Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Shunning disaffected victims

A point brought out in the Australian Royal Commission is that victims who leave the religion as a result of circumstances related to JW handling of abuse are shunned. For example:

• where the process of questioning the victim within the rules imposed by the religion has been distressing to the victim;
• where the victim's abuser has been allowed to remain in the congregation due to 'only one witness' or is deemed 'repentant' by elders;
• where a 'faded' victim is learned to have later committed some 'sin' and does not comply with arrangements for a 'judicial meeting'.

The painfully tedious extraction of Geoffrey Jackson's acknowledgement that those who formally leave are shunned and that those who 'fade' are considered by elders to remain subject to JW policies is found in the testimony of day 155.

This should probably be mentioned in the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the points you've raised, I'm not convinced it's a good fit. Those situations are hypothetical rather than actual policy and that would need to be made clear in the article. Jackson was hardly forthcoming on any of this and it's not a very strong basis for stating those possibilities as encyclopedic fact. BlackCab (TALK) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it warrants its own section, nor did I suggest that it is a 'policy'. However, it is "an encyclopedic fact" that this was raised as a concern during the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like wait until the commission publishes its findings, rather than including hypothetical raised for the sake of investigation. Your first concern is not universal. For example in United States its perfectly legal to use corporal punishment as long as child does not get handicapped. Similarly, their is no limit on questioning the victim. Secular male lawyers would ask intimate questions, like "what object did he put into your vagina" in the case of candice conti. In Australia it may be illegal. Elders are instructed to not ask intimate question when talking to child victims regardless, and now they are analyzing the possibility of using women/letter in conveying the evidence from victim. Your second concern is disputable, especially because church discipline is based on religious beliefs. If the victim is not happy with ecclesiastical tribunal they should go to secular authorities, rather than expecting church to go to police. In fact they should first call the police for criminal offenses instead of calling elders. Similarly I don't agree that the possibility of expulsion for being critical would silence the victim from reporting to authorities, especially when church says that they are free to approach police. From a secular standpoint shunning may be emotionally destructive, but members have a commitment and they made an informed choice when they are being vociferously critical. I don't think even any secular organizations would allow someone to continue if they are publicly critical of their management. This is also true in the case of other policies for example blood transfusions. Personal religious beliefs cannot be changed just because secular authorities think its cruel or stupid. Roller958 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comments don't address Jeffro's point and instead seem aimed at justifying the processes of the JWs. You also seem to be unaware that JWs are commonly disfellowshipped and shunned even after just "fading" and then living a quiet lifestyle free of the restrictions and prohibitions imposed at the whim of the religion's leaders. Many have been disfellowshipped and shunned without any hint of "vociferous" criticism. And while you're correct that many organisations may not tolerate continued membership by an individual who is "publicly critical", I am aware of none that subsequently instruct that no member of the organisation, including family, ever speak or write to them again, or greet them. That conduct is limited to cults such as Scientology, Unification Church, Exclusive Brethren and Peoples Temple. A royal commission has every right to draw attention to such "cruel" practices particularly when the fear of shunning might lead to victims of sexual abuse remaining silent. BlackCab (TALK) 23:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

JWs don't disfellowship individuals who fade. They disfellowship, if an individual is going against Bible principles. You said "whims" of leaders, its actually based on "whims" of Bible. The so called leaders themselves are following the "whims" of the Bible. Hey if a member don't want to submit to the constitution of Bible, then he fundamentally got it wrong by joining the religion. That is the question of Universal Sovereignty, according to JW theology. Royal commission can reinterpret Bible and force witnesses to socialize with disfellowshipped individuals. Or they can force the religion to not shun individuals who are being critical. However, anyone with a half brain in the legal system won't do that, because of ecclesiastical abstinence doctrine in democratic countries. Even if they did so nobody in JWs will ever socialize with former members/apostates. Because they would follow what the Bible says, especially when their is a conflict with secular law. GB cannot and will not create a teaching fundamentally contrary to Bible according to the "whims" and "fantasies" of some critics. Think about Satan the devil, he is said to be shunned "kept in darkness" by faithful angels, very cruel isn't it? In ancient Israel the penalty for apostasy/leaving Jehovah was death by stone, at-least Christians have a better policy. The breathless efforts by critics to destroy the organization have so far a big zero impact on ground, and so nowadays they take comfort/gnashing teeth by predicting the failure of the organization in near future. haha Roller958 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not essential to wait until the Commission publishes its findings. It would be good to wait until the idea I've raised has been mentioned in news sources (although cases of former victims being shunned in similar circumstances probably are already available in other sources). Even then, I'm only suggesting that the concept warrants a sentence or two.

I never said anything about 'corporal punishment', and a lot of the other stuff you said that is completely unrelated and therefore warrants no reply. It doesn't matter how justified you or anyone else believes the shunning to be. It is simply a statement of fact that it can happen, and one that was raised as a specific concern of the Royal Commission.

I did not say that JWs disfellowship people who 'fade' just because they have 'faded'. The point (raised by Angus Stewart and repeated by me) was that JW elders consider people who have 'faded' to still be subject to JW rules and in the event that a 'faded' person (who might still have contact with their JW relatives and/or JW friends) is considered by the elders or other JWs to have committed some 'sin' (which is not limited to 'vociferous criticism' but could apply to celebrating Christmas, accepting a blood transfusion, attending another church, expressing political opinions or a bunch of other entirely normal things) may then be disfellowshipped (or 'considered to have disassociated by their actions) and shunned. It is a complete misrepresentation of what I said (and more importantly, of what Angus Stewart said) to imply that this is merely about faded JWs being shunned (even though that also sometimes does happen).

The claim about 'whims of the Bible' rather than 'whims of the leaders' is also misleading, since the 'sins' are based on the Governing Body's interpretations of the Bible, with various degrees of vagueness for different issues, and some that aren't mentioned in the Bible at all. And the 'rules' that existed at the time a person 'joined' (which may have been the actions of a coerced child who felt they had no other choice) may not even be the same 'rules' that exist at a later time.

