Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse/Archive 2

Two witnesses
I removed the section as it seemed to only rely on primary sources and hence is WP:OR. Primary sources are mostly valid for basic claims about an organization and should not be used for contentious ones. Besides it may be outdated as at least some of it dates back to 1991. There is much more conciousness about child sex abuse today, so we cannot reasonbly assume that guidelines have not been changed since then. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your statements about primary sources (in general, though the specific point is quite clearly stated in the primary sources), however regarding your other point, there has been no change to the 'two-witness' policy. The current (2010) JW elders' manual (Shepherd the Flock of God, pages 71,72) states under the section Evidence Establishing Wrongdoing that "There must be two witnesses to a confession, and the confession must be clear and unambiguous. ... There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just people repeating hearsay; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. ... If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, the elders can consider their testimony. While such evidence is acceptable to establish guilt, it is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing." (formatting theirs) The chapter explicitly includes child sex abuse as one of the types of sin requiring two witnesses for congregational action. The same section also states, "Note: If the accusation involves child sexual abuse and the victim is currently a minor, the elders should contact the branch office before arranging a meeting with the child and the alleged abuser." It is therefore clear that the policy about 'two witnesses' has not changed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The subtopic is mentioned in several RS, including articles published at the NRK website (Norwegian National Broadcasting) and in Hege Kristin Ringnes' book about Jehovah's Witnesses (Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie). It is though, according to an interview with the spokesman for JW in Norway, only used for congregational diciplin, and is not concidered when it is about reporting cases to the police/authorities. I don't have time to fix it right now, but would like a reply wheather it is of interest to the article or not, if supported by RS. The sources will of course be translated. The book is published in 2009, and the NRK articles are from december. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The section (prior to deletion) very clearly stated that the 'two witness' policy only applies to congregational discipline. The section about Reporting to civil authorities also very clearly confirms that. I also directly stated above that the requirement is for "two witnesses for congregational action".-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the practice is notable if (or rather since) there are reliable sources for the claim. I found the one at NRK here. The absent of such sources, actually made me suspicous of the truth of the claim, since there has been relatively much written about sexual abuse in relious communities the last two decades. I will revert my own deletion of the paragraph. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim
Grrahnbahr claims I added an "unreferenced claim".. This is entirely incorrect. I merged 3 duplicate references to a single named reference, moved an existing point about 'reporting to authorities' from Questioning the victim to Reporting to civil authorities, and moved an existing point about 'ordained ministers' from Reproof and restrictions to Congregation discipline.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, have removed the same claim. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I've restored it. The statement, both in its old and new locations, was and is supported by the jw-media citation that follows.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask if you could quote what part of the source that supported the claim, but looks like the source is moved/removed... Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As you already know, an archived copy of the page is available. I'll add the 'archiveurl' parameter to the citation. The article states: "However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit. In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law."-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That quoute doesn't support the claim "[c]ases of alleged abuse are only reported to secular authorities if required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office". The statement supports that (according to the press release) alleged abuse are reported to secular authorities if required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office, but not that it applies only when required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Delete "only" if it worries you so much. I have deleted the word "only". I trust this means you will not continue deleting the entire statement.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading
The Lawsuits section currently states:

''In the post-trial motion, the Watch Tower Society's attorney stated in a court memorandum that no United States court has previously found its conduct or policy regarding sex abuse to be unlawful, claiming that the Watch Tower Society's reprehensibility is "very low" if any. The court reduced the Watch Tower Society's total liability to US$10 million,''

