Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Child abuse rebuttal

Sorry for forcing me to comeback here. User:ChercheTrouve desperately trying to find ways to remove sourced rebuttals as if he knows the policy better. Its a professed policy worldwide, elders won't report unless required by law. Parents have the absolute right to report. Period. I ask him to stop POV pushing. A blog would be a better place to write one sided information. Roller958 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a written policy also in the elders' handbook? BlackCab (TALK) 13:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are saying both GB member and Service department elder lied. And there is no written statement. Okay. But it doesn't matter if they lied or not, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers, its useful to include that in rebuttal from two top executives of JWs. Remember an observation from one editor above for the claim above Rutherford inciting persecution? As per your logic I recommend to remove the commissions claim completely, since its an oral claim not a written finding yet. If you think JWs do not allow parents to go to police, can you show me that in elders manual? Show me in elders manual where its says elders shouldn't report when there is a legal obligation.

Further User:BlackCab, You accused me of an SPA recently, but have a blind eye on User:ChercheTrouve? Checkout his edit history. And you went ahead with a lengthy discussion on Australian Royal Commission inquiry, but remarkably one-sided! Understandable that my edits in past have watered down your painful edits and research, don't get offended. See WP:NPOV. That's how Wikipedia works Roller958 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am simply asking if there is something written that would support this? It was a genuine question with no ulterior motive. BlackCab (TALK) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but any elder's statement, true or false, should not be put as a conclusion here, as well as any accusation from ex-members should not conclude either. Only a neutral source can be used for a conclusion. Because of this, I'll move the "pro-JW" statement in the opening of the paragraph. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no conclusion whatsoever. Its a rebuttal to the claim therein, stop moving things just because you don't want to see it. As one IP mentioned above this article contains 30-40% criticism, injected without any more further space for it. Still not happy? Yes its also an official policy that pedophiles or even ex-murderers can be appointed as elders, if they have passed a considerable amount time and he have now a good standing in community. Church is a place where forgiveness applies equally to everyone. And media a neutral source? It doesn't take rocket science to understand that media business runs on sensationalizing. Having said that provide the source from which the report makes that claim. I couldn't find in the commissions transcript that known Pedophiles were repeatedly assigned to positions of trust. If only one witness exist for an allegation, according to church policy he/she may be appointed, because he is not a known pedophile. Secular authorities may consider them as pedophile, but its up to the parents to report to police if they don't want an unverified pedophile to be in position of authority. Roller958 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Because this section is presented as a summary of the main article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse, it would be better to thrash these issues out on that page rather than introduce new material here and then seek to add rebuttals. The section will just grow to an unnecessary length without adding any clarity. Here's an example: material newly added as the final sentence in this section reads: "An individual who denies accusation of child abuse, never reported to secular authorities and lacking a second witness, is allowed to be in positions of authority". This is rather confusing. I don't see from the source material that a decision to allow an accused paedophile to remain as an elder depends on whether the police were informed. In any case, that policy information should be rolled into the opening wording that establishes what the JW policy is. The criticism (because this is a criticism section) should then follow.

Roller958 questions the accuracy of the Sydney Daily Telegraph story headed "Paedophiles repeatedly promoted to positions of authority ..." This is evidently based on evidence given on day 147; that information is contained on page 15146 (lines 18 to 29) of the day 147 transcript and it is fair and accurate coverage of that quite significant point. Roller may view this as sensationalism, but in the context of a religion being investigated by a judicial body over its handling of past sex abuse cases in its ranks it is highly relevant. BlackCab (TALK) 04:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is if the matter reached authorities, he is now a known molester which would automatically disqualify. Could be worded better. Roller958 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your other comment, yes media often don't state the full story. They use catchy statements, without mentioning the context or details or why it was so Roller958 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source material doesn't say that however. What is your source for the statement that a man would be disqualified if an accusation reached authorities? BlackCab (TALK) 05:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Its an issue of "freeness of speech". However I made it clear with my latest edit. A convicted man is a "known molester" Roller958 (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The information here should be presented in a neutral way. Putting JW's conclusion at the end is not neutral. It would give the false idea that there is finally no problem with their policy. The policy doesn't give the parents or victims total liberty to do what they want. When faced with pedophilia within the congregation, no one is lead to secular authorities, as the Australian report clearly shows. They are supposed to meet the elders instead. This is the main problem. --ChercheTrouve (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's claim that "A convicted man is a "known molester"" is not entirely consistent with JW procedures. According to the JW policy, the branch office determines whether an individual is considered a "known molester" for the purposes of the religion's 'judicial' (ecclesiastical) procedures. Whilst a legal ruling may influence their decision, criminal cases do not have direct bearing on the group's internal 'judicial procedure'. The statement reported in The Daily Telegraph regarding the fact that over 1000 cases of abuse were not reported to authorities is an accurate representation of what was stated in the Royal Commission and was acknowledged by JW elders who testified therein.

Roller958's use of semantics regarding the claim that 'known' pedophiles are not appointed to positions of authority is fairly pointless, since—as repeatedly brought out in the Royal Commission—where elders believed a victim was telling the truth but there was only 'one witness', they still knew the person was a pedophile even if the person was not officially 'recognised' by elders (either locally or by the branch office) as a "known molester". (In such cases, elders also had been convinced that a crime had been committed, which has reporting obligations beyond mandatory reporting of suspected abuse.)

Roller958's claim that an editor moved a statement in the article supposedly because the editor 'didn't want to see it' is quite odd. The unsubstantiated claim by an IP editor about a made-up percentage of 'criticism' in the article is also irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The church can't report every allegation to authorities, Is that illegal? No. Only if there is a mandatory reporting law exists. And if parents don't want to go to police, then why blame the church? Yes the policy also states they will allow single witness abusers to continue. Rebuttals should follow criticism, not the other way around Roller958 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Whilst it is not mandatory to report allegations unless there are mandatory reporting laws, when elders know of abuse, there is still a legal obligation to report knowledge of crimes, covered by statutory laws similar to misprision of felony. This was specifically addressed by the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And parents have less responsibility than childrenelders? All parents should be put to prison, before elders. When the issue was raised I remember the judge said he have to check on that. Regardless, the branch said they believed that, that requirement was exempt for clergy --Roller958 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The obligation on any person to report knowledge of a crime applies to elders as much as to anyone else. Hypothetical claims that 'parents should go to prison before elders [for not reporting abuse]' is entirely pointless, because it ignores the situation where the parent(s) do not know of the abuse, or the parent is the abuser.

Discussion of the concept of misprision of felony was made on day 153, and there was no mention of clergy exemption. Your claim about 'clergy exemption' may relate to comments on day 149, which was about legislation about mandatory reporting of harm that is only relevant to one Australian state and not the same as knowledge of crimes.

