Talk:Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States

Recent Edits

Richardshusr, you have undone edits I made to the article. The main edit was the removal of a lengthy passage in the introduction that does not really have much to do with persecution. The only part that was relevant is already repeated in the 1910-1920 section. The into should not be so long, and should stay on topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jeffro77. I agree with the points you made. I was just objecting to the deletion of large portions of text without explanation or discussion.

Although some of the points that were in the intro may seem "off topic", I think it is POV to report that JWs were persecuted without also providing the contextual background of that persecution. Attacking the religious establishment and opposing war may seem perfectly natural to us now but these were not obvious rights let alone virtues in the early to middle 20th century. JWs were also much more aggressive and obnoxious during that period than they are now.

In truth, the use of the word "persecution" is POV and there are a large number of WP editors who think this word should not be used at all. I don't want to get into that can of worms now. I'm OK with using the word "persecution" as long as we don't fall into the trap that the "persecuted" were virtuous and innocent and the "persecutors" were evil.

I do agree that the intro was too long. That was probably an artifact of my pulling the text out of another article (probably Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses). I have trimmed the intro by pushing much of the text to the body of the article. This article needs a lot of work in terms of organization, making sure it stays on topic and logical flow. The intro is also pretty choppy and could probably use some improvement. Please re-read the article and give me your thoughts on how it could be improved.

--Richard (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Scope

Currently, this article basically says "Jehovah's Witnesses annoy people, and people don't like them. Oh, and by the way, sometimes there's been some violence against them." The article is weighted outside of the scope indicated by the title. Either rename the article, or remove the superfluous detail.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... I need you to be more clear about your objection. It was fully my intent to say "In the first half of the 20th century, JWs were very in-your-face about their views which included telling Catholics that they were doing the work of the devil. These views combined with their active door-to-door and on-the-street-corner proselytization provoked strong negative reactions which resulted in persecution to the point of violence. In response, JWs actively pursued their civil liberties in court and contributed significantly to the development of key principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

It is, IMHO, highly POV to suggest that JWs were persecuted through no fault of their own. The dislike of JWs in the first half of the 20th century was very understandable, especially considering that the society at the time was far less tolerant than ours is today. If a person said today about the Jews what the JWs said about the Catholics, that person would be hounded for being anti-Semitic. It is, IMO, important that the reader understand how JWs acted in those days.

I am not condoning the persecution or violence of the JWs but failing to explain the context of the persecution imparts the wrong impression to the reader.

Much of my understanding of this topic was acquired from researching the article on United States Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses which is mostly my work as are many of the articles on those cases. I have read and understood the summaries of more than 20 cases involving the JWs and so I think I know what I'm talking about. If you think this article doesn't present a fair presentation of the history, please explain more clearly what your objections are.

--Richard (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard, the point put simply is this: the article as it stands would more appropriately be called "Attitudes toward Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that's what you meant but I wanted to be sure. I disagree with you. As I explained above, the attitudes described here are simply there to put the persecution in context. If you wish to document more persecution, feel free to do this. However, I would resist a change in scope or title to this article. --Richard (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The current title does not match the content. Resisting a change to both is stubborn and illogical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"If a person said today about the Jews what the JWs said about the Catholics, that person would be hounded for being anti-Semitic."

And that hounding would be illogical. Criticizing a group's interpretation of a religious text is not "anti-group," nor does it mitigate persecution of the critic.

So, no, it would not be anti-Semitic to say that Jews are doing the work of the Devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be construed as encouraging antisemites, and would normally be meant that way, too. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1DE:5C8E:2E7B:3440 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Persecution?

