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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sources

Hi, I tagged the page as having unreliable sources, per the discussion pointed out to me here. However, having re-examined the sources, I thought that they may pass the source guidlines, so removed the tag. Matty.007 12:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for bumping in, but I think tagging this article for having having unreliable sources, is correct when counting in the article's current use of referencing. I would like to give an proper answear to Jeffro's request as it is posted here. For me it appears to be a consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 119#"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" used as source for use of the books Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, Shepherd the Flock of God, or any letter, unless published through a reliable source. I can not see consensus is changed in this matter, and the discussion is from last year, so I won't say it is obsolete. As far as can see, these sources are not compliance to the current standard for a reliable source at wikipedia (numbers are for the article as of 3 August 2013:

• 4abc Letter to All Congregations in Britain, July 11, 2002
• 5 Letter to All Bodies of Elders, March 23, 1992
• 8 Jehovah's Witnesses Office of Public Information, Press Release "Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection," 2003
• 9 Pay Attention to Yourselves, page 111
• 12 Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, ©1991 Watch Tower, page 93
• 13 Letter to All Bodies of Elders in Britain, December 1, 2001
• 14 Child Protection Policy in the UK (dead link)
• 15 Letter to all Bodies of Elders in Britain, December 1, 2000
• 23 2000 Molester Form Letter
• 26 Fax sent to Betsan Powys, BBC Panorama, May 9, 2002
• 28 "Letters of Introduction", to All Bodies of Elders, July 1, 2006
• 29 "Shepherd the Flock of God", chapter 3, p. 34–35
• 31 "Shepherd the Flock of God", chapter 3, p. 38–39
• 32 Jehovah's Witnesses Office of Public Information, press release "Jehovah's Witnesses and Child Protection," 2003
• 36 Non-disclosure, an ecclesiastical privilege (dead link)
• 37 To All Bodies of Elders in Canada, July 29, 1988
• 38 Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1977. p. 138.
• 39 "To all Bodies of Elders in the United States". WTBS. 1995-08-01. Retrieved 2010-03-13. (links leads to dating site)
• 42 To All Bodies of Elders in Britain, December 1, 2000
• 43 Letter to All Bodies of Elders, December 1, 2000
• 52 To all Bodies of Elders in the United States, August 1, 1995
• 54 "Shepherd the Flock of God", p. 72
• 55 Fax from J. R. Brown, Office of Public Information, to Betsan Powys, dated May 9, 2002.
• 56 Boycott Child Molestors (I doubt this goes through as a RS in an article like this one)
• 61 "Elders John Vaughn and Andrew Sinay balked at testifying against [Jehovah' Witness Gilbert] Simental, when subpoenaed by [prosecutor] Strunsky. They cited the confidentiality afforded by the penitent-clergy privilege." (dead link)
• 66 "Jury awards $28M to woman who said Jehovah’s Witnesses allowed church member to molest her" (dead link)

In addition, these questionable sources are used:

• 11 Letter to All Bodies of Elders, October 1, 2012, par. 12 (listed as an evidence in an ongoing court trial (?), linked at external links)
• 16 n/a (2005). Organized to do Jehovah's Will. Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. pp. 152–153 (the book was not specificly mentioned at the noticeboard, but according to H.K.Ringnes' book Jehovas vitner - en flerfaglig studie (in Norwegian), p. 10, she admits not to have had a formal access to the book, as it by JW is defined as classified, and thus not accessible for other than members of the religion).
• 17ab To All Bodies of Elders", October 1, 2012 par. 15 and 22 (ibid. as no. 11)
• 19 Louisville Courier-Journal, 1-4-01 (what is this, no author, no page numbers
• 25 "To All Bodies of Elders", October 1, 2012 par. 23 (ibid. as no. 11)
• 62 the elders in this case felt they had no duty to keep the confession confidential (is fearnotlaw.com a RS)
• 63 Alameda district court document (page number is missing - court documents should not be interpretated)
• 64 Alameda district court document (ibid. as no. 63)
• 65 Alameda district court document (ibid.)
• 69 Alameda district court document (ibid.)

