Talk:List of Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AuthorityTam (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 14 August 2012 (→El Salvador: Awake! is not "unreliable" or "primary source for the deleted section, and it wouldn't matter if it were primary.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:29, 14 August 2012 by AuthorityTam (talk | contribs) (→El Salvador: Awake! is not "unreliable" or "primary source for the deleted section, and it wouldn't matter if it were primary.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Christianity: Witnesses Start‑class High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Start‑class

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law Start‑class

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

2009 July rename of article discussed at User page of renamer

At User_talk:Otto4711 , I asked the user who renamed this and related articles to revert his renames. You may wish to add your comment there. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

El Salvador

An editor has three times removed the section on El Salvador, first claiming "unsourced" then "primary source" then "not a reliable source". There seems no encyclopedic reason to accept the editor's arbitrary indictment of the cited source. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 21:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is every encyclopedic reason to remove it. Currently the only source to support the claim that the Watch Tower Society successfully challenged a law and won is the Watch Tower Society. The article doesn't die without this particular claim; if there is no secondary source, it doesn't need to appear. BlackCab (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I contend that Awake! magazine is not unreliable, and that it is POV for an editor here to arbitrarily insist otherwise.

I contend that when Awake! plainly states that El Salvador's Supreme Court of Justice struck down a Social Security Hospital rule, that Awake! magazine is a seconday source rather than a primary source.

I contend that even if Awake! were the only source cited for the very brief, now-deleted section 'Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country#El Salvador', Awake! would be sufficient to establish that handful of plain facts for the purposes of this article.

I contend that even when Awake! is a primary source, Awake! would be sufficient to establish most unremarkable facts. --AuthorityTam_{talk…contrib} 00:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories: