Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore

Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 at 10:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: none

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 September 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that many Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in the military?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that many Jehovah's Witnesses in Singapore have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in the military?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Eyton

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 170 past nominations.

KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The article is new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. Earwig is giving me the "Too Many Requests" error right now so I am unable to check for close paraphrasing. A QPQ has been done. Almost all the sources are offline so I will assume good faith for the sourcing. The main issue right now is the hook: it's only mentioned in the lede without a citation. The rest of the article does not appear to directly support the "routinely imprisoned" statement, only that Witnesses have been regularly arrested and some have been jailed. My suggestion would be a rephrasing of the hook to make it closer to the article text. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Kingoflettuce to make sure they're aware of the above comment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 Have changed it to "many" (and specified that it's ~6 annually according to the BBC) have been imprisoned (although it's effectively a routine IMO, but you're right that the sources cited don't quite say that.) Appreciate the ping, Clover! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just one last minor issue before I approve this: the phrase "although they do not receive permanent criminal records." is very close to the BBC source, so if it's possible to rephrase it, that would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of a suitable rephrase at the moment (is it right to infer that they are given "temporary" records instead? I don't think so.) It's a basic fact KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can't really do anything about that wording, so I'll accept it per WP:LIMITED. This should be good to go as there are no other issues and the BBC source supports the hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]