I've not gone to much into details about article contents, but there are several issues in additions to the sourcing. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Among the sources to which you object are public court records and JW press releases. Clearly these are published reliable sources. Regarding other sources, if a third-party source has cited JW sources—even if those sources are considered 'confidential'—then the material can be cited herein, but should be cited as a quoted by the third party.

Because the article is about a sensitive topic, I strongly recommend that an entirely impartial editor not previously involved with the article review the article and assess the suitability of sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not listed as a sensitive topic, but I don't mind to get it listed. I think of it as controversial rather than sensitive, and think it got serious POV issues in addition to weak sourcing. According to the conclusion given at the RS noticeboard, the unpublished/confidential sources couldn't be used unless published by a RS, and then by using the RS only ("Say where you got it").

The JW press release(s) listed up here, have no link and no referencing for where it is published or where to be found.

Regarding the court documents, it is listed in the "maybe" category, as it should be handled with extreme caution as a primary source, and with no interpretation. This have been handled several times within the RS noticeboard, here, here, [[1]], [[2]], and in several other discussions.

In my opinion this article needs a massive clean-up. Unless you disagree to the conclusion from here the RS noticeboard, it is may not necessary with a third persons opinion/NPOV noticeboard solution. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is your preference to remove the sources you've indicated and delete the associated content altogether, or to search for alternative sources for the same information? If your aim is simply to censor the article, then I strongly recommend a third party perspective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently added as an external link the letter to elders dated 1 October 2012 outlining WTS procedures for handling child abuse cases. The letter was submitted by the Watchtower Society to a Victorian government inquiry and there is no doubt as to its authenticity. It also meets the requirements of Wikipedia policies on external links: item 3 at WP:ELYES states that sites can be linked if they "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues." BlackCab (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro: You did not answear if you accepted the conclusion from the RS noticeboard. My preferences does not matter here, as it is all about wikipedia policies. I have no aim to censor the article, but I will aim for a removal of any sources and all (disputed) content relied on original research only. This is not wikileaks, but wikipedia, and thus it is not censorship to remove content not based on RS, according to the current policies.

BlackCab: WP:EL states that "[t]his guideline does not apply to citations to sources supporting article content". I've no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the letter of 1 October 2012. It may meets the requirements as it is listed at WP:ELYES, as a primary source and a court document out of context, it may as well suits to the WP:ELNO #2; "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting". It is anyway not directly related to this discussion, as the issue is not the existence of the letter, but the fact it is a single court document used as a source. As a court document it should be regarded as a primary source, and be carefully handled that way. WP:PRIMARY states that "[u]nless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. (...) Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." As the policy allows use of primary sources under certain restricted conditions, I've listed the mentioned letter as a questionable sources. It is not an unconditionally go for using the sources, as the conditions mentioned in the policy (WP:PRIMARY) still have to be fulfilled, and it is reasonable to have a second look at the use of primary source in an article as heavily based on original research as this one. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no use of the letter in the body of the article, nor is there any interpretation. The link is provided as an appendix to the article rather than incorporating it into the article. It is a neutral set of facts: the WTS official procedure on Jehovah's Witnesses handling of child sex abuse, the exact subject of the article. BlackCab (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'conclusion' reached at the reliable sources noticeboard is largely Grrahnbahr's interpretation of responses to his own lengthy complaints there. Other editors didn't say such sources cannot be used. What other editors there did say:

• The supposed 'legality' (in Grrahnbahr's opinion) of 'leaked' sources does not make those sources 'inaccessible'.
• We need to be sure the quote is authentic. (However, the authenticity of the documents in question has not actually been challenged.)
• JW publications can be used as sources about their own beliefs and practices, though secondary sources quoting the originals are preferred.

