Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Stopbaptistpredators

How is this relevant to the JWs? @Johanneum: per WP:BRD, once you are reverted you are expected to first reach consensus on the article's talk page before restoring your edit. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a fair question. The answer would be in the same way these links which are also on the page are:

• Roman Catholic sex abuse cases
• Scouting sex abuse cases

[1]

I am in favor of deleting them all, but consistency allows for other religions as it is now. Thus we need to be consistent. If Catholics and their sex abuses are mentioned then surely the Baptists and their outrageous abuses by their leaders can be too. The relevance? Religious abuse. See this [2]--Johanneum (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I disagree. You reverted a page without explanation. You should have first given an explanation before you reverted the article. If consensus does agrees, (again I am ok with deleting all religions) then please correct all of it not just one addition that consistently fits into the page as it is. I restored it, since you did not state a reason, plus you are not consistent with the standard that is applied to the page. Johanneum (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The presence of analogous articles in the See also section has no direct bearing on items appearing in the External links section. The external link is outside the scope of this article. If there is an article about abuse within Baptist churches, it may be suitable to include it in the See also section, per your comments above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeffro77 call them what you like- eg."analogous articles" but that is exactly what the link was about religious abuses. (not only in the Baptist religion but many- Please go here (again?): http://stopbaptistpredators.org/other_faith_groups.html which As it stands now "religious abuses" are linked in the "see also" section. Let's not play games with which section the information is in. Either it applies, (directly, indirectly) or it doesn't. Let's be consistent. Johanneum (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The site you're linking to is an external website. It isn't a related Wikipedia article, and the comparison you're trying to make is invalid. The External links section doesn't (and shouldn't) contain links to sites that are not relevant to Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of abuse; doing so would invite scope-creep in that section. As stated earlier, if there is an analogous Wikipedia article about child sexual abuse among Baptists, feel free to link it in the See also section. Trying to make a point by removing related articles from the See also section is not appropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to follow you logic. It is ok to have internal links to information "that [is] not relevant to Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of abuse" but it is not ok to have it for external links? How should one understand that? Can I add an internal link that discusses the color red? Once again it should be the content that matters and not whether the link is internal, external. If the "see also" is relevant then surely other religious abuse is too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Johanneum (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There could be any number of websites that discuss sexual abuse. A site about Baptists is only tenuously related to this article, and would open the scope for adding lots of tenuously related websites. Hence, that section should only be used for linking external websites that are directly related to this article's subject—Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse cases. On the other hand, the number of related Wikipedia articles is much smaller and doesn't invite the same scope-creep (but obviously it would still be limited to sexual abuse in religious institutions and not irrelevant articles about colours). If you disagree, please use the appropriate dispute resolution options available to you, as already advised. Do not continue to try to make a point or otherwise edit against consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

My edit summary was WP:ELNO, our external links policyguideline. —PaleoNeonate – 13:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were to explain what you are talking about. To link an article with 19 points doesn't make you point clear at all.

Which point (out of the 19!) do you think it violates? And why do you think so? Information like that can be very helpful and not what could appear to be an appeal to authority. Johanneum (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons of scope indicated above (point 13 on the WP:ELNO list), the site in question is a blog, which is point 11 on the list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the points Jeffro made about the distinction between external links and wikilinks. About Johanneum's attempt to remove wikilinks too: if we had a better general (internal) article to link to like "Institutional sexual abuse" (we have a too general Institutional abuse), I have the impression that it would make sense for articles like this one to only include that link. Without a central resource for very notable institutional sexual abuse cases, it appears arbitrary to start linking them in all relevant articles like this one (and the result must be very inconsistent). One could also argue that listing many links about sexual abuse in other institutions might be a way to minimize the issues within this one (I'm not claiming this is necessarily the case, but it's a plausible argument to remove such links). —PaleoNeonate – 14:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The Catholic Church and the Scouts were both considered by the Australian Royal Commission, and abuse within those organisations has had a fairly high profile over the years. It is not a case of the See also section being filled with articles about obscure groups or groups with trivial abuse issues.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, I understand their relevance now. —PaleoNeonate – 08:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rates of abuse are "rare" - how rare?

At the end of the first paragraph is an unsubstantiated claim from the JW organization that rates of abuse are rare - but how rare? To try and help balance this out I added a sentence which said 'However, according to a BBC documentary there are over 20,000 cases of alleged abuse' along with a footnote citing the BBC documentary that is on youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4h2lKWRlg (see at around 13 minute mark). The sentence and footnote was deleted and I was told to mention it in the talk section for discussion with other admins as there "might be a role for this source but it should be sorted out with other admins in the talk section". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 09:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@TruthSeekerJC: To clarify, I didn't say "other admins" but "other editors". 331dot (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say editors. I'm more used to using facebook than I am Wikipedia. I've also found this article which is related to the BBC documentary abuse cases: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/2119903.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 09:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC) TruthSeekerJC (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Also the opening paragraph seems very odd to me to include a claim about the abuse being rare, when we know from the Australian Royal Commission (discussed further down in the article) that there have been 1,006 cases of child abuse in Australia and in not one of those cases did the JW organization inform the police. So this contradicts both the JW claim that child abuse is rare in their organization and would also counter their claim that they "abhor" child abuse. Obviously they don't like child abuse - any sane person does hate it - but the evidence just doesn't back up their claim that they abhor it. So what I'm saying is that the opening paragraph seems biased and doesn't seem neutral enough. It's fair enough to include the claims about abuse being rare and abhorred, but something needs to be added to balance out the introduction. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added this sentence: "However, this seems to be contradicted by findings such as the Australian Royal Commission which found that there were over 1,000 cases of child sex abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses since 1950 and the church failed to report even one of these cases to the police." www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/jehovahs-witnesses-child-sexual-abuse-royal-commission/6649340

