it is unlikely that people would search for "Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses" anyway?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you note above, the article bibliographies would be topic-specific for each article, thus small. There's value to an overall bibliography, annotated, on the overall broad topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so worried about whether the bibliography is retained (though hardly anyone will find it), so long as Alan understands that it does not mean hacking the Further reading sections out of other articles. I maintain that if it is retained, it would serve better as a subpage of the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are for some reason making assumptions on what I intend doing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to what you had already commenced doing.[1] And you also stated your intention to split the Further reading sections from other articles rather than each article retaining its own section.[2][3]--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page is essentially a list of references. The References section that has been added is quite awkward, and it's unclear how the items that have been added as 'references' inherently 'justify' any of the other items on the list. Or, if they do, why any un-'referenced' entries should remain.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The page is a bibliography. They can be used as references of course. I agree that the reference added are awkward and I will be changing it. Watch that space! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of you need to read the link I provided (WP:LISTN). The point of the references is to establish the notability of the list as a list. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bibliography does not need refs in the same way the facts don't. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does! A bibliography is a stand-alone list and the rules and manual of style requirements for the latter apply to it. Again, read WP:LISTN; and also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Types_of_lists, WP:SAL, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Relevant_guidelines_and_manual_of_style. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The links you give are not really related to referencing. W:LISTN is for notability and the other are for MOS and I fully agree that biblo pages should meet both these requirements. Also, not that many of the other biblio pages do not have refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to hear you say the links are not related to referencing. How do you establish notability, if not by referencing? The kind of notability I am establishing with those "awkward" references is described in WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ..."
True, many other biblio pages do not have third-party refs, but that is mainly because the notability criteria for lists are not as well known as those for articles. Have a look at any of the featured bibliographies and you'll see lots of third-party refs. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that there are only featured bibliographies of works by a particular author, not about a topic, which is far more arbitrary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with many of the above criticisms of the list, but they are not relevant to a deletion discussion. They can be addressed separately. In particular, the sources I have provided can help with the question of neutrality. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created with the stated purpose of removing the existing Further reading appendices from other JW-related articles, which the author then proceeded to do. That action was not and is not appropriate. There is some latitude for the article to become something more than its original purpose—as a resource for editors—but that still doesn't serve much purpose as an (orphaned) article and would be better associated with the JW WikiProject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro77, that is not true at all. PLEASE keep to the facts and PLEASE read what I have already written. I created the article because there was a large number of publications listed in an article and they were useful for readers (and editors of course). Why do you want to deny readers of Wikipedia, you know - the vast majority of visitors here and the reason why we are here, the opportunity to find what I would hope will soon be a definitive list of JW-related publications? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you created the article, you stripped out the existing Further reading section from Jehovah's Witnesses.[4] Why are you now claiming you did not? I haven't 'denied' readers anything at all. It's fairly unlikely that anyone would search for Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you deleted the list of sources from the most likely place to look—the main JW article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK/WP:POVSPLIT. The content is redundant, because it is already included into the JW main article and articles related to JW practices. If there is a disagreement about what to include to the literature list in the main article, it would be a POV fork to start a new article to be in control of what to include. I cannot see a comparability to lists of artists and authors complete work, is of relevance to this discussion, as this is an open topic with an unknown and possible huge number of possible relevant works, rather than a limited list. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have put your finger on the biggest concern, but I think it is fixable if the notability guidelines and manual of style are followed. See my comments on the talk page. If proper selection criteria are identified and adhered to, neutrality should follow. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments re removal of appendices from main articles. Particularly in relation to these two edits: [5] & [6]
Can we all agree at least the following points:
  • All articles need a Bibliography, within the article. This expands the reference detail for the cites used on each page. It would be wrong to make these short-format cites link to a reference off-page.
  • Any WP articles may have a Further reading section, suggesting texts for a deeper look at the topic. These may either overlap or not with the cited bibliography.
  • A Further reading section for a narrow article might be rather narrower than the general Bibliography across a broad topic. However such a Further reading section for the broad topic would not differ from a Bibliography for that same broad topic.
Now in this particular case, we have disagreement over the Jehovah's Witnesses main article (and I doubt that agreement is likely to happen over that). I would contend though, despite initially seeing this as a mistake, that Alan Liefting's replacement of the Further reading section with a link to this article [7] was correct.
  • It left the cited Bibliography intact (It's inlined into the References list here, but could be extracted into its own section)
  • It removed the bulky Further reading section. That's not a section needed immediately by readers, so following the link is acceptable. The linked section is much bigger, but given that this is the top-level broad-scope article, that's not a problem.