The way it is presented implies that the court reduced the amount because the WTS was 'less reprehensible' than initially determined by the court, however the source indicates that the reduction was actually based on the ratio between the punitive and compensatory damages.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As no one has replied here, I have re-ordered the statement in the paragraph and provided the actual reason for reducing the damages, per the cited source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed category
I removed the category «Christian sex abuse cases», as this article isn't about a Christian sex abuse case. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It includes a section specifically about lawsuits.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put the category back, as I agree with Jeffro on that matter. ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sources
User:Raymond Franz have added claims where doubtful sources are used. I've removed claims solely based on those sources, along with the sources, and will add a reason for each of the sources here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah Himself Has Become King
The source is readded, with the reason given that "[p]revious was deleted by user User:Grrahnbahr. He removed it alleging it was a silentlambs reference. This is a published book, thus it is an accepted reference." WP:USERGENERATED states: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." I can recommand to ask Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you would like a third opinion. I have removed the claim and the source. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The book seems to be self-published and has attracted no significant mainstream notice. It would fail to meet the criteria as a reliable source. BlackCab (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I forgot the point of it being self-published. It was may obvious though. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Other references will comply with Wikipedia rules. Raymond Franz (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Shepherd the Flock of God
Shepherd the Flock of God can not be used as source, as it fails Published. This case is already discussed at the RS noticeboard, as linked here:. I've thus have removed the newly added reference to this source, at all places where it is recently added. I've only removed content where the book is the sole reference. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Disappointing. The book is clearly the very best source of information on the Watch Tower Society's rules, and copies of the book available online are authentic. The society's obsession with secrecy, even to the point of keeping its elders' handbook out of the hands of rank and file members, denying them access even to the rules on which they will be judged in their star-chamber disciplinary hearings, does make it difficult. But the comments at the noticeboard were generally against its acceptance on Wikipedia as a RS. BlackCab (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Letter to Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
I've removed the link to a mirror site. A link to the letter is already provided in the EL-section, as it is used for source: The mirror may break copyright. I don't mind using the link to the Australian case file site, as it is used in EL-section, in the inline reference. I am not sure whether or not the letter is a RS, as it used for evidence, and I think it should be concidered published (as in made public by) by Australian court, not Jehovah's Witnesses. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of its reliability, I don't think there would be a better source. The letter was presented by the Watch Tower Society to a state government inquiry and included as evidence in that inquiry's report. BlackCab (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Prevous use of the 'credibility' template on these sources was certainly inappropriate, because no one ever provided any reasonable evidence whatsoever that the letters were not credible, that is, that the letters from the Watch Tower Society did not say exactly what is stated in the available copies of the letters. The argument was that the letters were not published. Any document made publically available by a court certainly qualifies as 'published'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it is made public by the court, but there are issues with material made published as evidence only. It is like any primary source, made for one kind of use (for instructions of JW elders) only, and may need interpretation or additional knowledge for being counted as accurate. If JW elders do have additional instructions in a specific matter, this will may not be known by reading the one letter being used as evidence. A court can do so, as the process could ask witnesses about further explanations. I am not worried about POV regarding the use of letter, as claims sourcing to it, could go even ways, but it is a general evaluation about its quality as a RS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference that a letter was published 'as evidence only'. Citing what the letter actually says does not require further interpretation of the source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Grrahnbahr is arbitrarily deleting credible sources
This user has deleted refs like NBC News articles, books and letters published by Watchtower. It may not be known by the broader audience, but the book 'shepherd the flock of God' is of restricted use of elders. No one should have access to it, except for the church elders. However, as it was made public by making it available online, there is no reason to remove it from the references as even quotes from the book were provided, as we can see in the article change history. The same argument is valid for the letter. This user removed every citation of the October 1, 2012 letter even when quotes were provided. There is no reason to remove all references to the letter. Again, this letter is known to be highly confidential, but some elders have made it public by uploading it. It is really distressful for Jehovah's Witnesses elders to see such confidential docs available all over the internet. Once it's online, no material is regarded as private no more. User:Grrahnbahr is behaving as an agent for Jehovah's Witness, removing every reference he can, even when quotes and links are provided. Action from administrators are thus required to restore references deleted by this user. Social86 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding use of Shepherd the flock of God, I did provide links to the RS noticeboad for explanation. According to the noticeboard (it is only other users opinion, but is in general concidered as consensus), if quoted by a RS, it is acceptable to use such quotes for articles at this wiki, but as only as referenced through the RS. The letter to congregations dated October 1, 2012, is made public by a court as evidence. Australian court is widely recognized as reliable, and the use of the letter in the court was accepted by the court administration. It is a difference from using this letter, and letters in general, not made public by a RS.


