Talk:Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

Child abuse, psychological damages, suicide and life threatening situations

What about allegations of child abuse and psychological damages? Is that considered persecution? According to allegations, the JW's believe they are not permitted blood transfusions. They are not allowed medication. In cases where parents were denied a transfusion to their child or baby, their community came out against them, and if a transfusion procedure was committed, they were excommunicated. There are also allegations of a high rate of suicide and mental illness due to the stressful nature of the JW's teachings. The JW's refuse to recognize this as anything to do with their responsibility. Is the government and law's intrusion in these cases on behalf of the children or adults who are in danger, considered persecution? If not, can we add those cases in a section of its own? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

None of the issues you raise have any obvious connection to the subject of the article. BlackCab (TALK) 01:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think his point is fairly obvious, but since you claim it is not, I will spell it out. JW does horrible things to its members and in particularly the children who are willy nilly part of the sect (this is just his major premisse for now; as a JW survivor I also happen to know that it happens to be true, for all that the truth matters here); the state steps in to protect the victims; the state is accused of persecution. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1DE:5C8E:2E7B:3440 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The matters indicated above, where found in reliable sources, belong at criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses. This article is about persecution of JWs by external parties, not potential impacts of the group's policies on its own members.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

User:BlackCab what is the problem of this content? so that your reverted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastyoje (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I hereby warn you, User:BlackCab, according to Assume good faith! And urge you on to withdraw the Revert of 21:19, 6 March 2016! Sincerely yours.--Bastyoje (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many problems with the edit. It uses very poor English and non-existent words (what is Greul?), ignores Wikipedia style on dates and numbers and ignores Wikipedia style on referencing by including what appear to be citations within the text. It contains subjective opinion ("highly contemptuous", "unworthy actions") and much of it reads like a protest pamphlet. Much of it is incoherent and much of it is incomprehensible. BlackCab (TALK) 23:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If conscientious objectors are routinely imprisoned in Turkmenistan, it is not necessary for the article to mention each case separately. The material could probably be summarised into two or three brief paragraphs. It does not seem that the situation in Turkmenistan is so significant that its subsection should be the longest in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A Jehovah's Witness source reporting on mistreatment of Jehovah's Witnesses is a primary source and therefore not a reliable and independent source. The Forum18.org website may also not qualify as a reliable source. The material on the UN committee website already cited may be sufficient for the Turkmenistan entry. BlackCab (TALK) 13:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

Where secondary sources exist, these should be used rather than primary sources. This is a standard Wikipedia policy. The Watch Tower Society is a highly dubious source of information at the best of times, and cannot be relied upon to report facts in a neutral manner when writing about its own activities, particularly in its court battles with state and federal laws. BlackCab (TALK) 03:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in this instance, Watch Tower Society publications are a secondary source, a primary source would be the docket of SCOTUS. Additionally your point is moot, because there has been no source of any kind provided in 8 and 7 years respectively on the subject in question, an editor requested a source and date information, I provided those. I will restore the accurately sourced material, please do not delete again, if you wish to provide additional source material, I will not object to that addition. Willietell (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:PRIMARY BlackCab (TALK) 05:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

