talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

I'm starting a discussion per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=1269161876 this edit]. I'll also note that most sources tend to establish Jehovah's Witnesses connection with the Bible Students before talking about other labels. Courtesy pings to {{u|Levivich}} (who was involved in the original discussion) and {{u|Jeffro77}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=1268686209] I have since self-reverted because the text was not added a few months ago, but on December 12 in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1262618226 this edit]. I still think that edit is a much better lead in line with MOS:FIRST and just generally what a lead should be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:The suggested alternative is not a better first sentence, for a few reasons. MOS:FIRST recommends that the first sentence be a direct statement about what the article subject is—a Christian denomination—rather than starting with elaboration about its historical development. Secondly, the alternative lead employed weasily phrasing about what the denomination is ‘considered to be’. Thirdly, the edit reintroduced incorrect grammar that does not reflect that the name of the denomination is properly a singular compound proper noun. Further (and related), despite the fact that JWs might favour a public perception that they are autonomously-minded individuals who are each ‘witnesses of Jehovah’ (a theological claim and not a neutral point of view) who make up ‘a group of Christians’, it is in reality a highly regulated hierarchical denomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'll reiterate that what I said above: {{tq| most sources tend to establish Jehovah's Witnesses connection with the Bible Students before talking about other labels}}. The historical development is crucial to understanding what Jehovah's Witnesses are and is much more useful context to the reader than a WP:LEADLINK full of other labels. That's why I placed them at the end of the first paragraph. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Presentation of information on Wikipedia isn’t governed by how other sources treat subjects. The reasons I have already given are sound.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)—Jeffro77 Talk 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::18px 3O Response: After reviewing this, as well as the previous relevant discussion, I think there's a slight misinterpretation of what MOS:FIRST says. {{tq|The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is}}, with the operative phrasing here being "nonspecialist reader", is the relevant part. The rewrite of the first sentence I think is better for nonspecialist readers, as well as the {{tq|and often when or where}} part of MOS:FIRST, as it plainly describes when the religious movement started. The diff it was changed from does neither of these things, and would still be fine in the lede, just not as the first sentence. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 05:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|SmittenGalaxy}} Just to clarify, when you mean rewrite, do you mean [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1262618226 this edit] (which I think gives a much better overview to a nonspecialist reader) or the current state of the lead? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting your third opinion right and that the current first sentence could be moved to the end of the first paragraph again. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Clovermoss}} Sorry for being a little late here. But yes, both that edit and the one you self-reverted last week; mostly just because I think that first sentence fits better than the one currently in the article. I'm not particularly picky in regards to where it will go in the lede, but it should still be there in my opinion. Whether that's directly after the first sentence or anywhere after that I don't think is of great importance, but it probably shouldn't be the very first sentence. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have no qualms about removing the 'sea of blue' from the first sentence, nor for the first sentence retaining that it grew out of the Bible Student movement. However, the vague notion that JWs are just 'a religious group'[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1262618226] misrepresents the actually highly structured nature of the denomination, and therefore does not adhere well to the recommendation in MOS:FIRST that the first sentence clearly say what the article subject is. Nor should the article endorse the non-neutral trend of dismissing that JWs are 'really' Christians. I would support {{tq|Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination that grew out of the Bible student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century.}} The later sentence in the article could then be re-phrased as {{tq|The denomination is generally classified as nontrinitarian, millenarian and restorationist.}}--Jeffro77 Talk 05:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I used "religious group" because there are varying definitions of what Jehovah's Witnesses are (expanded upon in the history section which says {{tq|The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}}) Religious group seemed like a neutral enough term to me that didn't nessecarily conflict with terms like "Christian" or "denomination". Adding "Christian denomination" to the middle of the first sentence sounds a bit awkward when read aloud but if your objection is to the term "religious group", that term could just be omitted. What do you think of the proposed rewrite being reinstated with that change? The latter issue would be "are considered to be" part. I added that to clarify that they aren't universally recognized as such in reliable sources. Maybe something like "are generally recognized as" would work better? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::My problem with "religious group" (especially with the incorrect verb are), as already stated, is that it falsely conveys that they're just a loosely organised group of individuals who are each 'witnesses of/for Jehovah'—a theological claim that is neither accurate nor neutral. For that reason, it is better to clearly state that it is a denomination. I don't see any awkwardness with the expression "Christian denomination" in the sentence, and using the term denomination is wholly consistent with the statement in the body that {{tq|The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}}. (Encyclopedias of religion routinely classify JWs as Christian, and the fact that many people don't consider JWs 'Christian' should hold as much weight as the fact that JWs don't consider any other denominations to be 'Christian'—that is to say, none.)