The claim that the Royal Commission could "force witnesses to socialize with disfellowshipped individuals" is just stupid. The claim that no JW ever socialises with someone who is disfellowshipped/disassociated is also an ignorant blanket statement. But that also is entirely irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can add whatever you want, expect rebuttals. I don't want to continue a lengthy rebuttal in talk. My primary focus is that JWs see GB as a part of authority structure, not as tyrannical rulers. Members know the genuineness/sacrifice of the people in the HQ. GB cannot interpret scriptures differently in things that are openly mentioned in the Bible like shunning. If they did so, nobody will follow the organization. Its like a democratic country, people are supposed to be obedient to the countries constitution willingly out of patriotism, at the same time they also needs to be obedient to the interpretation of the constitution which is done by elite few judges of supreme court. Those who cannot follow the law will be punished according to the law. Similarly JWs follow Bible as a constitution, somethings mentioned directly in constitution cannot be changed even by the GB, but in other matters the decision by GB is expected to be followed. GB themselves are abiding by their teaching. As simple as that is. Shunning is such a fundamental thing in Bible, like God's name is Jehovah. Not a royal commission, not anyone can change that belief. Roller958 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The way JWs 'regard the Governing Body' is not relevant to the subject at hand. Nor are your continued attempts to 'justify' shunning, including the implied claim that the scriptures that JWs use to support shunning cannot be interpreted any other way.

You felt it necessary to explicitly state in the article that disfellowshipped offenders are shunned (with no thought of reporting the individual to authorities, leaving them free to re-offend in the wider community—another concern raised by the Royal Commission), but you seem opposed to having the article acknowledge that the organisation's procedures can also result in shunning of victims, even though this concern has been specifically raised by the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The specific issue in question has already been reported in the media.[1]--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Shunning is such a fundamental thing in Bible, like God's name is Jehovah". This will be why shunning was so much of the focus of Jesus' teachings, and why other Christian denominations identify shunning and the name "Jehovah" as their primary doctrines. Apart from the manipulative cults I identified earlier, I can't think of any religion that is so fixated with "disciplining" members, nor so enthusiastic about a biblical interpretation in which billions of people who either (a) choose not to join or (b) have never heard of a certain minority religion will be slaughtered by an angry and jealous god. Pleasure comes in many strange forms, I guess. BlackCab (TALK) 02:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

True Christians are ought to be distinct, and will strive to follow Christ closely. They don't practice war, display love to one another, are united and they will worship the only true God. Nowadays the name Jesus is identical to "forgiveness", and preachers become millionaires by "tickling the ears" of people. Selfish people not only want to continue enjoying the "temporary pleasure of sin" but also want to go to heaven. Others are too proud to be submissive to authority or discipline, which they think as a burden. They lean on their "own wisdom" as if their own wisdom is superior to that of God's, by doing so promoting the original independent thinker Satan the devil himself. To the contrary Jesus is said to be coming to execute vengeance (far worse than shunning). In revelation he is described as a warrior killing people. He is the one who asked us to consider unrepentant one to be "a man of nations". As JWs we don't want our members to be executed directly by Jesus for practicing sin that would cause them permanent death. So in that sense disfellowshipping is a loving arrangement, much better than punishments under law covenant, further evidenced by the fact that many chose to comeback (Except those "who are not our sort"). Roller958 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The counsel assisting the royal commission did an excellent job of highlighting how the Governing Body arbitrarily choose which parts of the old and new testaments should apply to the modern day. If the GB did decide that stoning adulterers was actually still required by God, or that it was permissible for an inebriated man to have sex with his daughters or for pregnant "rebellious" woman to be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16) I'm sure you'd be able to justify that as well. BlackCab (TALK) 04:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Roller958, there are plenty of denominations who believe just as strongly that "They don't practice war, display love to one another, are united and they will worship the only true God". It's entirely irrelevant. And the tenuous attempt at trying to make shunning sound like "a loving arrangement" is laughable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Blackcab You know clearly that we are not under Mosaic law, and we only follow the principles involved there. Overall I feel the GB member and service department elder did a very good job, and finally commission was forced to focus on minor issues. (like using only men, redress scheme etc). The thing is JWs don't have any programs that separate children from parents, which is the primary cause of abuse in churches. @Jeffro77 I didn't attempt, I just said what I believe. For me Jehovah does not provide answers to every sort of questions, I can see with my eyes the difference among JWs. Other things are a matter of faith, without faith its not possible to please God. He is giving a fair ground for Satan to prove his point, so he doesn't give point by point rebuttals or convincing signs in heaven. So my choice is the best I have in this world, others are free to think other way. We cannot make everyone happy, its even true in the case of any democratic country. There is always some who oppose certain laws or fight against interpretations. Roller958 (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if JWs don't have the truth, I would rather associate with group of people who are genuine and had it right in most doctrines of Bible. I feel Bible is far superior than other religious books. On the other side science is not going to answer my questions. I recently met an ex-JW while on service by myself who said I am young, so he felt compassion, and wanted to convince me that preaching is not necessary and its not necessary to follow "everything" what the GB says. He said he don't like to be controlled by anybody. He build his theory based on the premise that I was forced to follow the religion by my parents. For me knocking door-to-door and following Bible laws is a pleasure, not a burden. I don't serve God expecting a reward of paradise, I serve him because of the gift of life I enjoy, even in this imperfect world. Have to end the conversation with him after an hour of unproductive talk. The thing is everyone in the Universe except Jehovah is under some form of control by an authority, and you can never evade that authority/discipline. True happiness belongs to those who are willingly being obedient to God, and Jehovah has given enough freedom to enjoy life. Ex-JWs often misunderstand that we are forced or coerced, if anything I am forced by is what I read in the Bible not by the GB/WTS/Elders/Family. Roller958 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from a distorted summary of the JWs' performance at the Royal Commission, both of your replies contain nothing but preachy waffling. It's not remotely clear how your anecdote of some random person you met once has to do with anything. No one is telling you what to believe, and no one here needs to know what you believe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree we've diverted from the topic on discussion. But, I am surprised you didn't added "straw-man" this time, the hallmark of ending things. Hahaha Roller958 (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It was late at night and I had limited time. But don't worry, I'll point out your straw men when necessary. :) On a more serious note, the claim that the "commission was forced to focus on minor issues" suggests you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved, and the suggestion that "the GB member and service department elder did a very good job" is not consistent with the fact that they had to be asked repeatedly to actually answer the questions put to them, sometimes with McClellan or Stewart just giving up because the JW representatives wouldn't give direct answers. Add to that the fact McClellan's impression that he was deliberately misled by the branch overseer and the Watch Tower lawyer about Jackson's role, and McClellan's statement that "Now, I don't know of any other religious organisation which, which is how this is framed, which has the processes with the flaws that we have identified in the Jehovah's Witnesses", and it is clear that it was certainly not a case of 'only minor issues'. (Not to mention Jackson's uninformed arrogant comparison of JWs with "your churches where people just go to church and don't talk to one another".)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The claimed flaws were related to

• Would elders not reporting single witness allegation would further damage the victim? The answer was that elders conscience should move them to report if they think the child is still in absolute danger, otherwise encourage the family to report. They will come up with a written clear direction in future. This is a minor issue because the victim can go to police regardless, not just rely on an ecclesiastical tribunal which has a limited power.
• Use of only men in investigation would be emotionally damaging? The answer is that they are considering using women/letter in future. This is also a minor issue, many young ones may feel to talk directly to elders (elders don't ask intimate questions). Parents or guardian can be present in JC proceedings of a minor .
• Redresses scheme? Yes we are considering that.

