Talk:Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany

The number of people which died

The article should make it clear that there are various sources that have dealt with the numbers of those who died, not only Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. It should also be noted that Norman Hovland is far from a neutral source. Summer Song (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does present other sources. And it doesn't matter if Hovlnd is not a neutral source, he quotes directly from WT sources. 63.196.193.204 (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that JW persecuted in Nazi Germany were few compared to other persecuted groups. What is not clear is the real number. The Watchtower literature presents numbers based on varous sources which have differed. That should be made clear in the article. Summer Song (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well here's the statement: The actual number which died in the camps the Watchtower Society has presented over the years has, in fact, varied widely [9][10] but 635 is the most specific [11]. I think that's pretty clear. 63.196.193.59 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added "and consistantly used figure" to the above line since the WT used that specific number three times: the 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 212, The Watchtower, February 1, 1976, p. 82, and The Watchtower, July 1, 1979, pp. 7-8. 63.196.193.59 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So the most recent JW ref with the 635 number is from more than twenty years ago? It's been well-published secularly that for decades JW publications under-reported their losses in Nazi Germany. The United States Holocaust Museum estimates 1000 German JWs died in camps, 400 non-German JWs died in camps, and 250 German JWs were explicitly executed. You can read their discussion yourself (see United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Jehovah's Witnesses.” Holocaust Encyclopedia, accessed May 7, 2010):

Of those remaining active [Jehovah's Witnesses], about half were convicted and sentenced at one time or another during the Nazi era for anywhere from one month to four years, with the average being about 18 months. Of those convicted or sentenced, between 2,000 to 2,500 were sent to concentration camps, as were a total of about 700 to 800 non-German Witnesses (this figure includes about 200-250 Dutch, 200 Austrians, 100 Poles, and between 10 and 50 Belgians, French, Czechs, and Hungarians). The number of Jehovah's Witnesses who died in concentration camps and prisons during the Nazi era is estimated at 1,000 Germans and 400 from other countries, including about 90 Austrians and 120 Dutch. (The non-German Jehovah's Witnesses suffered a considerably higher percentage of deaths than their German co-religionists.) In addition, about 250 German Jehovah's Witnesses were executed

Supposedly, the 635 number listed only specific names JWs themselves could confirm as having been baptized as Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact is that baptisms were much less carefully recorded in those days, and their lists of names were fantastically over-conservative. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The figures from the Holocaust Museum most likely do not make the distinction of only including baptized JWs, rather than unbaptized children and others who may also have identified as or associated with Witnesses. In any case, for the purpose of context, it is preferable to use the numbers from the Holocaust Museum here rather than the more conservative estimate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the issue of numbers of those killed has still not been fixed. One article that linked me to this one even cites the number of JWs killed in the camps at 5000. There is an ENORMOUS disconnect between the figure 5000 and 635...are we doing a disservice by not disclosing more prominaently that the numbers game is an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerusalyim (talk • contribs) 04:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide the source for the 5000 estimate? You haven't indicated what article led you here. Is it a more reliable source than the Holocaust Museum?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that the conservative 635 estimate doesn't appear in the current version of the article at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced figures with those calculated by German historian Detlef Garbe, whose detailed research is outlined on pages 477-484 of Between Resistance and Martyrdom. His investigations included examination of records from German congregations and concentration camps, which confirm his conclusion that earlier claims of the number of deaths by some authors were greatly exaggerated. Based on the depth of his research and his critique of figures provided by other researchers, I don't think there is a better source than Garbe. BlackCab (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Editor2020 and Declaration"

Please be very careful about switching references! I did the original research and you took out the correct reference. The paragraph below is correct.

Your edit: Dr. Garbe has described Gebhard's book as “biased”, saying that it “was based on a manuscript by [Guenther Pape a excommunicated Witness who subsequently wrote strong accusations against his former religious associates] which he compiled at the end of the 1960's” Dr. Garbe refers to it as having, “distorted quotations” and is characterized by a “selective use of quotes”.

Correct quote: Sadly today many professional historians and critics of Jehovah's Witnesses still use this “biased book”, Published under the name of Manfred Gebhard.

Sorry I messed up the reference. Just trying to get it clear.

The reference is unclear--as written it appears that Gebhard said "Sadly today many professional historians and critics of Jehovah's Witnesses still use this “biased book”," in Die Zeugen Jehovas: Eine Dokumentation uber die Watchtturm-Gesellschaft. Or is it from the second book mentioned Persecution and Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses During the Nazi-Regime 1933-1945? Or, as I assumed, was it from Garbe's Zwischen Widerstand und Martyrium?

Also, if this sentence is not a direct quote it's going to be POV.

