Talk:Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 2

Lengthy quotes within cited references
Please note that Wikipedia's guideline on citing sources does not provide for the routine inclusion of lengthy quotes from the source material. Citing sources does allow "an optional short quote (used rarely, if the source is likely to be challenged)" for sources taken from the internet only. The extended historical information on the title of circuit overseers is entirely unnecessary and uncontroversial and is easily verified by a person who wants to know more. I have deleted the quote again. LTSally (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The comment above by LTSally fails to distinguish between mere citations and actual footnotes, which are different even if both use " " tags.
 * The matter is explained well at Footnotes, quoted (as of 2009-04-27) here:
 * "The decision on whether to use quotes in footnotes is primarily a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some citation templates include parameters for quotes, and quoted text can also be added inside a footnote either preceding of following a template-produced citation. Quoting text can be useful for the verifiability of material in an article. Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, compliant to copyright (including fair use where applicable), of use or interest to the reader, and not used as an evasion of other guidance (most notably: content policy).[9] Where there is disagreement on the use of quotes in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page for that article." [emphasis added]
 * I'd contend that the following 'matter-of-fact' material is both 'of use' and 'of interest' to a typical researcher reading about JW circuit overseers, and especially in a footnote rather than in the paragraph body:
 * "Development of the Organization Structure", Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 223, "From 1894 to 1927, traveling speakers sent out by the Society were known first as Tower Tract Society representatives, then as pilgrims. From 1928 to 1936, with increased emphasis on field service, they were called regional service directors. Starting with July 1936, to emphasize their proper relationship to the local brothers, they became known as regional servants. From 1938 to 1941, zone servants were assigned to work with a limited number of congregations on a rotation basis, thus getting back to the same groups at regular intervals. After an interruption of about a year, this service was revived in 1942 with servants to the brethren. In 1948 the term circuit servant was adopted; now, circuit overseer."
 * It would be difficult to present the same data in substantially fewer words, and heavily edited words would lose the advantage of being a succinct quote from the referenced source. The above, a century of footnoted background in five sentences (including five distinct periods and eight distinct position titles) seems of appropriate footnote length. If an editor wishes to reference some Wikipedia standard pertaining to 'lengthiness of footnoted quotes', that would be more useful than a personal opinion objecting to the material. Would others really prefer to hide the material or move it to the section body?--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont' think the information in the quote is relevant for the suggested section, which is simply a short description of the circuit overseers function, the different historical titles given to that function is of less than marginal interest to the majority of readers. In short I think the inclusion of the quote in footnote or in the text body is not justified. If there were an article or section on historical changes in the the organizational structure of jehovah's witnesses it might be relevant there. Also I have to object to the dispute style used by both editors which is not far from being fullfledged editwarring (4 reverts in 26 hours). ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AuthorityTam, it is not necessary to "present the same data in substantially fewer words", as this level of detail about circuit overseers is superfluous to requirement in this article. In an article specifically about circuit overseers (if they were notable enough to warrant such an article), it would certainly be appropriate to summarise the information from the quote and cite the reference. In this article, which has a broader scope, only the citation is required.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * AuthorityTam invited editors to indicate "some Wikipedia standard pertaining to 'lengthiness of footnoted quotes'". Footnotes, quote above, states: "Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief". The footnote AuthorityTam wants in the article is certainly not brief, particularly in view of the level of detail in the footnote with regard to the general scope of the article. It is nothing to do with 'hiding the material'. It just isn't notable in this article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd submit that the footnoted quote is "brief" (its entirety is included in my comment above), and I'm quite certain that hundreds of instances of footnote quotes as long or longer could easily be found in other Wikipedia articles. Is there some Wikipedia reference regarding how many characters, words, or sentences define "brief"? Is it only four sentences (in this case, I'd have liked to include five)?
 * Look, whines that something is 'too long' or 'unnecessary' were (and typically are) silly arguments. 'Relevance' is a much better argument, per Maunus's elaborations (specific to whether a section on JW "circuit overseers" should include a footnote listing the eight terms they used over a century for the same and similar ministerial positions). It seemed a sidebar point unworthy of the effort to object; if one objects he should at least pretend his objections stem from scholarly encyclopedic considerations.
 * It seems ironic that others have yet to concede a difference between a "reference" and a "footnote".--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares about the distinction between 'references' and 'footnotes' being harped about here, because it's irrelevant. The point is that the content of your footnote - which is nearly twice as many words as the rest of the paragraph it's in - is adding undue weight to background of the term 'circuit overseer' beyond the scope of the subject within broader context of the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An objective editor interested in Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedic content certainly SHOULD care about footnotes. Wikipedia's article on the subject reads thusly, "Aside from use as a bibliographic element, footnotes are used for additional information or explanatory notes that might be too digressive for the main text." It would be unsurprising if a footnote's content seemed (to some) to be digressive; that's why it was moved to a footnote, typically.
 * The objected-to footnoted content is no longer in the article. Is there some movement toward reinstating it? Otherwise, it would seem there are no remaining points of contention that necessitate continued additions to this thread.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to have reached a consensus - lets just leave it at that then.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Committees
The lead indicates that there are "six committees", but those committees are not specifically indicated in the article. Indicating the exact number in the lead suggests that they will be listed somewhere in the article, but they're not. Suggest either changing it to 'various committees', or listing the committees somewhere in the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They're listed in the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses article. I'll add something or change the reference when I get a chance soon. LTSally (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That should suffice. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)