 * Regarding the case from NBC News, it is used as a reference as it is replacing an in-line notices about a weasel words ("critics argue"), and for the claim "critics argue that, without mandatory reporting for all accusations of abuse regardless of the local laws, such evidence could remain undetected". The removal was not intentional, and I do not deny NBC News in general as a RS. I am though not confident it is giving any credit for the claims. The article names only one critic, a former JW. If this is sufficient for giving a general comment for critics view, I doubt. Since the article names only one critic, it is more a matter about whether she is a notable critic or not. The article mentions her view as a critic, so she may be is. If yes, then we could replace "critics argue" with the name of the critic. If yes, it is probably not necessary with more than one inline refernce to the newspaper article, at the end of the claim including her view. As it is only one critic's view, it may fails WP:DUE (the guideline WP:NEWSORG could also be useful here). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'conclusion' reached at the RS noticeboard was by no means clear. There was no specific directive that the sources cannot be used, though it was determined that publications that have had a restricted distribution do not meet a strict defintion of 'published'. The publications in question have been released publically on the internet, and Grrahnbahr has disputed that these sources are not 'credible', even though he has also previously stated that he has no reason to believe that the 'leaked' text is not identical to the original printed publications.
 * Grrahnbahr very likely knows that there is more than one critic. Removing other sources that also refer to critics and then claiming there is therefore 'only one critic' is quite misleading. Particularly when the basis for removing the sources in question is that they were purportely 'leaked' online by critics.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is reached a consensus at the RS noticeboard, as I linked to a thread where books not published by RS, including the named elders manual, was discussed. If Jeffro77 knowns about any RS who have published the book, he is welcome to share it with other.
 * Regarding what I know or don't know: I know I care about finding the best RS for any article at this wiki. If there are no RS confirming a claim which is likely to be disputed, it should be removed. In this case there are only one RS naming one critic, and it is used for support of a very specific claim.Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from the plain fact that it is evident that you already know there is more than one critic, the silentlambs sources that you removed have previously been determined as suitable sources, and you also know of cases such as that regarding Candace Conti. So it is demonstrable that you already know very well that there is 'more than one critic'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's editing history of this article shows that no contribution at all was made to FIND better sources. He is acting as a censoring agent, deleting every part of this article that, supposedly, does not meet RS requirements. This user has been challenged more than once and some texts deleted by him have been restored by independent editors. It would be productive of him to help FIND better sources, instead of deleting parts of this article. It could be also useful to readers if this user asked us to edit parts in lieu of deleting them first. Social86 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Grrahnbahr must bear in mind the following instruction found on How to delete a page:

It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough.
 * Bear the following things in mind:
 * It's polite to let the article's author know that you are asking for it to be deleted; you can find them in the page history.
 * The final option is to start a discussion about the state of the article, and get other contributors' opinions on whether it should be removed.

Removing content without trying to make it better should be avoided. Deleting text because it does not meet rules and not even discussing it with others impairs information quality. It is a matter of politeness and caring for accurate information. Raymond Franz (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining me how wikipedia works. So, let me see if I got this right: Removing content that lacks reliable sourcing, is making me an unproductive censoring agent. Finding better sources could be done by copy-paste from another article in this wiki, like here, when a section is copy-pasted from the article about Jehovah's Witnesses. I can not see what the policies regarding deleting articles does here, as I've not tried to delete this article. I do from time to time nominate articles for deletion, so I think I got a pretty good idea how it works.


 * The good news is, I think the content could be used somehow. The lead should be a summary of the article, but I'll think about how it could be reworked. The content added is mainly critic, and, like the rebuffs added shows, not undisputed. It could may be added in a section about critical reviews about JW's handling of child sex abuse. I suggest to discuss how we will proceed, and if the text needs to be reworked somehow, to adjust it to this article.