The only real objection raised is that copies of the material online might disappear, however copies of the material are widely available online. Despite what Grrahnbahr has implied, there was no definite "conclusion" arrived at by other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab: You claimed it "is no use of the letter in the body of the article, nor is there any interpretation". Is that really so? The letter is listed as a reference, and the only reference, to the statement in the article: "'Privileges' may be restored to known child sex offenders if 'considerable time has passed,' at the discretion of local elders." (ref 25, current article version) It is also used to support the following statements: "Such a person is automatically debarred from serving in any appointed position in the congregation, however privileges can be restored in the future depending on whether he or she is deemed by the branch office to be a 'known molester'", and "However, whether or not a child abuser is deemed a 'known molester' is left to the discretion of the local branch. The October 1, 2012 letter to elders states, 'the branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether one who has sexually abused a child is considered a known child molester' and adds, 'It cannot be said in every case that one who has sexually abused a child could never qualify for privileges of service in the congregation". (ref 17 a and b, current version). As far as I can see, it is controversial claims based on highly selective quotation from a primary source. I've not looked to much into the "External links"-section for now, and the sources for even those highly controversial claims (ref 17 ab and 25), is only in my "questionable sources"-list, from my first post in this discussion. My main concern is that nearly the whole article is build on sources not regarded as RS, and as is listed in the upper part of my first post in this discussion.

Jeffro: Several editors were really clear about where the sources where accessible, and how it was used, has a major impact whether a source should be used or not: "We also care whether it is indeed the actual source. An alleged 'leaked copy' on some website somewhere is prima facie unreliable. An account of the contents of the book in a reliable secondary source, published by someone who has actually seen it, in a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is what we want." "After all, anyone can put anything on a website and claim that it is some super-secret doument. In the absence of some reason to believe in the authenticity we simply cannot use it." "Just one (belated) comment: Depending on what you're trying to support with this source, I think it would be much safer if you could find an outside secondary source that cites this source. In other words, instead of citing the internally published book to say that it says such and such, find a scholarly article or book that says that the internally published book says such and such." Did we actually read the same discussion from the notice board?

The authenticity doesn't matter if it can't be verified as a RS. The RS noticeboard is there for such matters, and letters and books for internal use, not published or by someone "who has actually seen it, in a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", was concluded not to be relied on as RS.

Regarding "JW publications can be used as sources about their own beliefs and practices, though secondary sources quoting the originals are preferred", I only partially agree. I agree to use of JW publications in general whitch is used in accordance to WP:PRIMARY. Quotes and content from classified JW publications and internal letters can only be used as a RS, if used by a reliable secondary source, as of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 119#"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" discussion at the RS noticeboard.Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unaware the letter had previously been cited. The citation should in that case be changed to a direct link, and the link deleted from the external links. I don't know, however, if the letter I added to the ELs (issued by the Australian branch to Australian bodies of elders) is identical to the 1 October 2012 letter cited by another editor. BlackCab (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Grrahnbahr, you seem to be hanging your interpretation on the statement that, "An alleged 'leaked copy' on some website somewhere is prima facie unreliable." You therefore seem to be misinterpreting the term prima facie, which means at first sight; it doesn't indicate anything absolute about the suitability of the sources in question. You know quite well that the sources in question are authentic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab: I thought it may was so. The letter used as a source are most likely the same or identical as the one listed in external links, as some of the quotes matches up for the referenced paragraphs (for 17 ab it is referenced to par. 15 and 22).