(It's funny how JWs suddenly have 'clergy' when there's a legal provision.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint that's what that exception for ministers should come under "clergy". In any case if the individual is a child, parents will be made known especially if its an abuse. And its so funny that commission can do nothing other than some recommendation. Some news report said few cases will be forwarded to authorities, lets see how many will prevail with the hype it made. --Roller958 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite stomach-turning that Roller sees humor in this. The royal commission is not "hype". It is about innocent and powerless children being used for the sexual gratification of depraved men and all he can see is a "them vs us" battle in which the religious organization is the victim. Unbelievable. BlackCab (TALK) 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No doubt that child abuse is a heinous crime. However that doesn't mean that the responsibility to should go to a non-profit corporation which is not the cause for abuse. Parents/Guardians have the full responsibility to protect children, everything else comes next. I was just pointing to that fact, a court of law would deliver justice, not a public investigation. If commission can recommend only some cases to court of the much hyped "1006 cases", it certainly shows only in some cases they feel the church could be made accountable. I was curious how many would survive legal scrutiny. Having said that I don't have any problems with a redress scheme who were abused because of a policy/human error, any organization ran by humans would make mistake. --Roller958 (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

And I don't want to go into a debate, we had enough in here. I am trying to not go off topic. Back to the contention I am okay with Jeffro77's latest edits. The claim in the news report is likely talking about later promotion of individuals who denied allegation but without a second witness and never investigated by authorities. That's the worst case example of current policy if the allegation was indeed true. However, like I mentioned before elders would conscientiously encourage parents/or report themselves to authorities, since there is a Biblical impediment on reporting every allegation to authorities when there is no mandatory reporting. Roller958 (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your hypothetical suggestion of what elders 'would conscientiously do' is irrelevant. In the cases presented in the Royal Commission, the elders did not "encourage" the victims or anyone else to report to authorities. There is no "biblical impediment" to reporting crimes to authorities, only an abstruse interpretation; conflating 'every allegation' with 'knowledge of a crime' is misdirection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an impediment in principle, however precedence takes when mandatory law exist. Why would someone go to a catholic priest if he knows the next day it will be reported to authorities? I don't think JWs will change that policy, no matter what. Secular authorities/critics have no respect for their beliefs anyway, for example neutrality, blood etc. So some friction and legal cases will always be there --Roller958 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't just use scriptures like magical incantations. The verse in Proverbs (which was written when the priesthood had oversight over the Sanhedrin) could just as readily be interpreted as applying to elders who reveal the actions of alleged sinners to other individuals, including the branch office when forming their own judicial tribunals (which is also a breach of clergy-penitent privilege.) Indeed, who would go to Catholic confession if the priest then tells all the bishops at the diocese?

The use of the scripture at Romans is just as weak, as it can be 'justified away' by elders (or any JW) if they feel the matter is trumped by their interpretation of Acts 5:29. This was also brought out at the Royal Commission.

Secular authorities in many countries have provisions for conscientious objection. Many countries also have provisions for people who reject certain medical treatments (although whether a superstitious belief that results in a person's death warrants respect is another matter). Your blanket statements are pointless and suggest a persecution complex.-Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no sanction against an elder who conscientiously reported to authorities. Period. Roller958 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, it's evident that, in general, they're still not doing it. Because the only direction they're given over and over again is to "call the branch office". The testimony of the elders in the Royal Commission showed they were scared (or at the very least, overly cautious) about doing anything that might go against directions from the branch office. Because of the organisation's authoritarian structure, it is therefore necessary for the branch office to provide explicit direction to report.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your contentions are mostly a theological disagreement. Probably you won't agree with all catholic theology either. There is always a risk associated with any place where children go including school. The question at the end of the day is whether an organization takes everything it can to protect children without violating its beliefs? The only thing I see is the situation mentioned above and I agree there should be explicit direction from branch that states, elders should feel free to report single witness allegation if they want to. Roller958 (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The concerns expressed by the Royal Commission indicate that the organisation does not do everything it can do protect children. In fact, the judge said that no other organisation he's heard of has the flaws that are present in the JW system for handling cases of abuse.

Dismissing my 'contentions' as a "theological disagreement" is a bit odd. The fact is that JW interpretation of one scripture can can be used to justify ignoring the JW interpretation of another scripture, making them useless in practical situations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A religion is a people with common belief. I personally as many others in the religion, won't agree with your interpretation. Same is may be true about shunning or other practices. Like I said above secular authorities may not appreciate all JW beliefs, in that way the whole internal judicial system in itself would be odd to anyone outside including the Royal Commission. Roller958 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I quite clearly stated that members of the religion can 'justify' ignoring their own (officially sanctioned) interpretation of one scripture by applying their own (officially sanctioned) interpretation of another scripture. Your implication of 'outsiders' not 'appreciating' those beliefs is not relevant to my comments, and sounds more like a persecution complex.

In any case, there is no 'scriptural' reason preventing JWs from their legal obligation of reporting knowledge of crimes in cases where they are convinced that abuse has occurred. Those are a subset of the broader concept of allegations of abuse for which various jurisdictions have mandatory reporting laws; those laws require the reporting of allegations whether or not they are substantiated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay so their is a serious flaw in JWs policies according to your opinion. And how many cases around the world made adverse verdicts? A handful, that itself is about negligence claims. And that's why I am curious how it will be in Australia, no wonder in recent JW broadcasting a GB member said "We are proud of our record when it comes to child abuse". Having said that I repeat I don't feel bad for paying people who were abused, even if the organization is not responsible for it. Roller958 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Many cases are settled out of court (owing largely to the corporation's ability to drag cases out until the victims run out money), so the number of "adverse verdicts" is not particularly meaningful. The statement in the JW public relations piece isn't particularly compelling either. Another episode of JW Broadcasting claimed that reports about JW mishandling of child abuse are nothing but "apostate driven lies", but Geoffrey Jackson stated under oath that that specific claim is false.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Many? hahaha. I personally seen apostates lie a lot, often baking half-truths to a full slander. They know shunning protects 99% flock from their propaganda, and that's why they oppose shunning. You are entitled to have your own opinion. --Roller958 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is your claim about 'apostates' intended as a) a slanderous personal attack or b) entirely irrelevant drivel? Jackson explicitly stated under oath that the issues being dealt with are not "apostate driven lies", so any opinion you might have to the contrary is itself propaganda. Regarding your blanket statements about the supposed attitudes and actions of 'apostates', Awake!, 22 June 2000, page 6: "Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked."--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know you are "an apostate" or profess to be one, so your personal attack claim is irrelevant. I was talking about self professed ones online. Roller958 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Why bleat about "apostates" at all? I've seen JWs lie and slander too, but it doesn't mean that all of them do. (Your claim about why 'apostates' 'oppose' shunning is also false propaganda. The primary reason cited by non-JWs, former JWs and even some current JWs for opposing shunning is because of the damage shunning does to personal relationships. However, the reason for shunning those who disagree is indeed to prevent members from hearing things the leadership may not want them to know.) Jackson acknowledged that it's not "apostate driven lies" (despite the claim in the JW Broadcasting PR piece). In any case, the proportion of cases settled out of court is many compared to the very few high profile cases, and your kneejerk reaction of automatically blaming 'apostates' is tediously predictable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever, about your proportion claim, and how much they got is a pure speculation. I believe they got their legal fees, and in an exceptional case under a 800,000 dollar. You are the one knee-jerking, to desperately finish off with a last comment. Do it. I am not going to continue Roller958 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There are various cases that can be identified online. A few years ago, there were over a dozen in a single year (2006 or thereabouts if memory serves correctly). Your 'belief' that 'they only got their legal fees' is baseless, since out-of-court settlement amounts are generally not disclosed (and even more ridiculous saying it immediately after you say the amounts are "pure speculation"). Bedtime now.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

More issues from the "Handling of sexual abuse cases"-section

There are several issues from the section. 1) According to the article, "The elders don't report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law". I have not seen it is stated in a direct manner that Jehovah's Witnesses do not report unless requiered by law. The sources is a) from a hearing, were the article is concluding from individuals statements during the hearing, and b) from Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, witch according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_119#.22Pay_Attention_to_Yourselves_and_to_All_the_Flock.22_used_as_source the RS noticeboard is concidered not available through a reliable publisher, and thus shoud not be used for referencing a claim. 2) "The ongoing Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse received case files relating to '1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the Jehovah's Witness Church since 1950,' of which 'not one was reported by the church to secular authorities.'" According to one of the interviewed during the hearing, "almost 400 of those have been dealt with by the authorities, of which less than half have resulted in convictions (...) Those 1,000 cases, as the Commission is aware, 199 of those relate to individuals (...) that were either not Jehovah's Witnesses or likely may not have been Jehovah's Witnesses at the time. (...) [W]ell over half of the allegations - are familial, and in the context with no comparison, where we're looking at ministers, clergy, those allegations include everyone who has ever walked into a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses; every individual who has ever studied the Bible with us in prison; every person out of the community that associates with us where we've become aware that there is a child abuse allegation, we have followed it up, recorded it and that's the reason there are those numbers." I don't know if I wan't to interpretate the number, or the information given through the hearing. It is more like raw material for experts, rather than finished outcome ready to be used as a reference for sensational claims. 3) From the wikipedia article: "According to The Daily Telegraph, some of these paedophiles promoted to position of authority in the church." According to the newspaper article used as refernce for the statement, "[i]n the same time, 28 alleged abusers were appointed to positions of authority and of 127 alleged abusers deleted as church leaders, 16 were reappointed." I just have to comment this one as well. First, an abuser is not necessarily the same as a paedophile. Secondly, it is clearly stated in the newspaper article it is about alleged abusers. Most places in modern society individuials are concidered innocent until evidence for the opposite is found. It is not given than any alleged abusers are abusers. Given the numbers of elders in Australia, I don't even see why a claim about alleged abuser is listed in this article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that the elders' manual cannot be cited is false. There was not a definitive decision at the noticeboard, and the claim made there is now irrelevant, as the book (as well as relevant letters) has been made available in full by the Royal Commission. See also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#Sources.

The claim that '400 cases were dealt with by the authorities' was explicitly indicated in the Royal Commission to simply have been based on a word search of words such as 'report' being near words such as authorities, with no indication that those cases were actually reported to authorities.

In the context of your comments, presumption of innocence is only a consideration where the alleged abuser is named. Where abuse is known to have occurred and the statement is not in reference to specific cases, it is not necessary to refer to 'alleged' abuse. I have changed pedophile to abuser.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Could you provide a quote supporting the claim "The elders don't report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law"? Regarding the Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, the book is partly made availiable during the hearing, and the committy should be credited as a source for the claim, as of the linked WP:RS-thread.

2) I've not read the complete report, but this wikipedia article uses exactly the same pages as reference for another sensational claim.

3) An alleged abuser does not become simply an abuser because he/she is not named. Everyone can become an alleged abuser if only someone is filing a claim. The article lists no proof the abuse have occurred for each of the individuals instated or reinstated in "positions of authority", whatever "positions of authority" is. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The newer Shepherd the Flock book was made available in full, as were the letters. There are extracts of Pay Attention. Also, the noticeboard never made the definite conclusion that you keep claiming it did.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate content of 'Sex abuse cases' section

I'll return to an issue I raised earlier of what should actually be in the "Handling of sexual abuse cases" section of the Criticism section. That section in the "parent" (Jehovah's Witnesses) article should read as a summary of the "child" or spinoff article, (Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse), which is an extensive and well-sourced article. WP:SYNC emphasizes the importance of synchronising the child article and the summary section, instructing "editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section." The summary in this case does a poor job of summarizing the child article. It is dominated by material that is not so much criticism as a statement (and justification) of certain JW policies that some might find objectionable but for which there is no explicit criticism.

The spinout article in fact contains just two areas of criticism: (a) the "two witness rule" and (b) allegations of cover-ups by the Watch Tower Society by means of discouragement of reporting to authorities, and the associated observation that the WTS kept detailed notes on cases of abuse but did not alert police or child protection authorities. Salient to this is the New York Times observation that the issue in the JWs is not children being abused by clergy, but children being assaulted by congregation members (and often family members, which would lessen the likelihood of a male perpetrator/family breadwinner/patriarch being reported to police).

At the moment then the "Criticism" section of the JW article should limit its coverage to those two points. It currently lacks any mention of the "two witness" rule and instead opens with the entirely irrelevant issue of whether known abusers can hold positions of responsibility. I'd suggest deleting that sentence and removing the related reference to the Daily Telegraph story. The summary can then focus on a succinct criticism of the "two witness" rule and the JW response (already linked in the article). It can then provide brief coverage of the cover-up allegations encompassing alleged discouragement of reporting to authorities and evidence of the JW policy of not reporting to authorities (the JW statement on its policy and evidence from the Australian royal commission).

The aspect of promotion of abusers as contained in the Daily Telegraph article should be reintroduced only when it is properly covered in the spinout article. BlackCab (TALK) 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'two witness rule' is briefly mentioned in the summary. I have moved the existing Daily Telegraph source to the statement about the 'two witness rule' as that point is also addressed by the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. There is mention of it but no criticism per se. BlackCab (TALK) 01:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that the statement cites a source that is critical of the 'two witness' policy, I'm not sure whether it's necessary to expand the sentence in the summary, since the criticism of the policy is basically the same as the official policy?--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the statement and attributed the criticism. It's not worth re-stating the policy separately.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct to state that "the Royal Commission has criticised the organisation's policy" regarding the two-witness rule. Angus Stewart was at that point outlining the WTS policy. Until the royal commission releases a report on the WTS case study the Wikipedia article should not claim that it has expressed any opinion. BlackCab (TALK) 01:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-word as you see fit. I had to go out, but since no change has been made since, I have reworded slightly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Those changes still don't address the main issue of harmonising the summary article with the spinff one. I have rewritten that section in line with my comments above, but haven't uploaded it yet and prefer to wait until editors in other timezones have the opportunity to comment. It might be better if I posted it on a sandbox page to begin with and got some comments there rather than ruffle too many feathers with a wholesale change. BlackCab (TALK) 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded my proposed rewording of that part of the "Criticisms" section here and I invite comment before I proceed further. BlackCab (TALK) 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentences of the first and second paragraphs of your proposed wording are weaselish, and the latter is further complicated by your own statement that the Royal Commission's statements cannot be regarded as "criticism". The assessment of the 'two witness rule' as "a key policy" is also unqualified. (There are also some minor grammatical issues.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree in part with Jeffro. The first two sentences are a bit too weasely for my taste. I don't have his hangup about the "two witness rule", but I can see where he's coming from. Vyselink (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence paraphrases Barbara Anderson, who is cited. I have used Applewhite's criticism, which was presented at the royal commission. Unlike the previous wording in the existing article, it is not presented as the criticism of the commission, which is yet to make its report. BlackCab (TALK) 20:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first paragraph is not clearly attributed to Anderson. The first sentence of the second paragraph (not Applewhite's statement in the first paragraph) refers to criticism but the only secondary source cited in the paragraph is the Royal Commission. Also, the statement by Applewhite (a paid representative of the Watch Tower Society) was a concession, not a criticism.

Whilst the 'two witness rule' is one of several controversial elements of the JW policies for handling cases of abuse, the provided sources do not establish it is a key policy, and it is not clear whether the intention is to say it is a key JW policy or a key element of controversy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked the opening sentence and removed the reference to the "two witness" rule being a key policy, although logic says it must be: if an accused sex abuser denies an accusation, any further action depends on the existence of two witnesses. But given that it's been taken as a subjective judgment, I won't press the point; the description is not critical. On the other point, I agree there is not a strong connection in my proposed wording between the statement of the JW reporting policy (sourced to a JW website and the opening statement of evidence at the royal commission) and the criticism of its flaws. I'll spend a bit more time on improving that. BlackCab (TALK) 08:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your use of words such as "ranks" giving a connotation to a military structure is weaselish. Further you fail to mention that the "Two witness rule" is only for internal discipline. I am not sure that the statement "victim can be traumatized" is a noteworthy point, can't that be the case if a court fail to convict due to lack of evidence? Further victim is free to go to police and report if he/she feels traumatized. The major issue claimed by critics is the danger caused by abuse accused individuals (who deny) to other congregation members (who are not aware of it). However in United States its legal to not disclose that information to other members, backed by confidentiality privilege for ministers. In UK it may be not as per recent case which is on appeal. Roller958 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The word ranks is not restricted to military contexts, and it typically appears in JW literature in reference to their members (and JWs and other christian soldiers use the military connotation as a metaphor anyway). Also, 'weasel words' refers to vague or unattributed claims. You are actually claiming it is a contentious label (but it's not).