 * It is also a problem with one of the sources. I doubt sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au would fill in the requirements for a RS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed section "Sex offender database"
I have again removed the section "Sex offender database", after it have been restored with new sources. I could not find any proof or reliable claims for the existence of a database as described in the heading, in the given sources.
 * "The headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watch Tower Society, requires all congregations to submit details of child abuse allegations and maintains a database on all cases of child abuse reported to them." The first sentence is only partial correct. According to the letter used as a source, JW elders who got knowledge about sex abuse incidents should call [Watchtower] Legal Department for advice, not anything about submitting anywhere. There are no mentioning of JW maintaining a database for child abuse reported to them, only the alledged existence for "[a] database detailing more than 23,000 allegations of abuse" revealed in 1992 (more than 20 years ago). Further, the heading for this section, "Sex offender database", is misleading, as the 10News-article did only mention "[a] database detailing more than 23,000 allegations of abuse", and not a single word about "sex offender" in connection with "database". Even if the archive still exists, there is no proof of it to hold information about any sex offenders at all. Further, the article did not issue wheather the database was about cases reported to the Watchtower (or what part of the Watchtower), or if they got the information in the database from anywhere else.
 * A spokesperson for the Watch Tower Society stated in May 2002, "Apart from being legally needed, they have been very helpful to us in our efforts to protect the flock from harm. Christian parents can rightly feel secure in the knowledge that such efforts are made to screen out possible child abusers from appointment to responsible positions within the congregation." I could not find any reference to the quote in any of the two given sources. Please have me excused if I have missed something.
 * "Critics like Irwin Zalkin[42] argue that its very existence represents an effort to shield pedophiles from the authorities." Irwin Zalkin is not a critic, he is an attorney doing his job. He is representing victims in a courtcase ("Irwin Zalkin represents the seven victims who have come forward"; "Zalkin said he plans to file more lawsuits against Jehovah's Witnesses soon"), and it is his job to build sympathy for the plaintiffs, also in media.

If rebuilding a section containing "database" and "sex offender", please find sufficient sourcing for the claims. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the previous version as the existence of this database has been stated publicly by former witnesses, like Barbara Anderson and Bill Bowen. Please provide reliable sources if you wish to amend this section. ChercheTrouve (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, The BOE letter from October 1, 2012, already accepted here as a valid reference, tells elders to archive ALL known cases of sexual abuse. Thus, we know there is a database at least on every congregation that had these cases. We also know that all cases must be also reported to Watchtower Headquarters, making it feasible to say that such database exists. Furthermore, deleting a whole paragraph without asking for corrections first seems equivalent to censorship. There are many ways to work a sentence to make it closer to the truth of the facts. There is no need of censoring the information. Social86 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ChercheTrouve: If you insists on adding or keeping a claim or statement in the article, it is your task to find a reliable source to support your claim or statement. If Barbara Anderson and Bill Bowen (wasn't the latter rejected to testify as an expert witness in a recent child abuse case, because he simply was found not to be an expert?) claims the existense of such an archive, it is still only their claim. It will not be a fact, because they claim so. For even concider including their claim, it need to be presented through a RS, as defined by wikipedia policies. Even if it is claimed, it need to be of significant relevance to be of any value to this article.


