Talk:List of Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

2009 July rename of article discussed at User page of renamer

At User_talk:Otto4711[1], I asked the user who renamed this and related articles to revert his renames. You may wish to add your comment there. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador

An editor has three times removed the section on El Salvador, first claiming "unsourced" then "primary source" then "not a reliable source". There seems no encyclopedic reason to accept the editor's arbitrary indictment of the cited source. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is every encyclopedic reason to remove it. Currently the only source to support the claim that the Watch Tower Society successfully challenged a law and won is the Watch Tower Society. The article doesn't die without this particular claim; if there is no secondary source, it doesn't need to appear. BlackCab (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I contend that Awake! magazine is not unreliable, and that it is POV for an editor here to arbitrarily insist otherwise.

I contend that when Awake! plainly states that El Salvador's Supreme Court of Justice struck down a Social Security Hospital rule, that Awake! magazine is a seconday source rather than a primary source.

I contend that even if Awake! were the only source cited for the very brief, now-deleted section 'Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country#El Salvador', Awake! would be sufficient to establish that handful of plain facts for the purposes of this article.

I contend that even when Awake! is a primary source, Awake! would be sufficient to establish most unremarkable facts. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 00:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's my point of view that a WTS publication is a primary source in dealing with a WTS issue. That's what talk pages are for: to express points of view. It's odd that you, who repeatedly insists on "scholarly" sources and standards, believes that when the WTS publishes a statement about the outcome of a legal action it initiated, it is a "plain statement" of "plain facts", and presumably beyond question. It is obviously unacceptable for a litigant's statement about its own court case to be accepted as a secondary source. The WTS has proven repeatedly it is not always an accurate source: many of its published statements have been distortions or outright lies. There's an easy solution here, AuthorityTam: find a secondary source. BlackCab (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"In 1998" was added (which is a presumption without basis), and "Now" was changed to "After this"; Apart from that, the paragraph is a direct quote from Awake! (but not clearly stated as such), with no further attribution. It is not appropriate to use the Watch Tower Society's source to support statements about some other entity (namely, a court) in reference to claims about itself. Provide a source that is secondary to the Watch Tower Society (e.g. court, newspaper). (no indication in source that case relates to JWs)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything "arbitrary" about BlackCab's assessment of the source. When it had no source included, he said it was unsourced. When it later had the primary source added, he said the WTS primary source was not reliable for statements about a court's decision affecting [but possibly not even involving] the WTS. Awake! is a reliable source for statements of JW belief, but not suitable as the sole source for a court case affecting JWs [though the conclusion that the case related to JWs at all is speculative anyway].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it should be noted that the segment in Awake! doesn't say the case involved JWs! So all we have is an unverified source about a case involving an unknown party.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the insistence by BlackCab/Jeffro77 that Awake! was a primary source and "not a reliable source" and "unacceptable...as a secondary source" and "not reliable" and an "unverified source" for the following plain article statements:

• "In 1998, El Salvador's Supreme Court of Justice struck down a Social Security Hospital rule that required patients to donate blood in order to receive medical treatment. Previously, hospital policy called for all patients to provide two units of blood prior to a surgical procedure. After this, those who wish to receive medical treatment in the Social Security Hospital have the legal right to choose not to give blood."

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, only an "exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Nothing in the section claimed anything even slightly "exceptional", so a single source is sufficient. Furthermore, the charming JW-besmirching claims of BlackCab/Jeffro77 are immaterial, as the cited source gave no indication that the El Salvador Supreme Court case had as a litigant any of the 'Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses' (including the Awake! publisher itself), so BlackCab/Jeffro77's claims of WP:PRIMARY are even more plainly unwarranted. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 20:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the explicit article title ('Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country'), I'd prefer that the 'El Salvador' section be verified as a case actually "involving Jehovah's Witnesses" (seemingly an intentionally vague criteria which probably allows the section anyway, considering JWs and blood). BTW, the 1998 year of the case was noted in a one-line listing at Watch Tower Publications Index 1986-2011 under "Supreme Court Decisions"; the original posting editor (not me) seems to have had a citation oversight rather than a "presumption without basis". AGF much? --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 20:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If the case doesn't involve JWs, it obviously has no place in the article anyway. BlackCab (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, even after you have acknowledged that there is in fact no indication that the case involves JWs, you feel the need to make entirely irrelevant remarks about some supposed "charming JW-besmirching claims". DO NOT resume such behaviour and restrict your comments to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what alternative is sought regarding "involving Jehovah's Witnesses" as "seemingly an intentionally vague criteria". The difference between involving and possibly having an outcome affecting should be self-evident.