This is needed to help make the opening paragraph more neutral. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The statement is properly attributed to be the view of the organisation itself. The claim doesn't specify what they would consider rare, so their statement can't really be challenged in a quantifiable way. The Royal Commission did say there were 1006 cases since 1950, but it didn't express whether that number is considered to be rare or frequent or any similar characterisation about those statistics. Your assertion that "the evidence just doesn't back up their claim that they abhor it" is your own opinion and constitutes original research. According to Wikipedia guidelines, where there appears to be a contradiction that is not directly resolved by specific sources, the article should simply state both positions rather than trying to reconcile them with editorial opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77 I'm not trying to be offensive, but are you a Jehovah's Witness? Because I feel like everything I try and do on this article is somehow wrong. And based on what JWs have done already in trying to cover up the truth it would make sense for JWs to make a concerted effort to try and make this particular article biased towards their view. I hear what you are saying, but can you hear what I'm saying? - that the introduction is not balanced and not giving a clear picture of what has been exposed. Perhaps the information that is defending the JW organization can be moved to a later paragraph? And don't you think that there should be something pointing out that the "rare" and "abhor" are the opinions of the JW organization and not based on actual research? At the moment the way that the first few paragraphs are written it doesn't seem balanced or neutral and makes it seem like the JW organization doesn't really have a serious problem with child abuse - but that's not what the inquiries have shown - it's shown that they do have a significant problem because of their official policies such as the two witness rule. (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: You said "The claim doesn't specify what they would be considered rare" - so you admit that it is a claim, but when I tried to change the sentence by inserting the word claim prefacing the information it got changed. It is a claim from them, so it should state that it's a claim to help make it clear that it's not based on any empirical evidence (actually the empirical evidence contradicts their claim). TruthSeekerJC (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Your attempted ad hominem is irrelevant. Even if I were a member of the group, it would not change Wikipedia's guidelines about attribution of sources or original research (see also WP:CLAIM). As it happens, I am not a member of the group.

As previously stated, the statement is already clearly attributed to be that of the organisation itself (though it is also supported by an independent study). Other sources you have offered that provide statistics do not state that those statistics are at a more frequent rate than in general society (which are underreported anyway), so they do not counter a statement (even if it is incorrect) that the incidence among JWs is "rare". What you would need would be a statement from a source saying that the rate is frequent (or at least not rare) and it would need to be in relation to the rate in general society to be meaningful. Simply citing sources that provide a number without any correlation to statistics in the rest of general society does not constitute such a statement, even if the numbers 'seem' high.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Thanks for replying. What about burden of proof? Isn't the burden of proof on the person who makes the claim to defend it? I mean what's to stop me from making up some obscure source in some obscure language to support my ideas? Because it seems to me that's what's happened with the Norway study reference - especially as there isn't anything else that I can find online in English that backs up anything to do with that source. Who contributed that post about the Norway study? TruthSeekerJC (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The article simply presents what the organisation stated. 'Proof' is not required as the article does not assert that it is true, and no other source has been presented that otherwise claims that sexual abuse among JWs is not rare. The issue that is generally considered is their handling of child sexual abuse; I'm not aware of any source that asserts that such abuse is frequent. 'You' would not constitute a reliable source. Also, Norwegian isn't an 'obscure language', and the source is Norway's primary publisher of academic journals. It appears that it was originally added by User:Grrahnbahr on 3 July 2014.[3]--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeffro77:. You say that you're not aware of any source that asserts such abuse is frequent - but much of the rest of the article would argue otherwise. Agreed that the question is how frequent? Also, another issue is the fear tactics used to silence those who want to speak out against abuse. That is discussed here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/02/jehovahs-witnesses-silencing-techniques-child-abuse So even if the rates of abuse are shown to be similar to the general population, that could be explained by the cover-ups. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the introduction to help balance it out? TruthSeekerJC (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully @Grrahnbahr: will be able to shed light on the Norwegian study. Even the word "similar" he has used is odd and too vague - slightly higher or even slightly lower could also be called similar - the word is far too vague. And did the Norwegian study preface their findings by admitting the huge difficulties in conducting such a study given that there could be a cover-up?

Another issue is that studies have shown that over 90% of pedophiles identify themselves as "religious", so if that is true then one would expect higher levels of pedophiles in religious organizations. https://www.religionnews.com/2014/01/09/startling-statistics/ TruthSeekerJC (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article is rated as "start class", so it's not just in my imagination that the article needs significant improvement. I'm a relatively new editor here, and until recently I hadn't made very many edits, so all of this is a learning curve for me. Perhaps the article on Catholic abuse which has a good rating would be useful for comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases TruthSeekerJC (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of the article is about the handling of child sexual abuse cases, and though there are elements in the way cases are handled that may contribute to an increased rate (e.g., the 'two-witness rule', mistrust of secular authorities), the rest of the article does not argue that the rate of abuse is higher (and certainly not significantly higher) than in the rest of society. It is possible or even likely that cases of abuse among JWs are under-reported, though cases in general society are also under-reported, so the comparison would be speculative. Inserting your own editorial opinion about what 'could explain' something is definitely not appropriate. It should also be noted that JW handling of child sexual abuse cases includes cases of abuse by 'non-clergy', that is, committed by members who are not 'elders' or 'ministerial servants', but just ordinary members, and cannot be directly compared with cases of abuse committed in the Catholic Church where the figures are for abuse committed by clergy.