"Published under the name of Manfred Gebhard."? If this is the second part of the previous sentence the "P" should be lower case. But why is this included? Is this fact in doubt? It is referenced in the previous reference. And what is Zwischen Widerstand und Martyrium a reference for?

--Editor2020 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Declaration of Facts- Justification

The section which I removed and you replaced is an attempt to provide justification for the statements which the German Bible students made in the Declaration.

Tellingly, the source for this material is the Watchtower publication Awake. I had stripped out this attempt to slant the account to the Watchtowers interpretation and retained excerpts and reference links to the document. Let the reader make their own interpretation, or provide links to unbiased historians for their explanations. --Editor2020 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of Facts-Platform Points

"The letter stated that their position was one of political neutrality, however it also referred to points on which they both agreed such as the Nazi party platform points of 1920 mentioned above."

This is an attempt to misrepresent what was in the Declaration. Nowhere does it say or imply that the statements of support they were making had anything to do with the 1920 platform.

This is an attempt to slant the interpretation.--Editor2020 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have studied the articles provided and I do say one thing. The Bible Students or (JW's) did go through much trouble and get arrestted for not serving Hitler. The number is not important if it can not be documented by anyone but a biased group. The fact remains that they did get mistreated for their faith.Jackgephart (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of the article

Because the hot issue of dispute is the "Declaration of Facts", that has proved to be the only section developed with details. But, of course, the Holocaust did not finish in 1933, on the contrary, that was only the start of the story. From July 1933 to 1945, the end of the war, many things took place that should be mentioned in the article, as it happens with the German version of the article.--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate imagery and captions

The image of a watchtower and the accompanying caption is somewhat surreal and could be deemed insensitive. Given the organisation under discussion and the title of its leading publication "The Watchtower", this image might be interpreted as dark humour. Furthermore, it might be misconstrued as a lack of empathy among Wikipedia editors for the Jehovah's Witnesses who were exterminated. A more appropriate lead image for the article might be a portrait of a leader in the Jehovah's Witnesses community in Germany around the time of the Second World War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgctobin (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it like that before. There doesn't seem to be any special benefit in retaining the specific image in question, so I have no objection to removing/replacing it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was slightly funny and clever. Others might be offended. I suggest we allow for more feedback on this. Downstrike (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No wonder we're not getting any feedback! I see that the pic has been removed, as well as the caption. I think it should be sufficient to replace the word "Watchtower" with the phrase "Guard tower". That probably wouldn't even be necessary if the word weren't capitalized for the beginning of the sentence. Downstrike (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be dramatic. I only removed the picture yesterday (which is probably still 'today' if you're in the US).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rgctobin, and I've removed the image. Downstrike? Whenever irony randomly presents itself, that's an indication that you aren't paying attention. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think I presented the irony - or didn't notice the irony - that's an indication that you aren't paying attention. Downstrike (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If Downstrike consciously "thought it was slightly funny and clever" in connection with people in dying in concentration camps, that should have been enough for him to realise it may be insensitive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I conceded the need to not use the word "Watchtower" in the caption; otherwise I wouldn't have changed it. What was wrong with the picture itself, once the caption no longer used that word? The picture itself seems to me, much less insensitive than other pictures on the page. Downstrike (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong, is that you thought it was "slightly funny and clever" to use the image. This is an acknowledgment that you knew there was a problem and added it anyway. As an editor, when you perceive unintentional irony as a result of an edit, you either avoid or mitigate the problem. You don't go ahead and make the edit because you think it is funny and clever. As for the other images, I don't see any problems with insensitivity. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything critical about the picture? I had already fixed the problem with the caption before you removed it.

If you don't have a problem with pictures of naked, emaciated victims and corpses, what's the problem with a picture of a guard tower? Downstrike (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense. Three editors have explained the problem to you, with no indication you understand or accept it. You may now wish to pursue further input per DR or the noticeboards. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I really need to spell out the difference between a guard tower and a watchtower? Surely Jehovah's Witnesses - whose magazines have featured pictures of watchtowers on them since before most of us were born - know that a watchtower is a military structure built upon a defensive wall for the purpose of detecting and fighting enemy threats from outside the walls. Guard towers are built upon prison walls to supervise inmates inside and guard against escape from inside the walls.

I worked in fire lookout towers after my health wouldn't allow me to fight fire any more. My lookout towers were never called "watchtowers".

I have several relatives who work as correctional officers and the like in prisons, and I have visited inmates in prisons; none of them ever call their guard towers, "watchtowers", because despite the German usage of the term, "Wachturm", in the English language, a "watchtower" is a military defense structure. If the caption had simply called the guard towers, "guard towers", to begin with, this issue would have never come up!

