Talk:Eunice Spry

Category
I have removed this article from the JW category once again. The subject of the article is not notable as a JW. Individuals who are notable for committing a crime that has no direct relationship to the person's religion should not be categorised by religion. Articles about other individuals who are only notable for committing crimes are not generally categorised by religious affiliation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She doesn't have to be notable as a JW though. Her religion was relevant to the offences, with reliable sources linking it to the way the victims were isolated from others and controlled.--Shakehandsman (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No source I've seen, including the one you cite above, gives any indication that her offenses specifically relate to being a JW, nor are the offenses typical of JWs. The source already on the article specifically states that her crimes were reported by another JW.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't really mind either way, but I'd disagree with the above. And surely if the crime was reported by a JW then that makes the religion an even more significant aspect of the story? It seems that pretty much everyone involved was a JW.--Shakehandsman (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unremarkable that a person who only associates with JWs would be reported by a JW. If everyone involved were Catholic (or some other more widespread religion), the religion of the people wouldn't even be mentioned. The religion was mentioned as a novelty, which is sensationalism and not encyclopedic. The individual is notable for her offense, which was neither characteristic of JWs nor endorsed by that religious organisation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, Jeffro, are you a JW?
 * Eunice would quote scripture to justify why her children were "punished" as "sinners". That's at least Christian, and JW is the type of Christian she was. Let people make their own judgement. Don't persecute, but don't whitewash either. It actually looks worse on JW-ism that a perhaps-member would come to the article to attempt to "clean it up". Eunice's are abominable crimes, and if it was influenced by JW-ism, even in the mind of an evil person, it should be said.
 * Perhaps JW's social ideas and philosophy has faults that might cause a cruel and evil person to be inspired towards such acts. A nice person wouldn't, but not everybody is nice. A grown-up can understand that level of nuance. You need to let people make up their own minds. Besides that, it's well-reported in the news that she's JW. So hiding it looks weird.
 * A religion doesn't have to formally endorse things, to influence people. The whole point of religions is to give people a particular way of thinking. Especially ones with such strong orthodoxy as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Religions are made of ideas. Perhaps some of her behaviour was characteristic of JW thinking, just taken to an extreme much farther than the ordinary believer would, or the church would endorse.
 * 84.70.181.151 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible death?
Someone has changed 'is' to 'was' in the opening sentence, saying in their edit summary that she's died.

I can't find any sources for this, but I suppose she's under a false identity so it's entirely possible that she's died and it's never been reported. Can anyone clarify? (Incidentally, is there a procedure for people who are keeping low-profile whose deaths are unlikely to be reported?) 2A0A:EF40:1216:D701:788E:7ADF:8CFE:141E (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)