Overall, I would still support the existence of this article, and also its use from the main article, as the main Further reading section within it. Obviously I'd support its linkage from the other articles too, although those narrower articles may still require their own Further reading sections. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent in the Manual of Style for forking out appendices, and no good reason to do so. Where there are other Bibliography pages on other topics, the main article for that topic is not split from the main article, e.g. Fly fishing, India, biology. Bibliography is itself not recommended as a section heading for a list of works within articles; if present, the preferred section heading for a list of works produced by an article's subject is Works or Publications. The preferred section heading for a bibliography about the article subject is Further reading (for additional information), or a subsection of Notes or References (for sources on which the article is primarily drawn). If there is a link to a separate 'Bibliography' article, the proper place for such a link would be the See also section. Refer to various sections of MOS:LAYOUT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this article as a fork, but rather as a justifiable topic for "A reading list on a very broad topic". Once we have it, then it makes sense to link it from elsewhere. It also makes sense (although I agree, this isn't the use that would justify its creation) as a replacement for the Further reading section on the top-level article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not much interested in the semantics of fork or split. The appendix should be within the article. If the bibliography page is to be retained, a link to the broader reading list would properly be in the See also section, as stated above, and would not mandate removal of the article's own Further reading section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I hadn't recalled who had hidden the bibliography in that article, but when I checked your link I was unsurprised. I've had considerable problems trying to work with that editor and reaching compromises has often been difficult.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I like the idea of having bibliographies on Wikipedia, however this could cause problems. First, what to add and what not to add? Let's say it is an articles about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In this article/bibliography there are questionable tabloid style "works" listed. It thus becomes a medium to publicize articles, "journals," books, etc...that are extremely bias, possibly defamatory, and essentially unreliable. But there really isn't a rule I can think off that would prevent them since they are not "sources." In essence, this sort of article opens the door for some nasty issues. I say Delete into oblivion for this reason. Also, there seems little in Wiki policy in favor of this article.Fordx12 (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So should we delete Bibliography sections from articles too? Your issues would apply equally to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is a long list of problems related to an article like this. Let's start with the criteria for inclusion: How to determine what works that is related to JW? A lot of books about JW may seek to discuss classification of JW (sect, cult, NRM and so on), and lists books about sects and cults within its reference list. A book about cults is may not NPOV nor correct when it comes to JW, but it still fulfill the requirements for being listed ("each entry be in more than one of the third-party references", from the talk page suggestion). Another problem is the classifications within this article: Pentons book about JW and the third reich is listed under «Persecution in Nazi Germany». It may not is wrong, but it is containing quite harsh criticism to JW policies and JW leadership, esp. Rutherford. Why isn't it listed within the «Critiques and personal accounts»-section? Is it NPOV to classify it at all? These concerns are not even touching the POV-split concern. Grrahnbahr (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a particular source is relevant to two aspects, then list it under both - the second can be a short-form cite, as we already use widely. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a lot of discussion of problems that aren't relevant to a deletion discussion, particularly criteria for inclusion. Selection criteria are discussed in the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists, not Deletion policy. The only way a lack of good selection criteria could be grounds for deletion is if there is good reason to think that they cannot be found for this list. However, no one has really tried to define them yet. Anyone concerned with selection criteria should read about selection criteria and discuss them on the talk page for the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies). We need more historians and scholars participation not less - don't drive them away Category:Bibliographies. Got a problem with certain content take it up on the talk page.Moxy (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I maintain that the criteria for inclusion in this bibliography are far too ambiguous. However, so long as the page's author desists from deleting (or forking, splitting, or any semantic equivalent) the Further reading appendices from other JW-related articles, it may not be necessary to delete the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand what your saying - are you suggesting that compiling the bibliography from articles is forking? I cant comment on what is being moved or deleted as there are no explains here of the problem being described. But - we compile bibs for people (normally the ones we use in articles as they have standing credibility) so they - our readers - can do research be it for Wikipedia or not. They are also usefully in helping expand the encyclopedia itself - for instants for our students at Wikipedia:Canada Education Program we made bibs that link from main articles like Canada#Further reading - History of Canada#Further reading - Military history of Canada#Further reading .... this has lead to the books seen at the individual bibs being used by editors all over Canadian articles to expand the encyclopedia (yes they are all digital copies and can be seen and this helps - this can be done for most bibs). Having all the resources on one pages is the point of a bibliography and leading our readers to it is as valid as any article.Moxy (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See earlier response to the page's creator here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did not see this before - my apologies. I can see how that could be problematic - odd he did not link the page he just created :-) . However I do see why it may have been done - the page is full of refs already. I see why you/or anyone may be upset at the edit. PS Jehovah's Witnesses was a nice read very informative.Moxy (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bibliography_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&oldid=1137616224"