Talk:Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 1

Having written the text that is copied here, I strongly object to having a separate article. Resistance to state power is a fundamental doctrine of the Witnesses and an essential part of their history. Their firmness in maintaining that resistance in the face of Nazi oppression and American oppression is an expression of religious faith that has turned out to have a salutatory effect for all of us. I notice the original material is still in place in Jehovah's Witnesses, so I don't know what is planned here, but I do not think the material should be removed from the JW article and I don't think there should be a separate article on their Constitutional battles. Ortolan88 18:06 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

Why? Do you not think there is enough content for a separate article?

You should consider all the entries about Jehovah's Witnesses part of one large article about Jehovah's Witnesses. It's important for the Jehovah's Witnesses entry to state something to the effect that "Resistance to state power is a fundamental doctrine of the Witnesses and an essential part of their history." But the details are best served in a separate page. --The Cunctator

I respectfully disagree. The Jehovah's Witnesses are not all that important or well known and I think knowledge about them is best concentrated in a single article about them. Larger article about freedom of religion issues and another about the flag-burning/freedom of speech cases are definitely needed, and the JW contribution will certainly be included in that context, but they deserve the credit on their own in an article about them as well.

I do not accord with the idea of moving anything independently interesting out of the main article and into its own suburb, as happened recently with Julius Caesar and the relocation of his most famous work to the anonymously titled Gallic Wars. My view here has nothing to do with JW or JC, it is about what makes a good narrative, a good presentation of information, a good experience for the encyclopedia user. People don't follow up on cross-references, so they should only be made when needed. The two I mention here are unnecessary. The information is in danger of being lost to the reader. Ortolan88

Which information? The specific quotes? The fact that JWs have been involved in many Supreme Court 1st Amendment cases? The former is not cruciall information to the reader; the latter is in the "main" article. Wikipedia is built on the strength of its cross-references. By the way, using metaphors like "suburb" is a rhetorical device. --The Cunctator

Not every figure of speech is a rhetorical device; suburbs are to the city as branch articles like this are to the main article.

I have been involved in hypertext as long as there has been such a thing and I understand it pretty well, but in addition to the power of links there is the idea of maintaining the integrity of the main subject. I believe that resistance to the state has been a fundamental idea of the JW and a fundamental idea behind the first amendment decisions and it is both unfair and counter to the best interests of the reader.

Which supreme court? Sometimes people write as if the USA is the only place in the world. In its original context this may not have the case, but the entry's current assumption (in this context) that "Supreme Court" means "US Supreme Court" is offensive. Tannin 21:25 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

If you're offended, then change it or improve the context. There's no need to get offended. --The Cunctator

With all due respect to all the other Supreme Courts, asking "Which Supreme Court?" is sort of like asking "Which Napoleon?" None of the others have the power to change laws or decide elections, nor have they played such a crucial role in the history and ideology of the countries they serve, so far as I know. Most Supreme Courts are simply the highest appeals court. I await a definitive article showing this not to be the case. Ortolan88

Why have a separate article about this subject? Why not have a separate article about every subject the Supreme Court has ever ruled on? -- Zoe

I think that is a very good idea. Are you volunteering? I would expect over time for there to be entries on every Supreme Court decision. There are already entries on several of them. --The Cunctator

Nonsense. That is what a supreme court is - the highest court of appeal in a particular jurisdiction. My local Victorian SC, for example, has (and regularly uses) those same powers to change laws (according to the constitution) and decide elections (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns).

For an example showing powers of one non-U.S. Supreme Court extending beyond ruling case-by-case on appeal issues, see status_of_religious_freedom_in_the_philippines#Benevolent Neutrality-Accommodation -- the impact of this ruling ruling extends far beyond the individual case at issue. Incidentally, (without arguing the rightness or wrongness of any of this, but offering it to illustrate powers exercised by one non-U.S. Supreme court) in 2001 the RP Supreme Court effectively legalized the replacement of a sitting president by declaring the presidency vacant and swearing the vice president in as president (see Joseph_Estrada#EDSA_II_Revolution), and, acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, arguably decided the 2004 RP Presidential election (see Fernando_Poe,_Jr.#Presidential Bid). -- Boracay Bill

I am echoing this comment to both Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses and Talk:Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses

Let me preface this by saying that I am neither a JW nor a Wiki hotshot.

I recently added a section to Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses. Looking at the Talk page there, I noted some discussion/disagreement about organization of the JW pages. That struck a chord with me, as I was having a problem finding my way around that particular maze also. In fact, starting from Jehovah's_Witnesses, I have been unable to find my way to Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah's_Witnesses.

Looking at Tambayan_Philippines, I noted a comment: "The History of the Philippines article is 80KB and it should be split into smaller articles, with the main article trimmed down to about 32KB and only giving the important details. For example, see how History of the United States gives an overview, and how it has eleven subarticles that go into detail about specific periods. [...]".

I looked at the History of the United States page, and the organization there struck me as well done and easy to follow. FWIW, I suggest implementing a similar sort of organization for the JW pages. -- Boracay Bill

I have amended the first paragraph of the main JW page to reference Penton's comment that the four main reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses are a significant religion to study are medical bloodless treatment, constitutional reform, conscientious objection and their international missionary and publishing empire. (There's a reference so you can look it up and see what he said.) That would possibly be a suitable place to insert links to other pages including this one. I definitely think this page deserves to exist, unless there is already one about the effect that Jehovah's Witnesses have had on civil liberties. I would put information about blood transfusion court cases into Penton's "medical guinea pigs" category, rather than the constitutional reform category.

Penton himself wrote a book about JWs and Canadian law while he was a witness.

Mandmelon (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

The Padlock Law article says that the law was not used against JWs, and that the law was struck down by a case involving Communists. But this article says JW cases resulted in removal of the law. Both cannot be correct. Neither comment is referenced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]