Talk:Silentlambs

Vague claims

This article seems to contain several vague statements based on unverified claims on silentlambs website, as well as other loaded language: Lead:

• "silenced from speaking out": Loaded language, and no source for claim that members are 'prevented' ("silenced") from reporting abuse to authorities. JW policy explicitly allows members to report abuse to civil authorities regardless of whether a (religious) judicial committee is formed.
• "as directed by religious authority." What direction? What level of 'religious authority'?

Campaign:

• "Jehovah's Witnesses approve, condone, and encourage accused, confessed, and convicted child molesters to call door to door preaching work.": Wordy loaded language.
• "Jehovah’s Witnesses threaten parents of molested children with disfellowshipment if they try to warn other members whose children may be in danger.": Unverified claim at silentlambs site. Reliable source required.
• "Jehovah’s Witness Service Department punish elders in its congregation if they warn parents of pedophiles in their congregation.": Reliable source required.
• "The Watchtower organization is a closed society that encourages incidents of child molestation be handled within the organization.": Loaded language ('closed society') unnecessary for import of sentence.
• "The Watchtower Society keeps a secret database listing 23,720 Jehovah Witness pedophiles.": No reliable source for existence of database, or for claim that content of database is specifically (only) pedophiles.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I discussed the loaded language with Barbara Anderson on several opportunities. It should never be included in wikpedia. Silent Lambs and Barbara Anderson love to highlight and pulicize every vague claim of sexual abuse by a child. Not all claims are valid or are worthy. While children rarely lie, it does happen. Wikipedia editors should find beter sources or merely reference Silent Lambs. They are not the least bit interested in neutrality. I know very well that they are not interested in truth. Truth always wins. The express statements of the Watchtower may not be always followed by Jehovah's Witness elders. It is a feature of the culture to either not understand or too willfully ignore any conduct that might cause the Society to be in disrepute in the community. Bill Bowen and Barbara Anderson do not care to learn legal terminology or to spend a few days learning it. I've caught many mistakes and I am on their side, except when every claim is considered valid and worthy of publication. Not all claims by anyone are meritorious. Children do lie on rare occasions. Adult memories may prove false. They are unwilling to filter the results by using a few key words. I tried. It takes time and discipline to analyze such cases. Not much with today's tools. Every mistake empowers the Watchtower. I gave up. Perhaps a discussion of Jehovah's Witness culture can convey accuracy. Do not rely on Silent Lambs or Barbara Anderson for anything important. Unless hard evidence or testimony at trial is conclusive, it is better not to publish. Anyone can file a lawsuit. It is very hard to get past summary judgment or to prevail at trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@75Janice: Janice, A) don't forget to sign your posts. B) Your response is to a point that Jeffro originally posted 6 years ago. The wording has changed since then. Vyselink (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The wording is inept at best. Wikipedia can do much better. Clarity is important. This is a very sensitive subject. Jeffro77's concerns needs to be restated more forcefully. They have not been dealt with in an effective manner. The bias in this article may be the result of sloppy writers and researchers. Perhaps the WT is not involved. Nevertheless, Wikipedia readers need utter clarity concerning this matter, in particular. Excuse me, if I forget to sign. Excuse me for not signing. Sloppy and inept writing are much more important to defeat than someone not signing a Wikipedia talk page. I am more than willing to discuss the obvious bias in this article as it now reads in detail. Anyone should be able to note its clear bias towards the WT and its despicable use of Silentlambs as a source of data. Silentlambs deserves a reference but not any assertions of sex abuse. When Silentlambs decides to screen cases for improper filings, I shall argue that Silentlambs should be included. They may mean well, but they are very dangerous.75Janice (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Janice, your advice is again unhelpful. WHAT should be changed? To WHAT? Just saying "There is a problem" is pointless. If you have an issue with how something is worded, either A) change it and see if it starts a discussion, or B) start the discussion with your proposed changes. I have yet, in any of your posts, seen you actually SUGGEST a change. You continue to talk about how this page is biased, and how your legal training informs your talking points, but you make no actual suggestions. Please do so. Vyselink (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

one-sided

seems the only Source they have listed here is the AP. All of the other sources are from the SL site itself. As Jeffro77 mentioned: loaded language and no sources(for the SL site) and no ther sources except SL and 1 AP article. Andy5421 (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Plan to request removal of this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This page is one sided, is basically slandering Jehovah's Witnesses, with no hint of the other side of the issue. And I'm opening discussion here for suggestion to remove this page.--Natural (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Support 2
Against 1

