Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep in one form or another. Ad Orientem and I had hoped that further relists could clarify the preferred way to keep this material but unfortunately despite three relists it's still only clear that the material should be kept but not in what form. I'm thus closing it as keep and not "no consensus" because the latter implies that there had been an equally strong case for deletion.

Merging or renaming can be discussed at the article's talk page.  So Why  08:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is based almost entirely on primary sources about a doctrine of a minor religious group, and was probably originally created as a coatrack for the 'controversy' about the Watch Tower Society's 'association with the UN' as an NGO associated with the UN's Department of Public Information. A previous AfD was raised in 2006, with a result of Keep. However, the reasons given were essentially that 'both organisations are notable'. Notability of the organisations is not in question; the doctrine is not particularly notable. If deleted, notable aspects about the doctrine can be merged into Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, and possibly History of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, "of a minor religious group," mmmmmm, "membership of 8.3million" minor?, i suppose Mormons are also a minor religious group, allbeit with a membership of around 15 million, a slightly larger minor group? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mormons are indeed also a minor religious group. Is this not obvious? JWs make up less than 0.4% of Christians.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just like the minor tertiary institutions of oxford, cambridge and harvard that only have enrollments of around 20,000... Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that JW and Mormon members are in some way 'elite'? Or are you just making an irrelevant observation about something that is not directly comparable?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * or that the word "minor" is one of those words that can be subjective and a matter of opinion?Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please say something relevant about the AfD or go away.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge I see no reason to delete this, but it does seem like excessive coverage of a minor theological doctrine. I support a 1-2 paragraph treatment of this topic, in an article on politically-relevant theological views of the Jehovah's witnesses.  Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses has NPOV issues as a merge target, Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs would probably work. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm unclear how major of a doctrine this is. It seems minor, which suggests merge unless more secondary sources are found. However, the doctrine is already mentioned at Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, and perhaps that page would be a better merge destination. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * REname to Jehovah's Witnesses attitude to the United Nations, which is a better description of the content. This seems to be an example of where their doctrine varies over the years, a matter they do not willingly admit.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article will not address the fact that it is not sufficiently notable.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, okay, this is one of the fundamental beliefs of jws (it just doesn't come up when they are preaching door-to door:)), being integral with their view/prophecies about the destruction of all religions and organisations (except them of course:)) that they believe are in opposition to Jehovah (God) and the setting up of God's kingdom on the Earth. Agree that the majority of sources are primary and there does appear to be an undue emphasis on the UN Department of Public Information issue, that really should only be a one or two sentence mention. The article should either be kept and improved with more non-jw sources (difficult as there is a dearth (love that word, dearth, yeeaaahh...) of such sources) or merged/redirected to Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses with a 1, 2 line mention at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs.  Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * JW view of the United Nations is already mentioned at both the suggested articles. Whether further information is warranted merits discussion at both those articles and/or other related articles.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Mormons also believe that when Jesus Christ returns he will reign on earth as the literal king, and human governments will have an end. I can source this. However to go from that statement to then write about what this means for existing governments needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. We need such sources, not just quote mining from primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep; IMHO it is sufficiently sourced and notable. Merging it to either "beliefs" or "history" would not be desirable, as it is particularly the changes in the beliefs which are of encyclopaedic value. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is it sufficiently sourced? The notability guideline says articles should be based on secondary sources. This article is based almost entirely on primary sources. Other than the 'exposé' section, the only primary source in the article was before either Jehovah's Witnesses or the United Nations even existed. The JW view of the UN has been fleshed out at this article—based only on primary sources—in order to 'support' the 'exposé' section. Most sources on the subject of JW views of the UN are either primary sources or unacceptable sources such as blogs and forums.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if you count the United Nations citations (as well as JWs) as primary sources, it also has two sources from a broadsheet newspaper. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It also has two sources from a broadsheet newspaper... in the exposé section. I already said that.
 * Also, your recent addition at the article seems to be a good example of why it is isn't really a good idea to form article titles by just joining two things with "and". It is unhelpful for an article to just be a collection of interactions between the two things.
 * Your addition has no relevance to the section you put it in. The only way for your recent addition to be salvaged would be to rename the last section to something like Jehovah's Witnesses interactions with the UN, reduce the 'exposé', and add your addition to that section. But since the article is not notable, it's probably not worth the effort. JWs are not the only religious group to have lodged appeals with the UN Human Rights Committee, and it is undue weight to have an article on that basis.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC) DO NOT REMOVE this valuable information. It is imperative that this available. It has saved lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.132.15 (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that the article has 'saved lives' is neither established nor relevant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it Wikipedia's purpose to 'right great wrongs'. The criteria for inclusion is that it is notable based on reliable secondary sources, not that one or more editors believe its inclusion is important.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While consensus is at this time in favor of keeping this material in one form or another but not in favor of keeping a separate article, I'm relisting this to discuss where to merge this content to.