These three issues were the ones judge was particularly interested in. Others were raised by the counsel, but not commented on by Judge Roller958 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is better to defer to sources rather than your own assessment of what you think is a 'minor issue'. Additionally, the flaws in the process indicated by the judge are not limited to his questions to Jackson; actually various issues were raised on each of the days of testimony.

The issue I raised in this section has been raised in secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation in Australia

The current public hearings in Australia are still missing from the article. Here are some sources that may be relevant:

• http://www.smh.com.au/national/jehovahs-witnesses-did-not-report-1006-alleged-sex-abusers-to-police-royal-commission-told-20150727-gil1u7.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/27/jehovahs-witnesses-destroyed-notes-about-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-told
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/child-abuse-royal-commission-jehovahs-witnesses-reveals-fathers-abuse/story-fngburq5-1227460242035?nk=7493ae2ad2f719a1e7ea05752593e5e8-1438085098
• http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/royal-commission-jehovahs-witness-sex-predator-reinstated-20150728-gilug6.html

Xanipnip (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree to include some points here. I read through commission proceedings and I would wait until the commission publishes its findings. So does the proverb says, "the first to speak in court sounds right, until the cross-examination begins". The news reports that "1006 people where unreported to police" doesn't mention that not even one of them includes mandatory reporting cases. This is in accordance with the church policy that only when mandated or for extreme cases they will report to authorities, otherwise they will let the victim to decide whether to report, respecting victim's privacy. Fazilfazil (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The news report does not specify whether mandatory reporting was required or not. It's not clear where you get the idea that "not even one" includes mandatory reporting. It also would not be neutral to stipulate 'respecting victim's privacy' as the reason for not reporting as anything other than a stated view of a primary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I read an article where a news report did say that they are not sure if any of them is a failure to report when its mandatory. But I lost the source. We will wait and see, I am sure the commission would mention that as a serious offense if indeed they found so. I personally don't think the WTS with a strong legal team in every country, would won't report when its legally required. Especially because they have no problem with it. Also most countries don't even have that requirement, I am sure some locations in Australia still don't have mandatory reporting. In united states currently almost all states have mandatory reporting. I read through the proceeding for past four days, and it looks like the commission is concerned about the requirement for victim to meet the abuser than anything else. WTS stated at the end of the 4th day that their policy have evolved and currently victims have choice to not approach the abuser (implied in the defense statement that some victims like to approach and others don't), for which commission asked for a documentation.Fazilfazil (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The United States does not have mandatory reporting in most states. Also, concerning the reputation of the innocent. Law enforcement authorities must investigate claims and protect confidential matters as much as possible. In the United States, and I suspect other nations whose laws derive from British common law, there is a qualified exemption from liability for libel to report matters to law enforcement officials and public officials. In fact, few states in the United States have mandatory reporting requirements for clergy. I feel that an important issue for this article is that Witnesses assert clergy/pentinet confidentality for confession. Privilege is being narrowly construed these days. The only place where courts still recognize strong privilege is in lawyer/client relationships. Clery/pentinet confidentiality law is not appropriately used when there is more than one clergy present and other hallmakrs are missing. Besides, Witnesses have no confession. One of the reasons that clergy mandatory reporting was enacted in the few states that do have mandatory reporting is to make this matter clear. Statutes place churches on notice that past conduct in not reporting can not be excused by the privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if that source is located, 'not sure' is not the same as "not even one of them includes mandatory reporting cases". And even if reporting is not mandatory, it does not prevent a moral obligation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Again we will see if 'any one of them' was even a case of mandatory reporting once the commission publishes its findings. Regarding your claim on moral obligation, why would anyone go and confess to elders if they know that next day it will be informed to police? It would undoubtedly discourage them to approach elders for help. On the other hand if the elders reported to cops and what if an allegation by a single witness proved to be false after investigated by police? Elders will definitely regret for what they did, the damage caused to innocent individual. In many lands adultery is illegal. So should that be reported to police as well, even when they have a single witness? The victim is free to approach police if church says no internal action can be taken. WTS never told to the elders that don't report when its not mandatory. Rather they inform that its not legally required, but some elders may chose to report when its not mandatory. The bottom-line is that threat perception gives moral obligation for elders to report to authorities. Church is for spiritual assistance and internal discipline, and ultimately its up to the member to decide to report a crime or not. Fazilfazil (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexual assault of a minor is significantly worse than 'adultery' involving consenting adults, and should be investigated. I suppose if someone is accused of murder the police shouldn't investigate either, just in case it's not true.