Against. If the problem is balance, just add the missing information in a separate section. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Articles should not be created about specific websites unless the sites are widely notable (think Facebook). This article is more of a promotion piece for a special interest site. The issue already has an adequate Wikipedia article at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated several months ago, the article is clearly biased. Both the article and the organization seem to dramatise the issue about JWs specifically, whereas it has not been established that child sex abuse occurs more frequently among JWs than in other religious (or other) groups, particularly if abuse by non-clergy members of other religious groups are also counted. The issue of how JW child abuse cases are handled is covered in the previously mentioned Wikipedia article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone thinks sexual abuse occurs more frequently among Jehovah's Witnesses. The issue is that it does happen and it is covered up. It is the cover-up and the silencing of the victims that is the issue. The silentlambs website was one of the first to bring the issue to light. Several well documentaed news programs aired the issue - from a wide range of countries around the world. Sadly, in general, Jehovah's Witnesses are kept in the dark about the extent of the problem so it is difficult for them to comment on an issue they have not been made aware of. Lee2010ca (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are indeed those who claim that there are more abusers among JWs than in other communities. Indeed, the Silentlambs site specifically claims that there are more abusers among JWs than in other religions. For example, based on unconfirmed and unverifiable statistics and an invalid statistical comparison, the site claims: "If we applied a similar ratio to the number of Catholics in the USA at 60,000,000, it would mean there are 230,769 Catholic child molesters in this country. It would appear unrealistic to believe this type of ratio could exist in the Catholic Church. Yet with Jehovah’s Witnesses the ratio could be far worse when you consider that many Jehovah’s Witness child molesters may not be reported to Watchtower Legal." (http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/23720.cfm) (Here the article applies its alleged figure to only the United States, whereas it hosts a New York Times article (http://www.silentlambs.org/press/NYTarticle.htm) that cites the same figure (which cites Bowen as a source of the figure) as also including abusers in Canada and Europe, not just the United States.)

There is an open AfD debate; it has not yet been closed, but the most likely result is Keep. Irrespective of the outcome, the article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse also addresses the issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV tag

finally managed to add the POV tag to the page Andy5421 (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. (WP:V) --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It has not been established that the SilentLambs website is reliable; many of its articles do not cite sources for their claims.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your POV. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a statement of fact. For example, the article http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/23720.cfm. There is no source for this article's claims about the existence, purpose or content of the database in question. Maybe it exists. Maybe it's a database of pedophiles. Maybe it's a database of JWs who've committed any of various 'offences'. It is a fact that no reliable source is provided. Additionally, the article seeks to compare an alleged number of JW sex offenders with Catholic clergy sex offenders, which is a meaningless comparison intended to conflate the problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not your job to be a "thruth police" and try determine if the source is saying the truth or not; please note that it was good enough for BBC News (among other cited news organizations) to publish it, so it is good enough for Wikipedia per WP:V. If you feel there is a need for "balance", simply add it along with your sources. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not established that SilentLambs is notable enough to warrant its own article, only that the issue of the handling of JW sex abuse cases is notable, which is not being contested, and is covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. A brief summary of SilentLambs could be incorporated into that article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Silentlambs was featured in TV programs around the world such as: USA/ NBC Dateline, CNN/Connie Chung, UK BBC/Panorama-Suffer The Little Children, Australia/Sunday Program-Silent Witnesses, German Program/WDR-The End of Silence, Denmark Program/DTV2-Silent Children, German Program-Protecting the Perpetrator Comes First, Slovenia Program-POPTV, plus several TV news stories. You can access all of them here. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This spate of media attention arose when SilentLambs first 'set up shop'. The story was passed around various media outlets from late 2002 to early 2003. A summary of SilentLambs at the JW child sex abuse article is sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You know that you moved the debate to [1] so please post your comments there. Thank you. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't move the debate there. Someone else started a delete request for the article there, and I have already responded there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Silent Lambs gives no indication as to whether these abusers were abusers before they became Jehovah's Witnesses, after, they have unverifiable information, somewhat sensationalized. Jeffro is correct. The Silent Lambs page here is like a self-promotion page. It is very questionable "organization" with tactics that are not ethical. It is agreed that at one point Jehovah's Witnesses had to reexamine the problem of child abuse, and its policies, which it did. It's hard to say what Silent Lambs is trying to accomplish, because we have dealt with child abuse in the congregation, and all elders and Bethel worked hard together to protect the child, using all legal means possible. (2008) and availing the help of the child protection agencies, working in cooperation with them. (the abuser was not a Witness in this case). The point remaining, there is an effort for child abuse awareness a matter of public information among Jehovah's Witnesses, and to protect children rather than a cover up. Child abuse is a worldwide problem, and no child on earth is completely free need of protection, including those of Jehovah's Witnesses. If there ever were any issues with regards to this problem, they have been addressed. Silent Lambs is like referring to a tabloid to have a report on Wikipedia, or page, saying something like, Michael Jackson is still alive. It's a sensational thing, rather than anything of value or that adds to one's understanding of the issue. By having it's page on Wikipedia, it is giving credibility to an uncredible and unethical source. Natural (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Natural.

