Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

The word "scandal"

"Scandal" refers to the affect on listeners/consumers of media. We are supposed to be concerned here with reportable facts, not the affect that the revelations have had or are supposed to have had on anyone who was not directly affected. It is POV.

Having said that, IMO, the word "scandal" is legitimately used in a religious context to denote the possible affect on others. My opinion is to allow these reports which essentially are using canon law paraphrasing. Re-phrasing them would cause actual confusion. Student7 20:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishops not having wifes or Husbands of one wife

- "if they are to marry at all, >>Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, should be the husband of one wife<<". The "if they are to marry at all" is clearly an addition from wikipedian to the words of apostle Paul. Please notice that Pauls says that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, SHOULD BE husbands having one wife. 83.142.223.130 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)dikkaios

Indeed...the terms "at all" do not exist in the Greek text...this is a Roman Catholic translation error, (intentional would be a good guess as it changes the meaning to read against Church leaders being married). The original text reads "husbands of only one wife" indicating marriage as a pre-requisite to leadership in the work o0f the gospel...not the reverse (as the Devil would have us read it in reverse). Who is the Devil here I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.202.150 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Take your pick from Devil (disambiguation).86.42.204.140 (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point of the passage, Catholic "translation" or not. The point is that a bishop, presbyter, or deacon should not be married more than once (i.e., should not be divorced). The Apostle's desire that other men might be as himself (1 Corinthians 7:7-8) precludes the inference that he wished all ministers of the Gospel to be married.LCP (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article

Major parts of this article sound more like an essay than like an encyclopedia entry, e.g., "From a legal perspective," "whether it was a deliberate plot to conceal his behaviour...," "The council essentially directed an opening of the doors to meet the world," and many, many more. How about just the facts, ma'am? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.130.48 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's very important to include the legalities as many have been accused and fewer convicted. Obviously only the convicted clergy can be mentioned, or those who paid off a victim to avoid prosecution. Criminal law exists, even if we have to avoid value judgements. As in most churches the clergy hold themselves out to be morally superior to their congregations, and so moral lapses and attempts to cover up abuse go to the very heart of the matter.86.42.204.140 (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that its quite common on wikipedia for articles to be US-centric, but surely that's something that should be avoided. Surely an article on sex abuse cases in the Catholic church should devote an equal amount of attention to allegations made outside of the US and other English speaking countries, and in times past as well? Catholicism exists and has existed in many countries for thousands of years yet this article tends to focus largely on one country during one century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.223.240 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons is money. US laws favor the plaintiff and some litigants have made a little money; more attorneys have made a lot. This is due to something called "Deep Pockets" here - the church owner, the diocese, has been held financially liable for what clergy did in a parish someplace (or even outside the diocese in one case). This also results in publicity which enables editors to document the cases better. Tighter laws prevail elsewhere, or the church is protected (semi-protected?) as a non-profit or owner of church property is different or different liability laws prevail.
On the other hand, US public schools are mostly protected from financial liability (not in egregious situations however) and therefore result in fewer headlines though the cases are about triple church cases. Therefore there are no articles on individual sex abuse cases in US public schools.Student7 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgot that in the US, the courts have held dioceses responsible for priests 24/7 and (as mentioned above) no matter where they are, even outside normal diocesan geographic boundaries. US school boards are only responsible for teachers only on school property, which means usually during the weekday. A lot less potential liability. Student7 (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

This article seems partly like a white wash. There is no mention of the pope's role in covering up the sexual abuse when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The article about the pope does mention this very briefly, as part of a paragraph, which in itself doesn't even have its own heading but is only part of a section about his years having that position. But in this article there isn't one mention of it. There are however two different mentions of the pope's regretting these events and apologizing for them (i.e. the events themselves, not his direct involvement). The entire section "Church Actions in Dealing with Sex Abuse Cases" actually only covers the apology and the compensation, which the church was of course forced to do once it became public. The covering up and not reporting the sexual abuse are surely also "church actions in dealing with sex abuse cases." 193.91.181.142 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC) (Nick)

1. As explained earlier, the church has its own procedures for investigating accusations which not only pre-dates most western judicial procedures, but on which most western judicial procedures are based. It goes much further than telling a witness or jury "don't discuss this with anyone until the trial is over" and tells everyone not to discuss it at all except before a church investigating organization. Why? Whether the accusation was true or false, the church considers gossip sinful. The western media, a virtue. Who wins the argument? The media. I don't believe the media is correct though. There is no really good reason for publicizing these people other than to feel "better than" they are. This is gossip at its worst. (This has nothing to do with Benedict per se. Just following church procedure, centuries, if not millenia, old).
2. Also, the church does not want witnesses "polluting" their testimony by sharing it with others. In American courts, witnesses are "rehearsed" by people hired by their respective attorneys. By the time they get to court, they have been able to "polish" their testimony so it "sounds good" to a jury, judge, and incidentally, to the media as well. The church prefers raw unrehearsed testimony.
3. There is the implication in the accusation that Benedict was not following some law. The Vatican is a sovereign state, antedating the US by millenia. They have their own laws and are not subject to US laws in any event. If an article construes something that is legal in one country as illegal because it doesn't follow the procedure of some other country, this is considered a violation of WP:YESPOV. User:Student7|Student7]] (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating request for footnote

I removed an unfootnoted section that read:

"Others disagree and believe that the Church hierarchy's mishandling of the sex abuse cases merely reflected their prevailing attitude at the time towards any illegal or immoral activity by clergy. Hierarchs usually suppressed any information which could cause scandal or loss of trust in the Church. {{Fact|date=September 2008}}"

Another editor changed something before this paragraph and updated the footnote request. The "new" paragraph now reads:

"Others disagree and believe that the Church hierarchy's mishandling of the sex abuse cases merely reflected their prevailing attitude at the time towards any illegal or immoral activity by clergy. Hierarchs usually suppressed any information which could cause scandal or loss of trust in the Church. {{Fact|date=December 2008}}"

Note that the two paragraphs tend to resemble one another very closely. After three months, still no substantiation for the material. Why not? And why the mickey mouse on pretending that the two paragraphs are different when they are identical? At this point they seem to be more WP:OR than merely unfootnoted. Please take care of this now or delete it! The burden of proof is on the editor that furnished this material. It is not up to the rest of us to "support" unfootnoted scurrilous accusations, month after month with no justification. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War

When the affair broke out, I was surprised that it occured at the same time that the USCCB was struggling with the Bush administration over opposition to the Iraq invasion and conflict. It would be interesting to note whether there is a political element to this, and whether it happened at a timely moment. ADM (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Public schools, other religions

There are similar affairs that are very much under-reported when it comes to public schools, which have their own problematic issues. There should be an article on Pedophilia in American public schools. And too, there are other religions where similar events have occured, such as in the Haredi and Baptist communities. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the statistics on homosexual violations as opposed to heterosexual but US public school problems are 3 times those of the church(es) because of the huge number of students and length of time in school. Few headlines because of unions, vigorous defense, and (as in the church) "victims" who are unwilling to testify at the time. Also, financial protection for schools that well exceeds that of the church when it comes to suing 30 years later.
And non-church, non-school violations are four times higher than church and school combined. Parents, foster-parents, siblings, etc. Everyone sweeping that under the rug!!!!Student7 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
These things are indeed underreported. That goes equally for the Catholic Church. No matter how you look at it, the Catholic Church is far ahead of the competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At risk population

There are about 67 million catholics in the US. I'm guessing but cannot find a good reference that at least 5 million of these are children 6-18 and are currently being educated in Catholic institutions, generally "Sunday school", much less frequently parochial school. Certainly the "at risk" population figure should occur somewhere.

There is no proportion here. Reporting 100 murders seems terrible. And if all committed in Agatha Christie's tiny "Cabot Cove, Maine" within one year would still seem terrible. But if committed in California over (say) ten years, it might not seem quite so bad comparitively speaking. Student7 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add that the church counted 12 "credible" cases of abuse in 2007.Student7 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1990s / 2000s

There appears to be strong opinion in American media that the abuses ceased after the 1970s. Summaries of reports from various sources even on this page shows that the abuse cases have continued since then. Would there be any objection to the addition of a table that would collate and summarize abuse cases on this page? Suggested format:

Eras Perpetrator Aider/Abetter
1960s - 1990s Eugene Kennan Superior Nicholas Postlethwaite
1960s - 1992 John J. Geoghan Bishop Bernard Francis Law

Neutralaccounting (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The offender needs to be tried under some recognizable legal system, not just in the media. If there is an "abetter," he too, needs to be "certified" as being an abetter, which BTW, is a felony, and should not be used to casually describe someone who made a bad decision in the opinion of the media. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional catholics

I tried to discuss this earlier but was censored by another editor. I changed the "traditional" Catholic, intended as a pejorative, to "ultra-conservative." The church is "traditional" in its very nature. The intent of the council (all councils) was too enunciate what everyone already knew. The ultras, "more catholic than the pope," did not think so. That is fine and their right, but calling them "traditional" suggest that the council was automatically wrong WP:YESPOV. Perhaps this will be allowed to remain here for a few minutes for anyone with any question about the change. Student7 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of sexual abuse events in public schools

I think the wording for the section legislation and media coverage is incorrect, specifically referring to the sentence which is sited with link 18. It reads "some commentators, such as journalist Jon Dougherty, have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that the same problems plague other institutions such as the U.S. public school system with much greater frequency." The part about the frequency being higher is not necessarily true based on the article sited. In the article it says "To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests." However, in the Wikipedia article for "Education in the United States" it says "Of those enrolled in compulsory education, 5.2 million (10.4 percent) were attending private schools." However, although Shakeshaft may have found that amount to be equal to five decades of abuse by priests, private education (which also would include other privates schools besides catholic ones) only made up approximately 10% of compulsory education children. Thus, when you do the math the rate of frequency is at least double for catholic schools.

Based on Shakeshaft's calculations lets do an example. Lets say there have been 1000 abused children in public schools in the decade between 1991-2000. According to her 1000 children would have been abused in Catholic schools in five decades. However, this does NOT mean the rate of abuse is higher in public schools because public schools make up roughly 90% of children whereas ALL private schools make up about 10% (this figure doesn't even have just the amount of children in catholic school alone which is undoubtably lower than 10% and thus makes the frequency even higher in catholic schools versus public).

If someone can find more data on this it would be much appreciated.

I sort of follow you. Shakeshaft intended to compare priest abuse with public school abuse. Abuse of catholic students has been trivial or minimal. Abuse by priests of (say) altar boys or in other situations (when the priest was alone), is another matter. Public school abuse is truly huge if you try to research it yourself (never mind the pros and cons here. I have done this and it is "around" 3 x as large in volume and probably in percentage as well). I agree that we need apples against apples, or, if not, to make it clear that it is not apples vs apples. Not sure how to change but Shakeshaft is a key reference, and should be preserved. For the record, priests have seldom instructed students in parochial schools. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Media exaggeration

Most of the reporting on these issues reflected media annoyance with Catholic positions on political issues. The nomenclature that was assigned was picked up by all the media and rebroadcast so much that everyone takes it for granted now. But, there was never an "institutional" cover-up. As the article indicates, the parents, with second-hand information, told someone in the church, wbo now had third-hand information, about the alleged violation. About 15% of all accusations are untrue regardless of whom they are made about. For a first offense, the "Church" had knowledge of nothing. After repeated allegations, one would wonder, but repeat offenses (or reports of offenses) were relatively rare (and well-publicized since, of course).

There was seldom a "cover up", since the law didn't know about it in the first place. Where the law required a allegation to be reported, that is another matter, but in many cases, that wasn't true either.

Using media terminology without basis (citation) for this tends to reflect their WP:POV bias. (my sign-in expired. Sorry) Student7 75.76.105.240 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You've managed to pack in several blanket assertions and accusations there without even one specific and without any references or citations at all. While you seem to believe the issue to be a media witch-hunt, someone else seems to feel the USCCB was the victim of a dirty tricks tactic by the Bush administration. Neither of you have bothered to back up your statements in any way, so they perhaps deserve equal weight (i.e. very little). Similarly, it is pointless raising contrasting issues of paedophilia rates in US public schools, other religions etc on this page. This page deals with the notable issue of Catholic sex abuse. If there is no page on Sex abuse scandals in US public schools, then if that is also notable, then somebody could always start the relevant article.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to believe that a 'cover-up' occurs only when a felony has occurred or reported to have occurred, and no legal action results. This is not so. If some serious incident occurs that should be dealt with in a generally acceptable manner, and it is not, and/or it seems that the overarching priority of the relevant authority is protecting the image of the accused, or the image of the authority itself (in this case the Catholic Church), then it will be seen as a 'cover-up', whether the newspapers deem it so or not. Even the erstwhile Cardinal Law didn't seem to agree with you - in his statement on the Boston priest/sex abuse incidents just before he went to the Vatican, he referred to 'our significant mistakes', and said the sex abuse crisis is not just a

“media-driven or public perception concern in the United States, but is a very serious issue undermining the mission of the Catholic Church.”

Nor is this just a Boston or even a US-only Catholic issue more issues, and even more issues. If you wish to defend the Catholic Church around sex abuse, then you will have to gather some facts together. Centrepull (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Bush administration??? Hmmmn.
Anyway, I did document teaching abuse. It was immediately jumped on by the unions and fellow travellers. That was the end of that. But the experience in putting them (thousands of cases BTW. I barely scratched the surface) was very illuminating. There was a huge number which the media consistently fails to note. Public schools have legal (financial) protection not available to non-governmental institutions. While there is no "institutional" conspiracy, there are few convictions for the same reason that everyone else has in this regard: the minor either refuses to testify or the parents don't want them to or (worse) nothing can be proven because there is no evidence, just the child's word (which is sometimes false, just as in the church).
Pretty much like all statutory rape since the 1970s, in or out of school, prosecution has been a joke. Depending on age differences, officials just shrug. So felonies don't get prosecuted with equal intensity. Today's yawner is tomorrow's headline, I guess, just as it has been throughout media history. When they need a headline, they can find one. Student7 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is pure apologetics

"The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about allegations and reassigned the accused instead of removing them,[1][5] although public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers,[6]."

What does public school have to do with what probably is the greatest sexual abuse case in history? The magnitude and continued cover-up put this in a league all to itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, reader is taking the media exaggeration at face value. Public school cases are about three times larger than religious, if only because children spend so much of their time in school and their are a lot of children and teachers. But both of these are totally eclipsed by sexual abuse at "home" (usually home) of children by mostly parents, guardians, relatives, other children, etc. That abuse is about four times the abuse in the church and schools, put together. The media can't think of any way to headline the latter abuse. As a result, the public seldom hears about it at all! Student7 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So, we have another relativisation of this terrible crime committed by the Roman Catholic clerics around the world. Public school cases 'statistics' comes from nowhere. We have to continue removing this shameless eclipse of the crime throughout this article.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think "nowhere". Try [3].
This is misplaced and unreferenced of course and most likely will have been removed by the time you see this. Another site which covers Catholic abuse as well, is [4], [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49389]. And a rather comprehensive (over the past few years only) blog of US offenses at blog.Anyway any search will turn up huge volumes. Not in the media cause there is no money in it - can't sue the school district.Student7 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does this article appear at all? Why does a police blotter mentality appear here but is illegal elsewhere in Wikipedia? That is the substance of the discussion. Why when Catholic clergy abuse is measurably less than the rest of society: teachers, home, Protestant and Jewish clergy, etc. That is what the discussion is about. Student7 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, puhleez. This is far more important than any number of articles that exist in Wikipedia on serial killers and mass murderers. This deplorable scandal will have a lasting impact on the Catholic Church for decades. Parish churches and parochial schools closed; dioceses went bankrupt; archbishops resigned. Some of the faithful had their faith shaken and left the church. Shame on the bishops who allowed this to go on for decades. Even the Vatican found that it had to speak up and address the issue.
We need to stop excusing the misconduct and coverup by trying to compare against "the rest of society". We need not indict the whole Catholic Church but we should not attempt to minimize the severity of the problem. If there are reliable sources who want to make the case that media coverage of the phenomenon has been overblown and exaggerated, then we can present that case but, before we do that, we need to just present the phenomenon as it was presented in the media. Then we can criticize it.

--Richard (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(talk) 02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I second those thanks. A number of contributors to this page are (inadvertently, I'm sure) preventing the development and improvement of this article by the same constant, tedious means. I wish we could get past the position of those, who failing to find much to attack in the article, repeatedly resort to the same tired points:

  • But teachers are worse!
  • Jews/Muslims/Anglicans do the same bad stuff - why pick on Catholics?
  • It's a media witch-hunt!

In many cases, these poor arguments are buttressed by unsupported, speculative statements made as if fact, e.g.: (snipped and truncated) 'Why when Catholic clergy abuse is measurably less than the rest of society: Protestant and Jewish clergy etc.' Why are those two arguments poor? Firstly, because they are arguing against the very existence of the article, very difficult to argue for such a contentious, widely-publicised, and political issue. Secondly, even if teachers are worse, that has nothing to do with this article.,This article is about extensive incidents featuring Catholic clergy, the publicity, ramifications and Church responses, and directly related matters. Thirdly, it is no argument to complain about the lack of a similar page about the misdeeds of horny teachers. I don't know enough to have a view about that, but I do know that it isn't relevant here. Next, pointing the finger at other religious denominations is simply a more subtle fallacious argument than the one involving teachers. If there is the citable material to back it up, go create the articles detailing the activities of Jews/Muslims/Anglicans. If there is insufficient citable material, perhaps it will have to wait until there is a similar major scandal. It might be that the rascally 'others' are indeed as bad as worse, but have so far been successful in avoiding too much adverse publicity. In any case very few of the other bodies usually mentioned can be supposed to be under the control of a single unitary body which can be held to account, as is the case with the Catholic Church.

Finally, the media is an unkind spotlight. I find it hard to believe that sexual abuse of vulnerable laity by ordained members of the Catholic Church receives more publicity than a widespread Muslim denomination would in a similar situation. Maybe I am wrong - in which case, please back up this argument. Otherwise, it's a case of you complain 'media witch-hunt', while others might say 'don't shoot the messenger'.

Good people all, of every sort,
Give ear unto my song,
If you can't be neutral, stay away
You will not go far wrong.
Centrepull (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Media attention

A large court case, which was lost in California, was national news in 2001 or so. Even though it was "national news", it was "no big deal." Not featured nightly as it is today. The following year, 2002, the cases of Shanley and Geoghan were publicized extensively by the Boston Globe. It was their series that propelled the sex abuse cases to the top of the national charts for media attention, replacing (what? OJ Simpson? Monica? I forget. Anyway). That same year, the Bishops, realizing for the first time how serious it was, produced a "Zero Tolerance" policy at their national conference. While this was not implemented in all dioceses until at least the following year, it deserves mention. However, when I tried to insert it, an editor removed it, saying that was the year the church began winning cases! Ha! Student7 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with you where you say that the media is not even-handed in the way they address the different sources and institutions that might be involved in this kind of abuse. It is my sad duty to point out (in case you were unaware), that unevenness is a notorious point on which the media is subject to much justified criticism. Example. However, you are still complaining with no relevant point regarding this article. You didn't address any of the points I raised in reply to you. You have still failed to make your case on how the media's bias should affect this article - which is not about the media, nor even about what the media said, but about sex abuse in a Catholic setting. If you have a point to make other than '...but schools are even worse!', then please make it.
Your statement on the relative financial resources available to schools as governmental institutions (actually local government, and not always even that) seems to imply that the Catholic Church is too poor to afford good legal representation - demonstrably untrue. There seems to be a statement in the article already regarding the Catholic Church's zero tolerance policy from 2002. This page is about Catholic sex abuse, so the doubtless terrible goings on in public schools have no place here either. Why don't you use your 'documentation to start pages on 'public school' sex abuse, and 'domestic sex abuse'?
I would venture that the unusually high-level media attention that has been a feature of Catholic sex abuse reporting is a result of the breach of traditional respect and trust accorded to clergy, the contrast to the moral precepts that are assumed to flow from 'principled' clergy to the laity, extra angles such as the Catholic Church as a world-wide body (Boston->US->World->Pope) and the potential for internal division in the Church; and last but not least, the clear evidence that the Catholic Church repeatedly exposed young Catholics to child-molesting priests for decades (perhaps centuries) by defending and 'redistributing' such offending priests rather than acting to defend their young church-members. This point could be made in a media section of the article, while mentioning some of the major media investigative journalism that has been significant in flagging Catholic Church sex abuse, and the results of such investigations.
Off-article, don't worry about the size of the headlines. When sex-abusing priests become as run-of-the-mill as the evil swim-coach or dangerous candy-man two doors down, then there will be fewer splashes. I must point out though, that you are mistaken in your beliefs that those paedophile/sex abuser stereotypes don't get reported. Fortunately, they still do. Centrepull (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
But that is just it, teacher incidents are three times more common than clergy indidents were. Many fewer incidents since 2003 and implementation of Zero Tolerance. The media (and Wikipedia) essentially ignore it. The point being, since an article about teacher abuse is not allowed, why should this one be? Not to be completely rhetorical, it is because of bias against the church. Nobody "hates" teachers and is "out to get" the public school system. The raison d'etre for this article is institutional (to copy a word) WP:BIAS. The same with "removing all evidence of a discussion about bias, as well."
And, unlike the school system, the church has often gone into cases admitting that there was abuse, but the administration wasn't responsible for it. Where has ever a school system (with a teacher union looking on) ever admitted abuse up front? The abuse is triple, the admissions are not honest. The plates are stacked all wrong here. So there is a robust article on abuse in the church which is far less than schools, and nothing except a vague article on schools. Student7 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your emotions appear to be overcoming your reasoning, and you are coming off as if you wish to defend the Catholic Church at all costs, and would rather this article did not exist. I'm sure that isn't your actual stance, but:

  • This is not the place to argue about whether the school system deal with their own allegations honestly or not.
  • There is plenty of evidence of church denial/covering up of their own allegations - those allegations being the subject of this article
  • Can you support your broad statement "Nobody "hates" teachers and is "out to get" the public school system"?
  • Can you support your similarly blanket statement "The raison d'etre for this article is institutional (to copy a word) WP:BIAS"?

Please elaborate on why (you think) there is nothing except a vague article on schools. Which article is that anyway? 82.4.184.157 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is linked in this article: Sexual_harassment_in_education. But that is pretty much it. There are dozens (maybe not hundreds yet) of articles on individual priest cases. The only teacher cases are those poor women who were definitely guilty of harassing teen males and deserving of punishment but not deserving of everlasting infamy in Wikipedia, if you can call that "equality," though it serves to illustrate a point I am attempting to make here. Again, the stories of those four came on a slow news days. Everyone was titillated; ho ho-es about "lucky boys" (studies have shown they are as traumatized as anyone and I am not sticking up for the women). But there are hundreds of these cases, if not thousands. The media stopped when 1) they got hold of some other topic and 2) realized it was far more pervasive than just four cases. While this was fine with me (I don't hate teachers), it shows a media (and therefore a Wikipedia since editors seem to think they have to echo biased media) WP:BIAS in handling abuse for either schools or church. When I complained about the obvious inequity when the teacher abuse articles were deleted, they suggested complaining here. See how much good that does? Student7 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree: I can't see why you shouldn't be able to start an article about sexual harassment in schools, but it seems ingenuous for you to complain here about your deleted article somewhere else. In fact, you are being ingenuous in several ways. Your deleted article was actually about sexual abuse cases in public schools in one US state. This article is about sexual harassment in the Roman Catholic church, a single worldwide organisation. Where are the parallels or the connection between the two? Surely the truth is that you have an interest in the Catholic church?
I disagree: did you seriously expect us to be discussing teacher sex abuse on this page? The people who suggested complaining here tricked you. Furthermore, you haven't supported your view that Wikipedia editors echo 'biased' media with even the slightest example or proof - apart from your original complaint that some people have written an article on Catholic sex abuse cases, while some other people deleted an article you wrote about something else entirely. Again, no connection.
Nor is your reasoning on why the media aren't interested in teachers' misdeeds particularly convincing. Try again with your teacher sex abuse article. There are plenty of egregious cases to mention. If you write it with less of an obvious axe to grind, and fewer ridiculous and unsupported generalisations, you might have better luck. Centrepull (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't need me. Anyone with a web page can find hundreds, if not thousands within the past three years in the US alone. They are mostly plea bargained away to "misdemeanors," the usual pigeonhole for cases where the victim refuses to testify or where there is scant supporting "evidence" like DNA. The difference is the union and teachers vigorously combat accusations (maybe 15% of which are false BTW as they are in Catholic abuse cases as well). Catholics generally admit them when true and are encouraged to do so by the bishop. This little factoid seems to be missing as well.
School abuse is mostly missing in Massachusetts (& a few other states) since laws or media practice refuses to publicize cases unless their is a felony conviction which is rare. So there is a news blackout conspiracy there. )
Oh, and there were four articles on four states. I had rough drafts of most of the others, except Massachusetts, for the reason I mentioned. Plus having to split California in two because it greatly exceeded suggested maximum article length. Student7 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Student 7, per WP:Article, please remove your discussions of the issue

It does not follow guidelines. It is POV and Original Research and has no place in Wikipedia. Please go the the SNAP or a Catholic site for your discussions of the issue. They simply have no place here. Sturunner (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Priest and the Showgirl