The victim is hardly 'free' to approach police. JWs are 'discouraged' from 'taking a brother to court' and 'bringing reproach on the organisation'. There is a great deal of pressure on JWs to not report abuse or other criminal activities commmitted by other JWs to the police. On top of that existing stigma, elders do not even suggest to victims that they report to the police. And they do not generally suggest counseling by professional psychologists either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I never seen any case where a murder was not reported at-least by the victim. If your logic is right then why did the victim took him to court? Of course we are encouraged to follow law of the land. The problem is how child abuse is viewed by the victim or his/her family, whether it is as serious as murder is? It depends on a lot of factors, for example the culture and the country they live. If the victim chose to forgive and solve amicably then elders are there to arbitrate. what if it was incest and so they don't want to take it forward? Majority of child abuse cases are incest. A lot of awareness we have now and many victims view it as a serious crime now. And I agree elders who are not familiar with the policy or some who are overzealous may have rarely discouraged victim to not go to the court. But things have changed and I would report if I handle a case today. Fazilfazil (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sexual abuse of a child is something that very significantly affects the psycho-sexual development of a person, and it is extremely unusual that you do not understand how such a traumatic event might result in court action even despite the social pressure imposed by the JW stigmatisation of external reporting. Your attitude toward the seriousness of sexual abuse of children is deplorable and I am not comfortable continuing to discuss the subject with you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(Just re-reading through this page, I noticed Fazilfazil's suggestion that murder is usually reported by the victim. That's made my day.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Did I say I think its less serious as murder is? No. Bible in fact categorizes sexual immorality as serious as murder. What I am saying is that many people and in many countries they don't consider it as serious as murder. So victims may not decide to report, especially if its within their family. It has nothing to do with the organization, scoffers and media would love to color it that way. Just like they complained about Jesus, stating "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!'. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her deeds." JWs consider child abuse serious and that's why they take judicial action. Its up to the victim/family to decide if they want to pursue secular action. And our policies are refining over time, seeking the best for its members. Opposers would take delight in finding faults, like all their other complaints "Russel abandoned his wife, Rutherford was a drunkard, Franz can't read Hebrew, they changed dates, they changed teachings, WTS is autocratic" and so on. They are interested in finding faults, and we know what happened to the ultimate fault finder. Right hearted people are not shaken by all these and can see through all these, that the intention of the organization is pure. I have read all these material online, about every sort of ex-witness stuff, and it haven't even cast any doubt in the organization and the Bible. Rather it have helped me to strengthen my faith. You are welcome to stop the conversation. Fazilfazil (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And therein lies your problem Fazil. You can't even be remotely objective on this issue, and your changes tend to reflect this. Vyselink (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bible categorizes picking up sticks on a Saturday as serious as murder. It is not a reliable guideline. (However, your objection about murder was misdirection because I actually referred to your characterisation of child abuse being comparable to adultery.) The policies are clearly not seeking the best for members, as is clearly evident from the JW-related depositions to the Royal Commission ongoing in Australia and various other cases worldwide. The policies are seeking the best for the organisation.

The latter part of your comments about "opposers" (JW jargon) is nothing but irrelevant preachy rhetoric.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I still stand on the point that the organization is doing the best for children. Anyone can go to police if they want to report, although many don't chose to. On the contrary, if the organization have to report all allegations when its not mandatory, then its less likely anyone who don't want to go to police will ever get any help. As I understood you are an atheist, then sure I have no point on preaching anything from Bible. Because there is no God, so we humans have to set the laws. In 1950s human standard said homosexuality is bad. And today human standards say homosexuality is okay, and tomorrow they may ask to legalize incest (Some Germans are on track already) or even legalize child pornography (which was in Japan). Satisfy all our desires for tomorrow we will die right. At least I have a strong purpose and hope about future, which no one can take away. Fazilfazil (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow... So many idiotic statements in such a short paragraph...

Emotions can overtake your reasoning. Nothing else to say. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The organisation clearly isn't doing enough. It expressly refused to do enough when their database of abusers was subpoenaed by the US courts and the Watch Tower Society refused to co-operate. Not only does the policy not tell elders to report all abuse, but it also does not instruct elders to recommend that victims report abuse to authorities. The policy still requires for victims (usually young women) to testify in explicit detail to a group of (usually old) unqualified men (who are also often friends of the abuser), and victims can also be expected to face their abuser in meetings with the elders. Victims are also considered to be potential 'sinners', being asked questions such as whether they enjoyed the abuse. Terrible, terrible policy. In Australia, the Royal Commission has identified over 1000 individual abusers (more than the number of congregations in the country) who were not reported by JW elders to authorities.

The reason why they refused to do so, is because a lot of things are confidential and victims have the right for privacy. Have you ever heard the legal term Phishing Expedition? Read it if not. In the Candace Conti case, the court itself said that churches don't need to inform things to anyone else unless required by law. Its an age old practice where people trust church for advice and counsel. I would say in her case at the end she probably got nothing other than her legal cost, since its SHE who gave up after WT proceeded to supreme court with an opening brief. Read that discussion reply #8 if you want to know. There is nothing called clergy malpractice. Its up to the state do decide if they should make mandatory reporting. That's because elders' job is not to decide if the abuser should be put to jail, their job is to comfort victim, protect the congregation from immoral influences and apply internal discipline. The very fact that we keep 1006 records show that we take all allegations seriously, and take appropriate action when necessary. Our policy have refined over time, and so we are not perfect. You will see that on the 1st and 4th day proceedings, according to current policy the victims don't need to meet the accuser, they will take a letter from victim deemed sufficient. Elders are also specifically instructed to NOT ask intimate questions. Current policy even let the elders make the parents in the congregation aware of abuser if they see their kids are in absolute danger (see 1st day proceeding p.76 of royal commission) . In united states recently two young children aged 11-13 were sent to jail for killing their dad's girlfriend. So your implied claim that children's testimony is always absolutely true is not substantiated. Though all these are only for the sake of church discipline, victim can still go to police. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's called obstruction of justice when refusing to provide such information to law enforcement. Also, was not referring to the Conti case—strawman. Additionally, any claim of JW elders relying on 'clergy-penitent privilege' is already breached when elders reveal that information to other elders, including the branch office.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The primary reasons that many JWs don't 'choose' to report is because they are indoctrinated to believe that they 'shouldn't take a 'brother' to court', that they should not 'bring reproach on the organisation' and should not trust 'worldy' authorities and professionals.

Do we have a statistic report on how many of those 1006 never went to police by means of victim? Did they ask all those people why they didn't went to police if not. Why didn't they publish that with the same vigor? Because its prosecutions natural legal tactic to present its initial claims in the most favorable way for their advantage. Its notable that the report said only ONE individual was discouraged by an elder, contrary to official policy. We are discouraged to not go to court for civil cases primarily (like dispute for land), not when its a criminal crime of the land. Like murder. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Strawman. Behaviour of private individuals out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. If you acknowledge that elders should report where it is mandatory, it's not at all clear why you imagine there should be some double standard of not reporting when they don't have to report to secular authorities. Unless you think it shouldn't be mandatory to report anywhere.

My stand is that elders would report only if they think its a situation where the child is in absolute danger. It all depends on the situation as directed by service department. For example if both parents are abusing the child. I have at least one media report where an elder handed over an abuser to police. If every report is send to police then, many cases will go unreported out of fear of facing legal sanctions. For example if the father is the abuser and he confessed and asked forgiveness to the child, then its up to the family to report, why we overstep that trust the family has on elders? --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion of hypothetical situations is not relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Even in the absence of elders reporting the abuse, elders should specifically encourage victims to report abuse to secular authorities rather than deluding themselves into thinking it is suitable to just 'not discourage' reporting. They won't do this because it contradicts the impression they want to give that their 'organisation' is 'superior' to 'the world'.

