Talk:Eunice Spry

Category

I have removed this article from the JW category once again. The subject of the article is not notable as a JW. Individuals who are notable for committing a crime that has no direct relationship to the person's religion should not be categorised by religion. Articles about other individuals who are only notable for committing crimes are not generally categorised by religious affiliation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

She doesn't have to be notable as a JW though. Her religion was relevant to the offences, with reliable sources linking it to the way the victims were isolated from others and controlled.[1]--Shakehandsman (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No source I've seen, including the one you cite above, gives any indication that her offenses specifically relate to being a JW, nor are the offenses typical of JWs. The source already on the article specifically states that her crimes were reported by another JW.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't really mind either way, but I'd disagree with the above. And surely if the crime was reported by a JW then that makes the religion an even more significant aspect of the story? It seems that pretty much everyone involved was a JW.--Shakehandsman (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unremarkable that a person who only associates with JWs would be reported by a JW. If everyone involved were Catholic (or some other more widespread religion), the religion of the people wouldn't even be mentioned. The religion was mentioned as a novelty, which is sensationalism and not encyclopedic. The individual is notable for her offense, which was neither characteristic of JWs nor endorsed by that religious organisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest, Jeffro, are you a JW?

Eunice would quote scripture to justify why her children were "punished" as "sinners". That's at least Christian, and JW is the type of Christian she was. Let people make their own judgement. Don't persecute, but don't whitewash either. It actually looks worse on JW-ism that a perhaps-member would come to the article to attempt to "clean it up". Eunice's are abominable crimes, and if it was influenced by JW-ism, even in the mind of an evil person, it should be said.

Perhaps JW's social ideas and philosophy has faults that might cause a cruel and evil person to be inspired towards such acts. A nice person wouldn't, but not everybody is nice. A grown-up can understand that level of nuance. You need to let people make up their own minds. Besides that, it's well-reported in the news that she's JW. So hiding it looks weird.

A religion doesn't have to formally endorse things, to influence people. The whole point of religions is to give people a particular way of thinking. Especially ones with such strong orthodoxy as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Religions are made of ideas. Perhaps some of her behaviour was characteristic of JW thinking, just taken to an extreme much farther than the ordinary believer would, or the church would endorse.

84.70.181.151 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible death?

Someone has changed 'is' to 'was' in the opening sentence, saying in their edit summary that she's died.

I can't find any sources for this, but I suppose she's under a false identity so it's entirely possible that she's died and it's never been reported. Can anyone clarify? (Incidentally, is there a procedure for people who are keeping low-profile whose deaths are unlikely to be reported?) 2A0A:EF40:1216:D701:788E:7ADF:8CFE:141E (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Alloma's death

Shouldn't the article reference the fact that another abuse victim, Alloma Gilbert, has died from illnesses relating to her childhood abuse?

It wasn't widely reported, apart from on social media and in The Sun which I'm aware isn't a reliable Wikipedia source. Still, I think these reports (which come from her family, particularly her brother) are sufficient evidence that the information is accurate, and entirely relevant to the subject. 2A0A:EF40:12AC:9B01:3953:59B5:7361:9DA1 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Presumably you're refering to this edit that I reverted. First, her death isn't properly sourced. Second, there is no source indicating she "died from illnesses relating to her childhood abuse". Third, why is "leaving him the only remaining survivor of Spry's abuse" of any encylpedic value? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Death not properly sourced: It was reported in The Sun, and by her family on social media - which I appreciate are not considered reliable sources, but regardless I think it's clear that what reports there are of her death are accurate, and is relevant enough to the subject of the article that the fact it hasn't been reported very widely shouldn't be a barrier on it being included. Died from illnesses relating to her childhood abuse: Her brother has said as much. And the article says that her sister Victoria's suicide was a consequence of her childhood abuse as well - which can't be proven, because she didn't leave a suicide note and no one can say what was going through her head at that precise moment, but nevertheless her family attest that it very likely was because of being abused which is why it's in the article. I think the same can be said here. Leaving Christopher the sole survivor: I'd be happy to put the edit back and take that line out if it helps? 2A0A:EF40:12AC:9B01:3953:59B5:7361:9DA1 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This all appears to lack reliable, independent sources and appears to be WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

So ultimately is what you're saying that because Victoria's death was widely reported on and Alloma's wasn't, the former is worthy of mention in the article and the latter isn't? 2A0A:EF40:12AC:9B01:65D6:AF0C:C9E1:F6B0 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

So far I haven't commented on the encylopedic worthiness (or not) of the suggested insertion, merely that you haven't provided any independent reliable sources to back up any of the assertions you make. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The point and purpose of things being sourced is surely to make sure the information is accurate, right? I agree with this. But sometimes, and I think this is one of these situations, the accuracy is beyond doubt regardless, and the relevance of the information is important enough that it shouldn't be avoided based just on a technicality. So what are you meant to do in this kind of situation if something hasn't been THAT widely reported on, but is ultimately of the same level of relevance as something that IS discussed in the article, and is important to the article as a whole? This just seems like something that someone ought to use some human discretion on, rather than a 'computer says no' situation. 2A0A:EF40:12AC:9B01:3D4E:6A17:2920:7254 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No, this is not a situation where common knowledge applies. A claim is being made that she "Died from illnesses relating to her childhood abuse". There needs to be a reliable source indicating this. Not just your assumption. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not 'my assumption', this is what her brother said. By the same token, it could be argued that we can't prove that Victoria's suicide had anything to do with her abuse either, couldn't it? She didn't leave a suicide note. People take their own lives when they haven't been abused as children. But, given the circumstances, it is very highly likely - and that's in the article. 2A0A:EF40:12AC:9B01:3D4E:6A17:2920:7254 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)