See above: The result was to keep the article. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes made

1. I removed the external link per point 9 of WP:ELNO. 2. I removed Religious abuse from the See also section. That page shows no definition that has anything to do with Silentlambs. 3. I added another link to the Further reading section. I believe it can be included on the same basis as the other link there. 4. I changed "Watchtower organization" to "Witness organization" in interests of accuracy. Comments and input on these changes are welcome. StandFirm-JW (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Writing Department' is a section of the Watch Tower Society, not of 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. It has already been clearly explained to you that the apologist site thirdwitness.com fails the criteria for external links.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When Bowen was disfellowshipped and when he was an elder

According to his testimony in court he said he resigned from elder-ship in 2000, for which the attorney of Watchtower agreed. Then attorney asked why he was disfellowshipped in 2002, the he said it was because of causing divisions, and the attorney added that it falls under "apostasy". This is in contradiction to his personal statement in website that he was removed because of a disagreement when he was an elder in 2002, because he was not an elder at that time--Fazilfazil (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to claim that a person said something 'in a court testimony' or 'under oath' as an appeal to authority in such a way that implies the person lied or contradicted themself elsewhere. This is especially the case when the other statements may be entirely consistent with the statement made in court. In particular, Bowen's statements that he was removed for objecting to JWs policies about abuse may be exactly the same as accusations against him about "causing divisions". Suggesting that a person was otherwise lying by unnecessarily making reference to supposedly 'contrary' "court testimony" may also be a violation of Wikipedia's policy biographies of living people. It's not clear what website you're citing for Bowen's supposed claim about being an elder in 2002; the New York Times link cited in the article does not make such a claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the cited sources indicate any claim by Bowen that he was an elder in 2002.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point. He said that he ressigned himself from eldership in 2000, then how can he interfere in an appointment in 2002?--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean by "interfere in an appointment in 2002". There is no claim about him being appointed to any specific 'position' in 2002, or that the process was 'interfered with'. If you can't be clear about what you're referring to, provide a quote from the source you're talking about.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

See ressigned in 2000 and disfellowshipped in 2002. In this article its stated that he was disfellowshipped for disagreement for an appointment, its ambhiguous--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That is clearly a typo in this article, (which I will fix). The source for that statement says he "was removed as an elder in 1992 for not backing down on a matter involving the appointment of a child molester. Bowen was reappointed in 1994 and used for many privileges following that reappointment".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Again in the court he said that he was removed for being "self-willed" in 1992, but he did not mention the reason as "objecting appointment of a molestor". It might be but that is his own claim, and the truth is not known. It should be stated as his claim--Fazilfazil (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only an assumption that the charge of being 'self-willed' (apparently thinking for oneself is 'bad') isn't the same incident as "objecting appointment of a molestor". It's now in there as 'according to Bowen' anyway, which should be sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this article about?

It is a problem with this article. This article's name, "Silentlambs", indicates this article is about Silentlambs, the organization, while the article is pretty much about its founder and his claims. The organization itself is only mentioned in the heading, and briefly in the last paragraph. The third section, "Watch Tower Society database", is not linked to silentlambs in this article in other ways than the claims is issued by the organizations founder.

I've sorted out two options for solution (I've not considered deletion for now, as this article already have been through a deletion proposal): To move the whole article to William H. Bowen, or to remove or move all content not close related to silentlambs. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a significant problem, in that Bowen runs Silentlambs. Actions attributed to Bowen should probably just be changed to Silentlambs instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bowen started Silentlambs. The article explains why. BlackCab (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I know who Bowen is, but I don't see why, to give an example, the section "Watch Tower Society database" is added to the article. It's relevance to the article is not obvious to me, and the sources (my favourite from this section is the unlinked "Fax from J. R. Brown, Office of Public Information, to Betsan Powys, dated May 9, 2002", which I, for obvious reasons, have not checked out) does not support an obvious connection between silentlambs to "Watch Tower Society database". To Jeffro: The sources doesn't state silentlamb says or claims, or silentlambs spokeman says or claims, but Bowen is asked for commenting or are mentioned in most of the sources.

Other possible issues is: The article does also lack essential information like how many members who are listed (relevant to notability, as well as relevant to the question about moving the article, if few or no other members). Being briefly mentioned in papers is may not sufficient to build notability for an organization. Grrahnbahr (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed category

I removed the category «Christian sex abuse cases», as this article isn't about a Christian sex abuse case. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Silentlambs. 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/20151208221347/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/national/11WITN.html?pagewanted=all to http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/national/11WITN.html?pagewanted=all

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 05:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)