It is not appropriate to claim that JW child sexual abuse cases are not rare just because 'the numbers seem high'. Since you're obviously not interested in presenting actual figures, I'll do the work for you. In Australia, Jehovah's Witnesses' official membership figures for the year the Royal Commission was conducted (2013) was about 66,000 members. The 1,006 cases of child sexual reported to the RC spanned 63 years, which is about 16 cases per year. (The Royal Commission also heard that the Watch Tower Society currently receives about 1 complaint per month, including unsubstantiated complaints, but I will use the higher rate of 16 per year here.) That works out to a rate of about 0.00024 cases of abuse per member per year in Australia. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, in 2012-2013 (July–June) there were 5,559 substantiated cases of child sexual abuse for a population of about 23 million, which is a rate of about 0.00024 sexual abuse cases per person per year. Based on those figures, the rate of child sexual abuse cases among JWs in Australia would therefore be the same as in general society in Australia. However, JWs only include members who report 'preaching activity' in their membership figures so the actual rate would be lower; according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 0.4% self-identify as JWs, or about 92,000 people for 2013, and based on the information provided to the Royal Commission there were 19 cases of abuse reported in 2013, which would decrease the rate to less than 0.00021 cases of abuse per member per year for 2013. (It should also be noted that the JW figures include unsubstantiated reports whereas the AIFS figures here are substantiated cases.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: I understand what you are saying. You've mentioned that the rate of complaints in Australia is one per month, but that's incorrect. It's 3 to 4 complaints per month (see pg 60 of the report https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case%20Study%2029%20-%20Findings%20Report%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf ). The thing you're missing is that out of 1,006 abusers that were identified (representing at least 1,800 victims) not ONE was reported to the police. If that is the case, how many more cases are not even getting to the review point due to a culture of secrecy? That's what makes it worse than the general population. The problem is a lack of data. I'm concerned that the person who made the Norwegian comment may be a JW and may have lied about the results of the Norwegian survey. This would not be beyond the realms of possibility given that JWs are taught that it's ok to lie to non-JWs if it is considered in the best interests of the JW organization. (This is coming from the official Watchtower publishings:https://www.revealnews.org/article/jehovahs-witnesses-can-hide-the-truth-in-court-to-protect-religion/ )

In the Catholic abuse article they've said the following: "However, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that the average time it took between a victim of Catholic sexual abuse being abused and reporting it, or seeking redress, is 33 years.[17] For this reason there is insufficient data to be able to accurately ascertain current rates of child sex abuse, or to claim that abuse in the Catholic Church has fallen in recent decades."

Why doesn't this article take the same approach and either remove the Norwegian study reference, put it in the footnotes, or mention something about the problem of "insufficient data"?

I have studied logic, and am familiar enough with the scientific method and its limitations (e.g. Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and its limitations) to be aware of the problems with trying to get accurate figures especially when it comes to issues like this. No matter how good the Norwegian study was it would never be able to be in any way reliable or an accurate reflection of reality due to the problem of abusers not being caught or abusers not being reported. That is why it is my view that either the reference to the Norwegian study should be removed, or something should be included to mention the problems of the study such as I've just mentioned. I'm not sure why you can't see this. What you've said about cases in the general population also being under-reported is speculative and in my opinion not an accurate reflection of reality - for example what other situation in the general population can you think of where there are 1,006 alleged child abusers and not one of those cases being reported to the police? TruthSeekerJC (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that part of the controversy regarding JW handling of child sexual abuse is that they do not report abuse to secular authorities is well represented in the article, and is not relevant to your claims that the rate of incidence of child sexual abuse is greater than that in general society (which contradicts a Norwegian source as well as figures presented here for Australia) or that the rate of abuse is not 'rare' (which you also have not in any way demonstrated, and is properly attributed as the view of the group rather than an objective fact). The Royal Commission made no claim that the Watch Tower Society had other 'hidden' records of cases of abuse in addition to the details of the 1,006 that Watch Tower provided to the RC. It may certainly be the case that cases of abuse among JWs may be unreported to elders, though given the culture of JWs about reporting 'sins', particularly 'sexual sins' (increasing feelings of guilt in the victims), it is likely that that type of underreporting would be less than the rate of underreporting to authorities in general society. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that, as previously stated, cases reported to the Watch Tower Society include unsubstantiated cases. (I previously cited the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and it indicates the ratio of notifications to substantiations was about 1 in 5 in 2013; based on that, even if the Watch Tower Society were to received 8 reports per month, on average that would represent about 19 substantiated cases, which would still put it below the rate in general Australian society.) The data is what it is, and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia (including this discussion page) to speculate about how the data might be misrepresented, with or without some elaborate conspiracy, unless the speculation itself cites reliable sources.