::::::::[Generally] recognized as does sound less weasily than considered to be, but [generally] classified as would be a better level of formality.--Jeffro77 Talk 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't think "religious group" implies anything about how Jehovah's Witnesses are structurally organized, just that they're a group with shared religious beliefs. I'm okay with the "generally classified" phrasing later on. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The implication that they're just "a group with shared religious beliefs" is the problem. It is a highly regulated hierarchical denomination, not just 'a group of people with shared beliefs'. That is the problem with ambiguity of "group".--Jeffro77 Talk 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Od}}

I disagree with you on that. Multiple things can be true at the same time. Scientology is highly regulated and hierarchical, but the first sentence of that article states that it is a "shared set of beliefs and practices". While I think inserting "Christian denomination" halfway through sounds awkward, that's somewhat subjective and I can understand why you disagree with me on that aspect. I suppose my other concern is that it gives that classification a sort of unquestioned status, even if that's what Jehovah's Witnesses are generally classified as. I think that there's enough arguing about classification in reliable sources to make such a distinction nessecary. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:The wording in the Scientology article is not analogous (and doesn't say "shared"). It doesn't say "Scientology [or Scientologists] are a group that believes..." or anything similar. I'm not sure you're suggesting we change the first sentence to say "Jehovah's Witnesses is a set of beliefs invented by..."--Jeffro77 Talk 07:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::No, but I made the comparison because your position seems to be that "a group with shared religious beliefs" is inherently contradictory with "highly regulated" and "hierarchical". I really don't think "shared religious beliefs" implies anything about said group being "loosely organised". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Those two phrases ("a group with shared religious beliefs" and "highly regulated") aren't inherently contradictory on their own, but referring to the denomination as "a group" is misleading because the name of the denomination is also used as a way as referring collectively to a group of individual members. The ambiguity doesn't exist with most denominations because the name of the denomination is not usually also the demonym. We wouldn't just say "The Catholic Church is a group with shared beliefs", and we certainly also wouldn't say "Catholics are a group with shared beliefs", and it would be even more confusing if the same term were used to refer to both.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think referring to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious group is misleading. If you google "what is a religious group?", you'll get results [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/religious-groups like this]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have already explained the context in which it’s misleading, and the wikilink for religious group itself demonstrates the ambiguity, providing separate definitions including “a group of people with similar religious beliefs” (e.g. a group of JW members) as distinct from a religious denomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 08:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::It appears we're at an impasse, then. If we can't find a workable compromise, the dispute resolution noticeboard is probably the next best step. I personally doubt someone reading an article on Jehovah's Witnesses is going to read that sentence and think "Jehovah's Witnesses are a group of individual Jehovah's Witnesses". It's clearly meant to have overlap with the meaning of religious denomination without running into the issues that come with using that narrower classification without question. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Though they would phrase it more like ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are a group of individual Christians’, that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public (but not for purposes such as legal registration or how it is actually run)—always framed as ‘who they are’ rather than ‘what it is’, so the ambiguity is demonstrable and non-trivial.—Jeffro77 Talk 08:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think we should be basing our lead sentence out of a desire to debunk how you think Jehovah's Witnesses market themselves. I don't think it's that deep. I also doubt that religious group can be equated with "group of individual Christians" because not all religious groups are Christian. Anyways, I'm heading to bed. It's 4 am in my timezone. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It isn’t a matter of ‘debunking’ anything (which could be interpreted as an assumption of bad faith). It is a matter of presenting information unambiguously, particularly where notable ambiguity exists. JWs are Christian and the fact that ‘not all religious groups are Christian’ is irrelevant.—Jeffro77 Talk 09:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Contact the JW information department? This is what they are for, ironing out such things. The issues that you both have raised are valid. It can make a big difference in understanding, yet some won't notice. Y.bowman (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That would be a primary, non-independent source. Read WP:SECONDARY for more about that. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I would enter this discussion (late, admittedly) to say that opening this article with a phrase that is both simplistic, and discrepant with significant valid and reliable textual sources (externally discrepant), and then likewise discrepant with regard to subsequent content in the same lead (internally discrepant) makes the article one that educators will immediately set aside as reliable material to suggest as student reading.

::::::::::::

::::::::::::The hard reality is there is tension between what this organisation claims for itself with regard to beliefs and practice, and how it is perceived and categorised by those academically and otherwise devoted to the subject of Christianity.

::::::::::::

::::::::::::Briefly: regarding the external, referring to JW as a Christian denomination denies the reality of a tension—that there are a plethora of reliable, scholarly sources external to the encyclopedia making clear that while the organisation represents itself as Christian, it does so on a theological basis that is not generally accepted, differing as it does substantially with regard to its Christology (in re: who Christ was/is in his nature, what his life, etc., accomplished, and so forth; see also close).

::::::::::::

::::::::::::Regarding the internal: to follow the Christian denomination statement with the further one that JW theology is nontrinitarian is to very simplistically set the article against itself (this line against its opening line), when viewed in the context of the bulk of WP content on Christianity and Christian theology (and again, in opposition to a related plethora of reliable, scholarly sources on the matter of the Trinity in Christian understanding).

::::::::::::

::::::::::::(That religion or religious movement acknowledges the first century Jesus of Nazareth in some way does not align all such religions or movements with orthodox (historical) Christianity; if simple recognition at some level level was the standard, even Islam would join the fold. That is, the conformity of a religion's or movement's Christology with that traditionally held as Christian is the necessity—and when there are significant deviations (when a plethora of scholarly sources note such deviations), then one simply cannot assign the "Christian" moniker without qualification.)

::::::::::::

::::::::::::In short, whether for brevity or other aim, to over-simplify the presentation on the JW, omitting that a tension exists regarding how its theological claims are positioned and received in Christendom, is to a disservice both to its adherents (who deserve an objective, third-party presentation of how the organisation is described in scholarly circles), and to general, naive readers who wish to understand this continuing religious movement in its present and historical context.

::::::::::::

::::::::::::I close stating my presumption that this audience is already aware and has access to the types of sources to which I refer; but should there be question—if the foregoing short essay does not make clear the crux of an issue, and immediately bring to mind the substantive reliable sources to which I refer—I can attempt to return on another occasion, to paste in examples. (But I would imagine, with the understanding present in this audience, and the sources already in this article and in other more central WP articles on Christian theology and history, that ready at hand are sources identifying Christian belief with Trinitarian theology, making clear that the JW's "Christ as first angel" is not orthodox Christian theology, likewise with regard to their denial of the bodily ressurection of Christ, etc.) 2600:1008:B10B:E6A5:28C1:CF9:2A41:E34D (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I get the personal reasons for disliking it, but we have to go off of what is policy related. I won't restate anything that's been iterated above, but I feel the current state of the lede is fine. The nuance of the {{tq|Jehovah's Witnesses is a nontrinitarian, millenarian, restorationist Christian denomination.}} isn't really necessary for MOS:FIRST and is also already included in the infobox and later on in the article. There's no need to retread the same thing over and over that's already clearly stated.

:::::::::::::In addition, there is tension and conflict among organizations and scholars — but we do not involve ourselves in disputes such as these. We're just restating what reliable secondary sources independent of them say. Simple as. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::To quote the Wikipedia article about nontrinitarianism, "Nontrinitarianism is a form of Christianity that rejects the orthodox Christian theology of the Trinity" (formatting added). The (longwinded) objection above correctly notes a distinction about orthodoxy, but incorrectly asserts that only 'orthodox' denominations may be defined as 'Christian'—a slippery-slope argument that could hypothetically be used to whittle a definition away to only 'really' include one's 'preferred' denomination. The fact that some people don't like identifying nontrinitarian groups as Christians is not the determining factor for inclusion.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::"some people". The world Council of churches has its criteria for membership that the individual church accept the Divinity of Jesus and a belief in the trinity. So it's not just that some people don't like it.

