Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

?

I would propose merging this with Jehovah's Witnesses sex abuse scandal, but I have two problems.

  • 1: I don't know how to merge articles or I forgot how.
  • 2: The articles seem almost identical.

--T. Anthony 08:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's weird. I searched for "Jehovah's Witnesses sex abuse" and didn't get any results, so I created this article. Anyway, I think Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse should be the final article, since it can cover JWs policy on child abuse and history too, without limiting to the current scandal. I copied the info deleted from the Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses article, so I think the Jehovah's Witnesses sex abuse scandal can just be VfDed. Yeah? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'll see if there was any useful information from it not covered here. I didn't think there was, but if there was maybe I'll see where I can fit it in. Assuming you didn't already do that. I think the information was mostly the same, just structured a little different.--T. Anthony 03:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't find the other article anymore, it seems to just redirect to this one. I am going to remove the "Discuss Merge" template from page. Evident 14:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Speed of Reporting Sex Abuse to Civil Authorities

I thought it was important to add the practical consideration of how important it is to quickly report the crime to civil authorities. DNA collection is much more likely to add weight to a prosecutor's case if collected quickly after the crime took place. I referenced the Presidential DNA plan regarding Forensics collection as support for the statement that speed in reporting is critical to successful use of DNA evidence in prosecution. Evident 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

POV

The lack of information on how Witness articles don't address protecting children within the church itself seems incomplete - it seems misleading because the Wiki article tends to acknowledge there's a problem, but the Witness articles alluded to only bolster a false sense of security within the church (from what I recall reading them). The Witness articles focus on protecting children from non-Witnesses, but don't address the potential dangers from within the church.

This is incorrect, please read them, it is regarding anyone you assume it is not talking about everyone when it is--24.6.27.205 (talk · contribs)

Additionally, the Wiki article does not detail the strange procedure that Witness church leaders are told to use to report such abuse - anonymously, from a pay phone - which prevents law enforcement from taking meaningful action (this from reports from former church leaders). Voideater (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are to report to the authorities which is different per location. This is done so they can do their job. Inferring that they are committing a crime of impeding an investigation is wrong, which you are saying "which prevents law enforcement from taking meaningful action" is incorrect.--24.6.27.205 (talk · contribs)


The addition of "cases of abuse" seems very questionable. If the info is that important it should be part of the article, like the example of "Erica Rodriguez". (see info on external links) However, the point that child abuse does happen is illustrated in the article itself. It just seems this is a section that is open for attacking a religion. Can we have a section below that presents the other side? Namely "Cases of Trust?" The point being- is that the article itself makes clear the issues involved, beyond that seems like an agenda to slander a religion that has had some of it 7 million members involved in abuse. Again this is not a "let's hide it" but about presenting a balanced presentation that is fit for an encyclopedia and not for a personal vindictive. Johanneum 14:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

this is true as the JW themselves have talked about the issues and have been clear that no one is immune but action should be taken when evidence is presented.--24.6.27.205 (talk · contribs)
This section does not seem questionable. These cases are points that support the article. It is neither attacking the religion nor is it excessive. There is no agenda to slander the religion by providing facts to support the article. Although the cases are important, only one or two examples are needed to enrich the article and provide enough information to be clear and concise in conveying information about the topic. Usually a topic requires several bulleted list items in order to substantiate the topic of the article. There should be no attempt to either 'white-wash' or 'muddy' the information to sway readers to one point of view or another. Protector of the Truth 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"These cases are points to support the article"....??? Does the article need one sided points to support it? The article can stand for itself! Again the "Cases of Abuse" is clearly one sided, and not necessary to presenting an article which already clearly defines the issues involved. 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Points to support the article are neither one sided or two sided, but just facts to support the article's existence. The article requires proof that there is a need for such and cases are just that, proof that the article should exist. Cases are not one sided but merely points for justifying that the article should remain and not deleted.Protector of the Truth 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken. The issue is not whether abuse happens (it does!) but how it is handled. Do these cases highlight how it is handled? The article itself shows that abuse happens! Why do you need proof to support proof? The proof is already in the article! Besides what is in excess of the main article can be viewed as supporting one's own agenda. Johanneum 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The cases are just facts that substantiate the article and provide the reader with a chronology of incidents in recent history and a source to obtain more information. There is no supporting of one's own agenda. Listing eight bulleted points is in no way excessive or slanderous or attacking the religion. Highlighting incidents within the previous 12 months is hardly excessive or one sided.Protector of the Truth 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again the article stands on its own. Which of these external links supports an article on HOW abuse is handled? Your additions show that it does happen, that is not what this page is about but how they are handled.

