Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses

contained in Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Mini 09:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination--Mini 09:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses, we don't need two articles on the exact same subject.-- SoothingR 09:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses --MacRusgail 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per above, but surely "opposition to" is more NPOV? - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge persecution into opposition article. More NPOV. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the use of redirection? Because i think one would not search for the article Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses and it is only a link from the main article.--Mini 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

While 'opposition' is a more NPOV term, the article on 'persecution' is really about that (persecution of JW during WWII and/or in Soviet Union would hardly be fittingly described by the title "Opposition to...". There might also be yet another way to phrase the heading. BTW, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses is by far the more important article of the two as I see it. Soukie 14:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or figure out a way to merge. This is a good article. - Sensor 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses are separate topics, per Soukie. The two articles do contain some duplicate material, but not all opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses can be rightly described as "persecution," and should not be labelled as such. That being said, Nazi persecution of Jehovah's witness, as well as the mob violence against the group in the US, should be treated under the "persecution" heading. Simple opposition, say on theological grounds, should be in the "opposition" article. The two articles will have to be worked on in tandem to cut back on duplicate material.--Kewp (t) 05:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good point re Nazis. These really are two different topics. "Persecution" is not always POV: it does actually happen sometimes! although the term is often mis-applied and used in a POV way.--Mais oui! 10:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Persecution article into Opposition article. There should definitely be an Opposition article, since, as was mentioned above, there are things that are Opposition that aren't Persecution (heck, I would probably say that there's a heck of a lot more regular Opposition than outright Persecution). Technically, stuff like Nazi Persecution is also Opposition, but, being a pretty specific and severe type of Opposition, also deserves its special mention. My original thought was that, if one had to go, merge them together as an Opposition article, since Opposition encompasses Persecution and considerably more. Maybe it's possible to keep both, but there's bound to be difficulty and subjectiveness in splitting the line between regular Opposition and Persecution (the Nazi stuff is obvious, but not everything involves the Nazis), assuming that we don't want half of each article to be the same as half of the other one. I still think the cleaner solution is to just merge everything into the Opposition article, and perhaps have a separate section in it just for things that can also be classified as Persecution if it's that important. This way, people aren't left to decide whether something should go in one of the articles, or the other article, or both articles, or what, there's just one article that contains everything related to Opposition.Tommstein 11:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kewp. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Persecution article into Opposition article keeping all relevant info. Opposition takes many forms (like efforts to delete information regarding opposition to JWs), persecution is more specific so it would make sense for it to be folded into the more general article. After merging a general cleanup and deletion of redundant material would be in order. --DannyMuse 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Persecution and Opposition are two very different things. Xoloz 02:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Different topics --Rogerd 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep These are definitely different topics. A person may oppose the group's behavior due to what they perceive as a mistranslation of a bibical text, for example, and yet not persecute them. Information on opposition is relevant and valuable, but unlikely to be placed on a persecution page where it would be inappropriate. Precedence set by Opposition to Islam and Opposition to Mormonism. Frankly, I'd prefer to see all this content under Islam and Mormonism instead of as separate articles. --Condorman 04:06, 24 October 2005 (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.