::::::::::::::So no member of the world Council of churches would consider the Kingdom Hall to be a denomination and Jehovah's witnesses do not consider themselves to be a denomination. They believe that they are the only thing. In no sense are they a denomination unless you redefine denomination in such a way that it becomes useless. 2607:FEA8:FF01:4FA6:B1EF:A68F:17E9:7D14 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Outdent|::::::::::::::}}Not in the discussion, don't mind me. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 17:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm unsure of the point of Balsam's comment but since they reset the indentation with their comment (which was very much needed at this point), I'll respond to the IP editor here. Leads usually use the technical terms used in academic sources. I think the use of "denomination" is a bit more shaky than it might need to be given that it's not really mentioned in the sources that I've read, but I assume good faith in regards to Jeffro77's arguments. But citing scholarly sources (and summarizing what they say instead of building an original argument) about what Jehovah's Witnesses are would get you farther than the World Council of Churches. Unless I'm missing something from a quick skim, I don't think there's anything in the article yet that explicitly states that Witness beliefs are a significant departure from mainstream Christianity, which is something that exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints article and could probably be easily added somewhere that isn't the lead (and maybe even there with consensus). Hopefully that helps. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::For example, page 3 of the third edition of Apocalypse Delayed by James Penton says that JWs haven't been recognized as a denomination by sociologists of religion (mentioning Thomas O'Dae and Bryan R. Wilson), saying that JWs are an "established sect" instead. I'm the one who wrote the {{tq|has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult}} content later on in the article and that's usually as narrow as the classification goes in the sources I've read (obviously there's some terminology differences depending on who you ask). The term "restorationist" (used in the infobox and in the beliefs section) is also supported by those sources. But so far I haven't seen any sources that explicitly call JWs a Christian denomination, even if they are recognized as Christian. If this gets to a state where I can FAC it, this issue will probably come up again. Some stronger sourcing for this claim specifically would help remedy that, or we could cross that road when we come to it? There's still a lot of reading I need to do before I get to that point anyways. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::* "The Witnesses are now the second- or third-largest denomination in all of the European countries save Switzerland..."—Encyclopedia of Protestantism, page 5. https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Protestantism/bW3sXBjnokkC?hl=en&gbpv=1

:::* "Opinions vary on when Jehovah’s Witnesses could be called a “denomination.” As will be discussed, the legal entity, basic organizational objectives, and core beliefs were already established during the 1880s, and the faith community adopted a specific name in 1910. However, we use the term “denomination” from the 1920s onward as the community conducted its activities under more centralized leadership."—Jehovah's Witnesses (Cambridge University Press, online). https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/jehovahs-witnesses/605AED05C9FA13DC68BB74FE3D2C651D

:::* "Jehovah's Witnesses is a Christian denomination known for its distinct beliefs and practices..."—EBSCO https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/jehovahs-witnesses

::The suggestion that no authoritative sources call it a denomination is simply false.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well that settles that then. None of the sources I read did. I appreciate you linking these citations. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I've since cited one of the sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=1297730602 here]. The authors do mention that opinions vary, though. Taking a closer look at the Protestant Encyclopedia source, it's a passing mention, although it's still authoritative sounding. I guess ideally what I'm looking for is an academic source like Zoe Knox or George Chryssides that go into detail about why such a classification applies, because they do that with other labels they use to describe the Witnesses. I don't have every single one of Chrysddises' books so I still have some hope that maybe he does somewhere. I'm not trying to nitpick, just trying to get ahead of possible issues that might come up at FAC. Leads are a big deal and should summarize the article as a whole. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The fact that the Encyclopedia of Protestantism calls Jehovah's Witnesses a denomination in passing actually underscores the fact that the authors consider use of the term mundane and uncontested. The Cambridge University Press article effectively describes why the term denomination is appropriate, specifying that the group (implicitly, under Rutherford's leadership) transitioned from loose sect to denomination during the 1920s (implicitly culminating in the formal adoption of a different name in 1931 to distance Rutherford's group from the various Bible Student sects). I also do not have Chryssides' books, but I don't really think it's necessary to scour for sources that discuss every label in minute detail. The article already clarifies in the body that there are variations in how the group is classified, but it is not necessary for the article to go to great lengths to 'defend' against critics who are motivated by 'rival' religious opinions.--Jeffro77 Talk 05:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::My concern was that if the label is contested, simply stating it in the lead without question might be problematic. I don't think it's simply a matter of defending against critics/religious bias. You can think something is not a denomination without that being the motivation (like on a personal level, I think the label makes sense, but I don't want to bring my personal opinions into my editing). The sourcing here is much better than nothing and I appreciate it but between the passing mention and the authors of the Cambridge source saying that not everyone accepts that Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination, I worry that maybe things are a bit more shaky than they ought to be for the lead. It's quite possible I'm overthinking this but in other circumstances when reliable sources disagree (especially scholarly sources) you're supposed to explicitly state that. But we can cross the road when we come to it if other editors think it is an issue. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The Cambridge source does not say "not everyone accepts that Jehovah's Witnesses are a denomination". It says opinions vary on when the group went from being a sect to a denomination. Aside from that, it is not necessary for the lead to get into the weeds about formal classifications by sociologists of religion (which is dealt with in the body), and a plain-English description—without qualifiers or disclaimers—is entirely suitable.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You're right, it says when. I swear it said whether when I read it, but I'm obviously wrong. The paragraph in full states {{tq|Opinions vary on when Jehovah’s Witnesses could be called a “denomination.” As will be discussed, the legal entity, basic organizational objectives, and core beliefs were already established during the 1880s, and the faith community adopted a specific name in 1910. However, we use the term “denomination” from the 1920s onward as the community conducted its activities under more centralized leadership.}} Usually when authors say opinions vary and we'll be using this term, the term itself is disputed, so that's probably what threw me off from a quick skim. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|WP:NOTFORUM}}