Would not several recent cases in the news provide a reader with more details on how those cases were handled? Aside from what is included in the introduction of the article. As a reader I would like to have the ability to search from several other cases and learn about what happened, how they were handled or what was done. If there were a dozen or more cases listed, I would opt for a summary statement and links to external sources, but with eight happening in the previous 14 months, I just don't see that as anything other than providing more information for the reader. I would benefit from reading about recent events pertaining to the article from other news sources. Do you feel that the title of the news reports are offensive or slanderous to the article or religion? Does their title detract from the article or cast it in an unfavorable light? I'm not sure how wording can be edited in order to present such a topic favorably.Protector of the Truth 23:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This is true, it happens and the JW and long as people still get sick it will continue to happen. The only important point is what happened and how was it handled--24.6.27.205 (talk · contribs)

This is an encyclopedia and not a News column, we need to make sure it has NPOV Encyclopedic content. It seems dishonest to say as you did "Other religious denomiations are also linked to this category" and then to link the Catholic church! There were no such links before! Johanneum 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am working on building links to more religious denominations as they relate to Child Sexual Abuse. I find it attacking that you would bring it up as 'dishonest' since I am beginning this work as I believe there is much work to do in order to build good cross references to similar topics. Instead of wasting time attacking me, build bridges of collaboration by providing more detailed information on articles such as these and others that may incite your interest. And did you know that encyclopedias commonly point to reference sources such as new outlets. Check Encyclopedia Britannica and Microsoft Encarta. Protector of the Truth 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the issue with the link? Every church has to deal with this issue. The Catholic church had an issue will several churches involved in cover ups etc, but they have changed many of their policies. Like said before, it's about what happened, and how it was handled or policies/doctrines that is being discussed. The links do not imply they handled it the same way just that they all face the same issues.--24.6.27.205 (talk · contribs)

It was not necessarily meant to be an attack but an expose of what you stated, which was not true. Note the words "it seems dishonest" I stand for Truth and do protect it.Johanneum 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

This article contains many statements in need of source verification. The sensitivity of this subject demands careful presentation and verification.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral

This page has obviously been edited by someone sympathetic to JW's, making a general judgement statement favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulshrug (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Absolutely! Working on it. One thing is to outline their child abuse policy, another to explain the factual problem of pedophilia missmanagement within their ranks. Significant work needs to be done with including valid references. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

someone needs to get a transcpript from the dateline episode on this.

They asked the society to point to a cases where they society turned over pedphile cases to the authorities. The society handed them only two examples both were about a child being molested by someone on the outside of the organization. If my memory did not fail me.--Greyfox 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You will need to get this info from the police as I believe their policy is not to release this information since the police already handle this and it's their responsibility. They believe to release this goes beyond their authority of the congregation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.27.205 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

'Three Year Rule'

This entire section of the article seems to misrepresent the Watchtower Society's position. There is no mention of any 'three year rule' in the quoted sources, which instead contrast an arbitrary recent period, with an incident that might have happened "many years ago". Section contains no reliable source for any 'three year rule' in the manner implied.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I always wanted to delete that section. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Past offenders

The article has recently been edited to make it seem as though 2010 initiated a change in Jehovah's Witnesses policy regarding whether a past "child sex abuse" offender could eventually qualify for congregation appointment. The new edit was/is wrong for at least two reasons:
1. JWs use the term "child sex abuse" to include a remarkably broad range of sins, including showing pornography to an underage person of either sex (see Shepherding page 61, quoted below). Thus, an uncle who shows a Playboy to his 17-year-old nephew may be viewed by JWs as "reprehensible" (unworthy of congregational appointment) and guilty of "serious sin" (liable for formal reproof or disfellowshipping), but it also seems likely that an uncle who was once and long-ago guilty of this particular form of "abuse" might eventually be able to regain his good name and congregation privileges among JWs in a manner that a molester or rapist never could.
2. The supposedly "new" 2010 reference uses language nearly identical to that used by the JW policy for a decade or more, including as quoted by the BBC in 2002. Over the years, the statements have consistently insisted that "many years" (elsewhere explicitly stated as "more than twenty years") must have passed since any form of "abuse" (including consensual sex between two teenagers who later marry). That was the case before 2002, was explicitly stated in 2002, and was simply repeated in 2010.
2002. Over the signature of "J. R. Brown, Jehovah's Witnesses Office of Public Information", a May 9, 2002 fax to BBC Panorama Reporter Betsan Powys was quoted as stating, * "In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been appointed to positions within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for decades. All of the circumstances would need to be considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that a long time ago a 16-year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. The child abuse reporting law may have changed; the man may have even married the girl! Both have been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation. ...at least twenty years must have passed before an individual who committed an act of child abuse could even be considered for appointment to a responsible position in the congregation, if ever." (This BBC-quoted language was identical or nearly identical to that which was on the JW-Media.org website from 2002 to 2010.)
2010. While there was no change to the policy in 2010, JWs' public statement in 2010 was edited slightly to: * "In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been appointed to positions within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for decades. All the factors are considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that a long time ago an 18-year-old male had sexual relations with a 15-year-old girl who was a willing participant. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. He has been living an exemplary life and he is respected. In such a case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation." – JW-Media.org, Retrieved 2011-02-22
Quotes from the JW manual for congregation elders (that is, Shepherding the Flock, Watch Tower, 2010), and three relevant questions:
1. How do Jehovah's Witnesses explicitly define "child sex abuse" in Shepherding?

  • Page 61: "Child sex abuse: This would include fondling of breasts, an explicitly immoral proposal, showing pornography to a child, voyeurism, indecent exposure, and so forth."

