The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
@Jeffro77: In this edit summary [1] you wrote that a government not giving free money to a religious group for breaching specific conditions is not 'persecution'; neither of the cited sources call the deregistration 'persecution', and the 'deregistration' is not a ban on their activities; neither source says all other religious groups in Norway applied for or receive grants. Other religious groups don't apply for grants because the status that the Witnesses lost automatically gives this additional funding to religious communities. JWs are the only group to not get this funding and the sources cited do indeed verify this. Anyways, I agree that the "persecution" label is not the best, which is why I've renamed the section to "government interactions". Many legal battles involving the Witnesses are complicated and I think that's a more neutral section heading. It also works well with my plans to expand country-specific legal histories (Canada had a case involving disfellowshipping but they came to a different conclusion, for example). Clovermoss🍀(talk) 01:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC), edited to strike incorrect assertion Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also added this [2] to clarify why the director of that human rights organization believes this to be interfering with the religious freedom of the Witnesses. Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the case that all religious communities in Norway automatically receive government grants. Only those that apply (annually) receive grants, and of those, JWs are the only ones who have been refused (according to the cited source, though it is incorrect), and they were refused because they failed to meet specific requirements for receiving the grants rather than some arbitrary 'persecution'. It is misleading to say JWs are the "only group" to be treated this way, as there are other groups in Norway that do not receive grants because they have not applied for them. Additionally, other organisations that have received grants have also had them suspended.[3]
Section 10 of the relevant legislation (translated) says: "No one may employ improper arguments, promises or threats or proceed by other questionable means for the purpose of persuading another person to join or resign from a religious community." Jehovah's Witnesses' shunning practices fail that requirement.--Jeffro77Talk02:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(The change of the section name away from 'Persecution' is a definite improvement. It gets murky when anything not in the interests of the denomination gets conflated with legitimate descriptions of actual persecution.)--Jeffro77Talk22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently changed the text to read:
In 2023, when Jehovah's Witnesses lost their status as a religious community due to their shunning practice, they also lost the right to perform civil marriages. The case has been appealed. Witnesses are the only religious group to have lost their status in the country, which prevents them from accessing 1.3 million euros in state subsidies annually. The director of Human Rights Without Frontiers believes that by deregistering the Witnesses, Norway is interfering with the group's religious freedom. Other academics disagree with this interpretation.
The source you bring up here is about bible schools, care homes, and an abortion organization losing their grants, which is not the same as deregistering an entire religious community. The source I cited supports what I've written (quote: "According to experts, this is the first time a faith community lost its legal position in Norway"). Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mincing words to say JWs are the only group to have 'lost their status', as it omits that there are other religious groups that have not applied, or have been refused registration in the first instance. This leaves the article falsely implying that all religious organisations except JWs receive government grants.--Jeffro77Talk02:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: The edit presented by Clovermoss is pretty close to what the cited sources says. I might omit the claim that this is the first time a faith community lost its legal position in Norway. In the article that claim comes from the JW and it's attributed to them. If it is going to be mentioned here is should be attributed to them and not the Wiki voice. The rest of that quote is a reasonable reflection of the cited source and I don't see a valid argument against included it. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article that's cited[4] says: According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are the first religious group to lose their national registration in Norway.Nemov (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov: It's not an additional source, it's literally what's been cited in the article since I added the text. I'm not sure why you think the source you linked is the one that was being cited. Is there any reason you don't think it's adequate? It mentions that JWs were the first to lose their status more than once and doesn't say "according to JWs". The US government report also states that Norway deregistered the Witnesses [6] (another source that has been present since I added this text). Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accidently clicked on citation 200 instead of 202, but 200 mentions that the claim comes from the JW and 202 says "experts" whatever that means. The claim that the JW are "the group to lose registration in Norway" isn't really that important and I'm not sure it's true based on these two sources. Nemov (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov: You don't think a US government report on religious freedom is significant enough? There's also this piece from a magazine. I'm not strongly tied to the phrasing of "first" but several reliable sources support the fact that Norway lost its status as a faith community. Clovermoss🍀(talk)15:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the confusion, but I agree with you about losing the status. That's perfectly fine. My only objection was to the claim of the JW being the "first." Nemov (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov: My objection to the edit was regarding the assertion that JWs are the 'first' or 'only' group to be refused registration (which is distinct from being the first to be deregistered), along with any false implication that JWs are 'the only religious organisation in Norway that doesn't receive government subsidies'. The current wording is therefore fine. Apart from that, if one source attributes a claim to JWs and another source attributes it to anonymous 'experts', the latter is not sufficient to identify it as an independent source. The US government source does not say JWs are the first or only denomination to not receive government funding in Norway, and the fact that the denomination has been deregistered in Norway was never in question.