Removed this link, as it seems dead, couldn't find it elsewhere on ABC site, nor anything like it on google (except recursive links back to WKP):

Centrepull (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Scandal in Boston

Part of the article on Bernard Law might deserve to be split in an different article on the Boston chapter of the sex abuse affairs. Similar forking could also be done for the Los Angeles diocese, with relevant content being on the Roger Mahony article. The reason that I am proposing a fork is that I always felt that it was inappropriate to blame all the sex abuse cases on just a few bishops, since individual priests are theoretically responsible for their actions, and that there is a general and institutional American sex culture that is unlike anywhere else on Earth. Also, it is a bit un-Christian for the laity to refuse to acknowledge its part in the affairs, what with all the reconciliation and sin that the Church talks about. ADM (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With some obvious gross exceptions, most of these cases were handled in the following manner: parent reports it to another priest. He reports it to the bishop. The parent is not too wild about "pressing charges" since it potentially places his kid on the witness stand. Alternately, the child cooperated or appeared to cooperate, which made both the child and the parent feel "funny" about the whole thing. The parent deliberately does not report it to the police for that reason.
Bishops seldom had first hand knowledge of this. Priests have their own parish. Bishops are not omni-present.
Church figures that it was "treatable" (obvious with Shanley that this wasn't true, but anyway). This seemed true in the 70s and later. There was no reason to think otherwise. Bishops are not necessarily talking to each other about this. They are individually horrified and yes, they are trying to keep it out of the papers. This is a requirement of canon law to "avoid scandal or the appearance of scandal." While this seems self-serving now, it is still true for all reported sins, regardless of who commits them, lay or cleric. Gossip is a sin, contrary to what the media believes and thrives on.
The suggestion that anyone other than the culprit is guilty is preposterous and malicious. Lucrative for lawyers though, isn't it?
Schools did the same for similiar reasons-no testimony from alledged victim. In their case, no confession from perpetrator only concealment with active help from teachers union. Suspicious principals or superintendents forced resignation or reassignment elsewhere where the perp did the same thing with the same result. Not liable under the same law used to sue the church.
The public has almost always concealed statutory rape (male over 18 or 21 having sex with girl under 18). How often does that happen? How many "convictions" do you get each year from that? Probably not even one percent? Depends on whose ox is gored, right? Student7 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Student7's comments strike me as more appropriate for a discussion forum than for a Wikipedia Talk Page. See WP:TALK for guidelines for Talk Pages. --Richard (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that User:ADM has eviscerated the articles on Bernard Law and Roger Mahony, moving out practically all the text regarding the sexual abuse cases. I grant that some of the material may need to be trimmed out but I believe that the reduction has been too drastic and does not provide adequate treatment of the single reason why these men are notable outside the Catholic Church. It is unfortunate that a single incident which is not entirely their fault should overshadow their careers but that's what happened and that's what Wikipedia should report, our own personal feelings notwithstanding. I have reverted to the revision prior to ADM's edits. I'm open to trimming the section on sexual abuse cases in those articles; however, moving most of the text out of those articles is, IMO, inappropriate. --Richard (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish and Irish-Americans

Has anyone ever written about why a disproportionate amount of abusers were of Irish ethnicity or Irish ancestry ? It has already been said that many abusers were gay, but how about being gay and Irish at the same time ? Are Irish clerics more susceptible to deviant, pedophile sexual behaviour than clerics of other ethnicities ? Why have comparatiely few Italian-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American (etc) clerics been caught engaging in illicit or illegal sexual behaviour ? The ethnic and cultural element in this is interesting because it tends to indicate that some cultures are more prone to being sexually deviant than others. ADM (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about writing. Priests are Irish for two reasons: they had a disproportionate number of vocations to the priesthood in Ireland. They were a "feeder" to American parishes, as other nationalities were not (there were many fewer percentage of Italian, Puerto Rican, etc. vocations, for example). I suspect a non-abnormal number of those were homosexuals. Part two would be the same for the descendants of immigrant Irish=Americans in the US. Same caveat. I doubt that the proportion is out of line with the very high percentage of Irish priests. I wouldn't be surprised if someone found that the percentage was actually lower. They tended to be more conservative. Student7 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be strange if Irish priests had

'a disproportionate number of vocations to the priesthood in Ireland'

as they would already be expected to make up the vast majority of priests in their own country. Or did you mean something different? To come to any conclusions, one would have to show that Irish priests are represented in the statistics on sexual abuse statistics differently to their proportional numbers in the priesthood overall, adjusting for many factors. To what end? Centrepull (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inner cities

Are you saying you suspect a non-abnormal number of Irish clerics were homosexual men? I wonder on what grounds you think this. Due to traditional discrimination and disapproval of active homosexuality in Catholic-dominated cultures, I would suspect that more Catholic homosexual men might be willing to accept celibate priesthood than Catholic heterosexual men, as many of them might already be celibate in line with Catholic doctrine. I certainly can remember reading that gay priests are more likely to remain in the church, as in the past they would not have been able to marry. Perhaps irrelevant, but I believe that there are issues under discussion within the Anglican church also regarding their reliance on gay men as clerics in difficult parishes such as inner-cities that are regarded as unsuitable for families. Centrepull (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I meant abnormal, not non-abnormal. I don't think the inner-city explanation is really enough to explain the whole phenomenon. One interesting theory however is that the priesthood is sectarian by nature, and that homosexual and pederastic groups are also very sectarian. Therefore, since both have this sectarian character, there is a good chance that they will end up encountering each other, something that would eventually cause the kind of damage that we've seen. ADM (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged connection to Satanic cults

There have been books written about alleged Satanic infiltrations within the clergy, some of which are said to be tied to the pedophilia scandal. It's maybe difficult to verify it, but at least some prominent authors have written about the subject. [5] ADM (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I grant you the author is prominent. But testing out the logic here, we are talking abusers with theology degrees. The book title appears to suggest a cult that would normally appeal to those who have been deprived of education. A bit hard to believe. Maybe not relevant here since the article uses specific cases. Also, it seems to me that the prosecution or defense would have to raise the issue to give credibility to the claim for a specific case. (Having said that, some of these abusers were most likely alcohol and drug abusers as well. Who knows?)Student7 (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Herring?

It seems to me that the introduction to this article is pointing to other cases of institutionalized child sexual abuse in an attempt to decrease the responsibility of the Catholic Church. It makes references to how other organizations have also committed similar acts; it list the Scouts, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the public school system. These comparisons do not fit within this section of the article since firstly, this article is about the Catholic Church's sexual abuse cases and not about the Scouts/Jehovah's Witnesses/public schools sexual abuse cases, and the article should reflect this. And secondly, as I have already mentioned, these comparisons are attempts to water down the blame on the Catholic Church. selfwormTalk) 04:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So then, the article is not about reporting the facts, it is supposed to be about "blame?" Student7 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The introduction immediately introduces two red herrings, is unsuitable and poorly constructed. While it should in no way be about 'blame', the introduction to this article certainly reads as an attempt to defend the Catholic Church before detail is mentioned, invoking the concept of blame by implication. The beginning is ridiculously off-topic, and I've changed it:

Allegations of sexual abuse of children have been made against public school teachers and a variety of religious groups

The article is about sexual abuse by Catholic priests. Why does it mention public schools twice in the opening paragraph? Is there someone editing this who has a been in his/her bonnet about them? It has been mentioned before on this discussion page that the sexual offences of public school teachers need to be in a separate, relevant article and have no place here. Perhaps Student7 could oblige? It is likely that domestic abuse by friends and relatives is more prevalent than either public school teachers or priests, but that would have no place in this introduction either.
End of first paragraph and start of second paragraph:

Some commentators, such as journalist Jon Dougherty, have argued that media coverage of the issue has been excessive, given that the same problems plague other institutions, such as the US public school system, with much greater frequency.

That same year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a "zero-tolerance" policy for accused offenders.

Both reasonable points to make, but out of logical order. John Dougherty's argument is already in the Legislation and media coverage section, the correct place for it. The Bishops' Conference "zero-tolerance" policy belongs in the Church Actions section, as it was a reaction to the allegations and court cases, and the article hasn't yet detailed those. Centrepull (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Jewish conspiracy

Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, in a May 2002 interview with the Italian-Catholic publication 30 Giorni, claimed Jews influenced the media to exploit the current controversy regarding sexual abuse by Catholic priests in order to divert attention from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. This provoked outrage from the anti-Defamation League [6] ADM (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Irrefutable"

An unregistered user persists in using inflammatory words in the lead, with "irrefutable" evidence being one of them. Either the cases were being filed, and were (then) debatable, or the cases were concluded, and their facts were adjudged as the plaintiffs had indicated. Most people who use exaggerated pov terms like "irrefutable" usually have very refutable facts at their disposal. Why not word it in a WP:NPOV manner and let the reader decide. Inflammatory language is not mandatory in this encyclopedia. It is actually discouraged. Student7 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • US courts were very clear in many of these cases. In the above 'explanation' I see only an attempt to enforce doubtful phrases insertion which are not supported by the references given. Nothing is inflammatory here except your attempt to contradict to many of us.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that "irrefutable" is not an appropriate word to use here. I have rewritten the lead paragraph in a way that I think is truthful but more NPOV and less inflammatory. --Richard (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Except your plain disagreement with me ('NPOV' and 'less inflammatory') I do not see anything supported by references that might suggest that the evidence was refutable, i.e. that evidence is not evidence.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose moving this article to Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests. Here's my rationale: this topic should not be limited just to the high-profile cases. The assertion is that sexual abuse of minors and coverup thereof by the Catholic hierarchy has been a problem in the U.S. and other countries. This problem has existed for decades and it's not clear to what extent it has been adequately addressed. Thus, IMO, we should expand the scope of the article beyond the specific cases and talk about the problem as a whole. (NB: This opens the door to presenting the opinions of those reliable sources who believe that the problem is not as big as the media has made it out to be.)

--Richard (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support move. The court cases are only one part of the story, the part that makes it to the courts. The topic is larger than that since only a fraction of incidents end up in the courts. There is no doubt that reliable sources are plentiful on all sides of the issue and the article can be much improved under the new title. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible problem with "Priests". Is a "Brother" or a "Sister" a priest? If not, that would exclude much of the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse's report. - Pointillist (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you have a suggestion to fix this problem? We could consider Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics and religious orders --Richard (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid not. Actually I'm not convinced that one article can hold both (i) the specific cases and short-term reactions to them and (ii) the commentary on the problem as a whole, longer-term/wider themes etc., which I see as being something like Prostitution, finishing with a list of cases by country like Political corruption. We do need a "hub" article that all the case articles can link to, and somewhere that lists all the cases by country. Allegations and investigations-in-progress need to be labelled as such, but so long as they are reliably sourced there's no reason to exclude them from lists. There are going to be more cases and more follow-on from existing cases, so whatever structure you go for must be able to cope with future expansion. - Pointillist (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Turns out there is already an article Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders, which assumes members of orders are priests. I'm not sure that's right, because the Ordination article says (here) that: "ordination should not be confused with becoming a member of a religious order, which makes one a monk, friar, brother, nun, or sister (see Tonsure and Monastic vows)." Anyway, it is another potential component of any future structure. - Pointillist (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
        • The problem is the confusion of religious order as meaning "monk", "friar", "brother", etc. as opposed to "priest" and thinking that these are mutually exclusive terms (i.e. thinking that one is either a priest or a member of a religious order). The text in the ordination article is probably inaccurate and misleading. A better explanation can be found in Roman Catholic religious order. A religious order is kind of like a club to which both clergy and laity can belong. Some priests are members of religious orders (Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Benedictines, etc.). Some members of religious orders are not priests (monks, friars, brothers, sisters, nuns, etc.). Now the article titled Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders makes a distinction between "abuse by diocesan or parish priests" vs. "abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders". I'm not sure why this is an important distinction to draw. I doubt that the media makes any distinction between the two. Moreover, Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders is an inaccurate title because it covers both "abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders" and "abuse by unordained (i.e. non-clergy) members of Roman Catholic orders" (e.g. brothers). I was planning to propose a merger of that article into this one but I wanted to give it some more thought and, in the meanwhile, cleanup this article first.
        • You make a valuable point about discussing the "problem as a whole" vs. "specific cases and short-term reactions". This article seems to try and do both. We could start by having an article titled something like Sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clerics and religious orders which addresses the problem as a whole and serves as a main article for the overall group of articles. We might even drop the "of minors" part and widen the scope. Then the discussion of 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal becomes a subsidiary article of the main article. We could have articles on sex abuse cases in specific countries such as U.S., Ireland, Canada and Australia. I don't know enough about the difference among the different countries to know whether there is enough material to support such articles for every country. --Richard (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that media don't necessarily get the ordained/lay distinction right, but if we can avoid having misleading article titles it would be best, e.g. "Sex abuse in the Catholic Church", "Catholic sex abuse cases in Ireland". Anyway it is clear that ordained priests have been covering up for sexual abuse of minors by lay brothers, so it doesn't make much sense to have separate articles about two sides of the same coin. While we're talking about labels, I don't think the media gets "paedophile" right all the time either: when a cleric gets his kicks from abusing post-pubescent adolescent males isn't that predatory homosexuality rather than pedophilia? I think the country approach is probably best when talking about investigations, reactions and legal cases, but there is also an argument in favour of listing cases by order (e.g. Sexual abuse scandal in the Congregation of Christian Brothers). I'm a bit busy right now but I suppose a good way to start might be to list all the known articles/sections on the subject. There's quite a mountain to climb, I'm afraid. - Pointillist (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this is pointing out that there are several catchall, overlapping articles. Maybe there should be an "Abuse" WikiProject, or an "Outline of Abuse," to try to re-organize this into something that does not duplicate and overlap. Student7 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like the reversal of the nouns/adjectives. It sounds less pov somehow. Also it is more specific. It has always been about minors. The title maybe implied but did not actually say this.Student7 (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It would help attain npov bias here if the article were renamed to "Sex abuse cases of Catholic" or something with the problem first, and the specific object of the article last. The one now implies that catholics "own" sex abuse which is pov and untrue. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No one says that catholics "own" sex abuse. This is just an article about quite distinguishable set of events (crimes) - correctly addressed by the article title. --138.88.248.86 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Copied here from from my Talk Page

I think your title 21st century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal in Catholic sex abuse cases is highly inappropriate, even possibly devious, because it suggests that the abuse scandals will drag on for the next 100 years. For one, most of the cases occured in the 1960-1980 period, and many had already been revealed to the public in those years. Also, as you must know, among the rare caste of abusers, most do not live over the age of 100, and so they cannot commit any more crimes after a certain age. ADM (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why not call the article 20th century Catholic priest sex abuse scandal? Catholic sex abuse cases could cover all sex abuse cases back to the apostolic era and forward forever. (Note: User:ADM has already moved this article back to Catholic sex abuse cases which is, IMO, a worse title than the one I moved it to but it's a bad idea to edit war over the article title so I'll leave it where it is until we can form a consensus for a new title.) --Richard (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
While there are a few cases of alleged abuse here and there prior to the 20th century, I am skeptical that it would even possible to document it in a systematic way like in recent times because of the official use of press censorship, the presence of numerous pre-modern social taboos, the absence of Church-State separation or the frequent judicial confusion of pederasty with other major social sins. ADM (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Move I am deeply concerned by having an article sorting sexual abuse cases by the religion of the perpetrators. I don't see any such article for any other religion or ethnic group. Either a) the religion is irrelevant, in which case it's a silly category (like "sex abuse by people born on Tuesday") or b) the religion is relevant, in which case you are accusing Catholics of being especially pederastic. Either way, it's completely inappropriate. How a type of charge affected the institutional church and how it responded does seem to at least be some sort of unified event, not just a horridly offensive category like "black killers" or "jewish thieves", which is what this one currently is (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)).

In my humble opinion, Smallville is mistaken. The reason why 'Catholic' features in the article title is because the media phenomenon and reporting focussed on the perceived 'breach of trust' by ordained members of the Catholic Church. Comparing the Catholic Church with 'black killers' or 'Jewish thieves' is a specious comparison - the Catholic Church was seen to be an over-arching organisation with some responsibility for the relations between its' officials and the laity; and most importantly, they are accused of institutional mishandling (or rather failure to handle) of the problem. There is no single comparable body responsible for black people or jewish people, who on the whole, are not assumed to have any specific duties or trusts, and not to be subject to the rules of any organisation.

Mentioning a date in the title is tricky. As it stands (Catholic sex abuse cases), the reader must read the article to discern which era is being covered. 'Twentieth Century Catholic sex abuse cases' would be misleading as there have been subsequent revelations (sorry), cases and consequences well into this new century. In any case, the cases most detailed in the article are mainly from 2002.

The title 'Twenty-first Century Catholic sex abuse cases' tends to exclude the background of recorded allegations dating from the 1950s. No date in the title is the least-worst options. Centrepull (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Smallville's point is a good one. Are we going to have a whole ream of related articles on "Anglican Sexual Abuse", "Baptist Sexual Abuse", "Orthodox Sexual Abuse", "muslim" and Buddhist sexual abuse. After all sexual abuse occurs in all these religious groupings and to generally no less an extent as in the Catholic Church. Simply because there has been more publicity about Catholic cases, does not mean that WP articles should reflect that. A main article on religious sexual abuse (with sub-articles) might be a way to go. Xandar 00:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It might make sense to have an article that discusses Sexual abuse of minors by religious institutions or some such. "Religious sexual abuse" sounds like some sort of kinky worship practice. However, that doesn't change the need for this article to exist. The fact is, fair or not, the scandal is a significant noteworthy phenomenon in the Catholic Church and in a number of countries including the U.S. You can't make that go away because you feel that it should not have gotten that much attention. It did get the attention that it did and Wikipedia has to report on what happened and give it the weight that it was given in the media and academic circles, not based on the amount of publicity that you think it should have gotten. Look at it this way, if it hadn't gotten media attention, would you allow other editors to insert it in Wikipedia because they felt it should have gotten wider publicity? Of course not, that would be OR. Likewise, your desire to suppress something that got what is, in your opinion, unwarranted publicity is also a kind of original research. Now, if there is significant notable debate about the media's overhyping the scandal out of proportion, we can discuss that. A statement from a single source doesn't provide adequate support to such an assertion. More sources establishing a widespread current of popular or scholarly opinion would help in this regard. --Richard (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged, allegations

I'd like to ask all those defenders of the Catholic Church morality to avoid inserting these words pointlessly even in the cases when there is clear evidence accepted by the Catholic Church hierarchy and proven before the courts worldwide. The truth is clear - the crime is proven, made public, horrific. The Church admitted crime after huge public pressure and outcry. --138.88.103.233 (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit comment, a lawsuit brings allegations which must be proven in court. One reason lawsuits are settled is when the defendant becomes convinced that he cannot successfully challenge the allegations in court. This is what happened in a number of cases. One reason lawsuits are filed even when the defendant concedes the truth of the allegation is when there is a dispute regarding damages. If you can show me that the Catholic dioceses conceded the truth of the allegations at the time the lawsuit was filed, I'm open to changing the wording. --Richard (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
One thing I've discovered in investigating this topic is that sex abuse is "common enough" in society at all levels. It is not restricted to any denomination nor occupation. Nor have I seen any evidence that any occupation has been spared from this. And cover-up is usual. In several states, the media cannot publish allegations against teachers. It is illegal or not done by common consent (cover-up) by the media.
And it is much much worse in the home. Nearly all abuse in the home is covered up until the children grow up and start talking about it.
And, unfortunately, nearly all abusers are serial. Finding one isolated case is very unusual. I doubt that was generally known 30 years ago though some penologists and psychologists must have more than suspected.
While some attention has to be paid to this as befits a billion dollar bonanza for the law industry, it is no more suitable for breathless reporting than statutory rape which is probably a lot more prevalent and also has a lot of "cover-up" associated with it. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • So you are continuing your way again and again? You have got enough response to your 'billion dollar bonanza' and similar nonsenses. Please, refrain further from teaching us what is morality following your 'sex abuse is "common enough" ' way.--138.88.103.233 (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Crime"

"Crime" is a word used in felonies. There were a small number of prosecutable felonies that resulted in a sentence. Most cases in the US, however, were torts resulting in monetary damages being awarded. There is no "crime" involved in torts per se, just the accusation of "harm", a bit different that the word "crime." There is a legal difference. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Legends on papal pederasty

For a long time, there were rumours disseminated about Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte, a Cardinal-Nephew who was alleged to have been abused by Pope Julius III. Although this has never really been proven as a fact, it could perhaps be included on the page as part of a section on historically unverified allegations on the subject. There are several other popes who were accused of engaging in such affairs. [7] ADM (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not within the scope of this article. I'm not sure if there is another article that has the appropriate scope. I could imagine one that covers all misconduct of Popes, not just pederasty. A suitable title escapes me at the moment. --Richard (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shaming

While the reports that come out of Ireland are mostly accurate, being Irish, there is always a lot of pov and politics with it. The word "Shamed" is nonsensical of course. The PM was not in charge during the course of the abuse. The church has always vied with the government for authority and with the scandal, the government has finally taken the upper hand. "Gleefully" would probably be closer to the truth! But the best thing to do IMO, is leave out the pov terms that always accompany even the best reports from Ireland. Never mind that they are a direct quote.Student7 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Globalize" brick

I've put that there because a) I am not fully versed in the villainies perpetrated by certain representatives of the Catholic Church and b) this scandal is worldwide. There are stories of abuses from many countries, not only the USA and Ireland. Other perspectives need to be included to give readers some concept of the enormity of this issue.Kelisi (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong article

For some strange reason, I can't find the article on the much more prevalent and recent cases of sexual abuse by public school teachers in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.106.71 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be an article on that subject. It seems that a lot of people here and elsewhere are not so much interested in child-abuse perse, but in incidences of child abuse connected with catholicism. Xandar 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Faults in Article

The approach of an article like this should be factual rather than sensational. As such, I feel the article as it currently exists contains numerous exaggerations, sections devoted to opinion rather than fact, and several clearly exaggerated and demonstrably false claims.

I am not particularly happy with the approach in the lead to the article. Statements such as "As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of sexual abuse and cover-up " and "A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth, thus allowing the abusers to continue their crime" are both opinionated and misleading, making factual allegations against the motives of Catholic bishops which are unproven, as well as not making clear what was standard practice for dealing with abuse allegations at the time. The claim that there is a "world crisis" is also wrong.

The main text of article itself has some very serious errors, huge exaggerations and false material that is easily checkable.

  • Order of silence in the 1960s. This title is misleading and opinionated, since it has been stated many times that the document referred to had nothing to do with these cases. If this section is to stay it needs to be retitled and amended.
  • The next section contains the statement " Brendan Smyth, who was reported to have raped and sexually abused hundreds of boys between 1945 and 1989.[27] " No reference at all is provided for this amazing statement, aprt from vague reference to a book that has been accused of dishonesty. Alliance Support The only information I can find states that Smyth "abused and indecently assaulted" (not "raped") 20 children in that period. Irish News
  • The section heading "Malfeasance by Catholic hierarchy" is another new heading which expresses OPINION not FACT. Malfeasance has not been proven, and this is simply a prejudicial statement. Subheadings such as "FAilure to report criminal acts to the police" and "concealining evidence" are also strongly POV allegations, and should be changed to NPOV at once. Comparison with standard practice on these matters in other spheres is not made.
  • The "explanations" sections contain a lot of unreferenced theories and arguments
  • The Continued Allegations section again contains spurious accusations and unreferenced or selectively referenced opinionising. This needs to be cleared up. Xandar 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It has also occurred to me that the new title "21st century" scandals is problematic, since nearly all the allegations refer to events in mid 20th century. Xandar 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Reading all above - everything is wrong to you if you, for some reason, do not like it. So, for rapes you have NPOV-ed "abused and indecently assaulted" term - just because someone did not want to name the crime straightforwardly and honestly.--138.88.248.86 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. Rape is a pretty specific crime. I used the exact term in the Irish Times article. The large majority of abuse cases and allegations do not involve rape, so it is wrong to use the word "rape" of abuse allegations unless this is demonstrably so. Use where it is not warranted counts as POV through emotive or misleading language. A lot more exaggerated or misleading language has entered this article recently. Often that is from people who come to the article with a strong viewpoint, or who have decided to copy the tone and inaccuracies of some of the more lurid journalistic coverage. However an encyclopedia is not the place for exaggeration or editorialising. It is to present the facts, and important viewpoints on thoise facts in well-referenced context. Xandar 11:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, let me be straightforward with you: your Order of silence in the 1960s above contradicts to the references: A confidential order issued by the Vatican 40 years ago instructing Roman Catholic bishops to conceal cases of sex abuse is set to reignite controversy over the church's treatment of suspect priests. AND Lawyers acting for alleged victims of abuse say the document proves that for decades the Vatican has systematically obstructed the course of justice in order to protect Catholic priests.. So, please, at least - read the references before trying to claim anything! I could continue the same way with all other of your claims, but, I think, this is sufficient enough to highlight your leading idea given under this title.--141.156.34.194 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
No. What you are repeating, Mr Anonymous, are CLAIMS, and very weak claims at that made by unnamed interested parties. Claims of any sort should not be represented in the title or content of Wikipedia Articles as fact. The document some journalist dug up has nothing to do with the sex-abuse cases, being about acts in the confessional. That is why the title and coverage of this is a major fault in the article and breach of Wikipedia rules. Xandar 18:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Very weak claims, eh? What makes them weak? Your word of honor? Unnamed interested parties? The document has a lot to do with the sex-abuse cover up i.e. with the crimes of those who forgot the existence of one of Ten commandments: do not lie.--141.156.229.158 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You are simply making assertions, which are without any solid foundation. Therefore they are unencyclopedic, and if they appear at all must appear as opinions or allegations. The rest of your post is opinionation and POV insinuation. Xandar 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturunner

Whether or not it is the truth, it still needs to be NPOV. We do not make decisions for the reader as to the acceptability of the activity. We report the facts and let the reader decide. Your wording makes that decision for them and floats into the realm of vandalism it's so pov. I cannot fathom how you could think that words like "malfeasance" is more neutral than "actions".Farsight001 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. "Malfeasance" is making a judgement that has not been made by a Court of Law. It is therefore highly POV. The same goes to claims about the 1960s document. WP is not here to make moral or legal judgements. Xandar 21:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
anon IP - I don't even know what you just said. Please clarify and reword.Farsight001 (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I told you - to read the the given references first. In the existing references I did not find anything supporting your 'neutralization'. Hiding evidence is not 'handling' evidence. 'Handling' is not neutral - it is incorrect. If you do not like those given - try to justify your changes by new equally credible references.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The sources don't have to themselves be neutral for us to follow NPOV rules. In fact, rules of NPOV trump sources, so if they're really that bad, we should probably pick new sources. The sourcing is not a factor here, so I don't need to read them. the wording is POV, and thus completely unacceptable regardless of what the sources used say.
Also - it is not me who has to justify the "changes", as my changes were only reverts to begin with. "handling" is perfectly fine. In reading the article, we see that there was in fact hiding taking place, but that comes out by the facts speaking for themselves. We do not get to make such a call for the reader. This is very basic stuff. I suggest you pick up an account and read the rules you are directed to when you do, unless of course you are just Sturunner trying to avoid violation notices.
Words like "malfeasence" are bordering vandalism they are so bad. Cease and desist.Farsight001 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The recently-added headings about "malfeasance" and "orders of secrecy" are clearly not neutral, since they make one-sided POV claims and judgements about matters that are certainly not in universal (or even majority) agreement. Such headings and material are not permissable under WP policies. Xandar 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't currently have a view but those headings aren't all that recent. "Order of Silence" has been in the page since at least 1 March (which is only as far as I looked) and "malfeasance" has been in and out for months also. BobKawanaka (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a single editorial policy of any serious publication marks any words of the contemporary English as 'neutral' and not suitable for use in the editions. As I explained it below, this group is falsely calling upon the Wikipedia editorial rules.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Anon (which I again suspect is Sturunner logging out to bypass policy) - I don't even know what you're saying here. Who marked words neutral and then proceded to call them not suitable for use? Who is calling upon ANY editorial rules? Does wikipedia even have editorial rules?
Also - if you will notice - a request for 3rd party comment was made, which means the version displayed when the request was made STAYS there until the issue is resolved. Your continued edit was definitely contra policy. Thus I switched it back.Farsight001 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I am not Sturunner. Please, be civil by avoiding ever throwing false accusations. Also avoid false interpretation of the existing editorial rules. "Who marked words neutral and then proceded to call them not suitable for use? " It is obviously you. Be so kind to read you responses to other people.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If it is me, then please inform me what words I called neutral whilst simultaneously considering them not suitable. The words I call neutral I am wanting to STAY in the article. Again - you need to keep up with wiki policy. The request for a third party response is in play. this means that the version of the article in existence when the request was made MUST stay. I am not trying to boss you around. I am merely informing you of policies that you have to follow. Do not continue to ignore them.Farsight001 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No, there is no rule that says the version of the article in existence when the request was made MUST stay There was in existence the version you changed and then 'legalized' as the valid one. The 'rule' is what you invented on spot here. If you want to change i.e. reword the existing text - please, get agreement of the other editors and then make the changes you wish. I see three editors are here against your changes. Does it make you think that you might be wrong?--138.88.246.164 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Now who's not reading people's comments? I was not the first one to suggest that the article not be changed until the issue is resolved. And yes, it is policy. I suggest you take a look again. There are also not three editors here against me. There is Sturunner and you, who are a random IP that I still suspect of BEING Sturunner. On my side there is me and Xandar. Other parties are Pointillist who is truly not taking sides at all and Bob, who seems to be leaning VERY slightly in mine and Xandar's direction.Farsight001 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Are we voting? I think I tend to favor Farsight here. Inflammatory pov headlines are generally the worst. They tend to annoy editors as well as being a turnoff for readers. Student7 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the general content question of using words like "malfeasance" and "crimes", I am less inclined to use those words except with regard to convictions in a court of law. Until a person is convicted, the acts of which they are accused are "allegations".

I don't think "malfeasance" is the best word to use in the section heading but "actions" is not quite right either. "Controversy over response by the Catholic hierarchy" might be better than either of those.

I do agree with 138.88.246.164 that there is no rule that says "the version of the article in existence when the request was made MUST stay". Bottom line is: any edit warring before or after an RFC is issued can result in the page being protected (at the wrong version of course) and/or editors being blocked. You want a particular version to stay in the article? Build a consensus for it.

--Richard (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, for Hitler, "malfeasance" is, ah, a bit of a deliberate understatement. Re Nuremburg

YOU are the one who changed it in violation of WP policy. I didn't edit it, 138.88.246.164 did. You would also do a lot better on WP if you could spell the words you try to delete, as well as know their meanings. E.g., please see (& read, malfeasance.) Sturunner (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring the point I am trying to make.Farsight001 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Farsight & Xandar

The legal system in the US has determined through criminal & civil verdicts & settlements that there has been at least a half-century cover-up of the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy that had both legal & sacred authority to & over those minors, both male & female. This has also occurred in the other English-, Spanish-, Portuguese-, & French-speaking jurisdictions. Because you do not like the implications of these verdicts (e.g., the corporate "death-penalty" for the Christian Brothers) does not give you the right to whitewash this article. You cannot not threaten me--I have never lost a mediation or an arbitration.

If you wish to change a particular word to make it more NPOV, feel free. I don't want to quibble, but NPOV is not a license to prettify crimes, torts, or sin.

Xandar, these words are appropriate to the criminal & civil verdicts, judgments, & settlements involved. They would not have occurred had they not been true. Again, if there is a particular word in a particular instance that needs correction, go ahead, but no mass-whitewashing.

Thanks, Bob. Sturunner (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't listening. It doesn't matter that there has been a cover up. We describe the cover up neutrally. That means we present neutral facts and let the reader decide. It's true - I don't like the implications of these verdicts, but those implications are there even without your ridiculously POV additions. Whitewashing the article would involve me removing the information entirely. I did not do this. Anyone reading can still clearly see that there was a coverup without your changes. Compare this article to the one on Hitler. Possibly the biggest murderer of all time, yet the article neutrally describes events as "the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians" and other similar descriptors. I'm telling you again that your edits are so blatantly POV that they are bordering on vandalism. Yet you continue to make them against consensus. (2 to 1 is not much of concensus, but it certainly warrants more discussion without you continuously adding your edits back in). Again - read the NPOV policy. It is painstakingly obvious that you are ignoring it. The priests are villified just fine by the mere mention of their actions. Your changes do not help. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion piece. btw - I have also never lost a mediation or an arbitration. Will the universe explode if we have one?Farsight001 (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it make sense to get a third opinion on these headings? - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We already have one in Xandar, but Sturunner still isn't listening. I posted something to one of the noticeboards asking for another opinion too, but have not seen a response yet (obviously).Farsight001 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Xandar however is not neutral. Sturunner (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll also point out that it's so obviously a violation of NPOV policy that we shouldn't need another opinion anyways. Sturunner - because of your unwillingness to talk it out without reinserting your changes, all further changes by you will be considered vandalism and reverted without discussion. I already considered them vandalism to begin with, but this is just too ridiculous.Farsight001 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh I see. Any third party who disagrees with you is automatically non-neutral? Did you learn your neutrality from conservipedia?Farsight001 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's take Pointillist's suggestion. You have been personally attacking me & others for trying to maintain the headings as of about Mar 1. I hope Pointillist's suggestion is followed up on, or perhaps we could merge ALL the articles across WP, with of course appropriate Google translations (can I use those translations per WP? . . .) into one article that traces it across the centuries. I'm taking a break & will check back. Cheerio! (& try some empathy for the thousands of victims. Sturunner (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Might want to look up the wiki definition of personal attacks. I have done nothing of the sort. Let me also point out that the changes you want in are recent additions to the article, so you are not "maintaining" the headings. *I* am. You are wanting them changed. Don't get this issue backwards.Farsight001 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
How about "Criticisms of the Catholic Hierarchy" rather than "Actions" or "Malfeasance"? As Farsight says, the text under that heading seems pretty fair. But "Actions" and "Malfeasance" are probably neither very satisfactory. (I don't know that "Criticisms" is satisfactory either btw). BobKawanaka (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticisms is misleading, though. As this isn't a criticism section. It describes the actions of the church. That is why actions is a suitable word. That these actions are negative should be left up to the reader to determine. We cannot make that decision for them. "Mafeasance" is non neutral. "contributions", in this case, would be non-neutral in the opposite direction. I really think "actions" is right in the middle here.Farsight001 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
All I am asking is that Xandar & Farsight stop tag-teaming a whitewash by misconstruing NPOV. If a bad word, like "genocide" is appropriate it is manifestly NOT NPOV to call it "mass killings." Genocide is a specific crime under international law. To describe the continuous, decades-long rape (q.v., rape of a child under Massachusetts law) of children under their legal & sacred trust by clerics in the least offensive way possible is, like "mass killings" by Hitler, a deliberate whitewash. WP needs to be accurate, not kind to perpetrators & the organizations that protect them. Sturunner (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to follow up on the third opinion idea, the main parties involved (e.g. Farsight001, Sturunner and perhaps Xandar) simply agree that an uninvolved opinion would be helpful and list the issue at WP:Third opinion - e.g. by saying "dispute about neutrality of headings" and linking to this talk page section and (e.g.) this diff. Once that's done you all have to leave the issue alone, which means that one side or the other will have to put up with the "wrong" headings for maybe for 5-10 days. Easier said than done but it might help. Good luck. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pointillist, fine by me. Sturunner (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand why Xandar doesn't count as a third party, as he popped his head in and provided his uninvolved opinion well after the dispute had started just like any other 3rd opinion, but I'll go do that right now.Farsight001 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There are constant attempts to disqualify the existing references based on a single 'neutral' point of view that might be named 'i-dont-like-it'. Then a lot of arguing and false logic which is against the valid editorial rules even though that the 'i-dont-like-it' parties wrote a lot of 'why-i-dont-like-it' text baselesly calling upon the Wikipedia editorial rules. As to the existing article's subtitles
  • 3 Malfeasance by the Catholic hierarchy
  • 3.1 Abusers moved to different locations
  • 3.2 Failure to report criminal acts to police
  • 3.3 Concealing evidence
I do not see any rationale (ever offered) to 'neutralize' them as Farsight001 and company did it. They do not offer a single evidence supporting their text changes.
To Farsight001 and company. Please be aware that there is more people against your 'neutralization' - read this please! I don't currently have a view but those headings aren't all that recent. "Order of Silence" has been in the page since at least 1 March (which is only as far as I looked) and "malfeasance" has been in and out for months also. BobKawanaka (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC) --138.88.246.164 (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
ok...why is this signed by two people? I checked the edit history, and while bob's name is here, I don't see where it was added in the edit history. this is a bit confusing. Thank you for pointing out that the words have been in and out for months. I only saw their recent addition by an anon and reverted it. Regardless, they are still in blatant violation of NPOV. Do we get to put words like "malfeasance" in Hitler's article? Of course not. "mal" in spanish is bad and the root of both words comes from latin, also meaning basically bad. We at wikipedia, however, do not get to make value judgments like good or bad. They were actions. Were they good actions or bad actions? We report the facts and let the reader make that choice. This is very very basic stuff.Farsight001 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing someone cut and pasted my comment that was under the Sturunner heading. BobKawanaka (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to ignore the comments of anyone. But I will say that it is hard to follow what you are trying to say when you don't follow standard formatting conventions.Farsight001 (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Xandar, just a heads up, in your edits you mistakenly removed a reference by Moore. BobKawanaka (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget the third party opinion. The idea of 3O is to provide another opinion when only two editors are involved in a content dispute. It is the first step to bringing additional editors into the discussion. Xandar's opinion is already effectively a third opinion so any continuation of the dispute needs to go to the RFC (request for comment) stage.

For what it's worth, my opinion is somewhere between the two. I don't like headings proposed by Sturunner and 138.88.246.164 but I disagree with Farsight001's extreme stance regarding NPOV. NPOV doesn't require "neutralizing" all critical and negative opinions out of the article. It requires presenting all POVs without giving undue weight to one side. My perspective is that the apologist POV that tries to exculpate the Catholic hierarchy from blame is a minority POV. I believe that it should be elaborated upon further but, at the same time, it should be identified as a minority POV. I am not convinced that this POV is the official stance of the Vatican or the USCCB. It may have been put forth by some Catholic apologists but it is not, AFAIK, the mainstream opinion or position of the Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are not just two positions, "exculpating the Catholic hierarchy from blame", and reviling them as criminal conspiratorial abuse promoters. There is the middle position of reporting unemotionally in the light of their actions and how far they differed from those of mainstream society at the time. If secular schools didn't report allegations to the police, and moved on abusers, calling bishops "criminal" for the same thing is slanted coverage.
Anyway, we're not chiefly concerned here what the official position of the Church is. We're concerned with NPOV and accuracy.
Malfeasance is the commission of an unlawful act in office. No bishops have been convicted of this, therefore the comment is libellous. This changed heading recently replaced the previous neutral heading Actions of Catholic Bishops.
Xandar 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't like "malfeasance" but I'm not satisfied with "actions", either. I'm happy to leave it at "actions" until I can come up with a better proposal. --Richard (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Failure to report criminal acts to police is again a strongly POV headline, since it presumes that allegations were "acts", and indeed "criminal acts". It therefore provides a misleading impression that bishops knew of unnamed "criminal acts." and wrongfully hid them from the police. This is a judgement on three levels, i) the presumption that all the allegations were "acts", ii) the assumption that the "acts" if they existed were "criminal". iii) that it was normal or proper procedure at the time to report these sort of allegations to the police - which it wasn't - as evidence from other organisations, including US schools and the Scouts shows.
Xandar 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Re (i) - the presumption is not that "all" the allegations were "criminal acts" but that some of them were. There have been enough convictions to suggest that there was knowledge of criminal acts. Now, there's a difference between knowing that a criminal act has been committed and suspecting that one has been committed. Since no bishop has been convicted of concealing evidence (effectively being an accessory), we would want to be very careful with the wording of this headline. --Richard (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Concealing evidence is another plainly POV headline. I'm not sure what evidence is alleged to have been "concealed", but once again no-one has been convicted of this as far as I am aware - therefore this is again an allegation or extreme POV. I would guess that the keeping of confidential files (standard practice) is here being twisted to "Concealing evidence."
Xandar 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"Failing to disclose knowledge of wrongdoing" might be a better section title. At the end of the day, there was something to make the Catholic laity irate at the bishops. Just because the actions were not prosecuted (evidence might have been too weak to support a case), doesn't mean that the bishops were innocent of criminal actions or, even if they were legally unprosecutable, that the laity didn't have good reason to be irate. The Vatican seems to have effectively indicated that Cardinal Law's career should not be unduly damaged by the scandal. What the members of the diocese think of this can be presented in Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston if anyone can find a reliable source. --Richard (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Order of silence Another heading that is extremely POV. When this section on Crimen Soliciatonis first appeared, it was in the middle of the article, and headed Crimen soliciatonis, However at some point this was moved to the head of the article and changed to the ""order of silence" title. "Order of silence, of course implies a meaning to the 1960s document, otherwise unrelated to the issue, that is strongly controversial. The notion that this document is linked with the abuse issue in some sort of Vatican conspiracy, is one pushed by certain groups on the basis of zero evidence. The "order of silence" title is therefore strongly POV. Xandar 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there no debate about this discussed by reliable sources? Let's stop arguing about the title and the interpretation of the "order of silence" and present both sides of the debate. It's this sort of thing that makes this article a horrid mess. --Richard (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Now hold on, Richard. I'm not trying to free the clergy from blame. Their guilt is made apparent in the section paragraphs. I just don't like calling the actions evil and bad (or great and good) when that should be made apparent in the description of the actions. I think someone should read the article heading and see a word like actions and then think "good or bad? I guess I should read on." and then come to the conclusion that they were bad (or good. Some people actually think that way. :( ) after reading about exactly WHAT the actions were. Like I've said before, I don't think we're supposed to be making value judgments for the reader. At the very least, they definitely shouldn't be made in the section headers. Let's wait and see what Sturunner and the anon have to say though. I suspect they won't be responding till after the protection runs out, though. (which is not to say that they'll just ignore conversation and go back and change things. I don't mean to imply that.)Farsight001 (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh...looks like it's already been 24 hours... >_< Farsight001 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we reset?
A child in the 70s tells his parents that he has been molested. His parents (having no proof of this whatever) believe him.
They report it to "somebody," highly unlikely the bishop.
"Somebody" tells them "they will "take care of it." While the parents may not be happy, they have a) failed to report it to the police, which presumably they (having first knowledge) were obliged to do. They had no proof, however and were unwilling to do this. b) They don't want their kid on the stand. c) While they want the priest curtailed, they apparently didn't want to see him behind bars, at least not enough to offer their kid up to a defense attorney for cross-examination. d) The church, not really knowing (for the first report anyway) whether any crime has been committed, talks things over with the priest and they decide on a course of action depending on whether the priest admits abuse or not. Remember, in those days, it was thought this was curable. So far, nobody has abetted any crime. At least not then. Maybe now with law changes, depending on the circumstances, school or whatever.
Flash ahead to 2000. The kid grows up, disavows his parents' decision, and sues. And wins!
Compare this to the schoolroom, even today. Child reports abuse to parents. Parents notify school. There is no proof, just the parents word of what child has said. School however, under different rules, reports it to authorities. DA doesn't like case. Kid either won't testify or the defense attorney will tear kid to smithereens. Case is dropped. Principal either believes or disbelieves teacher. If disbelief, principal figures out some way of getting rid of him. Or maybe teacher is pressured to leave. Pretty much same end point as priests, above.
Almost nobody has proof though in either case. No cover-up. "Reassingment?" Sure. In both systems. In some teacher cases nowdays, clever DA will get teacher to "plea-bargain" to some nearly irrelevant misdemeanor, just to get something on his record, but that is pretty much it. Most abuse today (as then) goes unpunished.
This is (and was) reality. It isn't like the media trumpets at all. Great headlines but deliberately misleading for political reasons. The media hates the church and the church is reaping the consequences. But that doesn't mean it is accurate by a long shot. Student7 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Some good points there. The fact that people are irate about something, doesn't mean that what they are irate about is an incontrovertible fact. A lot of the problems with this and some of the related articles is that people have tried to reproduce some of the more sensational and inaccurate media coverage - often selectively exaggerating even that. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Nor is it to editorialise or take a position. Here we need matters presented in a cool, represesntative and unemotional way. Wikipedia should be somewhere people come and read facts in context, not diatribes. Xandar 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation

I'd like to draw attention of Wikipedia's administrators that user Farsight001 is calling upon editorial rules baselessly, attacks other editors changes (claiming vandalism) and is waging war forgetting and ignoring existence of the 3RR editorial rule.--138.88.246.164 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the history of the debate, but I'd better just say that if you think this is a valid WP:3RR issue, report it to WP:AN3 (using the form, to ensure a prompt response). (If it's not a valid 3RR issue, you're probably going to get rebuked by an administrator, though.) You can also try to work out any personal differences with Farsight001 by discussing it on his talk page. TheFeds 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As have you and Sturunner. The difference between us, though, is that I actually tried to discuss the situation and appeal to outside users even before it was suggested. You continue to revert blindly without first discussing it. If they want to block me for 24 hours for undoing your blatant policy violations, then they can go right ahead.Farsight001 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

For 24 hours, but given the ludicrous amount of edit-warring here if, when the protection expires, editors simply continue to revert without discussion here, I will block them and re-protect the article for longer. Black Kite 03:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IP 138 seems to have decided to ignore the discussion and continue to re-insert his preferred version. Just a heads up. I'd revert, but I'm pretty sure the powers that be would consider me just as guilty as he/sheFarsight001 (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The IP filed a pointless 3RR report here (I say "pointless" because it was about reversions that had happened over 24 hours ago, before the page was protected, so was only digging over old ground), and I blocked it. If the same person comes in and starts edit warring here through different IPs, I am willing to protect the article. (I'll be away from my computer for a couple hours, starting pretty soon, but will try to keep an eye on things once I'm back.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just an fyi - the IP 138.88.246.164 is another one that the anon has edited from. It's worth keeping an eye on, but hopefully he'll start talking now. :) Farsight001 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this?

I've noticed that a person who correctly reported the ethic code violation was blocked being accused for something commited by the reported person? Looks like that personal friedship is above the ethics and the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.155.244 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reporter broke the 3RR as well. We were both warned, the article was locked for 24 hours, and we were both told that if we continued to edit without discussion after the 24 hours were up, we would be blocked. IP 138, without attempting to make any discussion, changed the article again, and thus was blocked for doing exactly what he was told he'd be blocked for. Now please - I don't want to sound rude, but this talk page is for article improvement only. Please try and stick to the subject.Farsight001 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No - she did not. Falsely accusing and illegally eliminating those who opposed you can only damage the Wikipedia cause. I've read much of this discussion noticing that there are many people in the line of the blocked person's thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.62.179 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

eh? The three reverts made within 24 hours were [[8]], [[9]], and [[10]]. User Black Kite, just above and in the 3RR report page, mentioned that if users edit again after the article lock ends withotout first discussing it, they will be blocked. Then "her" first action after the block ended was right [[11]], which was another revert to the article before discussing. You can't pass this off as not having happened. It's all right there.Farsight001 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Use mirror to see your own face. Your *discussion* is endless repetition of nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.62.188 (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are probably other pages to report what you believe to be an ethical violation. Farsight and the other editor have stood their time in the corner. They would now like to continue editing. Please allow them to do so and move your "ethics" violation discussion to a more appropriate venue. This isn't it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, please see [12]. --Falcon8765 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

69.72.62.188 has changed the words of the article back to the previous version (malfeasance and all that) without discussion. I am reverting because no discussion has taken place. It has become clear that the other side of the issue does not wish to discuss, but only insert their view. 69 even rejected the notion of discussion above. I do not wish to violate the rules and if others were willing to talk about it, I would do so, but as of thus far, they have only inserted their version and complained when reverted. Does this article need protecting again? Or what? Obviously discussion is out of the question.Farsight001 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you over an IP, I'd try [13] if it continues to be an issue. -Falcon8765 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be mediation to start with. Arbitration comes later.Student7 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 69.72.62.188 is quite correct. Endless repetition of nonsense is not the discussion. 'Neutralising' language of the references (followed by a few editors) is just an irrational way of distorting the truth - far from being official rule or guideline of Wikipedia.--141.156.229.98 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that the same person is continuing to revert the article via various anonymous IP addresses. NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia. Please stop. Xandar 01:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
An irrational way of distorting the truth, misrepresentation, outright lies, whatever you want to call it - it's wiki policy. If you don't like it, you can go move to have it changed. Till then, suck it up and deal with it.Farsight001 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No. It's the anonymous POV-pushers who seem to be here simply in order to spread misinformation and sectarianism. Xandar 12:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, knock it off guys... this isn't furthering the project. If you have arguments to make (with citations to reliable sources), then make them. Otherwise, stop the bickering and move on. --Richard (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose splitting this article

I've been struggling with the fact that this article is full of individual examples of sex abuse allegations. In my opinion, there is a "forest and trees" problem here. The forest is the overall phenomenon and the trees are the individual allegations of which there are over 4,000 in the United States alone. Citing only a few tens of these 4,000 allegations seems unencyclopedic to me. On what basis are we deciding which of these allegations to include in the article?

Since it would be impractical and unuseful to attempt to list all 4,000+ allegations, I would be inclined to include only the most notable ones, specifically those cases reported by the Boston Globe which sparked the public furor (scandal, if you will). Even then, we don't identify the specific victims but name those who were accused (e.g. Shanley, Geoghan, etc.)

I started to trim what I saw as excessive detail. However, even my fairly conservative edits have been reverted. Rather than get into a lengthy dispute about the style and scope of this article, I propose to split this article into two. I would create a new article titled something like Catholic sex abuse scandal (yes, I know some editors dislike the word "scandal" in the title but that's a second-order issue). This new article would treat the phenomenon at the "forest" view. That is, it would avoid discussion of the details of any specific case except the most high-profile ones (e.g. Shanley, Geoghan, etc.). All the text describing various approaches for explaining the root causes of the problem would be in this new article as would be the responses by the Vatican and the USCCB, etc.