AuthorityTam defends an unknown editor about a hypothetical "citation oversight". It would be nice if AuthorityTam had assumed good faith when BlackCab had initially indicated that an unsourced statement was unsourced, and later that there were issues about a primary source, particularly when checking the source revealed that it isn't relevant to the article anyway. If AuthorityTam is so concerned about assuming good faith toward an editor not even involved in the discussion (that is, the editor who added an unattributed copyright violation), surely he could do the same for people actually involved in discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that AWAKE! is a reliable source, and I don't really care whether your choose to consider it as primary or secondary, it is still a reliable source.Willietell (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The source didn't say anything about the case involving JWs anyway. Aside from that, it wasn't a matter of Awake! being a reliable source, but about it being a primary source (in the original assessment of the source).

If some other company (maybe even a company you don't like) said it won a court case, and there was no other source, would you just take that company's word for it?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding, And I could be wrong here, because I haven't researched it, but am going off what I've read here. It seems that AWAKE! was simply reporting on the case, not claiming WTS involvement, which would make AWAKE! a secondary source, not much different from the New York Times. Willietell (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please pay attention. When the source was first added, BlackCab assumed the case was about JWs because this article is for cases about JWs. Later, it was determined that the source is not relevant to this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To ask me to "please pay attention" is simply uncivil, please desist from making such unnecessarily derogatory statements. While I agree with you that the case does not appear to involve WTS and Jehovah's Witnesses, it most certainly affects Jehovah's Witnesses in that country. Therefore, its inclusion, though somewhat questionable, has my support. It most certainly was included in AWAKE! in the Watching the World section for this very reason, because it impacts Witnesses in that country and the decision sets a precedence for courts in other countries worldwide.Willietell (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Asking you to pay attention is not derogatory. Though the history of the discussion had already been presented, you were still mixing the earlier matter about primary sources with the later discovery that the case didn't involve JWs.

Whether a case hypothetically affects JWs is out of scope of this article. The Watching the World segment in Awake! does not exclusively refer to things that necessarily affect JWs. The specific piece did not mention JWs at all, and it is merely speculation that it was included "for this very reason". Additionally, a court ruling in El Salvador has no bearing on the decisions of the courts of other countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As for BlackCab's baseless claim that "The WTS has proven repeatedly it is not always an accurate source: many of its published statements have been distortions or outright lies." I say PROVIDE PROOF AND NOT BASELESS ACCUSATIONS, and don't try to dig up some relic from 1922, lets hear your evidence from no more than 20 or 30 years ago. Willietell (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is beyond the scope of this Talk page to assess the veracity of unrelated statements by the Watch Tower Society. The fact remains that the source about the El Salvador section is not an appropriate source for this article, as it does not mention a case involving JWs. If you want a response to an unrelated matter from BlackCab, try his User Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you that such discussion is beyond the scope of this article, I still find it interesting that you only mention this now, after the accusation is questioned, and not earlier, when the accusation was made. Perhaps you are reminding the wrong editor about the scope of the article and the talk page. Willietell (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment about the reliability of Watch Tower Society statements about itself pertained directly to the issue of whether a WTS publication is acceptable as a primary source in this article. If you are interested in a list of statements published by the WTS that are distortions, historical revisions or outright lies, just ask me on my talk page. BlackCab (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1. While Awake! is a magazine published by a corporation related to the Watch Tower Society, it seems unwarranted at this article Talk to impugn all facts ever reported in Awake!.
   
2. There was no indication at all that the reported material involved any Watch Tower Society corporation, so it seems remarkable for an editor to not only leap to that assumption, but actually cite it as the second of three ostensible reasons for deleting the section (1. "unsourced", 2. "primary source", 3. "not a reliable source"). That saddens me.
   
3. There is nothing remotely "exceptional" about the article facts removed by User:BlackCab, and the Wikipedia standard is not that every fact must be supported by "exceptional sources". What a can of worms it would be for editors to go around deleting facts with a single reference! In the affected section, a single primary source would be sufficient for the two or three unexceptional facts which User:BlackCab removed, yet there is no real reason to believe the cited source actually is a "primary source".
   
4. A particular legal case need not involve one of the Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses in order for the case to be one of the "Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses" (and thus for the case to be included in this article). For example, I believe the United States case which established the "fighting words" legal concept is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, wherein the litigant was an individual JW without any 'amicus curiae' brief by any of the corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses (though, yes, Hayden Covington was the arguing attorney). I'm unsure of that case's exact details, but I'm sure that this article does not have the restrictive criteria certain editors pretend that it does. Whether or not a particular court case is a "Supreme Court case involving Jehovah's Witnesses" is a matter for reliable sources to state, pending a consensus interpretation by Wikipedia editors. I believe there is good reason to consider the El Salvador as "involving Jehovah's Witnesses" and it seems laughable to suggest that the case does not involve Jehovah's Witnesses. I'd tend to prefer the reinstatement of the section deleted by User:BlackCab, but I'd like to see more concerning the 'involvement of Jehovah's Witnesses' (rather than 'more sources' for banal facts which have already been well-sourced).
   

