Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:12, 31 January 2022

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 no consensus. Nothing prevents further discussion on talk page around merging. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden

Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undue weight for separate article. Any notable content can be added to the subsection at Religion in Sweden. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough information for an article. All it gives is the dates when the church was founded in Sweden and when its HQ moved to Denmark. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  @Kitfoxxe: Please review the updated article and its sources. is a 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough information to warrant separate article any inportant information that comes up on this subject could be added to main Jehovah's Witnesses article as a subsection. Daniel298289 (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep They're famous and have been around for a while. The article being short has nothing to do with it. Articles for deletion is not a venue for quality article improvement. J 1982 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many Misplaced Pages articles about the broader subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. However country-specific articles are generally not warranted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should not country-wise be welcome? J 1982 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends on if there is enough notable content from reliable secondary sources relevant to the specific country. What content exists beyond what could be placed in the relevant section at Religion in Sweden?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not the right venue for improvement. J 1982 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The question was largely rhetorical. It is considerably unlikely that there is sufficient information in reliable secondary sources to warrant a distinct article. But if you have specific sources in mind, feel free to start a section at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

When something is "notable" to stand on its own, the length of the article doesn't matter. J 1982 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not established that the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden is notable, and nor is it the case that everything notable enough for a section in an article warrants its own article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The SOU clarifies that the JW have influenced public debate about pacifism and alternative military service in Sweden, at least since the 1950s. The same source clarifies that laws have been modified to deal with JW. The SOU cites previous SOUs and leading newspapers, as well as newspapers representing e.g. Communists. So there is a wealth of reliable sources to work with, all focused on Swedish JW and pacificism.