SCOTUS would be a primary source in an article about SCOTUS.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you consider it a primary source or a secondary source, the material is properly sourced. Your desire to remove it simply because you don't like the material constitutes vandalism of my edits and again I ask you to desist from constantly vandalizing my edits. I actually have added no material here, simply provided the requested source, slightly rephrased for readability and even moved the material to "Your" (Blackcab) desired position in the article. I did those things in a "spirit of cooperation", perhaps you could learn to display a little cooperation of your own. If you have additional source references for the material, then add them, but don't continue to delete sourced material simply because it goes "against your agenda". I have restored the referenced material, please do not continue to WP:vandalize. Willietell (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The one citation I provided from a secondary source is sufficient for that piece of information. Your insistence on the inclusion of two further sources, both from a source that was directly involved in the court cases, is quite clearly inappropriate. Your repeated addition of this primary source, your claim that I am vandalizing the article and imposing some "agenda" on the article (when the facts in the paragraph actually remain the same) are pushing yourself ever close to administrator intervention. Please stop your childish behavior now. BlackCab (TALK) 21:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the text does not remain the same, if it had, I likely would not continue to add it back. Your edit removed content regarding the exemption from military service and the reference information from the source requested by an editor in 2009 or 2008, at this point I can't remember which year. I only re-worded it slightly for fluidity and added the requested citations. Your WP:vandal edits removed the material after I provided the requested source, please restore the material as this is becoming tiresome and your childish behavior and your continued reverts of properly cited material are damaging the page. Additionally, I fail to see what the major concern is with two or three more Watch Tower sources on a series of pages filled with citations from Watch Tower sources, many which contain out of date and/or misleading information. Willietell (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to retaining a Watch Tower source for the case about the pledge and flag salutes after the secondary source. The suggested wording about a 'series of landmark cases' seems somewhat less objective and dispassionate than the original wording, and didn't add anything of substance with respect to the context of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Jeffro77, those cases are considered "landmark" 1st amendment rights cases in the United States, establishing precedent for religious freedoms for not just Jehovah's Witnesses but for all religious groups in the country. Jehovah's Witnesses have laid the groundwork for many religions to practice their faith more freely in the U.S. and this is a fact not solely recognized by the Watchtower Society but my many others and I am sure there are abundant sources available to demonstrate this fact, you should try looking some up. Willietell (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

After the secondary source about the 1943 court case, any primary source material from the Watch Tower Society on the same case is redundant. BlackCab (TALK) 12:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the saying "Two is better than one" there are many statements on Wikipedia supported by more than a single source, so your point is moot. Willietell (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If they are primary sources, and also add nothing of value to the article, they are not needed and will be removed. BlackCab (TALK) 04:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Whilst it may be that the cases were significant, Wikipedia is not for advocacy or promotion, and this article is not about case law.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The information isn't there for promotion, the WTS is capable of it's own promotion,case in point Watchtower.org, it is there only for information for the reader of Wikipedia related to the subject at hand. Willietell (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a publishing company has its own website is unremarkable, and has no bearing on whether editors might try to use Wikipedia to promote or advocate a particular view. It remains the case that it is not necessary or suitable for this article to promote a particular court case as a 'landmark' case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

'Persecution' by 'atheists'

I have removed this article from the Category persecution by atheists, as the claim is not properly demonstrated in the article. The 'example' given was that (parts of) Russia have banned JWs; however, Russia has not banned all religious groups, and therefore any such bans on JWs are not on the basis of atheism. Very specific notable sources would need to be cited for any article content for the claim that JWs have been persecuted by atheists, and if such content is not present and sourced, the category is not appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Warns of the possibility of genocide in connection with Russia’s ban"

• The above statement does not seem to represent what the source really says ([1]). PaleoNeonate
  • Agree. Went by title here that said, "Holocaust Memorial Museum in the United States warned of the danger of a new genocide in connection with the ban of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia." However as you stated it is not the best representation of what was actually said. Good catch. [2] Johanneum (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Also to revise may be [3].

• Along with the end of Russia#Religion. @Johanneum: I agree that this information is notable enough to be covered. We however must be careful to properly select our sources, represent properly what they report (with balance), and avoid the use of uppercase in reference titles (this may seem like screaming and does not follow the Wikipedia manual of style). The use of quotes like "extremism" is also discouraged except to cite sentences from sources.