2. Again, the term "child sex abuse" explicitly includes a wide array of sin, and the term does not necessarily mean molestation or rape. What does Shepherding say about appointing a man once and "many years" ago guilty of any form of "child abuse"?

  • Page 38, "the nature of the [past] sin may reflect greatly on his qualifications to serve. For example, the sin may involve past child abuse [of any kind, see page 61], and this would likely disqualify him for many years."

3. Does Shepherding say anything about a man who had ever at any time in the past been involved with child sexual molestation? Yes...

  • "The body of elders may recommend a brother as an elder or a ministerial servant... In every case, the elders must ask the following questions: "Is there anything from your past...that disqualifies you...? ...Have you ever been involved at any time in the past with child sexual molestation?" If he answers yes to any of these questions, do not announce the appointment. Return the...appointment letter to the branch office, and provide a complete explanation why the appointment should be annulled." (page 34-35).

Notice that the policy does not allow any consideration for the passage of decades when the answer is "yes to any of these questions [including Have you ever been involved at any time in the past with child sexual molestation?]". In such a case, the unused appointment letter is not filed with the congregation records but is returned to the branch and "annulled" with an explanation. JWs have no other arrangement in place for any person who was ever "involved at any time in the past with child sexual molestation".
That new paragraph has been reverted. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The premise for your argument is flawed. The article correctly stated that their position was "clarified" in 2010, and there is no indication that it was a "new" position at all. Though you quote this above as "new", no one claimed it was a new policy. It is unclear why you are attempting to remove sourced information that provides additional clarification about the policy. Additionally, your selective interpretation about which 'kinds' of actions 'might' be included in "past child abuse" for the purposes of determining appointment after "many years" is entirely speculative. Rather than trying to hide details that you imagine contradict other details, simply present both points.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If an appointed member is only learned "many years later" to have committed abuse, that would obviously not be directly related to any questions asked of the member at the time of their appointment. Such abuse could have happened either after they were appointed, or they could have lied at the time. The statement about questioning new appointees therefore does not at all 'annul' the position of potentially retaining appointments after a sin "many years" ago, nor the clarification thereof.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the example given in the JW press release is the only situation where an appointment to a position of responsibility would be retained after learning of 'abuse' committed "many years" ago, nor is it employed as an example in the elders' guidebook.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's occurred to me that your objection may be partially based on a distorted understanding of the word 'clarify'. When JW publications 'clarify' a doctrine, it very frequently constitutes a significant change at the fundamental level to introduce an entirely new element of belief. However, as used here, 'clarify' carries the normal meaning of providing additional information about an existing policy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Renamed

I have renamed the subsection to Positions of responsibility because it relates entirely to positions of responsibility, including procedure to avoid appointing abusers and handling of whether a past offender may retain such positions if past offences are brought to light.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sex offender database

The section introduces a WTS quote with We do not apologize for keeping such records here in the United States. However, the section provides no context for why there is any need to apologize (this is not a statement that I do not understand the context, but that the reader is left begging the question). Either the context for such an apology should be provided, or it should be trimmed from the quote. If the latter, I would suggest replacing:

  • Watchtower Society representative J. R. Brown stated in May 2002:[ref] We do not apologize for keeping such records here in the United States. Apart from being legally needed..."

with:

  • A spokesperson for the Watchtower Society stated in May 2002, "Apart from being legally needed ..."[ref]

(Wherein it could also be changed from a blockquote to an inline quote.) --Jeffro77 (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As no one has commented in over a week, I have made the change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking

Hi,

1) Are there any particular proves about child sex abuse from JW´s in other countries, outside of the USA? (which is exceptionally high-criminal and wicked country, tough).

2) Are all accusations against JW only to elders, or are any cases with normal JW members as well? Proves?

3) How can we be sure that people are not only bribed or just only want to cash in? Chantage with court accusations is usually good way to make same money, You know. Are any proves?

4) What about criminal behaviour like rape from JW´s?

5) Are any cases with JW about other types of violence, robberies, murders, public or private assets vandalism, assaults on other people, etc.? Are there such statistics about inclusion these appearances through JW´s? And (of course, things like premarital sex, pregnancy abortion, marriage divorce, homosexuality, lying, etc. which are not illegal by most of states laws, ... Biblical law is diff.)

6) As I red, all cases of child sex abusing was held long ago, only in the USA, and nothing new nowadays. Prosecuted people have been disfellowshipped and handed over to human law justice and imprisoned. Just regular order of events. But, as a result, (rare cases + perhaps fabricated charges), some sort of people have been slandered, actually. ... as whole society (like racism and discrimination).

7) By the way. Nothing new indeed. In all society´s groups are good ones and bad ones.

8) JW´s publications like "Learn from Great Teacher", "Shepherd Flock of God", "Organized to do Jehovah´s Will", some other news clearly states against these phenomenons.

9) Thanks for infos.

--89.176.227.251 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting a change to the article. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to 'Two witnesses'

I changed the occurences of the word 'eyewitess' to 'witness' because (1) the organization always uses the term 'two witnesses', never 'two eyewitnesses', and (2) forensic evidence, which is accepted, is not an 'eye' witness per se.

I also changed the statement that "As of 2002, statements by two victims of separate incidents by the same perpetrator may be deemed sufficient to take action and impose internal sanctions" to refer to 1991 instead of 2002, as the cited "Pay Attention" book was published in 1991, not 2002. StandFirm-JW (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it back to 'eyewitness' because the subject context lends ambiguity to the word 'witness' as 'members of the religion' or 'those who testify'. It is better to use a different word than to possibly imply that 2 JWs are required to attest to something.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
That's true. I didn't even think of that. StandFirm-JW (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I think the term you guys are looking for is material witness. Though an eye-witness is a material witness all material witnesses do not take the form of an eye-witness.-- Marvin Shilmer (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've re-worded, with 'material witness' as the first instance in the paragraph, and made the rest of the tone a bit less wooden. I think the new wording should sufficiently compensate for the ambiguity of the term 'witness'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I like the new wording. StandFirm-JW (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Making the Wording More Neutral

Near the start of the article we have this sentence:

"as long as the therapy does not conflict with their religious doctrine.[3][4]"

It strikes Teary as a bit heavy handed on the diction, as "doctrine" these days seems to carry slightly negative connotations (similar to the words "big corporation"). A more neutral wording would be:

"as long as the therapy does not conflict with their religious views.[3][4]"

It would also be more proper because "views" is the wording used in the actual references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teary Oberon (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem with changing to 'views'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Links...

I am not very happy with the current external links section at the end, particularly the division between the "Critical" and "News" references.

If you'll notice, both of the "Critical" links and both of the "News" links take their information from same man: Bill Bowen! If the first two sites and articles involving Bill Bowen are considered "Critical," then why make the arbitrary division between them and the "News" links when the news links use the same source of information as the "Critical" links? I suggest either finding more neutral, non-Bowen related news articles, or just getting rid of the "News" category as it is now completely and combining it with the "Critical" section.

Both sections are pretty anemic anyways, so the combining would help flesh the critical references out a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teary Oberon (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The distinction is that the News article present the issue in mainstream media, whereas the others discuss the issue. I'm not strongly opposed to merging the sections though if there is broader agreement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
hmm...they certainly don't make this response stuff intuitive do they, especially for a first time user. But as for the issue, I just feel like the "news" articles actually better represent criticism than they do "news" or "mainstream media." In the Rodriguez link for instance, we have essentially just an online only (not television or newspaper news), giant advertisement for Bill Bowen and Silent lambs that doesn't tell us anything that we couldn't already get from the other criticism links (which also coincidentally all involved Bowen and Silent Lambs). And if there is so little variety and so little difference CONTENT wise in the links, then what is the point of making this arbitrary distinction between "news" and "criticism"?--Teary (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure about wired.com, but CNN is quite definitely a news source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I am fairly confident that wired.com shouldn't be in the news section. And secondly, what is your formal definition of "news" (or more importantly, how will the average Wiki reader understand "news")? Does not the published Christianity Today article by Corrie Cutrer count as news? And yet you have no problem throwing that into the critical section. Does not the Silent Lambs site contain "news"? Why don't you throw it up into the news category?
All I am saying is: just be consistent with your links methodology. If you are going to divide links by positiveness, negativeness and neutralness, then just stick to that (since it covers everything) and don't throw in a bunch of overlapping categories that make it hard to decide where things go (and that give biased editors excuses to take either super positive or super negative references, rip off the classification and then pass them off as seemingly more neutral and more legitimate 'news' articles).--Teary (talk) 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not responsible for all of the links, I have not personally checked all of the sources, and it is not my "links methodology" being employed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You are a big presence on most of the JW articles and your name is all over the discussion page, so I assumed that you had at least some interest in it. So do you have any objection to my points, or to merging the links into a simple "supportive" and "critical" style (not taking anything away, but just cleaning up the organization)? I do want some feedback before doing these edits, even if minor.--Teary (talk) 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Refer to my first response in this section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well since you said that you weren't totally against it, and since nobody else has said anything this whole time, I went ahead and made the changes. You'll notice that the links are a lot more balanced quantity wise now. I also moved the critical section to the top as a concession to those who think I am pandering to the Witness side (which I am not). If somebody wants to raise concerns over it, then we can discuss it further then.--Teary (talk) 27 September 2011 (UTC)
All good. I would be nice if others would comment though.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research?

The paragraph says:

When a member is recommended for a position of responsibility such as elder or ministerial servant, the individual is asked directly whether he has ever committed child sexual abuse; if it is revealed that he has, the proposed appointment is annulled and the branch office is advised.[27] If an appointed individual later admits to having committed abuse, the Watch Tower Society's policy requires that the individual be removed from their position. The 1972 book, Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making, stated:

If a person was serving as an elder or a ministerial servant when he committed a serious wrong, even though it was some years ago, he bears a degree of reprehensibility, for he continued to serve in that position though knowing that he had, for the time at least, disqualified himself, not being then "free from accusation." (1 Tim. 3:2, 10; Titus 1:6,7) He should have informed the judicial committee that he did not adhere to the requirements and should have stepped down from his position. In view of his failure to do this at that time, he would now be removed from that position. In October 1972 the newsletter, Our Kingdom Ministry, explained that "some years ago" meant "not the exact number of years, but more like two or three years", in contrast to actions committed "many years ago ... into the distant past."[28] This position was further clarified in 1991 to exclude individuals involved in child sex abuse.[citation needed]

Both citations (of Organization and Kingdom Ministry) do not specifically refer to child abuse policy, and thus their use in the article in connection with the child abuse policy constitues original research (based on the speculations of the person who put the citations) per se, and I believe that they should be removed.--79.166.188.174 (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it. StandFirm (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Database

User:Girling Lockheed wants to add two overly defensive paragraphs about the JW offender database, which is not supported by the (improperly cited) source. It is considerably unlikely that the cited source states that "such considerations and responses are moot and on balance should be viewed in a wider dynamic", which seems to be the conclusion drawn by the editor instead. Statements about the 'offender database' being "harvested on a computer harddrive", and that it was "manifest by accident" also seem to be based on presumption and a synthesis of their opinions of the source rather than points actually made by the documentary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS does allow the use of television programs as a source, but I'm very uneasy about the way GirlingLockheed is writing this. His phrasing, (such as "Indeed, the very existence of the database in New York was manifest by accident") takes on a tone that is far from editorially neutral. The material he produces is presented in vague terms with the apparent sole intention of suggesting bad motive on the part of the WTS. It's also simply badly written, with little attention given to grammar, capitalisation and Wikipedia style, and no attempt made to cite the material properly. BlackCab (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just to be clear, I'm not disputing use of the TV programme as a source (if properly cited), but I have serious doubts that the documentary presents quite what is claimed. And even if it does, it's presented in the wrong tone for an encyclopaedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It is riddled with POV and OR issues. It does not belong. StandFirm (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Added "Jehovah's Witnesses Child Abuse Policy: Exposing the Myths" link to the supportive section. This site has been around for years and is quoted almost religiously by every JW that Teary knows, so it seems like a no-brainer for the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teary Oberon (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your reasons for inclusion are valid. It is a website authored by an unknown person that exists simply to argue in favour of the Jehovah's Witness methods of handling sex abuse cases. It does not meet the standards of WP:EL. And please sign your posts. BlackCab (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course my reasons are valid. The site has reputation, age and good referencing. It is also one of the most thorough "supportive" websites out there today (and isn't including "supportive" sites the entire purpose of the "supportive links" section?). Besides, your argument against that link could also be used of the Silent Lambs link -- it also exists simply to argue against the Jehovah's Witness method of handling sex abuse cases, does it not? --Teary Oberon 14:31, 04 November —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC).
Your two criteria for inclusion were (1) The site has been around for years and (2) it is quoted religiously by every JW you know. You now argue, without evidence, that it has reputation and good referencing. Unlike the silentlambs website, which documents media coverage of child sex offenders and provides resources for those directly affected (and thus meets the requirements of WP:EL), the website you wish to include exists only to advance arguments, based on an anonymous individual's opinions, of why criticism of the JW policies on child sex abuse are a "myth". That doesn't meet WP:EL. It provides arguments and opinions, not encyclopedic information. In addition, Silentlambs is itself the subject of a Wikipedia article, further confirming its encyclopedic notability. The website you are proposing be included is unrecognised by Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You are arguing with a slight bias it seems. The link in question does indeed document and comment on media coverage and on court cases. It also references and quotes liberally from official Witness policies, magazines, letters, court transcripts, ect. Therefore according to you it either meets the requirements and can be included or we have to take down the Silent Lambs link.
"The website you wish to include exists only to advance arguments, based on an anonymous individual's opinions, of why criticism of the JW policies on child sex abuse are a "myth"."--Blackcab
And the Silent Lambs site exists only to advance the argument and idea that the Witness congregations are a "pedophile paradise," based on mainly one sided hearsay and often anonymous write-in accounts.
"It provides arguments and opinions"--Blackcab
So does the Silent Lambs site. Besides, when you label a section as either "Critical" or "Supportive," you are essentially getting rid of the NPOV requirement anyways. A "critical" or "supportive" link would be assumed to contain some sort of bias or argumentation simply because of the definition of the words. Also, Silent Lambs doesn't produce any encyclopedic information either in case you didn't notice. So either it is get rid of that link to or put the policy commentary link back up. Teary will go with the latter option for now.Teary Oberon —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC).
Referring to yourself in the third person is an infantile way of communicating. You have provided nothing else that supports the inclusion as an EL a website whose sole purpose is to expound the thoughts of an anonymous author who happens to own a domain name. The SilentLambs website has a greater span of content than you claim. Its existence as an external link can be argued; the anonymous website you are offering cannot.
Your reference to the labelling of websites as critical or supportive shows you misunderstand Wikipedia policies on neutrality. The policy requires editorial balance and that the article be written in editorially neutral terms. BlackCab (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The proposed link is a personal website that fails WP:ELNO. End of story.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What about WP:ELPOV? What is wrong with a third-party website that argues in favor of Witness policy to balance a third-party website (Silentlambs) that argues against it? And isn't Wikipedia all created by "anonymous authors"? Why is that relevant? And what specific point in WP:ELNO precludes that site? StandFirm-JW (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
In fact, I counter-contend Silentlambs violates point 2 of WP:ELNO. StandFirm-JW (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Your reference to the labelling of websites as critical or supportive shows you misunderstand Wikipedia policies on neutrality. The policy requires editorial balance and that the article be written in editorially neutral terms."--Black
Silent Lambs balanced and editorially neutral? What planet do you live on? The people who stuck it in the "Critical" section did it for good reason, because it is as blatantly biased and anti-Witness as you can humanly get (and 99% of their testimonies are unverifiable, which violates point 2 anyways). But if you really want balance, then the proposed new link accomplishes that goal perfectly, and it references official magazines, internal documents, correspondence and court transcripts liberally. Silent Lambs is biased against the Witnesses, hence the "Critical" category tag, while the proposed site is biased for the Witnesses, hence the "supportive" category tag. The categories REMOVE the NPOV requirement. If you want the links to be totally NPOV and neutral, then you shouldn't have categories which BY DEFINITION cannot be neutral.Teary Oberon —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
Additionally, BlackCab said previously: "You now argue, without evidence, that it has reputation and good referencing." Please Google "thirdwitness.com" (with quotes) to see its reputation. As for good referencing, if Thirdwitness.com does not have good referencing, really what does? StandFirm-JW (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a personal website run by an anonymous individual JW apologist, with no evident credentials. As such, it fails the criteria for external links per WP:ELNO. Please stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a very relevant essay, by claiming it is a personal website you are attempting to class it with pages about a person's personal life and such which is not a valid comparison. And just who is a "recognized authority" on JW organization? Anyway I added an RfC and I hope I did that correctly. If not I apologize. StandFirm-JW (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of who might constitute a "recognized authority" on JW organization, an anonymous (recognized??) individual (authority??) certainly is not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the same website hosts an apologist page about the JW's 607 doctrine, which includes elements that are not in agreement with official Watch Tower Society teachings. The author is therefore not established as an expert, but rather is expressing their own opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is that relevant? StandFirm-JW (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a pity that you do not understand why it is relevant. It demonstrates that the author is neither 'recognized' nor an 'authority'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I undid a recent edit that again added the Thirdwitness blog page as an external link. If Wikipedia policy supports addition of this particular external link then let's have the discussion. I don't see it but am willing to listen.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Does "Exposing the Myths" essay belong in external links?