Jeffro: What I know about the authenticity of the letters, does not matter here. It is listed several letters as sources, and made claims about JW's handling of child sex abuse, without any further notices about the letter. It is obvious contributing to serious POV-issues to this article. The fact that large part of this article is build on original research, makes it neccesary to remove content build on those sources. Unless it is any intentions of replacing the sources, I'll start the job. I've been specific on what sources that obviously fails as RS (according to wikipedia policies, and the mentioned WP:RS discussion), and also made a maybe-list. The tag is an opportunity for you to take actions and make a suggestion how to fix the sources, but I won't keep the article like it is because you don't accept conclusions from the RS notice board. If you disagree to any of the sources I've listed in the first post (the maybe-list not included), then you have to be more specific of what sources you think of as RS and correctly used in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The RS discussion did not reach a definite conclusion as you claim. No one other than you said at the RS discussion that the sources cannot be used, although secondary sources are certainly preferred. And you have again indicated that the authenticity of the sources is not in question. You are correct that the article should not interpret those sources, but it is not inappropriate to quote those sources and let readers make up their own minds.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice you have raised no objection to references 47 and 48, which both provide quotes indicating that members are allowed to report abuse to secular authorities.

• Letter To All Bodies of Elders in the United States, February 15, 2002
• Letter To All Bodies of Elders in the United States, February 3, 1993