We make it absolutely clear that the victim have the right to go to police. What if we encourage them and then it was proved that the claim was a lie. How will elders bring back the lost reputation of the innocent.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the more likely outcome in a scenario of a false report would be for the person to admit it's a lie rather than follow through with a frivolous official report to police. "We"? Asserting yourself as a primary source suggests a conflict of interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The religious laws that you follow were also developed by humans, and the anthropological development of such systems that regulate behaviour in societies is not a mystery. My religious beliefs are not relevant to the discussion.

Ya. But I want to make a point that you can claim that your belief is superior to others. But I won't buy it, just like you wont buy mine --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You can believe what you like, but there is no evidence in support of your position.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. The claim that "In 1950s human standard said homosexuality is bad" is idiotically simplistic, does not reflect all societies, and falsely implies that homosexuality was universally condemned in all societies throughout human history prior to that time. Aside from that, it's irrelevant anyway.

In ancient Rome men would lay down with young boys. It was not universally condemned, so its okay right? Only because Christianity had a big influence on politics that practice changed. Then I don't see why the day will come when man made standards will say, okay young boys can sleep with men. Only wait and watch, things are getting so better each day --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Strawman. There are many cultures throughout history that have had no problems with consensual homosexual activity among adults.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. It is a frequent tactic of religious fundamentalists to conflate consensual homosexual activity with situations where consent is not possible such as pedophilia (including incest) or bestiality.Entirely irrelevant and bombastically stupid. (This idiocy was attempted in a recent 'JW Broadcasting' video that promotes a 1982 Awake! article that incorrectly associated homosexuality with child sexual abuse, completely ignoring the fact that girls are most frequently the victims of abuse. The false information in the JW video may even be your reason for drawing the false connection.)

We never said rape/child sexual abuse is always consensual. Like fundamentalists not all atheist are so good. Some convince themselves as atheists just to don't feel guilty when they commit adultery, homosexuality or sexual immorality.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Response is nonsensical, and again conflates consensual and nonconsensual behaviours as 'sin'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Consensual incest among adults (which is the subject of the current discussion in Germany), whilst not something I like the sound of personally, would be an entirely separate issue, and is irrelevant to a discussion about child sex abuse. There are also several instances in the Bible where incest is endorsed.

Bible doesn't endorse incest between siblings anyway.--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Genesis 20:12.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

After your misguided rant, you finish by spouting about the satisfaction your religious beliefs bring you, again falsely suggesting that anyone without your religious beliefs can't possibly have 'hope' or 'purpose'. This too is not at all relevant to the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you may have a hope. Though I have no hope human governments will ever solve our problems. I quit, its just an exhausting conversation. I got other things to do man. --Fazilfazil (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I really hope you have quit making these irrational statements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Man, I have a full-time career. I have personal projects in addition to congregation responsibilities and more goals for full-time Bethel service. Wikipedia is not one of my hobby like yours. I feel like what Jesus' said at times "wisdom is proved righteous by its deeds", we can go on an on. For some things all you have to do is let it go. That's why I don't want to do edit wars like I used to do before. I only show up when I see an absolute need to clarify misstatements. User:Vyselink have commented that I am being irrational with my edits, he doesn't know that many of my past changes in JWs article have been significant in terms of keeping a balance and they are still there Fazilfazil (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All of us have other responsibilities. For the purposes of Wikipedia, your "congregation responsibilities" and "goals for full-time Bethel service" are no more important than any other editor's obligations; however, they do intensify a perception of a conflict of interest on the subject at hand.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with improving the article and is a misuse of the article talk page. Either get back on track or take your discussion to a forum somewhere else. BlackCab (TALK) 11:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion relates directly to a POV that Fazilfazil would like the article to present.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

However, Fazilfazil has now made a complete mess of the structure of the discussion. There are clearly so many problems with Fazilfazil's interleaved responses that it is not worth continuing to rebut him here. However, any attempt to add the inappropriate ideas to the article will result in removal of the inappropriate material, with reference to the relevant reasons already provided.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fazil, your past edits are irrelevant in this context. The ones you are making here are simply wrong. I must also agree with BlackCab however, and state that this debate has gotten off track. Vyselink (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

A suitable subsection should be added at Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I have added the JW case study to the table at that article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Article name

The name of the article ("Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse") is ridiculously over-long and elaborate. I propose that it be shortened to "Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The notable aspect is the way cases are handled by the organisation. The shorter title could suggest that the article is merely about JW attitudes about child abuse, which could be misleading. JWs' view of child abuse is not different to that of general society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I should think that the notable thing is everything to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse, the handling of the issue being only one aspect of that. The shorter title is not misleading and does not suggest what you say it does; it suggests an article about everything to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The notability of the subject pertains to the organisation's handling of child sexual abuse, not an ambiguous coatrack of 'everything to do with' it. If you disagree, you need to provide sources that indicate other aspects of notability. (That is to say, you don't need to, but if you don't, there's no basis for changing the article name.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, what is notable is only your assertion at this stage. If the question is what is actually useful to readers, I would definitely have thought that an article about the whole topic of the Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse would be better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jeffro. Title is appropriate as is. Vyselink (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article name need not be so long. The title suggested byFreeKnowledgeCreator is reasonable; it's natural that the article would focus on the handling of sex abuse; in fact apart from specific cases or possible statistics on the scope of the problem (were they available) I'm not sure what else it could contain. Redirect pages can certainly be created, but overly detailed article names are not conducive to making it easy for people to find those articles. The current name is not something people would instinctively type in to search out info. BlackCab (TALK) 06:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The proposed name already redirects here, and typical searches about the subject also provide ready access to this article. The current article name was chosen in favour of the proposed name some time ago as a more accurate description of the article's content, with particular consideration given to the notability of the subject. See also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse/Archive 1#Title change and WP:AND.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jeffro77 on this. This article is dealing with alleged issues surrounding handling of sex abuse allegations. "And" gives a negative impression that there is a relationship between Jehovah's Witness beliefs and child sex abuse. --Roller958 (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Breaking news

Please include this news in this article: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jehovahs-witnesses-ordered-destruction-notes-10848053 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.29.216 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140202110020/http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=27747936 to http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=27747936
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140202110018/http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=27594149 to http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=27594149