This article (Catholic sex abuse cases) would then be oriented more towards the list of specific cases and could go into additional detail.

I don't see this as a POV fork although I rather think the details of specific cases should be omitted from Wikipedia altogether on philosophical grounds (e.g. we don't list all the specific details of individual Holocaust victims in the Holocaust article).

I just think it is distracting and unencyclopedic to have the discussion of specific details mixed in with the more general discussion of the phenomenon.

To me, it's a question of style not of POV-pushing.

--Richard (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... I went ahead and implemented my proposal on the grounds that it would be easier to see what I was proposing if I actually did it than if I tried to explain it here on the Talk Page first. There are now two articles as I proposed above. The first article to read is Catholic sex abuse scandal which is intended to provided a high-level overview of the scandal including discussions of proposed explanations and corrective actions taken in response to the problem. The second article is this one which goes into more specific details about individual cases and the experience of specific dioceses. Catholic sex abuse scandal still has some details about specific individuals and dioceses. These might be removed over time. I just wanted to take a first cut at the division of text between the two articles and see what other editors thought. --Richard (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


The latest edits become so hard to track edits, I can't even tell what you exactly did, also it become so split, I am not sure if the sub articles are useful anymore.

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country
Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders
Catholic sex abuse cases
Catholic sex abuse scandal
Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Australia
Catholic sex abuse scandal in the United States
Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne
Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston

Why Catholic sex abuse cases and Catholic sex abuse scandal are under separate titles, why the content of the page moved to another article without leaving any summary. That is absolutely useless, you can't just split articles according to your like, also the page you moved was just a redirection page before. Why didn't you discuss previously. I also came by your other edits, which deletes too much info under similar catholic church scandal articles for "summary". I will review your edits, and possibly readd the info. And without discussing previously with other editors, and getting their consent, it is not a good habit to remove massive info from scandal articles. Kasaalan (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between deleting content from Wikipedia and moving it to a more appropriate place. Not every change needs to be discussed first. It's called being bold. Now, drastic changes may be considered being "overly bold" but drastic situations call for drastic measures and this set of articles was (and still is) a mess.
I grant that there will be differences of opinion about what level of detail belongs at each level (e.g. what belongs in a country-level article and what belongs in a diocese-level article). However, the existing state of articles was and remains such a mess that they can only benefit from a review of what is in each article and how much detail to "bubble up" to the country-level articles. In countries where there are hundreds or thousands of allegations, there seems to be little value in discussing the details of individual victims or even individual priests.
--Richard (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is your edits hard to track and review now. Which will waste a great deal of time to review. Your intention possibly good, yet attitude is not useful. Also try to avoid long article names. Kasaalan (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
See my suggestion below about not bothering to review my individual edits but instead looking at the entire set of articles as if nothing existed before. If you see a problem, by all means, present it for discussion. There remains much work to be done. --Richard (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as the 4,000 articles go - when I started to document teachers I was told that Wikipedia was not a police blotter! Funny how that doesn't apply to Catholic priests! If there are 4,000 priest articles, imagine how many hundreds of thousands there would be if they were all documented and not censored. Student7 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... I've been a busy boy over the last two days.

I found that the articles related to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal were such a mess that a serious cleanup was needed and so I dove in and got started. I don't claim that the current situation is acceptable quality but I hope it is better than when I started.

I know some will object to the use of the word "scandal". However, the word was already being used in a number of articles and I decided to propagate to just about all the other articles for the sake of consistency. Anybody wanting to remove it should make a proposal in a forum that includes editors from the various constitutencies (i.e. please advertise the proposal on the Talk Pages of all the articles related to this topic).

First off, the top-level article is now Catholic sexual abuse scandal. This article attempts to describe the phenomenon from a global perspective. I tried to get rid of the U.S.-centric focus of the previous version of this article; however, there is still some U.S.-centric focus which is unavoidable since so much of the scandal and so much of the media coverage occurred in the U.S. I have fleshed out a more-or-less pre-existing hierarchical structure so that there are three levels:

  1. Global
  2. National
  3. Diocesan

The idea here is that the global level article (Catholic sexual abuse scandal) discusses the phenomenon as a church-wide global crisis. Details of the scandal in individual countries do not belong here with the exception of mentioning the lawsuits in Boston which escalated the issue to national and international attention.

There was a pre-existing list of Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. I expanded this article somewhat but mostly I added in {{main}} article tags to articles on specific countries. These are:

The national articles are not uniform in nature and need more work. The article on Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States is probably the best written of a poorly written set. That is because it was mostly taken from an earlier version of this article. I have removed most of the details of specific cases and tried to focus on the phenomenon in terms of a more general description of the events. The other two articles on Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Australia and Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland are not as well put together as the one on the United States because I just created them yesterday. However, they provide a place to discuss the scandal in each of those countries rather than trying to shoehorn them into the global level article or dispersing them into articles about each individual diocese in those countries.

There are a number of articles that focus on the scandal in specific dioceses (mostly U.S. ones). These are:


I believe that the best place to put details about individual priests is in either the diocese-level or the country-level article depending on whether that priest served in more than one diocese.

I believe that the best place to put details about individual victims is in the diocese-level article.

I don't much care for the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country as it is just way too long and not really readable. However, it gives us a place to put information about cases for which there is no diocese-level or country-level article so I guess it has a raison-d'être.

I think the raison-d'être for this particular article has vanished given the existence of Catholic sexual abuse scandal, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country and the various country-level and diocese-level articles. It seems to me that all the material previously covered in this article now exists in other articles. I propose that we merge the current contents into the appropriate other articles and then redirect this title to Catholic sexual abuse scandal.

--Richard (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The name is not an issue, you may name it Catholic sexual abuse cases and scandals.
Catholic sex abuse cases and Catholic sex abuse scandal are actually same article. Or at least your titles are misleading. If you going to split it you should discuss others first. Second, you may create ather List of catholic sex abuse scandal by country and add some info there per country base as summary. When I have time I will seriously review your edits and your massive summaries, which will waste my time. Kasaalan (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Discuss first, massively edit later. Kasaalan (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the advantage of Wikipedia is that nothing is "cast in concrete". If enough people hate what I did, a simple revert puts this article back in its previous state. What I did was put together a proposal which I think is superior to what existed before. Disagree? Say so. Enough people agree with you, we revert to the previous revision.

Secondly, what "massive summaries" are you talking about? Do you mean my explanations of what I did and why? If you read through them, you'll understand the necessity for a logical and consistent approach to treating this topic across multiple articles.

To save you time, I would suggest that you not bother reviewing my individual edits and just look at the entire set of articles as if nothing ever existed before. Try walking the hierarchical structure from Catholic sexual abuse scandals to the country-level articles and then on to the diocese-level articles. Then look at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country.

There is very little, if anything, that I have deleted. Mostly, I just pushed detail further down in the hierarchy to resolve the "forest and trees" problem that I described earlier.

I sort of understand your assertion that Catholic sex abuse cases and Catholic sexual abuse scandal are the same article as they started from the same source. My intention was to make Catholic sexual abuse scandal be the global overview and Catholic sex abuse cases be the repository of details about specific cases until I realized that Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country already existed. At this point, we really don't need Catholic sex abuse cases which is why I propose merging its content into the relevant other articles and then redirecting it to Catholic sexual abuse scandals.

--Richard (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you will subtract that much info, try sandboxing it and do as a single edit, so everyone can track, review and revert easily. Kasaalan (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually use the sandbox approach. Perhaps I should consider doing it more often. I tend to like small edits where I can leave an edit summary behind for each change that I make and so that a revert can be done back to any intermediate stage rather than forcing an "all or none" decision on whether to revert.
Moreover, I don't see how a single massive edit is all that much more useful since editors can always use "Compare selected versions" in the edit history view to create a single diff that encompasses a series of connected edits. This diff provides a single view that indicates the net effect of my series of little edits.
--Richard (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You merged, you split, you summarized, paraphrased and all become too complicated to review, which will unnecessarily waste my time. I can easily revert all of your edits, yet if I do that, that will waste your time and efforts.

Kasaalan (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was a mess and the cleaned up version at Catholic sexual abuse scandals is still pretty awful. The fact that fixing it required a significant amount of work is simply a fault of the article. I left a clear trail of edit summaries to explain what I was doing. It took me a lot of work to fix the article. If you feel you need to put in the effort to critique what I did in detail then I applaud you for your diligence and await the results of your review.
--Richard (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not only with current article, and you also made edits in the pages you moved, so reviewing all articles will be even harder

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_violence&diff=303874941&oldid=303825571

Massive summary I am talking about, is your massive trim for the Christianity and violence. Instead fully removing sections, you should also ask other editor's opinion, or at least leave a summary.

Kasaalan (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about Christianity and violence should take place at Talk:Christianity and violence. In brief, I left edit summaries for every edit. Consider using the WP:BRD model.
--Richard (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving all info to another page without leaving a summary or asking others is what POV FORK is in the first place. And still the article titles are misleading, there is literally no difference between "sex abuse case" or "sex abuse scandal". Kasaalan (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not the definition of a POV FORK. I invite you to reread WP:FORK. As for "misleading" article titles, my intent was that this article would be about the specific details of individual sex abuse cases whereas the article about the Catholic sexual abuse scandal is intended to be about the worldwide scandal as a global crisis confronting the entire church.
You chose to unilaterally move Catholic sexual abuse scandal to Catholic sexual abuse scandals without consulting other editors. In fact, this move suggests that there are multiple scandals rather than a single one. This is a POV which is subtly different from the POV that there is only one scandal which manifested itself in multiple dioceses in multiple countries.
I haven't opposed your move because I'm not convinced the distinction between "scandal" and "scandals" is important enough to dispute. However, I point out that your move was also bold and made without prior discussion.
--Richard (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You have a different mind possibly. There are multiple cases about abuse scandals. Not only 1, therefore the title is scandals. It is not something you can argue with. Kasaalan (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The summary I refer is leaving a summary detail in the main article while moving info. You just link to another page, and move all the info with leaving no summary in the current article. Kasaalan (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
There's little need for a summary in this article of the info that was moved out. My original intent was for this article to be a detail article of Catholic sexual abuse scandals. Note the {{main}} tag that I placed at the top of this article. Please refer to WP:SUMMARY. Main articles summarize detail articles. Detail articles do not need to summarize main articles. Otherwise, they wind up duplicating each other.
In any event, all of this becomes moot as the scope of this article is now pretty much the same as [[

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country]] and so my proposal is that we merge the remaining content into the relevant other articles (for the most part, that means into Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country) and then redirect this title to either Catholic sexual abuse scandals or [[ Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country]].::--Richard (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead being bold, your editing approach is actually too complicated edits which makes others too too hard to review in the first place. Being bold something, mixing everything move-delete-summarize-reedit-rename is another. You should move and reorganize info first, then edit or summarize so others can edit or revert progressively. You are wrong about summary, and without summary in the main article you split articles in a FORK of the FORK style. A main article should contain enough summary of the subarticle in the first place, people cannot click all the subarticles you put. One long article is better than so many subarticles. You use subarticles, if that part becomes too long, like 100 KB Also try not to delete the info, and use hidden text feature so others can decide if the info is actually useful or not. Do you know how to use hidden text feature. It is <!-- hidden text -->. Also not so sure if Roman Catholic and Catholic titles should be separated. Kasaalan (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed your edits, merged all info, redirected old page again, since no need to create a subarticle in the first place, you may create a new list based article for court cases by country or by date, however you split was unnecessary. I merged all info here, since there are lots of editors edited the article. However we may move the titles as cases and scandals, or as scandals. I am not sure Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country if Roman part is necessary, Catholic sex abuse cases by country may be a better titles. Kasaalan (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
During my merge, some parts may be unnecessary, so you may delete duplicate info. Kasaalan (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that "Roman" is not necessary in the title of Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country but I didn't want to get into a "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" naming issue until the dust had settled on my proposed changes to this article. --Richard (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the suggestion to rename the articles and category from "scandals" to "cases" is a good one. Cases sounds less POV and less confrontational. It's less likely to stir opposition. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Not being confrontational is always important, but can anyone think of a polite description for "child rape"? I thought "scandal" was it.
If you want to be truly, objectively, dispassionately, encyclopedic, maybe it should be called "Catholic Child Rape Cases"...full stop. --StudiousReader (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge this article with Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country

After merging the general discussion of the topic to Catholic sexual abuse scandals, what remains is a list of individual cases which really belongs in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. A fuller discussion of the rationale for reorganizing the articles on this topic can be found above in the section titled Reorganization and renaming of articles related to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal. --Richard (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear... Kasaalan's "merge" described immediately above is not the merge that is proposed by this section. In fact, it runs counter to my proposal.

If my proposed merger is agreed to, this article would turn into a redirect to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country.