I'm altogether unconvinced that Witnesses not having access to preach in gated communities or without a permit constitutes "persecution". It might be discrimination, but it certainly is not persecution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles which explicitly connect Stratton's actions with persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. One wonders if a certain editor is serious in objecting to this edit on the grounds of verifiability (rather than WP:Original research).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got no idea what you're on about with regard to either verifiability or original research here, as I mentioned neither. But if you wish to angle for verifiability, where is it stated the Ohio case constituted "persecution" rather than "discrimination"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Cato Supreme Court Review, 2001-2002 By James Swanson, Roger Pilon, Cato Institute, 2003, page 70, "Despite this persecution, including recent hostile acts by governments, the church [that is, Jehovah's Witnesses] has grown to include millions around the world. When the Village of Stratton, Ohio, enacted Ordinance No. 1998-5, the Jehovah's Witnesses found it all too familiar, including evidence of specific hostility against their faith by the mayor." (Incidentally, et al.)
  Unsourced deletion undone.
  --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The remark above given as 'evidence' that denying access to gated communities or in Stratton Ohio constitutes 'persecution' is clearly taken out of context. The statement, "despite this persecution", is clearly not at all related to denying access to gated communities in Puerto Rico or in Stratton Ohio without a permit for the purpose of preaching. The statement about 'persecution' cited in AuthorityTam's source (which more broadly discusses the Stratton court case) related to "recent hostile acts by governments", despite which, JWs "has grown to includes millions around the world"—specific preaching efforts in Stratton, or efforts to prevent such preaching, clearly have zero impact on their growth worldwide or on the actions of multiple governments.

So, I will ask again, where is it stated that the Ohio case constituted "persecution" rather than "discrimination"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(The original statement in context: "Jehovah's Witnesses faced even worse treatment at the hands of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese governments. Refusing to say "Heil Hitler" or even to bow to the Emperor Hirohito led to the torture and killing of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses. The religion's apocalyptic predictions, anti-Catholic statements, and neutral position in the major wars led to direct oppression by the U.S. government. Despite this persecution, including recent hostile acts by governments, the church has grown to include millions around the world." The source does not describe the Stratton case as 'persecution'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Attacks

This thread moved from user talk to article talk here.

Regarding this edit, "attacked the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and other Christians" was not intended to suggest that JWs attacked other Christians, an interpretation not supported by the context. Parsing the phrase as "attacked [the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church] and [other Christians]" is an invalid comparison, so it seems pretty clear that it means "attacked the doctrines of [the Roman Catholic Church] and [other Christians]". It could however have benefited from another "of" before "other Christians". For the moment, I think the other wording might be okay, though I think "so vigorously that" seems a bit weaselish, because it doesn't indicate how vigorously, and implies some kind of value judgement about how much of an attack justifies a particular response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Immediately prior to my edit at Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States#1930s and 1940s, the wording was wrong; the wording after my edit was also imperfect. Neither wording was of my creation; I just reverted to an earlier wording. Editors should feel free to improve wording without the pre-approval of others. General suggestions belong at an article's Talk page. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording was not 'wrong'; you misinterpreted it by parsing it in an invalid manner, so I came to your Talk page to indicate that your inference in your edit summary about what I wrote was incorrect, and potentially misleading as to my intent. Therefore, my clarification to you regarding your claim in your edit summary about my edit belongs at your Talk page, not at article Talk. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oooookay... Sorry for the shorthand "wrong", merely intended to connote "requiring improvement", yada, yada, yada.
My edit clearly explained why the wording was reverted to earlier wording (my edit comment was: Not just doctrine, but practices and history were "attacked". Individual Christians were not attacked, only organizations. Reinstate 2010-02-25 wording.).
If User:AuthorityTam had created the replacement wording, it might make sense to discuss this at User talk:AuthorityTam. It seems obvious that it would be more productive to put this discussion at the article talk, that is, at Talk:Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States, so that others can benefit from it. I've moved this thread from user talk to article talk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement was placed at your Talk page because your edit summary, as a result of you parsing the statement in an invalid manner implied something untrue about what I stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One-Sided Presentation

I too seriously doubt whether and to what extent Jehovah's Witnesses have been subjected to persecution in the United States. In any event, the article is seriously one-sided unless it is edited to discusses matters such as the prohibition on blood transfusions, by which many Witnesses have died, and the various failed predictions as to the end of the world.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(New sections go at the bottom of the page.)

The article fairly clearly indicates that the context of the "persecution" of JWs in the US is historical, especially associated with elevated patriotism during World War II. Mob violence during that period is well sourced. It would be quite questionable to suggest that JWs currently undergo 'persecution' in the United States, but the article does not make such a claim. The basis for your POV tag is therefore unclear. Unless you can clearly articulate specifically what in the article presents a non-neutral point of view, the tag you added should be removed.

Deaths as a result of blood transfusions is out of this article's scope. Information on that subject (if properly sourced) belongs at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)