It's implicit that their 'two-witness' policy relates to their internal procedures. The statement in the suggested text that victims can be traumatised is sourced (but not properly sourced to a critic). Your suggestion that a traumatised victim 'can' report to authorities has no direct bearing on the elder's obligations to report knowledge of crimes. Also, (as raised by the Royal Commission) the religion's doctrines engender a general mistrust of 'worldly' authorities, reducing the likelihood of victims reporting to secular authorities. This is exacerbated by the JW policy of not encouraging victims to report abuse to authorities (rather than passively 'not discouraging').

There are several points of contention with the JW policies, and your assessment of which you think is the 'major' one isn't relevant to the suggested text. Unless you have a particular source in mind that indicates the 'major' criticism?--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reworked my proposed rewrite of the "Handling of sexual abuse cases" subsection. It is on my sandbox page. I have removed Monica Applewhite and removed any judgment on the relative importance of the two witness rule. Criticism of the JW policies on sex abuse has been most vocal by Barbara Anderson and Bill Bowen, so I have named and quoted both, and also referred to (and in the footnotes quoted) related criticism from a US cult researcher. The final two sentences pertaining to court cases relates directly to the opening sentence on WTS knowledge of, but inaction over, offending inside the organization. The rewrite clearly identifies the criticisms expressed in the media and removes the irrelevant material that is in the current article wording. BlackCab (TALK) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the overall substance of your rewrite. I would recommend the following, but this is just my personal opinion.

"The religion has been criticized for its "two witness rule", which requires an allegation of sexual abuse to be substantiated by at least two witnesses if the accused person denies any wrongdoing. Based on their application of scriptures at Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, Jehovah’s Witness policy is that without a confession by the accused, no action can be taken unless there is testimony from two witnesses."

This seems very repetitive, and like one sentence split in two with some filler added. I'd maybe rewrite it to say something like "The religion has been criticized for it's "two witness rule", based on their application of Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:15-17, which requires sexual abuse to be substantiated by two witnesses if the accused person denies any wrongdoing." Reduces it from 67 to 37 words and sounds (to me) clearer.

"In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children when elders have known of past sex offences by congregation members, while the Society has agreed to pay to settle other lawsuits involving abuse by men the organization allegedly knew had previously abused children. In those cases the Society reached confidential settlements—paying as much as $780,000 to the plaintiffs—without admitting wrongdoing."

Again, feels like it would be better and clearer if condensed. Maybe "In court cases in the United States and the United Kingdom, the Watch Tower Society has been found negligent in its failure to protect children from known sexual offenders within the congregation. The Society has settled other child abuse cases through confidential settlements-paying as much as $780,000 to the plaintiffs-while not admitting wrongdoing". Reduces it from 81 to 53 words and loses (I think) none of what you were going for.

Just some thoughts. Otherwise I like it. Vyselink (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The length was bothering me. I was probably overstating it a bit in anticipation of objections of what was not being said. BlackCab (TALK) 00:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove "conspire to". It implies an intent that can't easily be verified. Its removal does not impact the basic meaning of the statement, and it will almost certainly be challenged by other editors.

Change found that policy was closely followed: to heard that. Whilst the policy is to report when required by law to do so, in practice (in Australia at least), it has not been followed correctly. The Society's lawyer Vincent O'Toole did not understand that mandatory reporting of allegations is not the same thing as the broader obligation to report knowledge of crimes. Of the 1006 cases, it is not clear how many represented situations where elders were convinced that a crime had been committed, but it is highly unlikely that none did.

Change loath to reluctant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

one victim reportedly got paid 7,80,000 USD. "ranks" is contradictory to the fact that most the victims are layman, abused by their family or friends not by ranks. Use members instead, which would cover all. Further second witness can be a second allegation by another victim, or a circumstantial evidence. I found that in royal commission website appendix, couldn't pull the source immediately. Further the second para is entirely one sided, according an official spokesperson victims are free to call police before calling elders. That should be added to keep it neutral. Roller958 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted "ranks" and added "reportedly". I see no problem with the second paragraph: it accurately describes the policy then explains the criticism. It clearly shows that victims have the option of calling authorities. It needs no further elaboration. BlackCab (TALK) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, most of the abusers are said to be ordained ministers of the religion, and are not considered laymen by the organisation. The statement that victims "can call police" could be stated, but would need to be balanced by the cultural element of JWs to be mistrustful of 'worldly' authorities, which was raised during the Royal Commission.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored your removal of my addition "church discipline" without providing any reason. Wikipedia guidelines is that state all facts clearly before criticism. "Two Witness" rule does not prevent/sanction members from approaching secular authorities without a second witness, it is purely for church discipline. Period. Roller958 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your addition about church discipline is redundant. Since the 'two-witness rule' is the organisation's policy, it obviously only relates to church discipline, and has nothing to do with individual members reporting to authorities. The next sentence makes it clear that in the absence of a second witness, elders take no further action.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on checking the source, it does say that unsubstantiated cases are still reported to the branch office (even though it's a breach of clergy-penitent privilege)—and theoretically, but apparently not in practice, to secular authorities where required by law—even without two witnesses. But your reasoning that ""Two Witness" rule does not prevent/sanction members from approaching secular authorities without a second witness" has nothing to do with that, and wasn't particularly helpful. Reporting to authorities independently from church discipline is dealt with in the second paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding two words is not redundant, if anything is redundant in the section it is the repetition of same thoughts by Barbara Anderson and Bowen. Organizations policy is a broad statement, some of the organizations policy prevents individuals from taking a brother to court. So that distinction need to made clear. I restored that again. Please read WP:PUSH Roller958 (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The two words are not a major issue, and it would have been good if your reasoning for including them were actually relevant, rather than an irrelevant statement about members reporting to authorities.

It's not clear how the criticism made by Anderson and Bowen are redundant. They're addressing entirely separate matters—Anderson's criticism addresses internal inaction due to the 'two-witness rule', whereas Bowen's addresses reporting to authorities.