The Norwegian source is a peer-reviewed journal published by a university. Hege Kristin Ringnes is a religious psychologist who has written various papers about Jehovah's Witnesses; I haven't seen any evidence that she is a member of the group. The fact that I have demonstrated here that the rate of abuse among JWs in Australia is consistent with the rate in Australia in general society suggests there is no reason to doubt her findings. If you have sources that cast doubt on the Norwegian study, either specifically or in principle, provide them. But if you just 'don't trust' the available data, you're back to speculating, and if so there is no point discussing the subject at this page and you should probably try a web forum instead.

If the Royal Commission made a statement about JW reporting of abuse that is analogous to the statement they made about the Catholic Church that you quoted above, it could be used. However, it can't be stated that way merely on the basis that the RC said it of the Catholic Church. And as previously stated, the matter of JW handling of abuse encompasses abuse committed by 'lay' members of the group so the details are not directly comparable to the Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Footnote 2 reliability

I'm not sure of the reliability of the 2nd footnote as it refers to a book in Norwegian. Given everything else in this article it's a big claim - that the rate of child abuse within the JW organization is "similar" to the general population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I added something but it was deleted by another admin - my edit was after the footnote and said (although it is hard to know how accurate this information is given the scale of the cover-up exposed by such things as the Australian Royal Commission - see "Allegations of Cover-up" section below.)

I'm currently trying to find someone that speaks Norwegian that can access the book that is referenced and that can find out more about the study and how it was done - for example, how many people were used in the study, and was it just Norwegian JWs that were studied. How does the study overcome the fact that JWs do have a history of covering up sexual abuse and not going to the police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The assertion that "it is hard to know how accurate this information is given the scale of the cover-up..." is original research unless supported by an appropriate source. Additionally, the issue addressed by the Royal Commission was the way cases are handled, and they did not directly state that the rate of abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses is more or less than the rate in general society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the whole sentence along with the footnote - I think that is the best thing to do unless someone can provide more details that corroborate the claim being made from the Norwegian study about the supposed rate of pedophiles among JWs. There is not one bit of information that I can find online to corroborate the claim that was being made. This is a very serious issue, as it is clear from the investigations done that the JW religion is a haven for pedophiles. Whether the rate of offending is higher or lower than the general population is yet to be determined, and would be virtually impossible to prove either way - how could it possibly be proven given that they do cover-up offences and seem more concerned about the reputation of the organization than they are about the wellbeing of the victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerJC (talk • contribs) 08:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You should absolutely not delete a claim sourced by a valid reliable source! It has been restored by another editor and you have been given some advice on how to find people who can check what the source actually says. To repeat what I posted at the Teahouse: the source is exactly the kind of source Wikipedia wants, it is a peer reviewed article published in a monograph published by a reputable academic publishing house. That does not automatically mean that the source has been correctly represented - it is not impossible that it says something akin to "there are no studies that indicate that the incidence would be higher". We know that the rate of sexual abuse is vastly higher in society in general than what is ever reported or known. We know that JW has a structure where incidents are generally not reported to the authorities - not as a conscious cover-up but because that's how the structure works. But we can't write our own conclusions about that, which is why it is a very bad idea to remove the existing actual reliable and independent sources we have, instead of checking how it is phrased. --bonadea contributions talk 13:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77 and Pajz: Thanks to Pajz for a copy of the relevant pages of the Norwegian book I've found that my suspicions have been confirmed. I sent a copy of the pages of the book to a Norwegian friend of mine who translated it for me and explained that the book is very clear that the rate of abuse is "not documented". So the former Wikipedia sentence said: "An independent 2009 study in Norway concluded that the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses was similar to that in general society", but this is not what the book said at all. Here's the direct translation made by my Norwegian friend:

Handling Abuse: Abuse is one of the themes when JW is in focus in the media. The organization takes a strong distance from abuse, and it is not documented that more JW attacks than others. But the community's policies and dealing with abuse can have major consequences for the members. There have been assault cases with JW involved and in some cases it has come to light that the elderly have not reported to the police. When it was discovered that a man had abused children in the church for many years, he was ostracized. However, the case was not reported to police. Several former JW indicated that the way JW treat sexual abuse of children is the reason they withdrew. One of them William Bowen, started the organization silentlambs (silentlambs.org) to help people who were victims of abuse in JW.

So I've changed it to: "An independent 2009 study in Norway was highly critical of the way Jehovah's Witnesses covered up sexual abuse although stated that it is undocumented whether or not the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses is higher than that found in general society."