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

User Zengalileo has expressed at their Talk page that the lead should better reflect the handling of child sexual abuse in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses rather than that it simply occurs. I have suggested what might be an improved lead sentence to achieve this aim, to be discussed here for further improvement. My quickly composed suggestion: "Various individuals, courts and the media have raised concerns about the manner in which cases of child sexual abuse are handled when they occur in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses."--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's quite nice, perhaps even shorter "Various individuals, courts and the media have raised concerns about the manner in which cases of child sexual abuse are handled."? —PaleoNeonate – 00:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The complainant isn't yet behaving in a collegiate manner at all, and I'm currently being accused of being a 'Bethelite' (sigh). So I don't think we'll get much traction not including JWs as part of the issue in the lead sentence. Hopefully the editor will start to engage here in a collaborative manner soon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor's latest attempt at unilaterally deciding on an introductory lead sentence ("taken to court and criticised on an international level") is again inappropriate. The article is about JW handling of child sexual abuse, not an exposé about how broadly the issue has been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that a subsection on prevalence could address some of that aspect (if we don't have a better article for it). —PaleoNeonate – 01:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor has made some changes, but is continuing to sidestep discussion; hopefully they will begin to engage here soon. The additions of high courts in various nations and around the world still seem like unnecessary sensationalism. Are those phrases helpful? The fact that high courts have been involved is handled in the article body, but it isn't directly pertinent to the broad subject of the article in the context of the opening sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, —PaleoNeonate – 03:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion of a subsection on prevalence, I don't know whether there are suitable sources available that address prevalence independent of what is already present in the article (e.g. in the Lawsuits section). There is a statement in the lead indicating a Norwegian study finding that the prevalence of abuse among JWs is about the same as in other areas of society, and as I understand it, that is generally the case with JWs in other countries as well. I'm not sure that the prevalence of abuse is a specific area that needs additional focus, as it's largely the way such cases are (mis)handled that is the area of concern.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me your suggestions and changes work well Jeffro. The lede is supposed to be a broad statement, not get bogged down with specifics that are handled elsewhere.Vyselink (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It still could be more accurate. Various" gives the impression of sparcity. Numerous is more accurate. The reader could just as easily be informed about the scope instead of you leading them gradually to the knowledge. You are treading too lightly here and it ends up understating, under-representing the topic. The facts are that numerous, not various, people are charging the jws of mishandling. Why not say it? The facts are that not just any old court somewhere is charging them of mishandling, the highest possible courts in numerous nations are doing so. That means something you are not acknowledging. It is not just the media, it is the media all over the world. I question your knowledge of this issue. It's like you are taking it as this casual neutral thing that maybe is happening, maybe is not happening. You dont seem too sure. After all, its just various people about town saying it. Also, stylistically, you are spare. I dont know where your philosophy of first sentences comes from, but it is the most important sentence in this article. The original was way off. This one is better, but I ask you to consider being more accurate and being as complete as possible. There is no rule on length. It is important to give a statement that is not incomplete as it takes awaymain points that could easily be included. The first sentence is often the only sentence someone will read. So spend the time geting it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 23:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not tabloid news. It doesn't have to open with a sensational exclamation that 'this is happening everywhere'. As the title of the article suggests, the subject of the article is Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, and the central focus is not 'how broadly does it occur'. The first sentence of the article doesn't have to summarise the entire article, nor does the lead have to contain every point made in the article. Your desired edits have largely been unhelpful. For example, in your edit summary of this edit you falsely claimed that until your 'correction', the article didn't mention what you added, which is simply false as it's provided in detail in the relevant section about the Royal Commission (and then you accuse me of not knowing about the issue?). Worse still, in this edit, you grossly misrepresented what was stated in JW press releases, and called it a 'factual correction'. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to right great wrongs. You seem to be under the quite odd impression that I personally wrote all or a substantial part of the article. I didn't write the original first sentence. You've also made inappropriate insinuations about my level of education and made highly inappropriate (and laughable) insinuations that I am affiliated with Watch Tower. You need to step back and approach the article objectively.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to say I'm happy with the lead sentence finally, although I think "various" should be "numerous", if you're stuck on various for some reason,I'm curious why, I'll let that go. I sure wish I knew how to navigate to this page without finding your comment on my talk page and clicking on the link. Wanna let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer "various" over "numerous". The latter simply implies "a number". Three might qualify as numerous. Granted, various isn't much more explicit, but the lede is just supposed to summarize anyway, and I personally think that indicating the diversity over the number is maybe a bit more useful to the reader. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When you are reading the article, there is a tab at the top that says Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no "talk" tab on my screen. I can't get to the page except through your link. In fact I just started another discussion and I cant get to it

Perhaps you are editing from a mobile phone, or are linking to the mobile address of the page, or are editing with some non-standard browser, or from some other app. If the website address you're using contains "en.m.wikipedia", remove the ".m".--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Two contradictory sentences in first paragraph to join, connect or delete?

One sentence says, without lead in, context or connecting phrase, that JWS say that child abuse is rare in their church. The next sentence says that a study in Norway found that JWS experience the same occurrence of child abuse as the general population. There is no connecting phrase between the two sentences and this is ungrammatical. The way it sits now, each of those sentences is its own paragraph. There is no connection to surrounding content. This is not how speech or written language works. It needs to be changed for this and other reasons I'll state later. Zengalileo (talk) 01:55, 17 Novembrer 2017 (UTC)

Here are the two sentences:

The organization officially denounces all kinds of sexual abuse, and it states that "the incidence of this crime among Jehovah's Witnesses is rare."[2] An independent 2009 study in Norway concluded that the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses was similar to that in general society.[3]