Yes, WP:PUSH does apply to many of your edits, though you're not always civil.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yours and BlackCabs edits are ripe for a topic ban, good in being civil. But strong pushing of POV, wearing out other editors with repeated reversal of minor edits. Roller958 (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Many of your 'minor edits' are heavily biased in favour of JWs. In this case your minor edit was reverted chiefly because the reason you provided for retaining it had nothing to do with it. Additionally, the Royal Commission has brought out that cases to which there were not two witnesses also were not reported to authorities, so it isn't only about "church discipline".--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never been adamant in reverting yours or BlackCab's edits. It doesn't need much pain to dig out the history of both you editors to show a pattern edits, mostly wording sentences to support mind control theory (ie. WTS is forcing JWs to practice their beliefs). This is mostly a content dispute, most articles related to JWs is written with a negative tone, and most contains 30-40% criticism of JW leadership. This should go to arbitration committee. I never removed any of the criticism, but I add obvious omission of facts in criticism mostly having a POV push. For that I have to fight tooth and nail to add one or two words which are sourced and accurate to keep NPOV. Everybody have their own bias, but yours and BlackCab's problem as one IP brought out recently,anyone having a contrary material is shot down and so those editors give up eventually. I am the only few surviving Roller958 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The addition of "church discipline" isn't a problem. It doesn't serve the purpose Roller seems to think it's for—Jeffro is correct that that wording has nothing to do with reporting to authorities—but it does explain that the two witness rule is part of JW judicial procedures. A casual reader might not grasp that point. BlackCab (TALK) 04:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "corroboration" is sufficient at this summary section to explain why judicial action might not proceed. The phrase "no secondary circumstantial or scientific evidence exist" raises more questions than it answers (what is "secondary circumstantial evidence? What degree of scientific evidence is sought? Are DNA tests taken?) A more detailed explanation is provided at the child article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#'Two witness rule', which is the appropriate place. BlackCab (TALK) 05:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller claims that "Most articles related to JWs is written with a negative tone, and most contains 30-40% criticism of JW leadership." Most of the main Jehovah's Witness article in fact details the history, beliefs and practices of the religion, and does so with fairness, accuracy and balance. In cataloging those primary doctrines and practices, this article achieves what the Watch Tower Society itself has never done in its long publishing career, so it provides a commendable public service. The religion is a controversial one, so the article includes coverage of those controversies; when it does so it relies on reliable sources and maintains balance. It would be fascinating to see how it would end up if left in the hands of JW editors with an outlook like his. BlackCab (TALK) 08:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim about '30-40% criticism' is entirely made up. Roller958 is simply recycling the earlier unsubstantiated claim of an IP editor.[1] The Criticism section actually makes up about 15% of the article, and is based on criticisms found in reliable sources. No doubt, Roller958 is blissfully unaware of the more outlandish criticisms I have removed from the article over the years. No doubt, Roller958 will be along shortly to substantiate his claims of widespread negative tone that purportedly afflicts the various JW-related articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

BlackCab's removal of my sourced content claiming that its already covered in child article is a classic example of POV pushing. Wiki guidelines state we need to have both positive and negative information if available, and make the facts right before criticism. The present statement that "2 witnesses" are required is a blatant omission of the fact that its not a literal guideline, but just a principle. "Two Witnesses" are not necessarily two human beings, it is about two evidences (one being the allegation from a child). Second can be circumstantial or scientific evidences used in a secular court. BlackCab knows that if that crucial fact is present it would water-down Barbara Anderson's false claim that it would essentially required a "second witness" (second human being) for abuse to be substantiated. You guys try to reduce the factual accuracy of my statement by claiming "redundant", "unimportant", "already mentioned somewhere else" etc. This behavior need to be changed. And editors give up to continue substantiating your POV pushing, because you two are so persistent and outlast competitors by investing more time in Wiki and your point of view. Same with Jeffro77. See recent example. I used the example from past for the pain I have to go through to add one simple fact, that secular sources agree on 537/538 BC. Regarding my statement about % of criticism, I am talking about giving due weight. The section is sociological analysis added by BlackCab and Jeffro77 contains a lot of criticism, while you may interpret it as a "fact", many statements there are not just plain facts. Everyone have their own POV, but the difference between my edits and yours is that you guys push it hard. Some of these characteristics fall under editors described in WP:PUSH Roller958 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"Secondary evidence" is fine by me. BlackCab (TALK) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm keen to ensure the spinoff article on JW handling of sex abuse—where we can go into a bit more detail—is accurate. In this edit Roller added the edit comment, "second witness can be circumstantial or scientific evidence." He cites transcripts from the royal commission, day 152 (pgs 67, 72) and day 155 (pg 54). Neither is very clear just what scientific evidence would be acceptable: Jackson is quite noncommittal and unsure of himself and Spinks, although replying to a direct question on "external forensic scientific or direct evidence", responds "Certainly" but doesn't specifically address that point. The Shepherd the Flock book (p.71-72) does allow guilt to be established if there are two or three "witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each is witness to a separate incident," but says "It is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing." I see nothing in that book, or the Watchtower letter dated October 1, 2012, that refers to scientific or other evidence. Is there a written policy on this or are we relying on an offhand, unsubstantiated comment from Spinks? BlackCab (TALK) 22:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller makes a similar, but more explicit claim immediately above, when he says that secondary corroboration of a sole witness can come from "circumstantial or scientific evidences used in a secular court". I need to know where this is stated. And out of interest, which point of view is he suggesting I am pushing by using the phrase "corroboration"[2]? This sounds rather paranoid. BlackCab (TALK) 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller958's emphatic claim that the 'two witness rule' is "not a literal guideline" is a little overstated. It's only more recently that it has been less literal, and the policy previously required two actual witnesses to the same incident before any action would be taken. However, the current policy does indeed have more latitude in its interpretation of what may constitute a 'witness'.

Roller958's further attempt to malign me with his cited 'example' continues to ignore the fact that I removed material because the reason Roller958 provided for retaining it ('reporting to authorities') was not directly related to the content in question. In a more desperate attempt to malign me (but actually further illustrating his own efforts to assert JW beliefs as if they are established facts), he then cites a discussion from nearly four years ago. The claim that I added (or even 'co-added') the Sociological analysis section (originally entitled Religious typification and added in November 2010) is a lie. On the contrary, I actually substantially trimmed the section.[3]. The claim about "30-40% criticism" is also a lie. As already stated earlier, the combined Sociological analysis, Opposition and Criticism sections make up only a quarter of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Opposition" section is not criticism in any case. The JWs treasure their status as "the most persecuted group of Christians of the twentieth century" and that section includes coverage of the benefits for the wider community of their past court cases. Those very courts that favoured them, of course, are part of "Satan's world" their literature continues to vilify, and which they believe are part of a satanic conspiracy against them. All a bit head-scratching, really. BlackCab (TALK) 08:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I granted quite a bit of latitude in counting the Opposition section as 'criticism', simply to demonstrate that even with that section, the three combined sections amount to only a quarter of the article, showing the claim about "30-40% criticism" to be a lie.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found a letter from WTS dating back to 1997 on royal commission website which talks about circumstantial evidence.

If the allegations can now be established by two or three witnesses, by confession, or by sufficient circumstantial evidence, one of the elders, preferably the Presiding Overseer will contact the Society’s Legal Department (or Service in some cases) to see if there are any reporting laws applicable. -- Source

Regarding scientific evidence I can't find any specific letters in royal commission website, however Spinks and GB member's testimony is credible. Spinks directly answered that question. Otherwise I would expect someone to question them for lying under oath, and face sentence in near future. Regarding Jeffro77s claim that he never inserted anything to sociological section and his hands are clean is false. For example looking at edit history I found BlackCab added that section and he added Bryan R Wilson's comment as a reference, and then Jeffro77 moved that negative comment in to the article which later became the second para.

Having said that I am not here to prove which editor is better. This article is written with a lot of negativity against JWs. This is clearly evident by the fact that there is hardly any complementary statements. Further the word Watchtower society appears at least 25 times in total inside organization, beliefs and practices section. This is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS. The guideline is to use WTS only when describing evangelical functions, publications or administrative statements. One example in source of doctrine section, It says The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", instead it should be the church or the governing body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith".