All of this confirms that I was right all along to be suspicious of the original sentence, as it just didn't make sense. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim that 'you were right all along' is a bit of a stretch. Your interpretation that "that the rate of abuse is "not documented"" is a misrepresentation of the source material; the source indicates that there is no documentation indicating a higher rate of abuse than in general society (og det er ikke dokumentert at det forekommer flere overgrep hos Jehovas vitner enn andre steder i samfunnet; Literally, and it is not documented that there are more abuses in Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society), not that the rate of abuse is "not documented" at all as you seem to incorrectly suggest. (Presumably your 'Norwegian friend' is also more likely to share your personal views on the subject, which may additionally have clouded your interpretation.) I also showed independently with statistics in Australia that the rate of abuse is about the same as in general society. The interpretation that the 2009 study was "highly critical" is also a bit of a misrepresentation of what the source actually said, indicating instead that there were concerns "in some cases".--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have received a copy of the original Norwegian from Pajz, and the translation you have provided is not too bad (though "because of the procedures and practices that [were] followed" has been simplified to "the way JW treat sexual abuse", and the final sentence has been omitted, but this doesn't affect the point under consideration). Your interpretation of what was "not documented" remains incorrect. Beyond the two paragraphs from the source for which you have provided a translation, the source does raise the same criticisms that other critics raise about JW handling of sexual abuse e.g. victim having to confront abuser, 'two-witness rule' etc), however existing source material in the article for these points already seems sufficient; if existing sources are considered weak, this source could also be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: We should keep it with the wording "not documented" as that is closer to the Norwegian than "no indication". There are plenty of indications that the rate could be higher than the general population but the author from the Norwegian study is saying that it is not documented whether or not the rate is the same, higher, or even lower. I'm not sure why you don't get that. If you disagree then is there any way to bring in someone else to help resolve this dispute? I've read elsewhere that others have recommended that you not have anything further to do with editing JW pages as there was a big dispute about whether or not you were biased. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If the word "document" can be used without making the sentence awkward, then that would be fine. You haven't presented any indication that the rate would be higher than in general society, and I have provided specific statistics (for Australia) that demonstrate that the rate is similar. The claim that I am 'biased' is amusing. Pro-JW editors don't like it when I remove their pro-JW opinions and anti-JW editors don't like it when I remove their anti-JW edits. Sometimes editors say I'm 'working for Watchtower', sometimes they say I'm an 'evil apostate'. It does give me a laugh. But aside from that, you should probably avoid territory that will amount to making personal attacks as my sense of humour has its limits. It would probably be in your favour to state who these 'others' are that have been making insinuations about my edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Also how do you suddenly know Norwegian? I'm assuming that you're not Norwegian, whereas my friend is a native speaker of Norwegian and has excellent (albeit not perfect) English. So what are you taking as your source? And even if you did know Norwegian you've said yourself that it does say 'not documented' but then it gets very confusing as to how you reject that and make it mean something different. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Suddenly"? Their language isn't a national secret. Firstly, there's Google Translate. Secondly, though not fluent, I have Swedish heritage and the languages are not so dissimilar. Thirdly, it's none of your business. Regardless of language, the sentence makes a comparison with the rate in general society. It would be entirely nonsensical to state there is no documented rate at all and then compare that with general society. Hence it can logically only mean that there is no documentation showing the rate of abuse among JWs to be higher than that in general society. I see that you have changed it to "documented", but phrased it in a manner that it becomes completely useless. With your preferred wording, the sentence provides no information about the rate relative to general society. There is no point in saying Source A doesn't say whether x is more or less than y. You made it into a null statement. I have removed the redundant statement as it serves no purpose if it provides no information. Either restore the wording in line with the intent of the original source, or provide some other source that makes a meaningful comparison with the rate of abuse in general society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you have restored the wording again. I won't restore per the '3 revert rule', and pending input by other editors. However, the comparison in your edit summary with the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article is a misrepresentation. That article does refer to the difficulty of accurately assessing the rate of abuse (a problem that also exists in general society), but regarding the uncertainty it only compares current and historical rates of abuse by Catholic clergy, and is not referring to a comparison with the rate in general society. The body of the article, however, does make a comparison with the rate in general society, and rather than stating that it is uncertain, it says, "According to Newsweek magazine, this figure is similar to the rate of frequency in the rest of the adult population."--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As you have made no response at the dispute resolution page after 3 days, I have restored wording that is supported by the cited source. The source in question provides no basis for your use of "whether or not". The source only specifies that there is no documentation that the rate is higher.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: Sorry, but Google Translate is not reliable, and is notorious for making mistakes. I don't know why you've resorted to just deleting the whole sentence along with the reference (after all of the work that's been done to try and get to the bottom of the reference). I'm of the understanding that is not recommended practice. I'm in the process of trying to get a dispute resolution person in from Wikipedia to see if they can help resolve this as it seems we are at an impasse. TruthSeekerJC (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My basic understanding of the language is sufficient to discount any error with Google Translate in this instance. If you don't know why I removed it, then you either haven't read my comments above, or have not correctly understood them. No objection to getting a third party to assist, so long as they are an uninvolved party without a vested interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

To me, the fact that you two are arguing about whose understanding of the language is better implies that this could be a case of WP:OR, in the sense that A) neither of you read the language nor are qualified translators (speaking two languages, such as TruthSeekerJC's friend does, does not make that person a qualified translator) and B) even if you did, we would have to rely on your translation on the summary of the subject. In my opinion it doesn't belong, as this is the English language wikipedia and we can't (or at least as of now haven't) procured an english translation from a WP:RS. Whether the "wording" of the summary says what Jeffro77 or TruthSeekerJC believes is at this time irrelevant as we don't have the source in a language that either of them can read. Again, the situation as it stands doesn't seem to me to pass WP:RS (because it's in a language we can't read), and a translation by TruthSeekerJC's friend is WP:OR. Just my two cents. Vyselink (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not as though the source is in cuneiform. The structure of the sentence makes a comparison with the rate of abuse in general society. It would be meaningless to say the rate is not documented at all (as TruthSeekerJC contends), and then 'compare' that with the rate in general society. As I recall, the edit was originally added by User:Grrahnbahr, who is Norwegian. I have also demonstrated at Talk that in Australia the rate of abuse is about the same in general society, and whilst that is original research, it backs up the fact. A month ago, TruthSeekerJC wanted the entire statement and source removed as 'unreliable', but now that he's decided he thinks it says something he likes, he objects to removing it even though it says absolutely nothing. It is pointless to introduce a source just to say that it says nothing about the rate of abuse (which is TruthSeekerJC's incorrect interpretation).--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Misleading use of statistics