 * Social86: The letter states: "Information concerning an individual accused of child molestation, proved or otherwise, should be placed in the congregation confidential file and marked 'Do Not Destroy' and kept indefinitely". If you was referencing to some other part of the letter, please let me know. The described recording does not qualify to a description as "Sex offender database", as it a) is not a database, but a part of an archive, obvious one containing several files not at all related to abuse cases. b) There are no connection to a database as described in the claims in this article, or as described in the other source, and the use of an archive as described in the letter. c) The archive does not qualify as a "Sex offender database", and the letter does not state that in particular information about sex offenders should be archived, but rather "information concerning an individual accused of child molestation" (I made the italics). We can't decide wheather a person do qualify for being a sex offender or not, unless he or she is found guilty for such a crime. I can just remind you of the claim I removed: "The headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watch Tower Society, requires all congregations to submit details of child abuse allegations and maintains a database on all cases of child abuse reported to them." I can not see this is proven out of the given sources, as explained in my first post. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but BBC news is quite clear here: "The Jehovah's Witnesses organisation keeps a sex offenders register that nobody outside the church is allowed to see, a former 'elder' tells Panorama. Bill Bowen, who has spent his lifetime as a Jehovah's Witness and nearly twenty years as an elder, says the organisation covers up abuse by keeping this database secret. His sources indicate there are 23,720 abusers on the list - who are protected by the system.". This information comes from a reliable source and is important for this article. ChercheTrouve (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've merged the BBC source about the database into the paragraph that already mentions the same BBC report.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moderating the language. Out of the comment from the JW official, it appeared they had a general record for it's current and former associates, but not an own database for such cases. Regarding "Suffer the little Children", it is a teaser for a TV program, and not a factual article with factual statements. Regarding the claim "[t]he report revealed that the headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watch Tower Society, requires all congregations to submit details of child abuse allegations and maintains a database on all cases of child abuse reported to them", I can not find it presented like factual statements in the source, but rather claims from Bowen. It is really late here, so I have to sleep on it. It is may easier for you to reword it, rather than find me erase the claim tomorrow. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'teaser' for the program indicates there is in fact a database, and is a summary of the current affairs report, which is also cited. Those two sources are directly related, and are essentially in relation to the one report, both of which present facts. But if you are going to be petty about it, we can just add the source for the prior sentence to the second sentence as well.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed category
I've removed the category "Christian sex abuse cases", as this article is not about a Christian sex abuse case or a list over such cases. The removal have been mentioned in a previous discussion here, where a two vs one situation occoured. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I've instead added the parent Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups, which isn't about specific cases, and is thus appropriate. This article isn't only about criticism of the JW, but also about child sexual abuse in a religious group. 151.225.83.132 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed single case example
I removed a single case placed in the middle of the article. The case was obvious placed to prove some kind of practice among JW congregation. There are about 100.000 JW congregation, but a single example highlighted in media could not be used to prove some general practice within JW congregations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually you've removed two cases of the church's practice of questioning victims, from the "Questioning the victim" section, along with the mention of the subsequent investigation by the Charity Commission. They were not intended to "prove" anything: they were two well-referenced cases considered so significant that they received coverage in national dailies as well as local press, all WP:RS, and are part of the background to an ongoing government investigation of the two congregations. Why should this referenced and highly relevant content be deleted? 151.225.83.132 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The case is listed in a section for policies (the heading of the section is "Policies"), indicating the content is about JW policies regarding a matter. I can't see one single case should be sufficient for defending use for description of what may appears to be divergent practice from one or two out of a hundred thousand congregations. Beside that, the paper does state some of the quotas listed as facts here, are from an anonymious source ("A source, who asked not to be named, told the MEN"), but the statements are listed as facts here. Why she was disfellowedshiped, is, according to the paper, based on the same statement from the anonymious source, and an 'understanding'. If there are relible sources for the practice on this matter in general is significant divergent from the policies, I suggest to mention it in general terms. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I've re-added the two incidents, plus more detail and references about the Charity Commission's investigations, to a new section further down. I've also removed those specific allegations which, although they were from WP:RS, were nevertheless quoting unnamed sources. There are now a dozen good references reflecting the breadth of recent news coverage these incidents have had. I've also created a named user account, for clarity. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough you too, the rewritten text seems to be far more according to the source and fit for the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

'When required by law'
The article previously said: "elders are directed to report abuse to authorities when there is evidence of abuse, and when required to by law."