Does the essay "Jehovah's Witnesses Child Abuse Policy: Exposing the Myths" belong in the "Supportive" section of "External links"? StandFirm-JW (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion in the heading above to see what led up to this. I added it under Politics government and law because it deals with the government and law of Jehovah's Witnesses. (StandFirm-JW (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO: "Links normally to be avoided ... Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites".--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
A personal web page is a web page about a person and their life. Like a blog. Are you seriously suggesting that supportive essays aren't allowed in a section called supportive? Is not "Exposing the Myths" an essay? An essay is not a personal web page. StandFirm-JW (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The 'essay' is on a personal web page. It is not the site of a "recognized authority", but of some anonymous apologist who registered a domain name. As such, it does not qualify.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC):
  • Oppose. The owner of the domain name could have used the website as a blog; he has instead chosen to write an anonymous essay voicing his personal opinions and observations. It is no more an authoritative website offering encyclopedic information than if I had started a website to express my opinions. In any case, an RFC is not the appropriate method to seek consensus on this: WP:ELN is the forum for such disputes and I'll raise it there. Teary Oberon has so far raised a range of very thin justifications for its inclusion, including that the website has "been around for years" and "has reputation". A Whois search shows it was first registered in 2007, and by an individual who has deliberately sought anonymity. I'll be including those points in the forum discussion. BlackCab (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have listed the dispute at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Thirdwitness.com to seek comment and consensus. BlackCab (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as it doesn't actually belong to the "External links". I would support it as inline citation or "Further reading" instead. A sidenote about WP:SPS: by the nature of the topic strictly following WP:RS here will hurt WP:NPOV, which is absolutely unacceptable, so self-published sources should be used here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added the link in this way. StandFirm (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Okay, StandFirm. I have read this section of the discussion and see no reason whatsoever for including the Thirdwitness page as an external link.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the comment by Czarkoff; it is under Further reading now. StandFirm (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I read it. Among other problems, the Thirdwitness site is not WP:3PARTY.--Marvin Shilmer (talk)
WP:3PARTY applies to sources, not further reading. StandFirm (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indiana group

I have commented out edits by User:RobertEdingerPHD, pending further discussion. The website in question appears to fail Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (and externals links, which has been removed), as it seems to be a personal website put together by anonymous individuals rather than by any recognised authority. If there are various notable support groups, it might be warranted to include such a section, however this seems fairly tenuous as there are probably any number of such small groups—an exhaustive list would be impractical and the one that has been added doesn't seem to be especially notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Title change