A paragraph was recently added[4] to the article that quoted the Australian Royal Commission's statistical breakdown of closed session reports by denomination. The edit summary claimed, "Could just state abuse in the JW's is much lower than many other religious institutions", which demonstrated that a misleading intent of the paragraph was intended. The figures given by the Royal Commission are slightly, but not directly, representative of the relative sizes of each of the religious bodies proportional to the population in Australia. They do not in any way indicate the relative rate of abuse within each organisation. The misleading paragraph has therefore been removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, asserting that there is a lower rate of abuse among JWs (whilst not substantiated) is a straw man argument. The issue that is consistently raised is how cases of abuse are handled.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous edit - edit summary out of context

An editor has removed content, with an edit summary citing my earlier comments about misdirection regarding reporting of abuse.[5] Whilst I have not restored the removed content, because it had an exposé tone and was not properly sourced, the comparison made by the anonymous editor was misleading.

My comments about misdirection related to inappropriate unsourced editorial commentary in the article about abuse committed by members when the issue is primarily about how abuse is handled by elders. This is 'not the same as sourced material about how the royal commentary characterised the policies and related culture of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is directly related to how reported abuse is handled.

If the statement that was removed is re-added in an appropriate tone and properly sourced, I have no objection to restoring it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

False 'three year rule'

Someone added a section about a supposed 'three year rule'. A similar section was removed from the article in 2009. No such 'rule' exists, and the claim is based on a misrepresentation of the sources. The source was misused to falsely imply that a specific period is intended as some kind of 'statute of limitations', however, the same Our Kingdom Ministry explicitly states that "it is not an exact number of years". In any case, later sources explicitly state that it does not apply to child abuse cases, and is therefore out of scope here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Netherlands

In 2018 Dutch House of Representatives demanded an inquiry into the situation concerning handling child sex abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses. It was announced that this week the results would be made public. However, the church of Jehovah's Witnesses tried to prevent this through a preliminary injunction. This was overruled by the judge and the report was made public. For the summary in English version please see here. The responsible minister of government Dekker issued a press-release that the church already responded that they refused to do anything in line with the recommendations made by the inquiry commission. I would be happy to make a start translating at least this part of the article I wrote in Dutch: nl:Jehova's_getuigen#Situatie_in_Nederland, but would like to see your response first. Bertrand77 (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rampant Bias

I have skimmed this article and I find the bias alarming. A great portion of the article is written from a biased perspective by JW proponents who cite their own propaganda in this article! Primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia, and the propaganda does not serve as evidence anyway. Some portions of the article are outright lies (e.g. that alleged abuse is reported to secular authorities-- this is *demonstrably false* as found in *numerous court proceedings* and especially the Royal Commission in Australia). I don't have sufficient knowledge to rectify this article but I find this quite alarming. Please help out if you can. Myridium (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

jwfacts.com is not a reliable source; I have removed it from the article. Elizium23 (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. It is not appropriate or necessary to have an extended quote from the Royal Commission in the lead. Your unsourced opinion about 'doublespeak' is obviously also inappropriate. Your claim that "Primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia" is false, but secondary sources are certainly preferred. You may benefit from reading WP:RS, WP:SOAP and WP:RGW.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, on what basis do you get to decide that a source is "not reliable"? jwfacts.com is probably one of the most reliable and comprehensive sources out there. If you disagree then cite reliable sources that disagree. Also how exactly is it "not appropriate or necessary to have an extended quote from the Royal Commission"? Did you read bother to read the title of this article? The outcome of that commission is extremely relevant and from a reliable source. The edit I made should not have been reverted. It was far from a perfect edit but it certainly improved the article. If a moderator is lurking please lock this article. There is a real problem here. Myridium (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS before proceeding with this conversation. A "reliable" source on Wikipedia is one that has a reputation for fact-checking and clear editorial oversight. For example, a newspaper has trained journalists writing about subjects they know, fact-checkers who ensure the stories are true, and an editorial board that helps the stories conform to the newspaper's editorial policy for tone, subject matter, grammar and spelling, etc. A site like jwfacts.com is like a blog produced for a single purpose, and publishes documents without editorial oversight. I don't know their reputation for fact-checking, but it is undoubtedly contentious, given the subject matter. We simply can't accept sites such as these to support any facts in Wikipedia articles. Elizium23 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know their reputation for fact-checking, then why are you removing citations to them? Myridium (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Because they need editorial oversight AND a reputation for fact-checking. Can you prove both of these? Elizium23 (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot. But it is undoubtedly better than the (reverted-to) alternative of citing the offending organisation's own literature on the subject! I also added an excellent summarising quote from an Australian government commission that spent years researching before they even started the hearings. That quote summarised the situation excellently and comes from one of the most reliable sources you'd be able to find. But that edit was removed, of course. Myridium (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Royal Commission is a WP:PRIMARY source, so I would have trouble with excessive reliance on it, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. And yes, you are correct that the JW's own self-published sites are problematic, and we should work to minimize reliance on them as well. They should be supplanted by secondary sources wherever possible. Elizium23 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I can see I'm wasting my time here. Myridium (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You may be confused about what is called a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Personal websites, blogs, YouTube, etc are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes as outlined at WP:RS. That assessment is not an assertion that the content of such sites is necessarily false or of poor quality, it only means that the type of site is not suitable as a source for Wikipedia articles. I also notice that you dishonestly mischaracterised my statement about an extended quote from the RC not being necessary in the lead. There is a section in the article about the Australian Royal Commission and detail about its findings belongs there, though it already covers the main points outlined in the extended quote you provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Of the 126 sources currently cited in the article, only 25 of those are Watch Tower Society sources, and those generally seem to be fairly clearly attributed as the position or policy of the denomination. If you see specific instances where such statements are not clearly attributed, please note them here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition for "reliable souce" seems to be, "What wikipedia says is a reliable siurce." The hilarious part is that these dudes, when confronted with this definition of "rekiable source" they're just like, "Cool! Sounds good to me." Not even the suspicion of utony in yhrir minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Why, yes, since we edit Wikipedia, we as editors get to use our discretion to say what is, and isn't, a reliable source. Go to another site if you don't like our defintion. K? Elizium23 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the editor could try advancing some argument for why other sources should be allowed at the Talk page about reliable sources. But it's much easier to just attack the existing system.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the purpose of Wikipedia as it pertains to this subject?