—░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Content was identified as copied verbatim from Women in Soviet Prisons, Chapter 12, by Helene Celmina and The Canadian Encyclopedia, pp 1209-1210. Removed text must not be restored. (Content copied from other sources, including the Watchtower, has evidently already been removed.) For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In Russia

Too much on who criticizes, too short on why they are banned under "extremism". -》 social and political context is needed

Zezen (talk)

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vesti.ru%2Fdoc.html%3Fid%3D3128480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.186.102 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Handling of child abuse

An IP editor has sought to claim that persecution of JWs is a notable consequence of their handling of child sexual abuse (which the editor has falsely characterised as "paedophilic tendencies" for shock value).[4][5] However, there is no indication that JWs have been "persecuted" for this reason, and legal responses to their mishandling of abuse do not constitute 'persecution', and the editors claim that it is the "main reason" for opposition is also obviously false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Bias tag

An IP editor 194.210.255.229 (talk · contribs) has tagged the article as biased, but has provided no information. Discussion is required at Talk to address specific concerns of bias rather than having to guess the concerns of the anonymous editor. I will leave the tag in place for a reasonable amount of time to allow for discussion, but it will be removed if it was just a 'drive-by' edit.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As no one has clarified the supposed problems in two weeks, the tag has been removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

This should be removed from the series on discrimination because it’s not about discrimination, it’s about persecution, some of which is not discriminatory at all, because of the frequent controversy and criticism of this sect, which is frequently called a cult. Krystal Kalb (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Persecution and discrimination are not mutually exclusive terms. It isn't the case that a group that teaches things that are controversial can not at the same time also face discrimination, and it would not ordinarily be a requirement for inclusion in the category that all persecution of adherents must also be discrimination.. It seems fairly obvious that the primary reason for religious persecution of members of a religious denomination is due to religious discrimination. Persecution on the basis of religious beliefs is seldom merely an attempt to 'help them out of a cult' as your objection might otherwise seem to attempt to convey.

Perhaps a few more editors should offer their views though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Krystal Kalb's use of "cult" shows their obvious bias, and Jeffro's logic is good. Vyselink (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, but this is still not about discrimination, it is about persecution. I do personally think they are a cult, but of course this is not fact, and I meant that a lot of people have criticized this sect for their largely controversial practices. Krystal Kalb (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Krystal Kalb, do you really not understand what discrimination is? Treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses in a different and negative way from other people is technically religious discrimination. Persecution is necessarily caused by discrimination. — 102.90.45.202 (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of a denomination’s beliefs is not ‘persecution’. But ‘persecution’ of religious groups is indeed most often a form of discrimination.—Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Recently removed material

I removed recent additions that had been deleted and reinstated, as the material was not only unsourced, but was largely out of scope of this article.

• Iran: JWs certainly would not have a great time in Iran if they were to openly preach there, and their activities are illegal in Iran, but hypothetical situations are not examples of persecution. Watch Tower Society literature (which is usually quick to highlight any real or imagined persecution) says their missionaries were deported in 1980 rather than having to 'flee'. (Awake!, 22 October 1998, page 25; 1981 Year Book of Jehovah's Witnesses, pages 257-258; Our Kingdom Service, September 1980, page 4). The only source cited in the recently added sections (from 1997) states, "The source was not aware of any cases of mistreatment of Jehovah's Witnesses in Iran."
• Monaco: the unsourced assertion that "it is theoretically possible to prosecute them for 'illegal' preaching" is not an example of 'persecution'.
• North Korea: the implication that 'JWs would probably have a bad time if they were in North Korea' is not an example of persecution.
• Uzbekistan: there are verifiable instances of historical incarceration and mistreatment of Jehovah's Witnesses in Uzbekistan prior to 2018 and some of the material from that subsection could be added to this article if properly sourced. JW Yearbooks note incarcerations of their members in the period from 2004-2009. The statements in the recently removed material correlating the deterioration of JW relations in Uzbekistan with specific events (1999 Tashkent bombings and Andijan massacre) seems like original research and would require specific sources. JWs held their 'Memorial' publicly throughout Uzbekistan in 2019 with police approval and without disruption, and the absence of legal recognition of the denomination in a particular country is not automatically 'persecution'.

Further discussion about suitable content for the article would be welcome here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)