The statement incorrectly implied that JW elders report abuse to authorities where there is evidence, and (also) when required to by law. However, the actual policy is to report to authorities (only) where required by law, if there is evidence of abuse. I initially re-worded the misleading statement (as indicated by my edit summary). However, I subsequently deleted it altogether, because it is restated in the sentence that immediately followed.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ratio for sex abuse cases
I reverted Jeffro77's revert, as it is obvious it is about ratio. The quote from the source states: "Organisasjonen tar sterk avstand fra overgrep, og det er ikke dokumentert at det forekommer flere overgrep hos Jehovas vitner enn andre steder i samfunnet" (Translated: Jehovah's Witnesses strongly denounce sexual abuse, and there are no evidence that it occurs more abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society.) It is a pointless statement unless it is about ratio. Anyway, there are nothing in the source supporting a statement as "is similar to that in general society", as suggested from Jeffro77. "No more documented cases" support "equal or less", without clarifying where on a scale from zero to equal. What about looking into if there are other independent, American or Australian, studies mentioning an excact ratio? Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The preachy statement about 'denouncing abuse' regarding something that most people would obviously 'denounce' is redundant and has again been removed. As the source does not specifically indicate that the rate is either similar to or less than the rate in general society, I have reworded the statement to better reflect the source's statement that the ratio is not more than the general rate.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Jehovah's Witnesses" obviously doesn't appear twice in the original statement. A better translation would be "The organization deplores abuse, and there is no evidence that more abuse occurs among Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society". (However, the obvious statement about 'deploring/denouncing abuse' remains redundant, with an unnecessary POV tone, since 'deploring abuse' is reasonably considered the default position.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tar sterk avstand fra" is better translated as "strongly denounce", as User:Jeffro77 fail to notice the use of the word "sterk" (an adverb, may best translated strongly). Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Deplore is already a stronger term than denounce, encompassing the idea of to strongly denounce'. But the minor point of grammar is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the fact that the original statement clearly didn't name JWs twice. Aside from that, you have provided no reasonable basis for including a redundant statement with an apologetic tone that JWs 'denounce abuse' (whether 'strongly' or not). Firstly, it is the default position among reasonable people to 'strongly denounce' child abuse, so it does not need to be explicitly stated as if it is in some way 'remarkable' that JWs do. Additionally, your wording (not supported by the source) implies that members of JWs have a particular view of child abuse, but the article should not attempt to state the view of all JWs, a very small proportion of whom are themselves abusers.-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The chapter starts out like this: "Overgrep er et av de temaene som kommer opp når Jehovas vitner fokuseres (sic!) i media. Organsisajonen tar sterk avstand fra overgrep, og det er ikke dokumentert at det forekommer flere overgrep hos Jehovas vitner enn andre steder i samfunnet. (Translated: [Sexual a]buse is one of the topics popping up when when Jehovah's Witnesses is being in scope of media. The organisasation strongly denounce sexual abuse, and there are no evidence that it occurs more abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses than elsewhere in society.") I agree to the use of description of ratio is may more useful for the article, though I've used a more direct translation here at the talkpage. I agree on the use of "deplore", but it have to include the term "strongly" or simmilar, as it is used in the original source ("tar sterk avstand", a very strong wording, almost as "abhors"). Out of the context there are no doubt "organisasjonen" (the Organisation) is used synonymious as Jehovah's Witnesses. It does perfectly explain this as an official standing for Jehovah's Witnesses' opinion, though a tiny minority of the individual members may secretly have another standing, pretty much in the same manner as some policemen are secretly doing criminal acts, while the police is fighting crime). The use of "organisation" is very likely used for variation, to make the text readable. The article makes use of sources and suggestings that Jehovah's Witnesses is not taking the issue seriously, so I think it is necessary for balancing og the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed unhelpful that the denomination insists on using the same terminology in reference to both the name of the denomination and the plural form of its members. That ambiguity is quite likely why the source uses a different term.
 * Deplore is a stronger term than denounce, hence "strongly deplore" is redundant as a practical translation of the source. Your change to 'strongly deplore' is not what I suggested at all. I stated that deplore is a suitable replacement for strongly denounce. I also stated that that minor grammatical point was not the primary objection. Further, a qualifier such as strongly is not necessary in stating the official view of the organisation, and excluding it conveys a more encyclopedic tone. (To illustrate the point, see this short clip from A Few Good Men.)
 * However, I note your point about balance, so I have included the element that the official position of the organisation is to denounce abuse, without implying (or denying) any view held by individual members.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Extremely biased intro
The first section of this article describes the rate of child abuse by Jehovah's Witness members, but only references statistics from internal biased investigations. Stinks of manicuring by the Jehovah's Witness Church. I suggest removal of these statements from a Non neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.88.230 (talk) 28 July 2015
 * The statement is clearly attributed to the Watch Tower Society, so it doesn't express an editorial point of view and therefore the POV tag is unwarranted. It may be difficult to gain a complete picture of the incidence of child sexual abuse within its ranks, though the current Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia has already revealed that in the past 65 years 1006 alleged perpetrators have been identified among the JWs in that country alone. That's an average of 15 a year, or more than one a month, including years when the JW population would have been reasonably small. I therefore suggest "rare" is not accurate. See and the link to the opening address at .  BlackCab  ( TALK ) 06:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess it really comes down to the source. The source for the statement by the JW's does indeed say rare. And while I agree that "rare" is not accurate, we can't change what the source states as the JW's beliefs. However, the final few words "incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare." is a direct quote from the source, so I would recommend adding "" to those words to reiterate that it is a direct quote, and stance, of the JW's. Vyselink (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to briefly explain what the Watchtower Society is, since the name could easily be mistaken for something more generic to someone unfamiliar with the denomination. Maybe something like "The Watchtower Society (the administrative body of the Jehovah's Witnesses) states that..." The wikilink makes that clear, and normally that would be good enough, but since it's the second sentence of the article, it might be worth spelling out in detail. The lead is missing some other info as well. It mentions one lawsuit in almost as much detail as the body of the article, but doesn't mention the other suits. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of this article is biased towards the Watchtower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. While I am no expert on Jehovah's Witnesses and pedophile abuse, it is my understanding that Bethel will not oppose any Witness willing to go to law enforcement authorities or when clery are required by state law to report pedophile cases. Many Witnesses fear authorites. Within WT culture, there is tremendous disrespect for governmental power and authority. While I doubt that Witness lawyers would ever tell a Witness not to go to law enforcement if the person insisted on going, local elders are usually poorly educated and not well trained in this area. Also, Witnesses believe in theological warfare. Leaders have lied in open court under oath under the doctrine. Law enforcement is often viewed as part of a wordly government New Order that will be destroyed by Jehovah. The difference between the Roman Catholic pedophile cases and the Witness problem is immense. Witnesses have no profession clergy. This makes it hard to impose liability or to enforce Watchtower decrees at a local Kingdom Hall level. Many elders go beyond what the WT requires in their zeal to never cause disrepute on Jehovah's Witness organizations. Further, only law enforcement has the training and education to interview child victims or child liars. Not reporting directly to the police may result in tainted testimony. The "rare" qoute annoys me. Rape and pedophile abuse is very underreported because of its secretive nature and the stigma victims face. Many Witnesses would be ashamed to discuss such abuse with anyone. The culture is very authoritarian and very male oriented. The Witnesses fail to understand that investigation and adjudication of abuse is a matter for civil authority while religous authorites have the burden of policing their respective faiths. I am not a seasoned Wikpedia editor. Certainly, there must be a relatively straightforward way to report both sides of this controversy. If pedophile behavior were rare, the headlines would not be present. Pope Benedict would still be pope, and there would be no movement to stop pedophiles in churches.75Janice (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)75Janice