It seems to me that if you set rigid parameters and a myriad of legalistic policies and procedures and clench and grasp on to those rules with Nazi-like fervor, casting out all sense and judgment in the name of rule following and in the process produce an article that is inaccurate and full of falsehoods or in the very least woefully inadequate and incomplete, then all you have done is produce garbage that falls within the rules and policies of wikipedia. The goal of wikipedia then becomes " to write articles that follow the rues of wikipedia for the sake of following the rules of wikipedia true, false for better or worse." So go to bed tonight feeling smug that you have followed wiki rules and nothing else. Zengalileo (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't seem to be suggesting any actual improvements to the article. This isn't the place to just complain that you don't like the article. Do you have any specific suggestions?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Evidence and facts not included in this article.

I find this article has only taken into account what appears on the surface. Dig a little deeper and you will find this article is somewhat misleading. But I am hoping a more accurate picture can be added.

In regards to the Australian Royal Commision, of the 1,006 case files that the Jehovah’s Witnesses provided to the Royal Commission, 383 had been reported to the police at the time they had happened, and 161 had resulted in convictions. The 1006 reports provided to the Commision were spread over a 65 year period and contained cases both proven and unproven. Of these 1006 perpetrators, 902 of the 1,006 case files in Australia did not concern a Jehovah’s Witness official. Of the remaining 104 cases, only 54 involved familial abuse committed by elders or ministerial servants. None of these alleged incidents happen at Kingdom Halls or other official premises, and they were not in a context where Jehovah’s Witnesses were officially responsible for children. In other words, the vast majority of these 1,006 disciplinary reports concerned family sexual abuse and not “institutional” abuse, done by anybody who could be considered clergy or a religious worker for the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization.

The Royal Commission went outside it's terms of referrence when dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses. They introduced familial abuse as part of the evidence against the organisation. This was not done for any oother organisation, whether religious or secular. The introduction of familial abuse conflated the figures inappropriately against the organisation. If this was applied to all other organisations dealt with by the Commission, then the figures would be far graver for those organisations compared to Jehovah's Witnesses. The Royal Commission ruled that the disclosure of information immediately made the religious organization liable. No other religious organisation, including the Catholic Church, had this held against them even though the vast majority of religous organisations, including the Catholic Church, have similar pastoral care counceling. The Royal Commission also referred 551 "Jehovah's Witnesses cases" to law enforcement 5 years ago. And yet, there has not been a massive wave of arrests and prosecutions of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as it should have happened had the Royal Commission “discovered” a substantial number of “hidden” cases.

Holly Folk is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington. Much of this information is confirmed by her study of Jehovah's Witnesses and child abuse within the organisation. And all the information and quotes are from her 4 articles published on the Bitterwinter.org site.

https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-sexual-abuse-1-the-australian-case https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-sexual-abuse-2-belgium-and-the-netherlands https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-sexual-abuse-3-some-common-misunderstandings https://bitterwinter.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-sexual-abuse-4-answering-some-criticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebou81 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating claims recently made by Phoenix Caulfield (talk · contribs).[6][7][8] It remains the case that the claim of '383 cases reported to police' is unsubstantiated. As stated in the Royal Commission transcript, the '383' is simply a result of searching for words such as 'reported' and 'police' in Watch Tower records, but paying no attention to whether it says something like 'do not report to police'. Similarly, the Royal Commission was focused on institutional responses to child sexual abuse, which inherently includes the way 'judicial committees' handle such cases; as such, whether the perpetrators themselves were 'elders' is a red herring. For example, when a perpetrator or victim reports abuse to a JW 'elder', that 'elder' reveals that information to others within the denomination's hierarchy, which is quite different to the 'sacred' confessionals of the Catholic Church where information is not shared with other clergy. The JW denomination insists that members report 'sin' to elders and they then insist on sharing that information with other 'elders' all the way up to the 'branch office', and the consequence of that is their response to abuse fell within the scope of the review. Hence, Folk's assessment is not an entirely accurate representation of the information from, or scope of, the Royal Commission. However, it would be suitable to add Folk's assessment to the article with appropriate citations and clear attribution.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In short, the Royal Commission looked into "Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse", but you are misrepresenting its purpose, claiming it was supposed to only cover 'Responses to Institutional Child Sexual Abuse'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