 * delete The only section that isn't based on primary sources is trivial and irrelevant to the main section, which is based entirely on primary JW documents. It's a research paper outside our purview. Mangoe (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge While I believe it has some use, it isn't worth it's own page, and should be merged into a relevant article. Also needs to be updated (Penton's latest edition of Apocalypse Delayed would be useful, as he talks about it) and probably shortened. Vyselink (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  06:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (but I wouldn't object to a sensible merge – I suggest Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is not too far off). Firstly in my opinion many of the JW sources are not WP:PRIMARY. Their problem is that they are neither independent nor third party. So, to provide a neutral point of view we must balance them with other points of view or resort to sources which seem to be independent and reliable. Apart from the Guardian, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses and What the Watchtower Society Doesn't Want You to Know: A Glimpse Behind the Walls of the Kingdom Halls might provide suitable material that seems to be independently (and hopefully reliably) published. They both discuss the UN aspect at length. However, in neither case does the writing look dispassionate to me. The topic of the JW position concerning the UN is notable. The issue is do we have suitable material on which to base a balanced article without resorting to WP:SYNTHESIS and I think AFD is not the answer to this question. Thincat (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article—should be deleted? I think there are enough RS and I think the JW attitude towards the UN is a separate issue from their attitudes towards other governments. That is because of the "one world government" connotations of the UN. It is true that many primary sources are used, but these are JW publications. A publication like The Watchtower is a reliable source for what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Roches (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it hadn't occurred to me that including the UN alongside "governments" would be politically insensitive in some quarters. Thincat (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the objection to including it on Jehovah's Witnesses and governments is. It seems like a better target than the ones I suggested earlier in the thread. The details can be included in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * JW publications are certainly reliable in the context of presenting what JWs believe, but they are not suitable for indicating that their view of the UN is notable.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jeffro77 We have two articles in a reputable newspaper (cited) and two extended sections in non-JW books (above) all on the issue so it exceeds the GNG criteria. This doesn't mean we have to have an article, of course, it just means we may presume the topic is suitable for its own article. To my mind the strongest argument against an article might be that we do not have adequate material for writing an NPOV article because the material is too polarised. I don't think I agree with this but it is a reasonable point to make and the article needs to be handled very sensitively and carefully. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Power~enwiki Well, I don't know but JW seem to be against governments and some people may regard the UN as an attempt at a super-government while other may think it is nothing of the sort. So, its inclusion in a "list" of governments might seem NPOV. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments would be better than the earlier suggestions for merger targets, IMHO, if this article is not deemed worthy of a separate page. The UN is an association of governments, so the topic fits well enough to be covered in that article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a tricky one. The 2001 Guardian article definitely counts one to GNG. Independence of other sources is lacking, but this is a rather unique and pervasive policy position of the sect that is well documented here and noteworthy. Ultimately, WP is improved by this piece, although a second Guardian-type article would go far to cementing Keep status. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing so notable about this JW doctrine that warrants its own article. The level of available secondary sources is certainly suitable for inclusion of the JW view of the UN in relevant articles such as Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and maybe History of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Guardian article only addresses an exposé of what is considered a 'hypocritical' 'relationship' with the UN. Whilst from the JW perspective, the UN is an evil terrible 'beast' (and this is the reason for the Guardian article), a religious organisation subscribing to the UN DPI is not especially notable. As such, the assertion that the exposé would warrant an article would seem to be undue weight.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

While it's not a notable entry to the everyday Christian, for Jehovahs Witnesses is a huge turnaround from previous doctrine. If merged into the parent article many may miss this very important point. Please leave it as stand alone. Seeing it on a website such as Wikipedia where everyone goes for information may make someone ask important questions about what they have been taught as fact since the joining of the UN is kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeswords (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles effect on JW's is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Their leaders are responsible for what they know about the religion. Vyselink (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability to JWs is not the benchmark for inclusion, and it is not Wikipedia's responsibility or purpose to 'advise' members of a particular denomination about 'secrets'. (And association with the UN DPI is not the same 'joining the UN'.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I rarely relist discussions for a third time but what looked like a near consensus to merge last week seems to have moved towards a Keep. So I am going to hope that a third relist will add enough clarity to allow us to close this.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to the article on Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines. Due to their religious based refusal to vote, the political power of Jehovah's Witnesses is very minor, as opposed to Mormons who are officially encouraged to vote by Church leaders and politically control one state in the US and have very strong power in some other states, while also being a large portion of the population in several nations in Oceania. That said, the Jehovah's Witnesses have had a large incluence on religious freedom jurisprudence in the US, Canada and some other countries. However the real issue here is that this article is a content fork way to far down. This is basically a sub-set of Jevhovah's Witnesses beliefs, which is an article that might be legitimately divided. However the next step down would be to form an article on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on government and demand neutral, scholarly coverage. This is a difficult thing to undertake, since Jehovah's Witnesses views on government have been in part used to justify their being banned and persecuted in many countries, and it is a subject that lends attracts people misrepresenting its content. Lastly comparing the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses numbers does not work well. The LDS Church counts all children who were blessed until their ninth birthday, and counts all people who have been baptized unless they are excommunicated or have their names formally removed from the records of the Church. This accounts for about 95% of Mormons, or maybe a higher percentage. However it counts people who based on other studies do not view themselves as Mormons but have just not bothered to formally remove themselves from the Church records. On the other hand the Jehovah's Witnesses only report active publishers, which covers those people who actively engage in propagating the religion on a regular basis. There are many more people loosely affiliated with the movement who are not counted in this number.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.