 * I'm sorry, but do you have anything constructive to add, or were you simply here to rant? Vyselink (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything I've said is available from neutral, secular sources. In fact, existing wikipedia pages reference theological warfare and Rutherford and Franz lying under oath to a NY state trial court. This is known as perjury. The Conti case was covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and ABC News at a minimum. The more recent fine concerning discovery violations is reported in legal news. To point out where an article could be strengthened is not a rant. Lawyers before the U.S. Supreme Court do not rant. You must state facts or one can be fined for misleading the court. A discussion of KH culture at the local level and the lack of education and standards for elders, both in the matter of theology and child sexual abuse, has been mentioned in netural articles. My concern is that someone not familiar with this matter will only see self serving statements from the WT Society. The Vatican curia is protected, too. Few cases involving higher level church officials have been been successful. I strongly feel that this is a neutral assessment. People need to know the sources of legal liability and how a hierarchical distinction in the church can show few law suits against the WTBTS. I suspect that many elders would be sued, if they had the financial resources to make such suits worthwhile at a economic level. This is not a rant but sober legal analysis. The economics of law dictate whether certain people are sued. It is easier to establish liability in the Roman Catholic Church because priests are employees of the Diocese. Obviously, my view reflects my legal research and training. To mention certain avenues for research or to state that in my view, this article is biased towards the Watchtower, is a service to wikpedia. The Pew Research Center may have cultural data on different religious faiths.