My conclusions may be different from other editors', but it seems unwikipedian for differences to result in condescension or repeated threats to "report" others. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The case would impact on Jehovah's Witnesses, because their peculiar interpretation of scriptural admonitions against eating animal blood has led to an organizational ban on members donating blood for medical use, but there is no demonstrable involvement of Jehovah's Witnesses in the case. The entire article is a spinoff of a statement in the main JW article about legal challenges by Jehovah's Witnesses. There would be numerous supreme court cases around the world that have benefited the JWs (pertaining perhaps to tax exemptions or peddling laws) without specifically involving them, and this may be one such case. You have demonstrated good research skills in the past, so use them now if you wish to determine the identity of the litigants.

My earlier comments about Awake! as a primary source were based on my assumption that the case did involve the Watch Tower Society as a litigant (an assumption reasonably based on its inclusion in the article!); they are now largely irrelevant since there is no indication that the JWs are actually involved in this case at all. BlackCab (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, your continued complaining about this matter is irrelevant. You continue to mention the fact that the statement in the article was initially unsourced, but the plain fact is that you cannot substantiate your suggestion that it was improper in the first instance to state that unsourced material was unsourced. You know very well that Awake! was only indicated as the source later, by you. You continue to harp on about an earlier mistaken suggestion about a primary source ("AGF Much"???), even though it is in fact not relevant. Regardless of your opinion about whether a case should involve a corporation or an individual JW to warrant inclusion here, the information about the case being discussed indicates neither.

If AuthorityTam wants to include cases that merely affect JWs (an extremely ambiguous classification), Jimmy Swaggart Ministeries vs. Board of Equalization of California about taxation of religious literature should almost certainly be included at this article. Indeed, the Watch Tower Society was involved in that case insofar as it filed an amicus curiae brief, though it was not a litigant. There are, of course, many cases that would need to be included under the much more ambiguous criteria AuthorityTam suggests.

Back in reality, based on the available source, there is simply no basis to include the case about El Salvador at this article, and even less reason to continue complaining about its (valid) removal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't believe the article would suffer if it included cases which scholarly analyses have determined to "involve Jehovah's Witnesses" (of course, subject to consensus here). Further, User:Jeffro77's attempt to link JWs with Swaggart is ill-conceived. It was the appelant Swaggart who tried to wrap himself in the respectability of JW practices; he imagined that JWs were somehow uniquely involved in Swaggart's own legal and business troubles.

• The Boston Globe, January 18, 1990, " Swaggart's challenge to California's taxes...was heavily based on a 1943 Supreme Court ruling that overturned convictions of Jehovah's Witnesses... The Jehovah's Witnesses were distributing religious literature and the high court said at the time, "This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits." " That is, the Court set precedent (and to date has not retracted the precedent) that Jehovah's Witnesses practices actually are a form of worship (by contrast with Swaggart).

The amicus curaie brief solicited from Watchtower plainly stated, "The ongoing, house-to-house preaching activities of every one of Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish them from all other religious groups, including the Appelant. Indeed the activities of the Appellant which have created its alleged tax liability are plainly different from the Witnesses' house-to-house preaching. Watchtower therefore takes no position and supports neither party on this appeal."

Ironically, JWs neutrality in the case is unique since most religions actually did support Swaggart: "Swaggart's challenge of the California tax was supported by an array of religious groups - from Hare Krishnas to mainline Protestants. Lawyers for the National Council of Churches, representing most Protestant denominations, called the California tax "a serious threat ... a tax on the dissemination of religious messages, and thus a forbidden tax on the exercise of religion." " (quote from Albany Times Union, January 17, 1990).

Frankly, the State of California carefully selected the single-most flagrant "religious" tax cheat from which the State might actually (and did) win a judgment. Had California pursued JWs, the State would have lost. I've never seen a serious argument to the contrary in a usable source. I don't believe significant sources or consensus would agree with User:Jeffro77's claims that Jehovah's Witnesses were involved with Swaggart. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 14:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The lengthy objection above is a red herring. The subject of this article is about court cases involving JWs, not court cases in which JWs were in some way involved with the litigant.

No one said JWs were involved with Swaggart, as falsely claimed by AuthorityTam.

The Swaggart case certainly involved JWs. It is unclear why AuthorityTam claims that a case in which JWs were both actually involved in proceedings (albeit limited involvement) and affected by the ruling in relation to taxation on the sale of religious literature (significantly) would not warrant inclusion at this article, but a source mentioning an unspecified case in El Salvador that said nothing about JWs at all 'should' be included on the basis that the ruling hypothetically affects JWs as third-parties not related to the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Expand title to include European Court of Human Rights

It seems such a long time since I've even had time to look at Wikipedia, and am still limited in what time I do have, but just glancing this over it seems like expanding this to include cases taken beyond the supreme courts of particular countries should be included. Please post any thoughts. Willietell (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The current title is already long enough. The scope of the article is already suitable for mentioning cases that went from Supreme Courts of individual countries to the European Court of Human Rights, as is already done in the section about Russia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070315200404/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_p_02_1651.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_p_02_1651.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901234453/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20P-02-1651.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20P-02-1651.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)