It appears that your rationale is not based strictly on the source, but rather, their content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice when making the list, but sure, the sources, like they stands now, are not good. If the letters are reused by any relyable secondary source, then these should be given up as the source for the claims. As the other letters are not concidered as RS as they stands, then the same applies to those two letters. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As already stated, secondary source are preffered. However, it is only your inference that the primary sources can't be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Most, if not all, the sources in the list from my first post in this discussion, the maybe-list not included, are not concidered as RS, according to the RS noticeboard as linked in my first post in this discussion. It doesn't matter if it's a primary source or a secondary source, if it can't be concidered as a RS. Claims without a RS are at risk of being deleted. I made the maybe-list, as I knew the possibility for somebody cavilling about the questionable sources to hail the process. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You are relying on your own conclusion at the RS noticeboard for your own determination of which sources are reliable. The other editors did not say those sources cannot be used.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The book, Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock is not an unpublished text. Rather, it is a bona fide publication of the Watch Tower Society. It is listed among other Watch Tower Publications in the Watch Tower Society's Publications Index, and referenced as a "publication" in The Watchtower of 15 January 1994, page 17: "Among such publications is the book “Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock,” which contains Scriptural guidelines and is provided for appointed congregation overseers, or elders."--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've readded the tag for Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. The book is not listed in any public libraries as I know about, is not in sale, and is not lent out by the publisher. I don't know what pdf you're referencing to, but the burden to prove that the book is accessible as a pdf at a reliable web site, is yours, or, of course if it should be available as a hardcopy in a library or in a book store. The fact that you claim to be able to verify it, doesn't help readers who can't access it. I've readded the tag until you've proven the book to be accessible for other readers offline, or at a reliable web site. As from the notice board discussion: "A text that is only distributed within an organization is not 'published'", "If the text has crept out, and others can get access to it whenever they take the trouble, e.g. it is made available in libraries to any user of those libraries, then the people making it available have, in effect, published it (but they may be asked to stop doing so). If the text has been copied on to a public website (not an intranet) then the owner of the website is publishing it (but, again, may be asked to stop doing so)." It is very hard to read this otherways than the text, as from the hardcopy of the book, never have been "published", as a source is recognized at RS notice board/wikipedia. If the text, or the claim-to-be-the-text, is made accessible through a public website, it have been "published" through the website, but then the reliability of the text relies on the public website, and the website should be listed as the source of the claim. From Wikipedia:Published: "The word derives from the Latin word meaning to make known publiCertain publications are limited to members in appointed positions, such as the manual for congregation elders, Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock.cly. Publication is the first threshold that all information must meet to be included in Wikipedia's articles. (...) To be considered published, the book must be distributed to the public in general, not to individuals." Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You're actually claiming that the quotes are not what the publication actually says?? Seriously? Sources do not have to be readily accessible by any particular person to be considered a reliable source. WP:SOURCEACCESS states, "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." The fact is that others have made the text available. You know quite well that there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the text that has been quoted from the publications in question. You want to have the sources removed because the book is 'supposed' to be 'secret'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You have still not listed where the publication is available. It's not a publication (I here use the term "publication" and "published" exclusively as used according to the definitions found at Wikipedia:Published) per se, as it have never been "published", as described in Wikipedia:Published: "It is necessary for the information to be made available to the public in general, not just to individual editors or selected groups of people", and "[a]n item that is or was never distributed to a public, is not considered 'published' by the Wikipedian definition". The book is not proven made available to the public in general. According to Jehovah's Witnesses publications#Literature for members, "[c]ertain publications are limited to members in appointed positions, such as the manual for congregation elders, Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock", as opposite to "[s]ome publications are typically distributed only to members, but may be supplied to other interested individuals on request or made available in public libraries. These include the biblical encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures and Jehovah's Witnesses' official history book Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom." You keeps assuming bad faith. Who are you, to tell me or anyone what my motivations for editing wikipedia, removing OR included, is? I have tagged the article, to give you and other editors a possibility to replace non-reliable sources, with reliable ones. For some claims, I'll may do so myself. If removing OR makes the article shorter, but more reliable, so be it, but like you're bahaving now, you're obstructing a neccessery removal of original research, and is refusing to cooperate, by removal of tags without clearify how the source is accessible, by request. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I very clearly indicated in the section below that I have no problem removing original research, but that is not the issue here. We are talking about quotations from source material that indicate the group's own rules, without exposition about the merits of those rules. That isn't original research. It is also not necessary to provide instructions about 'how sources are accessible'. If you can provide any good reason to doubt the veracity of the sourced material, do so. The content is readily available online at various locations; if actual text is disputed, anyone is welcome to prove otherwise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You claim to be concerned about original research, but instead of focusing on claims of critics, you are instead arguing at length about a JW publication that you think should be kept 'secret', even though the statements sourced from it are easily verifiable online and generally not even controversial. Perhaps you should focus on unsourced details rather than trying to censor the 'secret' book.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You have still not provided a reliable place for downloading the book. I've browsed through the link, and there are no link to a reliable place to download or buy the book. I do have objections for use of books distributed through unreliable web sites as jwleaks, jehovahs-witnesses.net and pirate bay, as those are not concidered as reliable. If you use jwleaks as a source, it is your call, but it is still not reliable, and will be reverted. Listing Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock as a source, when jwleaks are used, is not according to the conclusions from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 119#"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock". If other users can't verify the source through a reliable website or a library, bookstore or another accesible way, then the book is per se not published. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I provided links as a concession. It is not a requirement that a copy of the source meeting your requirements be easily accessible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'conclusion' at the Reliable sources noticeboard other than your own that suggest that unofficial publication of the source does not count. Other editors explicitly stated that unofficial distribution constitutes publication. There is no reason to doubt the content of the available source material, as it is typical of JW materials. If the available sources said something like "JWs eat kittens", obviously it would be suspect, but the available sources provide the actual text of the publication. You are welcome to provide any example of where the text has been altered.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As of the RS noticeboard, you may concider it published, but then not by WTS, but by pirate bay, jwleaks or similar: "The point is that if someone publishes unofficially what they claim to be a private document then we need to have a reputation for reliability on the part of the person publishing to allow us to use the thing published as an authentic copy of the private ducument. After all, anyone can put anything on a website and claim that it is some super-secret doument," and "[i]f the text has been copied on to a public website (not an intranet) then the owner of the website is publishing it (but, again, may be asked to stop doing so)". I asked for a specific clarification for citing the book, and asked: "If we are referencing a source using the book, shouldn't the source be given, rather than using the book as source?" User Andrew Dalby replied with a quick "Certainly. 'Say where you got it.'" How did that became my conclusion? RS noticeboard does not often use expressions as "strictly forbidden" when it comes to use of a source, and in RS noticeboard discussion it was said about documents uploaded to some website, "After all, anyone can put anything on a website and claim that it is some super-secret doument. In the absence of some reason to believe in the authenticity we simply cannot use it." User Andrew Dalby said "Wikipedia's problems with that are (a) it may be taken off the internet or withdrawn from library stock, in which case our citation can no longer be verified, (b) in the case of the web copy, we can't verify that the copy is accurate." Whatever and however you boil this down, you could concider the book as a) per se unpublished, as of wikipedia:published, or b) you could concider a web copy as published, but unless published by a source with a known "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", the web copy should be adressed as the source, and then it still won't be a RS, and the content the source should support, is still at stake. It is still actually a c) If quoted by a RS, both sources should be listed, as in "Shepherd the Flock of God, as quoted by (somebody else) in (a RS). Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Say where you got it" is in reference to when the book is quoted by someone else. For example, Franz sometimes quotes from the publication, and in such instances, the citation would say that it was from the book as cited by Franz. When a citation is from the actual book, it isn't necessary to indicate what particular copy of the book the citation is from. In any case, you don't have any basis for claiming that the quotes in the article were obtained from web copies of the book rather than the physical book. You have not indicated any reason for doubting the authenticity of any particular quote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the editor who started this section (who ultimately disagreed with your conclusion) did so after they were informed on a Wikipedia IRC channel[3] about the original 'complaint' on the RS noticeboard. Can you confirm that it was not you who re-initiated the discussion using IRC to avoid a trail on Wikipedia talk pages?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents: The definition of "published" is clear and thus the textbook in question is not according to Wiki's guidelines. Thus it does appear that what Grrahnbahr states is correct regardless of whether the quotes of the book are accurate or not. The book is copyrighted and any links on the Net would be illegal. If an agreement can not be made take it up with an arbitrary, since this isn't that difficult of an issue. But as Jeffro77 said they are bigger fishes to catch. So many articles are bias and need much help! Johanneum (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Citing a book, or quoting small excerpts from a book, is not a breach of copyright. Though the published copies on the Internet may not comply with copyright law, that does not mean that the quotes used in the article were not sourced from a physical copy of the book. I suggested previously that an uninvolved editor decide on the suitability of the sources (and, in fact, the person who started this section made such an assessment and agreed that the sources are usable).--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you two understand the position of the other or not. Don't think that copyright was an issue but will let Grrahnbahr answer that. Johanneum (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You raised the matter of copyright, but you're correct that it's not directly relevant. The fact is that, although the book is 'supposed' to be accessible only by JW 'elders', that is simply not the reality. As such, its content is not especially difficult to verify, and ease of access isn't even a determining factor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question about copyright. We're quoting published material as a source, according to policies and fair use. The issue is that this specific publication, aloing with a lot of letters, are not accessible from non-elders, other that alleged leaked copies in wiki-leak-style. It fails Wikipedia:published, and is thus not regarded a VS. The book and the letters used to build parts of this article, have been discussed at the linked RS noticeboard discussion. The clear advice from several users at the notice board, was not to use the book (actually two distinct elders manual-books) as source. User Jeffro77 was a part of the discussion himself. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep making claims that there was "clear advice" not to use the sources. That is not the case, and you're going around in circles. Continue reading from my reply above from 5 August starting with "The 'conclusion' reached at the reliable sources noticeboard is largely Grrahnbahr's interpretation...".--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at how the article might look if the information based on all the sources suggested by Grrahnbahr were to be removed. It might make the first half of the (much shorter) article sound a bit like a PR piece, but overall the article might not be too bad. That said, I still do not agree that the elder's books cannot be used, because these are fairly easily verified online, and there's been no meaningful challenge to their authenticity. The Letters to Elders are a little harder to verify, and these could probably be removed without too much detriment to the article (though these can still be used where cited by another source). Other claims by unsourced anonymous 'critics' can also be removed; strictly speaking they can be removed at any time, but preferably after allowing some time since they were tagged (perhaps a month or so).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The letter to elders dated 1 October 2012 that was distributed by the Australian branch is certainly verifiable. The WTS has submitted it to a Victorian government inquiry and it has been posted on that inquiry's website. BlackCab (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