My point is that pedophile abuse occurs in every denomination. What makes it difficult to prove and redress in certain denominations more than others is a valid avenue for this article. One of the major neutral points when contrasting the pedophile scandals of other religions and religiions that do not educate and employ clergy is that such religions are hard to sue. It presents real challenges when dealing with pedophile. My professors would be proud of me for raising these facts and questions. This article could use more careful writing. It is often difficult for nonlawyers to understand complex legal issues and concerns. Frankly, I don't know what else to say. Raising concerns properly is not ranting. Suggesting ways an article could be improve is not destructive. Using one's knowledge to focus on certain issues does not make one a partisan. If you doubt me, please read what I included on the Talk page for Silent Lambs. Neither hand in this dispute is clean. Wikpedia is not to here to judge which side is correct. It should report both sides in an accurate fashion. The Encylcopedia Brittianica would do the same. Most Witnesses do not live at Bethel. They live their lives at the local Kingdom Hall level. WT policy may be hard to enforce at such a level. 75Janice (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to attempt to explain this.


 * First, I'm not arguing that the points you bring up may be useful for inclusion. But as you have provided no sources, no reliable information that can be added to the page, what you have done is a rant. It's essentially WP:NotSoapbox. "Everything I've said is available from neutral, secular sources". Fantastic! Find them, add them, and contribute. Your comments are riddled with phrases like " it is my understanding", "While I doubt", "annoys me", "I suspect", "my view" etc. Those are not useful here.


 * Second, your education, while admirable, is pointless to mention, as is your professors being proud of you. You don't see me posting that I'm a PhD student whose dissertation is specifically on the JW's to prove my point. What's important, just like in a court of law, is what evidence I can bring. You SAY that there is evidence out there, but provide none. Provide it. If you have all of this at your fingertips, add it.


 * Third, out of your most recent post, here are the truly salient points that you make: "My concern is that someone not familiar with this matter will only see self serving statements from the WT Society...The more recent fine concerning discovery violations is reported in legal news...People need to know the sources of legal liability and how a hierarchical distinction in the church can show few law suits against the WTBTS". Literally everything else you have written has no point to it in regards to this article. Help us fix it instead of writing 533 words, of which only 56 bring up valid issues for this article. What the Catholic Church does is irrelevant in THIS article. Your OPINION that "many elders would be sued if" is irrelevant w/out evidence. For this article, the fact that Rutherford and Franz lied is irrelevant, as they have both been dead for decades and have nothing to do with THIS page.


 * On a side note. Your point that that "The difference between the Roman Catholic pedophile cases and the Witness problem is immense" is an interesting one. I recommend finding an article where that could be discussed. If there isn't one, create it. Vyselink (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)