However, I feel that I've wasted enough verbiage here, so if no one else wants that picture used, please find something else to balance the page. Downstrike (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The circumlocution is irrelevant. You knew or reasonably should have known from your own belief that it was 'funny and clever' that it may be insensitive. The pictures of people who suffered at the camps is relevant to both the tone and scope of the article. The picture of the guard tower is of no special benefit and there is no detriment to its removal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust

I propose to move the article to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust as in Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The word Holocaust applies to JWs as well and there's no reason why it should not be mentioned in the article's title. Furthermore, the Holocaust of JWs was not confined to Germany but extended to all countries/regions occupied by the Nazis, thus the present title is not only incomplete but also erroneous. --Not A Pipe ¬| 14:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article could be renamed to something broader than just Germany. However, inclusion of JWs as part of the 'Holocaust' specifically is disputed. The word holocaust literally means completely burnt, and usually refers to attempted genocide of the Jews, and by extension, others who were not considered racially 'pure'. Holocaust states that "Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include ... Jehovah's Witnesses". That statement cites a source that actually says "It is difficult to incorporate political prisoners and religious dissenters into the Holocaust. ... Most of the religious dissenters were Jehovah's Witnesses ... However, they [political prisoners and religious dissenters] were not victims of Nazi racial ideology and were not slated for total annihilation. ... Moreover, they could redeem themselves in some cases by changing their minds, which was not an option for those held to be "racially unfit""[1] The same source states, in the next paragraph that, "Homosexuals, however, seem to present a special case," and refers to some sources that state, "that thousands of them died because the Nazis considered them racially degenerate, just as they did the Jews and others," but then states that this view is also disputed. Based on the source, it seems there is some (but not universal) support for including homosexuals as victims of the Holocaust specifically, and there is less support for including religious dissenters. Though JWs were also victims of the Nazi regime, it would therefore be less accurate to include JWs as victims of the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm entirely opposed to the idea. However, it probably needs more input from others.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses by the Nazi regime?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving it as it is and not proposing any WP:RM. Holocaust is in most WP:RS focussed on Jews, given the historical associations of holocaustos, the JWs were not exterminated merely targeted for their views as socialists, communists, pacifists, etc. And "by the Nazi regime" isn't straight either given that some of the persecution of JWs was by good mainstream Christians - as today. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "during the Third Reich"? The topic is not really specific to Germany. I'm not entirely sure about the mixed value judgement of good mainstream Christians who persecute people, but any current forms of persecution are out of the article's scope anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany and During the Holocaust", or is that a bit too long? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was intended as hyperbole? It is too long, it unnecessarily retains the disputed term Holocaust, and retains the over-specific reference to a particular country. This is why I suggested Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during the Third Reich.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not hyperbole. Just throwing options out there. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose change, leave as is - per nutshell of WP:Title, WP:Consistency, and a brief look at WP:RS used and not used in article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but sympathetically. Hitler's reported vow to 'wipe this scourge from Germany' certainly implies that Hitler included JWs in his idea of "holocaust". Still, the current title is "stable"; if it wasn't stable, I might suggest "in Nazi Germany" be changed to "by Nazi Germany" to include persecution technically outside that nation's borders.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - use of Holocaust in this way is disputed by sources and should therefore be avoided. Possibly change to more accurate Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during the Third Reich.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazi tyranny of JWs remembered

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Read this article from JW' official website and consider some of informations incl. book citations there to implicate in this article. A 15-minute exposé of Nazi tyranny remembered 75 years later --FakTNeviM (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Comment above is duplicated at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Nazi tyranny of JWs remembered. Please discuss there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oversized image

Is it possible for someone to reduce the size of the generated illustration of the "Declaration" document? It dominates he article, is poorly placed and is much larger than the 400 pixel maximum width stipulated at WP:IMGSIZE. BlackCab (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Doctrinal tangent

@Jeffro77: I was just trying to deal with the clarification tag, but your phrasing is better and more concise. Clovermoss (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Now that I'm not on my phone, the relevant diff [2]. There was previously a clarify tag next to the word pacifist. Conscientous objector should be good enough. But the main reason I did what I did was because since there wasn't a reason stated in the tag itself, I assumed what someone might find confusing is why someone who does not consider themselves to be a pacifist would refuse to bear arms. So I eloborated a bit more than what was probably nessecary. I was also having a hard time finding a source that verified both the not pacifists and consicentious objectors part, which is why the content was seperated the way it was. The source cited in the current text doesn't actually verify the part about considering themselves to be consicentious objectors, so a better source should replace that. Otherwise, I have no issues with the changes you made. It is more concise and relevant to the topic at hand. Clovermoss (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that you were responding to the tag as presented, but the original wording did seem to unnecessarily raise a question that wasn’t really in scope. All good 👍—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(The retained Cole source does cover the point about being conscientious objectors.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)