The title Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse is inappropriate for the topic discussed in the article. The article does not focus on any particular cases of child sex abuse, but deals mostly with how witnesses handle child sex abuse cases. I intend a change in the title to Jehovah's Witnesses and handling of child sex abuse if no other opinions here. --  Logical Thinker  15:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The existing title sufficiently indicates that the subject matter is about Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, without claiming to be an article about specific cases. This is in notable contrast to the articles Catholic sex abuse cases and Scouting sex abuse cases. It would be better to retain the current title than to change to an even wordier title.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jeffro77. The title is fine the way it is, and the extra words would be superfluous.Vyselink (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't change. The title is fine, accurate and succinct. Changing will do little to improve it. Malick78 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can forget about this now as Logicalthinker was a sockpuppet. Unless anyone else has any valid reason why this articles name should be changed? Vyselink (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that any formal move request was ever started, so I think no further action is required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The current article name is not according to WP:AND: «Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism"; however, "Media's coupling of Islam and terrorism" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources.» Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
What would you suggest? Maybe Jehovah's Witnesses' reporting of sex abuse?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Jehova's Witnesses' view of child sex abuse or Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse? Jehovah's Witnesses' reporting of sex abuse is better than the current one, but I don't think it is fully explaining the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Their view of abuse is not the issue. Handling would be more relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion of Jehova's Witnesses' view of child sex abuse was based on the fact that large portions of the article was contributed to JWs view. Their policies could also be considered as their view. I support a change to Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, as it is describing for the article.
The article could also need a major cleanup, considered large portions of the article is unreferenced, or is referenced only with sources considered unavailable or unreliable. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Their policies are not really the same as their view. The article deals with their policies about handling abuse and controversy surrounding those policies as reported in mainstream media. No one has ever suggested that JWs view child abuse as acceptable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits

The California lawsuit punitive damage is not because the WT soceity kept the background from the congregation. The Clergy-penitant privellage is not the problem in the case. The abusers wife indeed reported the case to the authorities in 1993 as per the direction of congregation elders. As the JNOV document I linked shows the reason for the verdict by jury is based on below factors.

1) A six page letter to body of elders (1989) to all United states regarding keeping confidentiality in clergy duties was interpreted by the plaintiffs counsel and Silent-lambs Amicus briefs to court as a "policy of secrecy". The plaintiff Counsel took a contortionist way of interpreting a small para regarding child abuse in the letter, though a normal reading implied that the letter was actually asking to protect the children from further damages by reporting to societies legal department so that they could take required legal actions.

2) The plaintiff wanted the punitive damages to change the Watchtowers and GB's nationwide alleged "policy of secrecy" in the above letter, which was again unconstitutional and the jury was not aware of it.

3) The alleged abuse happened inside the Kingdom Hall per the Plaintiff which was not supported by any other evidence/witness.

4) The plaintiff counsel said that she was abused during field service at the final argument, while plaintiff actually said she was taken every week after the field service with the consent of her parents.

5) The jury was allowed only to put punitive damages to the defendants, because of the courts denial to include responsibility to non-parties such as her parents, the state police department and other Governments services who had more information than the elders had.

6) Plaintiff's expert witness misguided the jury by claiming that the elders needed to report the case in 1993, while no law exists until 1997.

So I edited the present sentence which is not at all the reason for juries decision. A statement like the Jury found that the Watchtowers policy was found responsible for the abuse would suffice. I don't know how to put the sentence correctly either. Further the article did'nt talk about over 20 lawsuits against the Watchtower society sponsored by Silent-lambs was dismissed in the past ten years. None of the cases other than this found the WT responsible, though an out of court settlement was done in one case for reasons such as the local elders failed to comply the official policy/and for the sake of Victims--Fazilfazil (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed your wording, which attempted to water down a court's ruling as simply 'the jury agreed with a claim', with an implication that the jury were 'tricked'. The court made its ruling. If a later appeal results in a different ruling, it might change the end result, but it doesn't change the original ruling. There has also been more than one out-of-court settlement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Further the depth of criminal convictions against the defendant is not yet final, though a verdict for damages was given. That is why the word "alleged" is put in the sentence, same can be seen in the official website note--Fazilfazil (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved alleged to the initial statement of the abuse. It is fairly weaselly to suddenly use the word 'alleged' only when the WTS gets mentioned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Penitent-Clergy privilege