The typical style for most section in the article as of now is

• Neutral statement (sometime setting up a stage for criticism)
• Criticism or occasionally a rebuttal

What is rare is anything positive. What about circulation of WT/Awake magazine, 200 million Bibles printed etc. That should have been mentioned in funding section to state where the money goes. 1 billion dollars revenue and only 70 million spent. Roller958 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is becoming split into several discussions. I'll break out the bias complaint below. BlackCab (TALK) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller958 is continuing to attempt to lie about me. He claims I "moved" Bryan Wilson's comment "into the article". Actually, the diff I already provided[4] clearly shows that I simply re-ordered the existing material sourced to Bryan Wilson, but more clearly attributed the statement to that author (introducing the existing quote with the words "Bryan R. Wilson, in his consideration of five religions including Jehovah's Witnesses" and changing "particulars" to "factors"). Claiming that I "moved" something "into the article" that was already in the article is an entirely dishonest misrepresentation of what was actually just a routine copyedit of existing material. Rather than acknowledge that I substantially trimmed the section and removed a fair amount of material that was negative about JWs, Roller958 instead clutches at straws about me moving a sourced statement to a different paragraph. Roller958 should really stop lying about me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving something provided in the citation, in to a notable paragraph is not just a copy edit. --Roller958 (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes some paragraphs more "notable" than others. If you really think that the edit in question[5] is a demonstration of 'anti-JW bias', please feel free to raise an ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Two witness rule

In the discussion above I have sought verification for Roller's claim that bodies of elders may rely on scientific evidence when determining proof of wrongdoing in cases where a individual has alleged sexual abuse, but the alleged offender has not confessed. He is relying on two sources: (a) a 1997 document "Comment on flow chart" that refers to an allegation being established by "sufficient circumstantial evidence" and (b) a reply by Spinks to two questions by Angus Stewart at the royal commission (day 152 transcript, page 72, lines 20, 26) regarding the use of "scientific evidence".

As the royal commission has highlighted, the WTS issues highly detailed instructions on its processes for dealing with such matters and the actual flow chart is an example of this. It's a rigid framework for action. Yet that flow chart makes no reference to the consideration of scientific evidence, and so far no letter or written instruction has emerged that describes what scientific evidence could be considered or how it would be useful in establishing the wrongdoing.

Spinks' reply can in no way be used as the basis for the claim in an encyclopedia that scientific evidence is considered for that purpose. He answers "Certainly" when asked whether scientific evidence would satisfy the need for a second witness but does not eleborate; in the more detailed follow-up question he is asked about the acceptability of two things: "external forensic scientific ... evidence" and the evidence of a person who observes some corroborative aspect to the incident. Spinks replies, "We go much further than that," but then addresses only the second part of that question, ie an observer who provides some corroborative assistance. He makes (and is not directly asked to) no further mention of scientific or forensic evidence. What was he referring to? Where is the policy instruction? It's a shame Angus Stewart didn't ask him for that, but without any further evidence of such a policy, it would be wrong for an encyclopedia to state as verifiable fact that such a policy exists. Roller's suggestion that Spinks would be liable for prosecution if his one-word agreement was wrong is rather fanciful. My guess is he gave an answer off the top of his head to be helpful, but that answer was incorrect.

The bottom line in considering expanded coverage in the spinoff article is that a description of the "two witness rule" could include reference to acceptance of corroboration from an observer of a related aspect (the term "secondary evidence" is sufficient in the summary section of the JW article), but not to acceptance of scientific or forensic evidence. BlackCab (TALK) 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are skeptical about everything, and asking extra reference to statements made in court by a policy maker of the organization. And you want to see a policy written down? I personally know evidence from secular sources is acceptable, since I have involved with such a case (not child abuse). Since that would be an OR, according to Wiki guidelines you should include it attributing to Spinks. Just like you included Barbara Anderson's claim here. But don't push POV by entirely removing his statement. Roller958 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinks is not a policy maker, he is the head of the service desk at the Australian branch. And he does not cite any policy on scientific evidence, probably because it does not exist. BlackCab (TALK) 04:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how "skeptical" editors might be. Just provide a source supporting the claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinks is one of the policy makers for Australia. Just like I said before, This is what we call pushing POV. Just provide the source? Its what I added from royal commissions website. Spinks said so. Just like Barbara Anderson said so. Period. --Roller958 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. BlackCab (TALK) 12:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference is fairly clear, Roller: Anderson's comment is presented here as a viewpoint, a valid and pertinent criticism of a policy she describes as badly flawed. She is well established in the mainstream media as a critic of certain aspects of the religion with which she is well acquainted. You want Spinks' very brief, incomplete and rather offhand comment to be used as the source of a claim that a specific policy or process exists, when there is not a skerrick of external evidence to suggest it does. We would need something far more substantial than the word "Certainly". BlackCab (TALK) 21:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Does this article have a negative bias?

Roller958 has claimed above that this article displays an anti-JW bias. His latest statement is as follows:

“ This article is written with a lot of negativity against JWs. This is clearly evident by the fact that there is hardly any complementary statements. Further the word Watchtower society appears at least 25 times in total inside organization, beliefs and practices section. This is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS. The guideline is to use WTS only when describing evangelical functions, publications or administrative statements. One example in source of doctrine section, It says The Watch Tower Society does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", instead it should be the church or the governing body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith".

The typical style for most section in the article as of now is

• Neutral statement (sometime setting up a stage for criticism)
• Criticism or occasionally a rebuttal

What is rare is anything positive. What about circulation of WT/Awake magazine, 200 million Bibles printed etc. That should have been mentioned in funding section to state where the money goes. 1 billion dollars revenue and only 70 million spent.

”

I would argue that his interpretation of the article's tone is wrong and that it is overall neutral. Repeated reference to the Watch Tower Society is necessary because, as cited sources show, that is the source of JW teachings and practices. It is certainly notable that JWs distribute so many bibles, and that so many books and magazines have been published -- but it is the WTS that has published them. Wikipedia should include this somewhere, but if here, doesn't this compound the problem Roller raises? BlackCab (TALK) 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania & New York (aka WTS) is a non-profit corporation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. WTS also exists in other countries with no connection to those corporations in Pennsylvania & New York. WTS is not church's leadership. Its the common name given to its legal entity used by religions leadership and their associates across the globe to distribute Bible, publish literature and legally defend Jehovah's Witnesses. Simply put members are not looking to a legal corporation called WTS for direction, they look to the Governing Body which give directions using its printed publications through a legal arm called WTS. The Governing Body's power is limited to interpretation of doctrines and policies, without violating religions fundamental teachings. If the Governing Body tomorrow teaches that "Trinity" would be the new interpretation for God then nobody is going to accept it. That was emphasized by a GB member recently, your first loyalty is to Jehovah, then to Governing body, then to branch committee and then to elders in congregation (collectively called earthly organization). Further more its confusing for readers to understand what WTS is, especially if they are directly going to a particular section of this article. They would better understand things if we used words such as "church", "church's leadership", "religion", "religion's leadership" when it comes to controversial doctrines and practices that are directed by its leadership through its legal arm called WTS. (eg. Religions leadership teaches that blood transfusion is a sin against God). For plain facts use Jehovah's Witnesses believe. (for example JWs believe we are living in last days, not WTS teach we are living in last days) Roller958 (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Books are published by the WTS, assemblies are organised by the WTS and all letters to congregations and elders come from the WTS. It is a convenient and unambiguous way to describe the source of JW doctrines. The teaching organisation is widely known as "Watchtower" and I remain surprised that you see that description as a negative thing. I also disagree with your conjecture about what would happen if the Governing Body decided God was part of a trinity. As with every other "adjustment" (teachings on dates, "this generation", "superior authorities", blood components, and the identity of faithful and discreet slave to name a few) new doctrines are accepted, indeed must be accepted, without question. What was heresy yesterday becomes "current truth" today. The GB would find a way to explain the trinity and it would be accepted. For proof of that I need only cite the way the sheer lack of logic on the new "overlapping generation" teaching has been willingly ignored by the faithful. BlackCab (TALK) 04:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Which legal corporation are you talking about? The one in New York or the one in Pennsylvania? Or in Australia? One in Britain? If you insist on using that Jargon to equate a legal corporation with JWs leadership, go ahead. Tomorrow they may change the name to "Christian Association of Jehovah's Witnesses", New York & Pennsylvania. Just like I mentioned before, I am not here to entirely remove bias. There were two major ones, one false accusation against Rutherford, second about "second witness". Both the cases you were forced to make changes. I am happy with the result. Remaining it would take an independent editor to do anything. --Roller958 (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are becoming incoherent and I have no idea what changes I was "forced" to make. BlackCab (TALK) 12:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that JWs are expected to follow everything GB says, virtually even if they asked all to jump off a cliff. Apart from that we don't need to discuss over and over again an established consensus, just follow what the guidelines say. Roller958 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Watchtower, 15 November 2011, page 20: "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are taking this quote out of context. As long as no conflict is involved with Bible principles such as to not commit murder, fornication etc, we ought to follow instructions, which may not be sound from a human standpoint. That's how its understood by members. -- Roller958 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The Governing Body maintains the doctrine established by a previous president that blood transfusions, a lifesaving and routine medical procedure, are forbidden because of a certain interpretation of several biblical verses. Among all religions the JWs are unique in holding that belief. To my knowledge, no other theologian agrees with their interpretation of those scriptures and arrives at such a doctrinal view. Thus the Governing Body's interpretation has resulted, (as they themselves have often acknowledged) in the deaths of many members including unbaptised children. Yet JWs are required to accept that doctrine; to act contrary to it would result in their automatic "disassociation" and shunning. There is not a huge gulf between that situation and your hypothetical suggestion of the GB directing members to jump off cliffs. Obedience is obligatory.