--Jeffro77Talk22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I think I misread the source at first as "legal experts" or something because just 'experts' is too vague. The claim is also repeated a few times without attribution and it gave the impression that things were more set in stone than they were. That's why I had no issues removing it upon re-examination. I asked for a third opinion because I read your comments as being opposed to including information about the funding situation, not just the "first" claim. I will note that I never said in the article itself that JWs were the first to be refused funding, simply that they were the first to have lost it. I did not not say that the US government sources verifies the "first" part but I brought it up because I thought they were taking issue with the legal status of Jehovah's Witnesses. Clovermoss🍀(talk)23:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the reader is already familiar with Norway's system of government subsidies for religious denominations, saying a particular denomination is 'the first to be deregistered' can be very easily misconstrued as 'only JWs don't get funding'. It would be unncessary elaboration for the scope of the article to explain that denominations in Norway only receive government funding if they apply (there are various exceptions; e.g., Church of Scientology isn't registered at all, and the Church of Jesus Christ [Mormons] are registered but decline government funding), it is better to simply state that JWs no longer receive the funding rather than potentially sensational claims that 'only JWs' were targeted.--Jeffro77Talk23:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re, It would be unnecessary elaboration...: no it wouldn't, it would be helpful, and an explanatory note is the ideal place for this, as it would provide the required info for those that aren't familiar with the Norwegian system, without interrupting the flow of the text for those that are. Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We only have the one source that verifies the first claim, though. It seems best to stick to what is concretely repeated across numerous reliable sources (that JWs were deregistered). If the claim was better attributed and repeated in other sources, I think your suggestion could work. Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no debate about the JWs losing their funding, just whether or not they were the first to ever lose it when it was previously granted. As far as I can I tell, the sources you just linked do not support the first claim. Clovermoss🍀(talk)18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the background to the situation is a bit more complicated. Jehovah's Witnesses were fully deregistered in 2023 but it looks like there were some other important decisions in Norway before that date. I'll look into what sources say about this. I did add some brief content to Freedom of religion in Norway as well. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been scanning articles from about a dozen Norwegian news sources (in auto-translation, and not entirely independent; many echo or report on previous reports) and while it's easy to find tons of sources verifying the dereg, I haven't found a single report that mentions it is the first, or 'unprecedented'. This isn't too surprising to me, as reporters report, and the event(s) i in question are about legal and financial battles of the day, and if no one is using those words (and why would they?) then there is nothing to report about it in a news article. (An analysis or historical overview article would be different.)
Anyway, in my research, I have had to learn a handful of words in Norwegian; here's a mini-glossary you can use to help you search there:
Mini-glossary of Norwegian search keywords for researching this topic
Note: These keywords are gleaned from Norwegian websites, not from automatic translation. Bear in mind that some words can be inflected and have different forms, but this shouldn't affect your search results.
I appreciate the Norwegian lesson! I've been taking the time to work on an essay but I will hopefully get around to doing my own research on this later today. Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt in your research, you will find additional Norwegian terms of interest. I waive WP:TPO, so that you may interpolate additional rows directly into the table. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official Jehovah's witnesses website is the most translated website according to this source. Has it been noted in the body of the article yet? Wår (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues:
The cited source is a blog, which isn't a suitable source for Wikipedia.
The cited source is a commercial venture rather than a source that independently researches translation efforts.
The company that runs the blog is privately owned, and it cannot be determined whether it has any connection to Jehovah's Witnesses (for example, the cited page refers to "Brother Geoffrey Jackson"); it cannot be established whether Watch Tower volunteers separately outsource paid translation work for Tomedes.
The detail is promotional in nature, and is not notable in the scope of this article.
The cited sources mentions Jehovah’s Witnesses 18 times but the actual publisher, Watch Tower Society, 0 times, further suggesting a promotional tone, or possible commercial relationships such as comment-for-pay or Watch Tower translators performing separate freelance work for Tomedes.
Most posts on the cited sources' blog get no engagement at all, with one or a few comments on the occasional post, but the post about the JW site has over 100 comments, almost all from JWs. This includes many within a month of when the post was first made.
The Watch Tower Society is a publishing company involved in translation with an unpaid labour pool, so it is not remarkable that they do more translation than companies whose primary business is not publishing and have to pay their staff.
The number of languages into which the JW site is translated is misleading, because for some of the languages, it is just a single landing page in the target language, or a site in English with some downloads available in the target language. It is not the case that all of the pages on the site are available in all the target languages.
The tone of the question with 'yet' suggests an expectation or demand that is not consistent with the requirements of the article.
under demographics, there's a sentence that says: "In 2023, Jehovah's Witnesses reported a worldwide annual increase of 1.3%". the implication from the preceding paragraph is a 1.3% increase in membership, but i think it's still ambiguous, and was wondering if someone could pls clarify, ty SmolPetra (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does refer to an increase in membership. More specifically, it is the rate of increase in the denomination's reported average publisher figures, where 'publisher' is their term for individuals who report preaching activity and are approved by the organisation to do so.--Jeffro77Talk08:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first paragraph under "Background" I believe that the statement "the fleshly return of Jesus Christ" should be changed to something more neutral like "the physical return" or "the corporeal return". Blind-Guard04 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
3O Response: The edit presented by Clovermoss is pretty close to what the cited sources says. I might omit the claim that this is the first time a faith community lost its legal position in Norway. In the article that claim comes from the JW and it's attributed to them. If it is going to be mentioned here is should be attributed to them and not the Wiki voice. The rest of that quote is a reasonable reflection of the cited source and I don't see a valid argument against included it. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Done I think all these variations are neutral, but I changed it to "physical return" because that sounds less archaic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)