BlackCab: Regarding the letter dated 1 October 2012, I've not (at least not intentionally) tagged them as OR, because it seems to be accessible through a verifiable source. As a reprinted document (not reworked, as in a book or a newspaper) it is though a primary source, and should be handled as one. A statement like "'Privileges' may be restored to known child sex offenders if 'considerable time has passed,' at the discretion of local elders" is may not careful use of a primary source.

Jeffro: You can still keep advocating why it shouldn't be used, but the issue is already raised at the RS noticeboard, and you was actually participating in the discussion. There are no significant changes regarding its status as published since the noticeboard discussion.Grrahnbahr (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Other editors at the RS noticeboard didn't say what you concluded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that the conclusions reached at the RS noticeboard were not as absolute as you say. However, in the interests of making some progress on this issue, how about you go ahead and make the changes to the article as you see fit. And then we can determine if the article still presents the issues neutrally, or if it comes across primarily as a PR piece.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't see this one before the WP:ANI was posted. There are several issues mentioned, and this specific issue demand a fully compliance to the notice board discussion, so we don't need to repeat this discussion. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Each of your accusations at ANI are either false or misleading.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand what I have previously said about the RS noticeboard discussion, so I will try to be clear.

• Editors at the RS noticeboard provided general advice, and did not say that the sources in question cannot be used.
• Though the souces can be easily verified online and the authenticity of the text has not been challenged, it is not a requirement that sources be easily verifiable.
• I am not the only editor who considered the discussion at the RS noticeboard and determined that the sources can be used (though the letters are not as easy to verify as the books).
• I am not required to 'agree' with your interpretation of the general advice at the RS noticeboard discussion.
• Despite the fact that I don't agree with you, I told you to go ahead with your edits anyway.
• You have made no attempt to improve the article since, and you have made it your main aim to attack my motives instead.

Please get on with improving the article, if that is actually your intent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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.--Jeffro77 (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".--Jeffro77 (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".[4]. 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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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[5]. 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."--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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 [6], 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Published. This case is already discussed at the RS noticeboard, as linked here: [7]. 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'.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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'.--Jeffro77 (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 Wikipedia:How to delete a page:

• Bear the following things in mind:

It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough.

• 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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links and "See also"

External links

I suggest to consider removal some of the external linking, and to remove the categories for supportive and critical linking in this section. There are already problems regardig the supportive links witch leads to the jw.org-site, as all of the links leads directly to the main site, and not respectively to the videos, the pressrelease etc. The letter of October 1, 2012 is added as supportive, but is used both ways.

The article from Christianity today needed subscriptions, and is already removed (if used in the article, it may have to be readded as an inline reference. The article published by wired.com, I first thought was from a blog, but it seems some content is accetable as RS according to the RS noticeboard. Any views here? The other article, now names "Transcript" in the EL-section, is published by CNN, but the quality of the article is terrible, and "transcript" seems to be a pretty much literal description. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

See also

Three to four out of sex links here do have no or marginal connection to the topic. Since the "See also"-guideline open up for linking that do not is directly related to the topic, it is a consideration to take, but I think it is overlinked here. I suggest to reconsider all the links in this section, and pick out one or a few only. Listed from one to six, three to five seems to have marginal connection to the topic at all, and the last one is about a group appearently working against policies, whereas some are disputed wheather are policies at all (like "two witnesses"-policy vs "required by law"-practice). Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:20, 3 July 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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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.)--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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.--Jeffro77 (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 [8] and the link to the opening address at [9]. 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)

(edit conflict)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 @75Janice:, 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)

Sources

Previously[10], citations relating to a number of letters and internal books used by the Watch Tower Society regarding policies relating to Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse have been removed from Wikipedia articles by some editors, on the basis that 'leaked' copies of the letters were "questionable" and could not be regarded as "published". The relevant letters and other material have since been published[11] as part of the Australian Royal Commission, and can therefore be cited and linked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)