the thing is, that is a cult. i request the name Christian denomination turns to “Christian” denominatio Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:"the thing is, that is a cult." So what? Christianity is full of nonsensical little cults ever since the Reformation of the 16th century. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::so let’s call all of them cults. Mahal ko si Jesus (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Our personal opinions as to whether a particular sub-set of a particular religion is a 'cult' or not is of no relevance. Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources. Including, it should be noted, for this article, several sources which discuss whether the term 'cult' is appropriate, noting that in academia the usage of the term is generally considered pejorative and inappropriate. Rather than applying labels, the article instead describes the group, leaving readers to decide for themselves whether JW have 'cult-like' characteristics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::it IS a cult. In no way is this a Christian faction. Bolerame (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{ping|Immunodoc}} I haven't read the source in its entirety yet, but if it does say that, you could probably add information about it next to where it talks about {{tq|The denomination has been variously described as a church, sect, new religious movement, or cult.}} I'd put at the end of the paragraph and say something like "The Encyclopedia Brittanica considers them to be a cult". Consensus for the exact phrasing should probably take place here if you want to be extra careful. See WP:BRD as another option (this is what I'm doing now the "revert" and the "discuss"). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Jehovah's Witnesses|answered=yes}}

Anywhere in this article that refers to Jehovah's witnesses as a christian denomination, is factualy wrong. They do not believe Jesus is God, therefore they cannot be christian. Proof: Christianity name is derived from Christ name.

Example from your article that is wrong : "Jehovah's Witnesses is a denomination of Christianity that is an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement founded by Charles Taze Russell in the nineteenth century."

This is false. They are not a denomination of Christianity SusannahSuza (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The Government interactions section seems disproportionately long for the main JW article. The subject is handled in other sub-articles for individual countries, and in some cases there is more information in this main article than in those.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

: I don't think it's as detailed as it could be when you consider that a lot of scholarship about the JWs is about their legal history (earlier on the article states {{tq|Scholarly analysis of Jehovah's Witnesses is limited in Western academia, with most works focusing on legal challenges faced by the group}}, a sentence which might fit better elsewhere), [https://theconversation.com/jehovahs-witnesses-neglected-victims-of-persecution-114141 Rwanda and Malawi aren't mentioned], and the most fleshed out content so far for any individual country is three paragraphs. I was trying to keep it minimal in that it could adequately summarize JW's history in a country way. The plan was to do that, read more of the Knox source, and put extra detail in the relevant articles when I have the time. There's a lot of articles in this topic area and I've been trying to focus on this one before moving on to others as it's the most widely read. I'm not opposed to considering just how detailed this content should be given that I've definitely thought of it myself, but I don't think the current state of things is nessecarily too much. I welcome other opinions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::One possible way to address this would be to have a few sections summarizing the different types of government interactions JWs have been involved in. There could be one for Nazi Germany, one for military service, one for outright bans, one for child abuse, and one for civil liberties (where Supreme Court cases like West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette are mentioned). That'd probably be a good way to distinguish between what should be here and what should be at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments or country-specific articles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)