Personally, I'd reverse the order of the two sentences, giving more weight to the independent study, which as an independent study probably should get priority of place and doesn't really say anything substantially different anyway. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What I propose is adding the word However at the beginning of the second sentence, signalling to the reader that it is not a coincidence that the second sentence follows the first, the second contradicts the claim in the first, that is why it is there, and provides a link, a smooth transition, and makes both sentences form one complete thought. Without Hpwever, what we have is two separate paragraphs, and they should both be stand alone paragraphs. You cant leave them like that without a connecting word, and since they are contradictory, However is the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the contradiction you do. One says the rate is no higher than in general society, and the other says it is rare. Depending on how high you regard the rate in the broader society, both could be true. John Carter (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The statements are not contradictory, since the rate in general society isn't what I would call frequent, and the JW source doesn't specify what actual rate they consider 'rare'. (The fact that it happens at all is, of course, bad enough.) Added to that, the first statement is a verifiable assertion by the organisation, and even if false, it is still verifiably their claim. Further, Wikipedia articles should not seek to resolve contradictions (that is, on its own, independent of sources), but merely state what sources say. JWs say this and the Norwegian study says this; the connecting term however may assert a POV in 'Wikipedia's voice' that the JW claim is 'false', which would need a source to that effect. In any case, it is not ungrammatical to not contrast two adjacent statements, even if a discrepancy could be inferred, and the two sentences certainly aren't 'different paragraphs'. I agree with John Carter about reversing the order of the two sentences.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The order is not the problem. You'd still need a connecting However, this is why: Why did JWS say it is rare? What was the context when they said it? The original instance was when an answer to a tv program was given by Ralph Walls. Was he saying that the incidence was the same as the general public, or was he trying to suggest it was lower than average? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You are not correct, and it would not be appropriate to expand with all those details in the lead paragraph. Notice what is stated at Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources: It is important to keep in mind that in cases of apparent contradictions, both sources may in fact be correct in their own contexts. ... You may attribute the conflicting positions directly to the sources with WP:INTEXT attribution: "Famous Expert A says that because inflation has been low, the economy will improve. Famous Expert B says that low inflation will lead to a worsening of the economy." This is exactly how this article handles the two attributed statements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand in what sense I mean contradictory. I mean literally that "does not follow that JWS have the same occurrence of child abuse as the general population if it is rare." I already know what you are going to say next, but go ahead and say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You've made the mistake previously of presuming to know things about me that you really don't know; best not to start down that road again. I have already responded to the import of your statement above, and since the JW source gives no quantifiable definition of what it considers 'rare', there's nothing more to add at this point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to stall this discussion until you answer my questions. You are not going to bully me with your experience at wikipedia, and I have all the experience as a jw, and as a writer. You are not going to dismiss my arguments and you will answer my pertinent questions . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Really not helping.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Now, read the paragraph outloud. Does it flow or is it stunted and jerky? It is stunted and jerky. This article was written by someone who has never taken a composition class. I don't know if that is you, jeffro, but the shoe fits whoever wrote this. You dont just state things in the driest possible way and th e n claim you are being neutral. True neutrality is impossible, but using simple words, poor construction and abysmal style is not neutral. Its just bad taste. The sentences in question require you to rectify them. They are two separate paragraphs. They are not connected, therefore they are stand alone paragraphs. I'd accept a change that places both sentences in separate paragraphs. Read the book Elements of Style by White before you make a single other contribution to wikipedia. Please. Now, making two new paragraphs is not quite right either because they both have information on the same topic. What you need to decide is what Ralph Walls said was suggesting that child abuse is more, the same or less rare in JWS. You have to decide. If he meant they are the same as general population (we both really know what he meant but for some reason you are playing dunb) then you have to say "and the study in Norway supports this claim by showing child abuse occurs at the rate of general population. You have no stylistic grounds (I hear you saying style doesnt matter already, and that wikipedia requires things to be poorly written), to just state things unconnectedly as if a robot wrote them. I feel like you have no idea what I'm talking about, and if you wrote this paragraph originally that's confirmation. Do you understand why these two disparate sentences must either be joined or be set apart? Do you understand that putting one sentence after another is supposed to create a thought? Putting one sentence after another or in the vicinity of another admits association on some level, but you cant get away with not spelling it out to the reader, bad form. Ungrammatical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Answer my questions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your (quite condescending) editorial opinions, but there are already standards within Wikipedia for how to present statements that may appear to contradict each other. We're writing an encyclopedia article, not a novel. Your continued insinuations about me personally are inappropriate.

At best, your references to Ralph Walls constitute original research, since he isn't mentioned in either cited source. If you want to cite whatever TV programme it is that you're referring to as an additional source, do so. It doesn't have any direct bearing on the presentation of the existing statements.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You are juxtaposing two statements, but then not admitting the juxtaposition. Its dishonest. Do you really not know what Ralph Walls was saying when he said RARE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither source is citing Ralph Walls. It is not necessary to 'admit' that two adjacent sentences are juxtaposted, it is self-evident.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well you stopped participating in the discussion so I'm making the change. You're not god.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to imagine that I just have to sit at the computer, just waiting for you to say something, and then immediately respond? No. Discussion doesn't end just because someone hasn't responded for a few minutes. Discussion to reach consensus can take days, or even weeks for complex subjects (given that this trivial change seems to be the tip of the iceberg given your previous edits). If you make edits without consensus, you will be reverted. Persistently making changes without consensus may result in you being blocked for edit warring.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Answer my questions. It is obvious what the WT meant. And you know it too. Why are you playing dumb? Is this YOUR article and you are protecting it or something? I don't get why you would be so dead set against a change that now you are saying is trivial. The whole article, and most articles in wikipedia are written by hacks, thats why it has such a terrible reputation. You should read the 2007 letter and compare it with Ralph Walls' video statement in 2004. That is the origin of the quote in question, and it is clear that JWS mean rare in exactly the way YOU would mean it if you were catching heat for child abuse. If you are incapable of figuring that out there is something wrong w.ith you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Demanding answers and continuing to insult me isn't going to get you anywhere (except possibly blocked). You keep mentioning 'Ralph Walls' (Google indicates that he's a WTS representative, but the video you're alluding to is not clear), but he isn't the subject of the sources in question; as previously requested, if you have an additional source, provide it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This dispute is relatively trivial compared to what I feel will be further disputes based on your initial inappropriate changes to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

JR Brown. Wrong guy. Look, either the two sentences agree and one of them can go, or they dont agree, and you can use However. Just plopping sentences down without connections is not writing. I am sorry you feel insulted. But I think thats on you. Maybe you just FEEL insulted and it has nothing tp do with me. Ever think of that? The questions I posed ARE the discussion. You have to, no, someone has to answer the questions. You are pretending to not know what the society means by rare, but reading the context of where it came from makees it clear. It was a PR piece. And furthermore you know this sp whats the problem. If I say this article was written by a havk, and that happens to be you, thats not my fault. This article, like many wiki articles was written as if by a hack. Thats a criticism of the article, not you. Maybe I should say its hacky. A third option is to use the word Likewise, instead of However. Thats if you believe the two sentences are not contradictory. Thats just the nature of writing. You dont get to abstain from drawing conclusions. When you do you wind up giving the wrong impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengalileo (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained to you why your proposed connector is not appropriate. The source doesn't specify what it means by rare, and we are not here to speculate. We just report what the source says. Your opinion about how writing 'should' be done is not consistent with the relevant guidelines for reporting apparent contradictions in a neutral manner. Perhaps you should move on to a different issue about article content, if any exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Relevant policy would be WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NOT (WP:NOTADVOCATE), related style guide would be WP:EDITORIAL. The writing style of the encyclopedia is quite different than that of essays, books or papers. While I'm sure that Jeffro contributed to the article, the history shows that various editors did. This may indeed sometimes result in "hacked text". An advantage is that other readers can correct issues and suggest improvements. It's of course a collaborative process that is not always easy and can be lengthy... About "owning the article" allegations, I'm sure that Jeffro is already familiar with WP:OWN. In case were participation of more editors is insufficient on this talk page, it's also possible to request third opinion (WP:3O), use larger audience noticeboards (such as WT:JW, WP:NPOVN), other dispute resolution procedures (WP:DR); usually one at a time to keep discussions centralized, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 05:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Members are free to call police first