Irrespective, replacing every doctrinal reference to the Watch Tower Society with "Governing Body" would not address your (erroneous) view that readers would draw the conclusion that JWs are ignorant people controlled by an elite group. The article fairly and accurately explains what JWs are taught. BlackCab (TALK) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Bible clearly asks to abstain from Blood, nothing to do with being obedient to GB. Scriptural interpretation on Blood transfusion were established when JWs where at least 1/10th of their current strength. So there is no point in correlating with theologians, members who joined know theologians have different view.

Using Governing Body as mentioned in the guidelines not only that it makes statements accurate, it improves the quality of the article and its readability. Roller958 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Since, as a JW you will argue in favour of the Governing Body's current doctrinal position whatever they say, further doctrinal discussion is clearly pointless. Substituting "Watch Tower Society" with "Governing Body" would improve neither accuracy, quality or readability. BlackCab (TALK) 02:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, using "Watch Tower Society" is inaccurate and ambiguous. A corporation in New York or in Australia does not constitute a religions leadership. Though using "Governing body" can greatly improve the readability when compared to "Watch Tower Society" (since governing body is a meaningful term), "Governing Body" is not the only word we can substitute to improve readability. We can also substitute it with "religion","religions leadership", "denomination" based on the context. We just follow what the guidelines say. Roller958 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have identified several places where "Watch Tower Society" is better replaced with alternative wording. I'll have another look soon if there are more, though many of the descriptions of beliefs and practices refer to what is stated in WTS publications, which remains accurate. BlackCab (TALK) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the guideline suggests using "Governing Body" "when referring to leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses or those that set policy or doctrine". Most remaining references to the WTS article (in a doctrinal sense) refer to what is written in WTS literature, which is the main teaching aid. I see no problem there. The "Criticism" section contains some references to the WTS that are arguably wrong, including the statement that "critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making, the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience." That disparagement in fact comes from the Governing Body through WTS publications, but the WTS per se does not make those statements. Similarly, the statement that "the Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet" may be incorrect; a check would need to be made of the cited magazine so see how they refer to themselves. On the whole there are relatively few instances where the phrase appears in a context that is arguably wrong. BlackCab (TALK) 07:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that Wiki is not an academic Book, readability is important. Even members don't use WTS anymore. They use "faithful and discreet slave" (aka Governing Body), "Branch Committee", "Branch" etc. News-media often use "religion","Governing Body" etc. What is your specific objection with simply saying "Jehovah's Witness publications" or "religions publication"? When describing official position, its not even necessary to say "Watchtower society Publications say", rather it is as simple as "Governing Body say" or "religion say". Further if we use "Watchtower Society Publications" that raises the next question, which Watchtower society? Publication of Watchtower Society of Australia may be different from that in New-York (Take for example The Kingdom Ministry). This is also true for policy matters, policies are adapted by country. Using "Governing Body" or "religion" is the single coherent wording that avoids ambiguity when referring to official position. Roller958 (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite a nitpicking argument. Since the doctrines of each tentacle of the Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania are identical, it's not an issue. The phrase is widely used in academic articles and clearly understood. BlackCab (TALK) 13:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly understood only by academicians, ex-JWs and JWs. Ask a reader what is "Watchtower Society"? He may say its a "secret society", or "society in Watchtower." Tell me what is your specific objection in using "Jehovah's Witness publications" or "religions publication" when referring to doctrines. If your objection is about "what Watchtower Society" say as opposed to "what witnesses say", we always have the choice of using what "Governing Body say"--Roller958 (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the examples I raised above, I prefer the existing wording. Your objections and suggested alternatives so far seem to have no support. BlackCab (TALK) 20:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Roller958 is suggesting that "a reader" doesn't know what the "Watchtower Society" is. The article quite clearly provides the history and purpose of the Watch Tower Society and its relationship to Jehovah's Witnesses, and it does this before any doctrinal statements are attributed to the Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a problem. We can find 3rd party for comments. I put below a table to consolidate my suggestion. Watch Tower society is only required when historical discussions, administration, construction, printing facilities (with the exception of attributing doctrines), legal cases (that are not related collective representation of JWs doctrinal interests). When using Watchtower Society I propose to specify the location as well. (Watchtower Society of New York, Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Bible Student Association of Britain etc).--Roller958 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower society vs Jehovah's Witnesses vs Leadership

	Current wording	User:Roller958 proposal
1	At the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Watch Tower Society, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.	In 2012, the "faithful and discreet slave" was defined as referring to the Governing Body only.
2	Watch Tower Society publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"	The religion's publications emphasize the need for members to be obedient and loyal to Jehovah and to "his organization,"
3	The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through publications published by the Watch Tower Society.	The Governing Body does not issue any single, comprehensive "statement of faith", but prefers to express its doctrinal position in a variety of ways through its publications.
4	Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible	Sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through its publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible
5	Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature	Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of religion's publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature
6	Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature	Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught through its literature
7	Watch Tower Society publications teach that humanity is in a sinful state	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that humanity is in a sinful state
8	Watch Tower Society publications teach that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven	Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God's kingdom is a literal government in heaven
9	Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914	Religion's publications teach that Jesus Christ began to rule in heaven as king of God's kingdom in October 1914
10	The meetings are largely devoted to study of Watch Tower Society literature and the Bible	The meetings are largely devoted to study of religion's literature and the Bible
11	Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in Watch Tower Society literature as wicked and are also shunned	Members who disassociate (formally resign) are described in religion's literature as wicked and are also shunned
12	Watch Tower Society publications define the "world" as "the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants"	Jehovah's Witness publications define the "world" as "the mass of mankind apart from Jehovah's approved servants"
13	Watch Tower Society literature directs Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"	The religion requires Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions, even in "a life-or-death situation"
14	The Watch Tower Society provides pre-formatted durable power of attorney documents prohibiting major blood components,	The religion provides pre-formatted durable power of attorney documents prohibiting major blood components,
15	Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the Watch Tower Society provides information about current non-blood medical procedures	Jehovah's Witnesses accept non-blood alternatives and other medical procedures in lieu of blood transfusions, and the religion provides information about current non-blood medical procedures
16	Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest	Jehovah's Witness literature of the period directed that Witnesses should "never seek a controversy" nor resist arrest
17	Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization"	The religion strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the it is to be trusted as "God's organization"
18	Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity, and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination	Jehovah's Witness publications state that consensus of faith aids unity, and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination
19	Watch Tower Society publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and formerly, the International Bible Students) to declare his will	Jehovah's Witness publications have claimed that God has used Jehovah's Witnesses (and formerly, the International Bible Students) to declare his will
20	Some failed predictions that the Watch Tower Society had claimed were presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God"	Some failed predictions that the leadership had claimed were presented as "beyond doubt" or "approved by God"
21	The Watch Tower Society rejects accusations that it is a false prophet	The Governing Body rejects accusations that it is a false prophet
22	In cases where corroboration is lacking, the Watch Tower Society's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands"	In cases where corroboration is lacking, the religion's instruction is that "the elders will leave the matter in Jehovah's hands"
23	Watch Tower Society policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family	Jehovah's Witnesses policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family
24	In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation[372][373] and the Society has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing	In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the religion has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation[372][373] and it has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing

Comment: It would be really nice if the table above had some sort of clear indicator who created it. Secondly, I object with varying degrees of vehemences to many if not most of the changes proposed. Using the phrase "the religion" seems to me to be an attempt to avoid the issue of who issued the statement, and seems to me to rather clearly violate our policy of saying where our material comes from. If the publications of a specific group made a statement, then we should indicate that. If that specific publication is also circulated by others, well and good, but indicating who the original publisher is would still make sense because it properly attributes the sourcing to the source. Further, without having a clear identification of what "the religion" is, specifically whether it includes any splinter groups(?), the statements are to my eyes a rather clear impediment to clarity and ease of understanding, and that is really rather counterproductive. The other changes proposed seem to my eyes to pretty much suffer the same difficulty, in that they seem to be avoiding really clearly identifying the source making the statement. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the table. I don't object in stating the source such as adding "leadership", some printing factory have to publish the material right? (whether it is Watchtower Society or IBSA of London). However I object equating a legal corporation called Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania as the source of Witness doctrines. While the source is the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. There is a clear distinction. Roller958 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a widespread acceptance among publications about the JWs that the umbrella terms "Watchtower" and "Watch Tower Society" are acceptable descriptions of the source of doctrines and activities. As I have previously explained, all literature is published by the WTS and all correspondence on JW activities comes from the WTS. It is inextricably linked with the religion and is at its heart. Within Roller's table though, there are several suggested changes to which I'd have no objection. BlackCab (TALK) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The claimed example of distinction between "Watchtower Society" and "IBSA of London" is not only immaterial, but also misleading. The copyright owner of JW literature is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, regardless of which subsidiary does the printing for any particular country.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So if Catholic Church prints its doctrine using a factory owned by its corporation called "Watchtower Printing Corporation", does that mean doctrines are of "Watchtower printing Corporation"? That's just doesn't make sense. The mere fact that religions use different legal corporations does not mean its teachings are originating from a corporation, its originating from those who control the corporation. Roller958 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A comment: I disagree to Roller958 when it comes to legal claims, as it is legal entities at both sides in a trial. You can only sue a legal entity. If it is WTBS who are sued, then the legal entity is sued, and the legal entity have to pay damages. It is possible not incorrect to state "Watch Tower Society literature" rather than "Jehovah's Witness publications", as there are not neccessary a conflict of both "Watch Tower Society literature" and Jehovah's Witness believings. The publications are, on the other hand, only a part of Jehovah's Witnesses' way to distribute new teachings. Other ways includes speaches at conventions, where new teachings are presented, without being published by any WTBS-publications at the time presented. Later on, the teaching is further explained in a publication, typical the study-edition of 'The Watchtower. The publications may teach the JW doctrines, but it is not given it is the origin for the teaching, even not when it is being presented for "common" members, as most members attend to the conventions. Since the article is about JW, and not about WTBS in particular, I can't see why claims like "The Society teaches" should trump what Jehovah's Witnesses believes. When authors not afflicted to the religion, is using "The Society" or simmilar, is it sometimes explained initially, and used with reservations. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have the same view as you noted. I don't understand why BlackCab and Jeffro77 have a penchant to use "Watchtower Society". This treatment in Wiki to equate JWs doctrinal source with Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania (just because it owns copyright) is unfortunately specific to JWs articles. John Carters opinion that we should always attribute the source is valid if there is dissenting opinion on doctrines. In such cases we can say "Governing Body" or "leadership". I agree that legal claims specifically involved with Watchtower Society of New York, Inc should be attributed as such. However my objection was against cases with collective representation of JWs beliefs. For example cases related to flag salute, military service etc. Roller958 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is as simple as it in almost all countries needs a legal entity both for legally publishing (off topic, but the Norwegian edition of Watchtower have for a long time listed a Norwegian editor, for legal reasons), and for being in position of owing copyrights. JW literature is rendering JW teaching. Wheather it is the origin for "publishing" (like in making public available) new teachings, it is may not always correct, as of the example in my comment above. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Elders do not report

The statement elders do not report is not entirely accurate, "generally" do not is more accurate. Though practically none was reported in Australia, its a conscientious decision as heard in Royal Commission proceedings. That should be corrected in the official policy mentioned here. Roller958 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The policy is actually a bit more subtle, and I have tried to reflect that in my proposed rewording, as linked above. The article currently says that elders "do not report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law"; in fact the policy places such a requirement only when there is a legal obligation; in other words there is actually no policy at all on reporting to authorities other than (a) do it if required by law and (b) do not discourage an individual from doing it. The statement that elders "do not report" or "generally do not report" is a reasonable deduction from that policy, and the findings of the Australian royal commission are valuable in showing what happened in one region, which is probably representative of the global experience. But is a deduction good enough here? BlackCab (TALK) 08:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The wording was introduced recently by ChercheTrouve[6]. It is not good wording. The issue is complicated by the fact that whilst the policy directs elders to report 'when required by law', the policy apparently (as indicated by the Society's lawyer's testimony to the Royal Commission) only refers to laws regarding mandatory reporting of allegations of abuse, and is not employed where there are laws requiring that any person report knowledge of crimes, which would apply in cases where elders are convinced that sexual abuse has occurred (irrespective of organisational rules about 'two witnesses').--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

In this edit I requested quotes for the claim "[t]he elders do not report abuse allegations to authorities when not required by law, leaving the decision to report to authorities with the victim and his or her family". In the article it is mentioned a policy ("According to Jehovah's Witnesses' policy"), then refering to the' policy ("The policy directs elders to report abuse allegations to authorities when required by law, in other cases leaving the decision to report to authorities with the victim and his or her family") like it was the one and same thing. The referenced Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, like it is presented in thepapers from the hearing, p. 138, it is about members and applying members with unsettled law issues in general. I can not see any reference to child sex abuse or simmilar at the referenced page. Being an illegal alien is not concidered serious at all in a number of countries, often even not a crime. It would be easier if quotes are given at the talk page, then find out if it adds relevant information, and then find out what to add ("According to Rodney Peter Spinks at the Watchtower help desk, JW practice in Australia have been..." and so on. Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The current elders' manual is Shepherd the Flock of God, downloadable at the royal commission website, and the relevant policy is on pages 131-132. BlackCab (TALK) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I amended the most problematic element of ChercheTrouve's wording last night.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)