The article presently states under lawsuits "the victims lawyers convinced the defendant that ecclesiastical privilege does not supersede the legal obligation to report to authorities". But that reference do not state anything like that. I don't think that was the reason, most likely standard of care might be the issue. In United States clergy-penitent privileged is still federally legal, holding that "if confessions are made public, then nobody will attempt to confess and therefore violates the fundamental right to freely exercise religion". I would like to see the source for that statement. In the present California case clergy was not mandated reporters either. However Watchtower society did not reply to the plaintiffs main argument that the elders should have publicized the confession to all the parents in the congregation. Seems like WTS have a plan to bring the case to the federal court by deliberately not replying to that claim--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the more recent 2012 case, some of the court documents (various motions to compel testimony) specifically state that clergy-penitent privilege does not apply because the information provided by the penitent to the 'clergy'* member was not of a nature that was kept confidential by the 'clergy' member, because the information was then reported to other individuals at the religion's headquarters (likely without the express consent or knowledge of the penitent).
*JWs claim they have no clergy class and that abusers are not appointed to special positions, and that all baptized members are ministers.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it. But I remember somewhere during the trial, the defendant lawyer objected the plaintiffs counsels question to an elder "what did he confess?" stating that privilege. Who knows--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It would not be possible to comment on every instance, and it may be that in some instances, information was not provided (or was not revealed to have been provided) to other members beyond the 'confession' of the 'penitent' to the one 'elder'. However, documents granting motions to compel testimony provide wording such as the following: "the questions do not appear to call for communications that were presumed to be kept confidential with only the clergy member to whom they were communication. Instead, the questions appear to call for information and communications of a kind that would be expected to be communication beyond that clergy member to others within the religious organization, i.e. a judicial investigating committee, for purposes of taking responding to the communication within the church."[4]--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Critics argue

I haven't paid much attention to this article, but having a quick read through, I notice an awful lot of "critics argue" statements without any critics being identified or sources provided for this criticism. Much of it seems to be written in an argumentive form that is far from an editorially neutral point of view. BlackCab (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't either. Statements with "Critics argue" without a RS, or without a source, are probably not worthy inclusion anyway. It shouldn't be to hard to find critics quoted from RS for the most common criticism. It could be tagged, or, since the article is tagged, and have been tagged for some days, just simply removed. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Statements attributed to anonymous 'critics' should be removed if a suitable source cannot be located. This can be done at any time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of the policies

This article, like it stands, mixes up the JW's policies regarding handling of sexual abuse within the congregation, with the JW's policies regarding reporting child sex abuse to the authorities, where it is required. It is briefly mentioned in the article, but sections like "Two witnesses" is only actual when it comes to congregational dicipline, and have no effect on reporting suspected cases of child sex abuse to the authorities when required. According to an interview of PR spokesman of Jehovah's Witnesses in Norway (from the Norwegian National Broadcasting, NRK), Tom Frisvold, there are no demands for a suspected minor abuse victim, to confront the accused person, and to do so would be outrageous. He does also say that all suspected cases of child sex abuse (in Norway) known to JW in Norway, are being reported to the police, as required by law.[5]

The article does also mixes up effects from former policies (or lack of such), and mentions criticism relevant to the former policies, with current policies. Current and former settlements involving JW (not RF members as individuals) appairs all to be about former policies, or lack of those, as failing to report cases to the police when required.

The article fails to mention there are no indications of more cases of child sex abuse among JW than the outside community. I think of this as important it should be mentioned in the initial part of the article. The criticism is primarly about policies, or lack of such, and is in a large degree about policies (or lack of policies) from several years ago. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the article implies that an old policy is still in effect. The policies haven't really changed significantly; where they have changed, the article seems to present the current policies, even though some of the sources are from the older elder's book. The criticisms also seem to be applicable to current policies. (I've only skimmed over it though.) Can you be more specific?
The article is about handling of child sex abuse, and as such, it does address the policies. JW activities aren't quite the same as groups such as the Catholic Church, so it's to be expected that the article addresses things a bit differently. For example, all 'active' JWs are considered 'ordained ministers', and they are expected to engage with people in the community as part of their preaching work, which is directly relevant to concerns about child sex abuse. Also, JW 'confessions' are not the same as in other churches, because reports of abuse are not kept confidential between the 'penitent' (whether it's an abuser or a victim) and the 'clergy' (elders, who are or are not 'clergy' depending on the situation), because these matters are reported to the branch office.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed claims

I've removed som claims from the initial part of the article, decribing not named critics, using an ongoing trial for "evidence". It was sourced, but as the source did mention the ongoing trial, it did not mention anything about it being used as evidence. I did also remove a statement about crime not being common among JW, as the relevance to the topic is doubtful (crime is a lot more then child sex abuse, and what is being defined as sex child abuse in some countries, could be fully legal in other countries). The initial part of the article is now may shorter than optimal, but the claims didn't belong there. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the second part. The statement is not about crime in general, but "this crime", that is, the crime of child sex abuse; and it is implicit that it is a crime in countries where it is a crime. The opinion is cited as an official JW statement about itself, so I don't see how it would be controversial, and it is a suitable statement in the lead to introduce the group's position on the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the other 'claims', I understand that these have been present in the article for quite some time, but they have only been tagged very recently. It might be better to revisit those unsourced claims in a couple of months?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it some time, if somebody actually is working on fixing the issues. I'll may replace some of them myself, if I bumpes into reliable sources describing the actual issue. For obvious cases, like the somebody claims something mentioned in the other discussion, I don't see any good reasons to wait. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I did raise the issue of strong POV issues in the article citing unnamed critics, but I'm not in a position to give this article much attention. I'm tied up with another couple of Wiki projects. Presumably whoever wrote those claims into the article has been and gone, so I don't see much value in waiting to get rid of this stuff. From a very cursory glance, the article doesn't have a lot of substance anyway. BlackCab (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sexual_abuse/Archive_1&oldid=1223959469"