then Again I stand by my comments that the Royal Commission went outside it's terms of reference. If familial rape was to be included and how an organisation dealt with it then the same standard should be used against all other organisations dealt with by the Royal Commmission. The fact is, it wasn't and so was a double standard. Therefore, your 'red herring' analogy is flawed. If it was how the organisation dealt with the legalities of reporting knowledge of child abuse, elder or otherwise, then it was dealt with by encouraging the victims and their families to report the matter to police. The only 'judicial rulings' by the congregation was whether a perpetrator was allowed to be associated with the organisation and if not, what evidence was there to remove them. This was only an eccliastical decission. Victims and their families were encouraged to go to the authorities to report the crime. And again, this same standard should be applied to all organisations, not just Jehovah's Witnesses. Additionally, most are trying to apply laws of mandatory reporting, which is very new in the last 20 years at best, with what was not practiced by law enforcement and indeed the courts in the previous 45 years. Retroactively applying law to how an organisation dealt with such issues at the time is again fraught with inconsistancy severely skews the real story.

And you’re wrong. The Royal Commission had no motivation to arbitrarily set different standards just for JWs, which sounds like a conspiracy theory. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a forum, so unless you’re actually suggesting an improvement to the article, there’s no more to say.—Jeffro77 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Holly Folk is a writer for CESNUR, the sole purpose of which is to defend new religious movements—explicitly including Jehovah’s Witnesses, and is therefore of questionable reliability. It is known that various new age movements have paid CESNUR for favourable endorsements, and also that JWs at the corporate level have had involvement with CESNUR conferences. The fact that Folk misrepresents the facts about the supposed ‘383 cases’, contradicting the JW testimony at the ARC, also does not lend to her credibility. There is already long standing consensus that CESNUR is not a reliable source—Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.—Jeffro77 (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

And that is only your opinion. The fact that you don't like the facts bought up does not make them invalid. And that is typical of someone who wants to demonise an organisation for no more reason than hate. The standard of familial rape being lumped in with institutional rape was not applied to any other organisation other than Jehovah's Witnesses. This conflation of figures was used simply because the numbers of responsible men in the Jehovah't Witnesses organisation (elders, ministerial servants) was too low for their liking so they then combined the figures. Familial rape is NOT institutional rape.

But your refusal to see the Royal Commission for what it did shows the complete lack of beligerent bias on your part. This article is flawed at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebou81 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is a fact that the scope of the Royal Commission was Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. And it is a fact that JW 'judicial committees' are institutional responses. You are plainly wrong. You still do not seem to be suggesting any improvement to the article. If no other editors have anything to contribute, and you do not suggest any actual changes, I will close this thread after a few days for others to reply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

And the fact that no other organisation had figures representing familial rape shows biased. Where were the figures of the familial rape committed within the Catholic Church or any other organisation? The fact that you can't see that shows your bias in how you have written this article. And, no I'm not completely wrong just because you say so. And I have suggested an improvement to the balance of the article, but as always, you refused. You represent the very people who demonise an organisation as also demonising other individuals and organisations (CESNUR and Holly Folk in your case) who show a more balanced view as being 'unreliable'. Close it if you must, but your bias is still showing loud and clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebou81 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You’re just going round in circles. I was not involved in the established consensus of CESNUR being unreliable. Hopefully other editors will comment.—Jeffro77 (talk)

It’s quite amusing that on this Talk page I’ve been accused of bias simultaneously in favour of and against JWs. How about Zengalileo (talk · contribs) and Mikebou81 (talk · contribs) cut out the middleman and argue with each other?—Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Commas

@Jeffro77 My understanding is that the commas I added should be there because of WP:DATECOMMA. [9] Thoughts? Clovermoss (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't see your talk comment until after I changed it back, but I believe you are correct. Vyselink (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough if the year is considered parenthetical in the weird US date format. The sooner Americans realise ‘day month year’ (or even the ISO ‘year month day’) makes much more sense, the better. 😛—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

An argument that I was involved in with many of my British friends when I lived there. Although in this case I agree, the comma after the date to me is silly. Vyselink (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not American, lol. But I'm close enough to the border that it feels like it sometimes. However, I think in Celsius and not Farenheit. Personally I don't care too much about the issue either way, but I think it looks slightly nicer with the comma after the year in most contexts. Clovermoss (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to write too much (WP:NOTAFORUM and all that lol) but to me it interrupts the flow of reading. I see a comma, I take a beat. That's the point of a comma. Depending on how it's worded it doesn't read well. "The January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower stated,...." to me, reading that as "The January 1 (beat), 1997 (beat), issue of The Watchtower stated,....", rather than as continous "The January 1 (beat), 1997 issue of The Watchtower stated,..." makes no sense. Vyselink (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No way

if a child is molested and no witnesses it's Ganna be that childs word is all it takes.and just to have that child go threw life with that alone is bad enough.every child molesters needs to be done same way as the child was.aint it said a eye for a eye..so with the saying ..do onto others as you would like to be done to you.so that being said .what's that say about the child molester.j.s.im a strong believer I have my faith.its so wrong the way y'all believe .I'm not judging you .every child is a child of god.so if that child got molested.you can trust that she did .think about what I just said ...ty for reading 40.136.231.253 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. See WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP.—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)