From the edit summary: Make it clear that church deals with sin only and members are free to call police first. In practice, members trust elders more than secular authorities and it is known that they often were discouraged from reporting. We should avoid presenting the claims with as much weight as the evidence, which could result in WP:FALSEBALANCE (opinion vs opinion, instead of claim vs evidence). —PaleoNeonate – 15:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This was one of the concerns raised by the Austrlian Royal Commission. I haven't reviewed the letters used as sources, but the 'ReferenceC' is being misused; it does not at all specify that JWs may report to police before reporting to the congregation, and can only be used to support a statement that JWs are told they can report crimes to police. The other use of 'ReferenceC' in the article is also misleading; there are better sources for the statement that currently uses that citation, and it should be replaced. The ARC's concern remains valid that JWs are otherwise taught that 'worldly' authorities may be ineffectual and are 'part of Satan's system', and the isolated statement from a magazine in 2005 should not be construed as a statement that reporting to police is something routinely recommended by JW leaders.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence on the claim that members were discouraged by the WTS on reporting crimes such as sexual abuse. The organisation generally discourages "taking a brother to court" on matters that are petty crimes or those having a civil nature. For example if someone stole my wallet from Kingdom Hall I may decide to not inform the police (as long as no legal obligation exists) and I may decide to forgive the person if he apologies and returns the wallet. But for serious crime such as a murder or child abuse I may call police even if there is no legal obligation. However sometimes parents themselves chose not to report the abuse especially if it was done by a close relative. (Example in a case cited below her mom reported abuse only a year later to police, after her separation with abuser I believe). Congregation cannot apply disciple unless two evidences exist, but a person can report to police even if there is only one evidence. Now the legal system may or may not convict based on one evidence. In US alone authorities receive over 3.4 million calls on suspected abuse, many of which the police were not able to be verify. That is a different story. So again its a personal choice to report or not as long as no legal obligation exist. It is true that in past WTS has been held accountable when over-zealous/ignorant local elders gave personal opinion on this matter. But officially this policy was followed even as early as 1988.

For example see the July 29, 1988 BOE letter excepts from Canada which reads as below (sourcing from an ex-jw community website)

Does a minister have an alternative? Yes. A minister could make definite arrangements for someone else to report. For example, family members should be encouraged to discuss the abuse with a family physician. He can arrange for therapy from a suitable mental health professional. Then either the family or the physician could report the matter. The abuser himself could report it and is well advised to do so. This will usually result in assistance being provided, and officials are always more sympathetic to an abuser who seeks help. Elders must be aware, however, that once they have knowledge, they have an obligation. They cannot just hope that someone else will report. They must follow through quickly and be sure that it is done. Once it is reported, either by them or by someone else, they have discharged the obligation."

In page 3 of Conti vs Watchtower judgment after calling WTS legal department in 1993 the court found as below.

The elders told Evelyn and her daughter that they were free to report the incident to the police. Abrahamson testified that they neither encouraged nor discouraged Evelyn and her daughter from doing so; “[i]t was up to them.

The February, 2002 BOE letter stated and same information was posted earlier in official website under media releases. (sourcing from an ex-jw community website)

Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities. If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. That is, no elder will criticize anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities."

So my point is elders deal with "Sin", while secular authorities deal with crime both are independent as quoted by J.R. Brown in the one of the news report referenced in Wiki. I am collecting links that can be used in Wiki and that's what I mentioned in my comment.--Roller958 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence on the claim that members were discouraged by the WTS on reporting crimes such as sexual abuse. Have you ever read the Flock book? This document was part of the evidence studied by the Australian Royal Commission. Other evidence were various court testimonies. It's of course blurry when it's WTS, individual elders, family members, etc. There are clear instructions to elders to call the WTS legal branch and it is very likely that if the legal department instructed them to report it, or to encourage victims to report it, they would. You are right that the concern is mainly about sin (and the organization's reputation) than the law and victim protection. —PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection is here. The only reference in the article to JWs discouraging members from reporting to secular authorities cites specific testimony at the Australian Royal Commission, and it is clearly attributed as such. Other than that, you don't seem to be suggesting any change to the article. This isn't really the place to try to justify JW policies or procedures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst individual JW elders may have told individual victims of abuse (or their parents) that they 'have the right to report to authorities', it is only since a letter to 'all bodies of elders' in September 2017 that this has become policy. This replaces a vague double-negative statement in the 'Elders manual' that the September letter now tells elders to 'delete' from their copy; it said "Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities". There is still no instruction to encourage victims of abuse to report to secular authorities.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I am yet to see any reliable source that says WTS discourage members from reporting that's all I said, neither do any court verdicts for this specific claim. I am not here to Justify anything. If I did it will create endless debate like in the past given many editors have strong opinions. I provided source to the disputed text and I have at least two more from official website archives. I will add sources later. --Roller958 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't purport that WTS generally discourages members from reporting, and only indicates a single well-sourced statement from a specific case noted by the Royal Commission. You're trying to 'defend' something that doesn't appear in the article. The wording (prior to my recent edits) about reporting to secular authorities first was not supported by any of the cited sources, especially since they refer to what advice might be given (clearly, ambiguously or not at all) by elders, which would preclude secular reporting first in such instances.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors are free to think whatever about WTS/JWs or ex-JWs and I don't care. I would rather focus on the content and I am not going to reply on your analysis about me. I liked your rewriting of the statement much better, since it is implicit from your rewrite that a person can report first before approaching the elders. As long as there is no claim in this article that JWs have to report first to elders it looks great. --Roller958 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your entire argument in this thread has been about something that wasn't actually in the article. The article never said individual JWs had to 'report first' to JW elders, and the claim you inserted into the article that they are told they can report to secular authorities first was unsubstantiated. So long as you are no longer making that unsubstantiated claim, all good.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

All good Jeffro. All good. --Roller958 (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jw-media.org/region/europe/britain/english/releases/beliefs_practices/bri_e020714.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501113235/http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A136641.PDF to http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A136641.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501113235/http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A136641.PDF to http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A136641.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)