No doubt similar statements can be made about child and health care. is a 21:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As previously indicated, there were cases in Sweden about this issue in the 1960s (actually starting around 1958). However, this can be adequately covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments and briefly mentioned at Religion in Sweden. It doesn't necessitate a separate article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - even if the current article is short, there's sufficient material to justify an article on its own regarding Sweden. Tomas e (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what kind of information is available that is specific to Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden that cannot be adequately covered at Religion in Sweden?--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that every Christian denomination active in Sweden should only be described in a general "Religion in Sweden" article if they are of sufficient size for a separate article, which Jehovas Witnesses obviously is. Material that is specific rather than comparative tends to get lost from view to readers who are looking for specifics. Material for expansion includes history, and handling by Swedish social welfare authorities between their believes and medical treatments. Tomas e (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, Tomas e! I've now begun expansion. J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Development of Jehovah's Witnesses is covered at History of Jehovah's Witnesses and other articles. Social issues such as conscientious objection regarding Jehovah's Witnesses are covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and other articles. Their views about medical treatment are covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. It is not necessary to have a separate article about these issues for individual countries. A separate article is only warranted if there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources about Jehovah's Witnesses in that country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear what you imagine constitutes 'sufficient size'. JWs in Sweden represent less than 0.25% of the population of Sweden, and less than 0.3% of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge into Religion in Sweden - Seems better to Merge than to Keep or Delete imho. –Davey2010 18:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I notice that there are three language interwiki links for the article. Two were also written by User:J 1982, the creator of this article, in Swedish and 'Simple English'. The 'Simple English' version is identical to the English version. The third was written by another editor, in Polish, and is based entirely on primary sources, which fails the criteria for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: There are hundreds of hits for "Jehovas vittnen" in the catalogue of the Swedish National Library. While many of these are clearly just pro-JW apologetics or anti-JW polemics from other Christian groups, and some concern JW in general or outside Sweden, I did easily find one publication that undoubtedly is a reliable source, a Lund University dissertation from 2007: Pernilla Liedgren Dobronravoff, Att bli, att vara och att ha varit : om ingångar i och utgångar ur Jehovas vittnen i Sverige. I'd suggest that the proper way to go about researching an article such as this one would be to look at a book such as the one mentioned (not least to study her introduction and bibliography to see what authors and publications she mentions or cites) or at appropriate annual academic bibliographies covering religion in Sweden. --Hegvald (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep -- It appears that there are about as many Witnesses as Jews in Sweden (possibly more). However would any one suggest that we should delete History of the Jews in Sweden? I have strong disgreements with the Watchtower theology, but it exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Judaism is a major religious and ethnic classification. Jehovah's Witnesses is a minor Christian denomination.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What matters for notability is if there are sources dealing with a subject. You seem to have based this nomination purely on the assumption that no sources could possibly exist on a subject you personally regard as being of little interest. --Hegvald (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of Jehovah's Witnesses is very well represented on Misplaced Pages. However, that does not mean that Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden is a notable subject. The one suitable source you've indicated doesn't automatically justify a separate article. Ordinarily, the correct process would be to add material to the relevant section at Religion in Sweden, and to create a spin-off article only after it has been established that there is sufficient material.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Still agree with delete, but it has nothing to do with the number of Witnesses or their status as a major religion or minor denomination. There is Scientology in Germany although Scientology is much more minor, but the topic has been considered important enough to be covered in depth in secondary sources.Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite correct that the number of members is not the sole determining factor. Notability of a religion in a particular country is determined based on reliable sources about that religion that are specific to that country. Sources from a particular country that provide general information about a particular religion whose members happen to be in that country does not generally make their presence in that country notable (exceptions would include if the religion exists only or primarily in that country or is headquartered in that country).--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For such a major organization, we should not even need to think of notability even country-wise. J 1982 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Entirely incorrect. Based on their own official statistics, Jehovah's Witnesses constitute less than a quarter of 1% of Sweden's population.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's major because of it's fame, not its number of members. J 1982 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The notability of Jehovah's Witnesses as a broader subject has not been disputed, and there is already significant coverage of subjects relating to Jehovah's Witnesses in various Misplaced Pages articles. Jehovah's Witnesses are not especially 'famous' in Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Jehovah's Witnesses are not especially prominent or controversial in Sweden. There were some court cases in the 1960s regarding conscientious objection, and this could be adequately handled in a brief paragaraph at Religion in Sweden, with a link to the broader issues of Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, for reasons noted by Tomas e (talk · contribs). Religion in Sweden would should not be a dumping ground, but rather a coherent article. There are plenty of reliable sources for a niche article on Jehovah's Witnesses. is a 07:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated that there is sufficient notable information about Jehovah's Witnesses that is specific to Sweden. The subject of Jehovah's Witnesses is itself already given broad coverage across several articles. It is not necessary to report general information about the denomination in an article related to the religion in Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself and please start reading others' replies, so that consensus can be established. Hedvig (talk · contribs) already discussed reliable academic sources, so your statement is not only false but was already demonstrated to be false. Additional reliable sources (professional journalism) can be found by searching for "Jehovas vittnen" at leading newspapers and broadcasters. is a 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Already read the other comments. They have not established that Jehovah's Witnesses are especially notable in Sweden. Those sources establish that JWs are notable generally, and this is well reflected by Misplaced Pages's coverage of the subject in several articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Read again. The title of the Lund University doctoral dissertation specifies that it discusses Jehova's Witnesses in Sweden. is a 10:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A book written in Sweden about Jehovah's Witnesses is obviously going to involve the author's observations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden, but it does not establish that JWs in Sweden are particularly notable compared to JWs anywhere else. It only establishes that JWs are notable, and there are some of them in Sweden. It does not automatically warrant a country-specific article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You believe that Swedish (e.g. Lund University) dissertations only discuss topics in Sweden? You are wrong also on this belief. is a 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to explain why that question further demonstrates that the article you cited is not evidence that JWs in Sweden is an especially notable subject?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone in Sweden writes about cats, does that warrant a Misplaced Pages article about cats in Sweden?--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read the title, which discusses JW in Sweden. It is a Lund University dissertation: "a Lund University dissertation from 2007: Pernilla Liedgren Dobronravoff, Att bli, att vara och att ha varit : om ingångar i och utgångar ur Jehovas vittnen i Sverige" is a 11:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So what? Repeating the title over and over again doesn't establish anything about the content. It doesn't demonstrate that JWs in Sweden are any different to JWs anywhere else.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me translate the end of the title: "the Jehova's Witnesses in Sweden". So there is an academic monograph on JW in Sweden, besides the high quality reliable news sources on JW in Sweden, which have already been cited. The notability has been demonstrated. is a 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The existence of JWs in Sweden is not disputed, and it is unremarkable that someone in Sweden has written about them. If sources say the same things about JWs in Sweden that are said about them everywhere else, it does not establish notability of JWs in Sweden. Notable details about JWs in Sweden such as the number or first appearance can be summarised in a brief section at Religion in Sweden.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Explain how your repeated opinions are related to policy or guidelines, please. I have never heard of your criteria. is a 15:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already indicated what would demonstrate the subject of JWs in Sweden to be notable. If sources don't say things that are specific to JWs in Sweden, the article would be simply be a content fork of other JW articles, with only a few details specific to the country, and those details could be adequately covered at Religion in Sweden. In that case, a separate article for a minor denomination would constitute undue weight. Since you keep asserting the document, Att bli, att vara och att ha varit : om ingångar i och utgångar ur Jehovas vittnen i Sverige, as a suitable source... what does it say about JWs in Sweden that would warrant a specific article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your tests do not seem to based on policies or guidelines. You would be free to make up rules and even change them after stating them at your own website just as I would be at any of my own, but I don't believe that you are free to impose personal criteria without gaining community consensus first. is a 16:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And you are wrong. The correct procedure is to add content to the relevant section at Religion in Sweden, and if it becomes evident that there is sufficient content, only then create a spin-off article. It is not the correct procedure to say oh, someone made a stub, so let's assume sources justify it, without actually looking any further at what the sources actually say.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, you have indicated that you've trolled my User page, and it's evident you've also been trolling my other edits, so your objections here appear disingenuous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remove your "trolling" insults and accusations of bad faith. I have improved articles that you have nominated for deletion or edit-warred, coincidently on new religious movements like Jehovah's Witnesses, when they interest me. is a 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not before you withdraw your own entirely unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment On further inspection, there appear to be several 'group' in Sweden articles for groups with trivial membership in the country, with almost no content or content based on no sources. For example:

• Buddhism in Sweden - minor membership in Sweden, basic information, could be refactored into section comprising a single paragraph at main article;
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sweden - trivial membership, no sources, could be merged to Free churches at main article;
• Evangelical Reformed Church in Sweden - only two congregations nationwide, could be merged into Free churches section at main article;
• Hinduism in Sweden - minor membership in Sweden, could be refactored into a section comprising a single paragraph at main article;
• Seventh-day Adventist Church in Sweden - single paragraph containing basic details, could be moved to a subsection at main article as is;
• Uniting Church in Sweden - single paragraph, could be merged into Free churches section of main article;

Those article should also probably be merged to Religion in Sweden if they cannot be substantiated as notable standalone topics.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging a denomination into the religion-article for the country is like merging a politician into the politics-article. Such articles are best when they aren't dumps. Misplaced Pages is in first case built upon describing in different articles. J 1982 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The groups indicated above are very minor in Sweden. Of those, the Christian denominations are broadly represented in the Free churches section, and it isn't necessary to assign them undue weight. It would be entirely appropriate to have a brief section for Hinduism and Buddhism, with a brief paragraph for each, for the very small representation of both that is present in Sweden, and is entirely consistent with the existing sections on Christianity, Islam and Judaism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on sources. There are a number of narratives about Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden that are reliably sourcable but not currently in the article:
  • Carl Olof Jonsson was a Swedish Jehovah's Witness of some importance. He was tasked with finding evidence and arguments to support the JW claimed date for the sack of Jeruselem by the Babylonians of 607 BC in order to counter the scholarly accepted date of 587 BC. This date is of great importance in the JW narrative as it is the baseline for their interpretation of history up to, and including, the supposed date of Armeggedon. Instead, Jonsson found that the scholars were right and was disfelloshipped for saying so. This episode is discussed at great length in many books critical of JW .
  • During World War II The Watch Tower was smuggled into prisoner camps from Sweden by Himmler's personal masseur who also rescued a number of prisoners from the camps. This episode also is discussed in book sources
  • The exemption of JW to military service in Sweden has been used as a basis of a case to the European Commission of Human Rights seeking exemption for other conscientious objectors. Controversially, the case failed with the Commission supporting Sweden's decision to single out JW. Book source
  • Ditlieb Felderer, a prominent Swedish Holocaust denier, expelled from JW for his views.

All that is from just the first page of gbooks results, and there was some more stuff without sufficient preview to list it here. Surely someone could write a half-decent article from that? SpinningSpark 14:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, but most importantly, I'd like to strongly argue against merging with Religion in Sweden, agreeing with Tomas e. Even simply deleting is a better option if it comes to that. Religion in Sweden is trying to give a basic overview. There is a very large number of different faiths and belives in Sweden, as in any country with a large number of immigrants from all over the world. If a religion isn't notable enough for an article on its own, it is definitely not going to be notable enough to merit a section or paragraph in Religion in Sweden, which can't be expected to be the dumping ground for every minor faith that is practiced in the country. The article would become unreadable. Most subjects will be notable enough for their own articles before they merit space in Religion in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your argument against merging makes no sense. There is already a section at the target article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect. See the Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba precedent redirected after AfD, There just any meat on these bones; the refs there and here mainly constitute what an existent article, Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, already covers, and don't deal with anything uniquely Swedish to that criticism (e.g., every war-stricken country gripes when religious pacifists won't serve, etc). Pax 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When did Sweden become a war-stricken country? I must have missed that on the news. SpinningSpark 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• My point exactly.* There's nothing notable about JW in Sweden, and the best reference so far is of the government being annoyed by their pacifism in WWII. Pax 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The European Commission of Human Rights case I referenced above is much more recent than that, it is from the eighties. Far from the Swedish government being annoyed by JW pacifism, they granted them exemption to military service while denying it to other COs. That makes it specific to JW and specific to Sweden in a way that cannot be extended to other countries. SpinningSpark 00:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As previously stated, that can be adequately covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per my comments above. SpinningSpark 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Subject deserves to leave. No reasons for the removal. Personal dislike for JW is a bad reason - John Belushi (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No one has cited "personal dislike for JW" as a reason for deletion. The reason is that JWs in Sweden do not form a significant proportion of either JWs worldwide or people in Sweden, and issues related to JWs in Sweden are not particularly different to JWs in other countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2015 (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.