--Richard (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think merger is a good idea, if anything I think the details listed Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country' in this article should be dropped and replaced with a link to the article of that name, on the grounds that it's a duplication. This article works well as an over-view to the topic of Catholic sex abuse and, IMO, should seek to orientate interested readers in topic that is spread very widely across Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this proposal because nobody seemed to care about it. This is a really old proposal and has been obsoleted by changes made since the proposal was initiated. I therefore retract this proposal. --Richard (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Request opinions from other editors

OK... so Kasaalan has basically reverted my proposed reorg/rewrite/rename of this article, leaving it in a sorry state (IMHO). However, this is how the WP:BRD model works so let's move on to the "Discuss" phase of the process. I have made my case in the sections above this one titled Propose splitting this article, Reorganization and renaming of articles related to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal and Proposal to merge this article with Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. At this point, I would like to hear opinions from other editors regarding the points made on both sides.

In a nutshell, I believe that this article tries to do too much. It discusses details at the country-level and the diocese-level thus obscuring the forest by showing too many of the trees.

While I readily admit that my latest revision is far from adequate, I believe it is superior to Kasaalan's latest revision. I urge editors to review both articles my revision and Kasaalan's revision and opine as to which one forms a better foundation for improving the article going forward.

P.S. I have just reverted this article back to the revision prior to my edits and so this revision represents a third alternative to consider. I still consider it inferior to my proposed revision but it is (IMO) superior to Kasaalan's revision. --Richard (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also please express an opinion on my proposal to merge this article into Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, leaving Catholic sexual abuse scandals as the top-level main article about the global phenomenon.

--Richard (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate the necessity to leave a redirect from the media-defined names for the articles. But until the articles are objectively named they will continue to attract undesirable entries from unknowledgeable people with extreme opinions on either side. That is why the media names articles as they do: to ensure you listen to them! The media is not terribly interested in objectivity which Wikipedia purports to be. For the record I have seen several otherwise contentious articles that (usually) lucked out with an objective name to start with, and gave pretty good satisfaction to both sides as the article matured. Partly due to BLP, politicians bios tend to be that way, for example. Lots of (sometimes paid) media activists defending the reputation of the bio, which we don't have here.
Anyway, try considering less pov titles and use the media titles for redirect only.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with Strunk and White. They were talking about full sentences. So KISS is not the right answer here. Student7 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean however both sexual abuse cases or sexual abuse scandals are objective titles, not sure what you refer with the title issues. Kasaalan (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
First I would suggest using plural, because these types of events are as old as institutions, the article focusses on allegations starting in 2002, uses the word "nationally" - even in the cases discussed in the lead, I seem to recall that allegations had been made earlier, there seems to me a continuity - even the Vatican's 2001 response is before the events in the lead. Therefore it seems that the scandals relating to and arising form the Boston Globe reports should be pulled off into another article, and this article, possibly with a slightly different name, should be a global overview, whether from time immemorial, or just of late 20th early 21st century - but I would suggest the former. Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC).
As far as the media splash - that mostly took place with the Boston Globe revelations of 2002. So if you are covering it in a media-like fashion, that was a key year to use some editors favorite word "scandal." Until that time, there were a couple of national headlines about big wins by lawyers (in slow news years) which provoked mostly yawns from the public. Without the "scandal" implications, reports can be reported in another fashion, I suppose. Objectively, for example!
At one time (slow news year again), it was thought that boys were seldom abused by women teachers. The first four women that were accused got a lot of headlines. When the media discovered it was fairly widespread, they quit and focused on RC instead. But let us pretend the reports continued and dozens of article were created about each woman teacher (still only about 4 now I think. All in the same time frame). Building from the bottom up, there would be a high level article. You would discover that this had been reported to principals and superintendents who just didn't believe it (who would have back then?) and flipped off the complaints. My point being, instead of trying to build this from the top down, like the Boston Globe and the media, maybe it should be built from low level articles up.
If you are reporting the media sensation, that is another matter. I think this is part of the problem. Is Wikipedia mirroring the media or is it reporting "the facts" without the media? It may be confusing doing both.
Also, the Ferns Report, while probably accurate (and material must be referenced from there) does a real verbal hatchet job, maybe typical of Irish politics, I don't know. But it is part of the media when used top-down. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan's critique of edits made by Richardshusr

You completely try to waste my editing time with POV FORK splitting, and removing important info. It took a great time to merge all the info you messed with by moving and deleting. Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country is a list based article in the first place. This is a full article. Currently the cases categorised per country, and other worldwide titles. Categorize better if you feel like. You created some titles in discussion page, yet without any consent of other editors, you massively subtracted text, "summarized", moved content to a redirect page that is in noone's watchlist. You messed the article, try not to revert me and subtract info. Kasaalan (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You still creating complicated edits. If you just use a sandbox reviewing your edits will be much easier. Reorganizing is nice, and try not to delete info this time. Reviewing your edits are time consuming. You may just create a sandbox for such massive edits, and put the latest version in 1 edit if you make such complicated edits. Kasaalan (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed your edits, reedited where required. Good effort on categorization so thanks. As long as you paraphrase or summarize and don't delete info, I have no objection. Kasaalan (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style required

Again there is a tendency from some cotributors to attempt to cover this issue in a sensationalising, emotive and often unbalanced tabloid manner. This leads to exaggerations, treating allegations as facts, emotive language such as "crimes" used of allegations, and selection of the most emotive details of (often unbalanced) press coverage. While much of the article attempts a balanced form of coverage, there are occasions were language is manipulated to infer for example that abuse is more widespread than claimed, or to infer unproven motives and actions to the heirarchy. The article is also lacking a section on views that media coverage of the issue in the Catholic Church has been selective, excessive, misleading and fails to set Catholic cases in context of behaviour and policy outside the church. I will look into adding such a section in the near future. Xandar 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The cases are widespread than the media or legal case coverage, since it is a known fact that only a fraction of rape or abuse victims get courage to take it to the court or police. And only a fraction of them can prove their cases.
  • Second some opinion pieces added by richard, yet without tagging it and giving him a change to verify them per RS, deleting his overview comments not helping much, and actually the same accusations may be applied to your deletions.
  • If you feel balance is lost, you may add church's replies and defenses, which is will contribute to the article.
  • Yet it is a known fact that abuse exists over decades, and wider than it is covered since there are serious efforts on cover up by church. Why do you think they only started anti-child-abuse training programmes in 2008, couldn't they think it previously.
  • In medieval times, not sure what kind of torture the vatican practiced upon people, not even counting witchhunt tradition.
  • I could only review your edits to some extent. Readded some parts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I fully support more addition of church's defense and comments on the case, and neutral wording. Yet it is not good to trim from criticism sections, so addition to defense side is better to balance the article.
Again as I suggest, try not to make intertwined moves and edits at the same time, with conflicting parties involved, it is really hard to review the actual changes, that is not about being bold it is about being simple.
  • 1 Make the moves and section categorization.
  • 2 Make the additions.
  • 3 Make the summary and paraphrasing.
  • 4 Make the deletions.
If all parties follow that order it will be much more easier to review, and edit progressively.

Kasaalan (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: so-called "simpler" editing style...
I make my edits as they occur to me. Many of my additions come as I find relevant sources. In many cases, the information that I am adding is stuff that I learn as the result of research via Googling. As a result, the new information requires new sections to accomodate it. Some of these "new" sections involve points that are already made in the article and these now need to be moved to create a more logical presentation of ideas.
The previous article structure was extremely flawed ("godawful" is the word that comes to me). Stuff is going to need to be moved. I wish I was enough of an expert on the topic to know everything that needed to be said so that I could layout a complete outline first and then flesh it out. I'm not. But then again, that's not a requirement to be a Wikipedia editor.
If you have a problem with my editing style, then don't review my edits for a while and I'll let you know when I'm done. (P.S. Don't postpone any vacations waiting for the notification.)
--Richard (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Previous article structure was bad, you made it worse, after my merge you improved and made it better. So do not confuse things.
Also as Xandar suggests, you make some lead changes that are not backed up by references, which makes them original research.
Move is another thing, move, summarize, delete, paraphrase, change subtitles are another. If you follow my approach, it will be easier for other editors to review and reedit, which you possibly don't care.
Your recent edits are useful, your previous edits were totally awful. You can't intertwine everything, then tell other editors to not review your edits. I have to review your or anyone's edits, yet if you make utterly complicated edits for not to be reviewed, that is another issue. Kasaalan (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: "anti-child abuse training programs" and "medieval torture". Now it's more clear what your POV is. Please try to avoid letting that POV influence your editing of the article. --Richard (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to quote 2008 anti-child abuse training which started after decades, or medieval torture by churches which is documented in detail even in medieval times. Facts do not require quotes, and facts are NPOV by definition. My knowledge on the area only affects my edits when an editor came, mixing all things up, creating a POV FORK, moving half of the page to a redirection page without any consensus but his own opinion, make so complicated edits that noone but me would bother to review, then try blame me. I support your recent categorisation efforts fully. Yet, your previous subtractive edits were awfully forked and splitted the article, I had to review and merge them all back by wasting my edit time. I am a non COI party about catholicism like many other religions, yet it is also my duty as an editor to add criticism about vatican and its alleged and proven criticism, like connections with mafia and money laundering. That is what I do for any other religion, it does not matter if it is Judaism, Buddhism, Islam or Scientology. I cannot tolerate any POV subtraction of criticism, yet I am always in favor of addition of defense or balancing views. You happen to delete some important sections and titles, now and then especially the reports, by in-between edits. As I previously stated, if you don't massively delete info, I support your categorisation and other efforts. Yet the leading cases should remain like US, Ireland and Australia, and before fully blanking a section it needs to be summarized. Creating fork articles here and there, then blanking sections will make article unuseful. Kasaalan (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments for Xandar:
While you are generally more of an apologist for the Church than I am, I recognize the value of many of your edits to this article and welcome our collaboration. There are, nonetheless, areas where we disagree.
You wrote: "there is a tendency from some contributors". Just for the record, some of the changes you made were to text that was in the article before I started my recent edits so some of them (e.g. "crimes") were made by someone other than myself.
Some of your recent edits involved text I brought in from reliable sources (a reliable source is not necessarily NPOV); your edits attempted to neutralize their POV. This is sort of OK but it is better to bring in other sources to balance the POV than to simply dismiss the POV. However, for the most part, I'm OK with your edits in this regard if they neutralize rather than simply delete.
A word about "treating allegations as facts" - While I am not in the camp of those who wish to remove every instance of the word "alleged" from the article, I think you go overboard in your use of the words "alleged" and "allegations". There is at least one instance where you used it twice in the same sentence. The difficulty here is that some allegations are proven, some will never be proven and others have been disproven. There are no good numbers here and probably never will be. I acknowledge the need to avoid "treating allegations as facts"; however, overuse of "allegations" starts to suggest that none of the allegations are true when, in fact, many of them are.
For example, you removed "substantiated" from "substantiated allegations". Although there are some issues about the nature of the substantiation (which I will discuss in a moment), the John Jay report did, in fact, tabulate "substantiated allegations" against 4392 priests. There were 11,000 allegations reported in the survey of dioceses of which 6,700 were reported by the dioceses "substantiated" and the rest were either classified as "unsubstantiated" or "not investigated due to the death of the accused priest".
Now, the problem with "substantiated" is that the survey was not precise in its definition of "substantiation" and thus the definition was left up to the responding diocese and so "substantiation" could have been as simple as the existence of two or more allegations against the same priest or corroboration by a third-party (e.g. a peer of the alleged victim). Obviously, such evidence could be challenged in court. Nonetheless, for the purposes of discussing the John Jay report, it is better to use the word "substantiated" to draw a distinction between the 11,000 total allegations and the 6700 "substantiated" allegations with a note to explain the issue that I have outlined above.
Re "unbalanced media coverage", I have recently added some sourced opinions regarding media coverage. The basic problem here is that such charges of media bias MUST be cited to reliable sources. We must find Catholic sources who complain about it. We cannot complain about it on their behalf without sourcing. That would be original research.
--Richard (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My mention of "some contributors" was not directed at any particular person. I have no idea who put some of the most problematic material in the article. I just note that much media coverage contains errors and inferences that exaggerate or mislead about elements of the scandal. Some of the tone of this sort of coverage often creeps into the article. The issue of stating clearly what are allegations and what are not, fits in here. This is especially so with reference to saying bishops "Covered-up" abuse. Often we have two allegations combined here, 1) that what was "Covered-up" was abuse rather than allegations of abuse. and 2) that there was a proven cover-up rather than an allegation of a cover-up. These are very important distinctions. Similarly polls asking bishops if any priest in their diocese has been accused of sexual misconduct are unsuitable for this article since they provide a largely irrelevant result not specific to this issue. On media coverage views, I am currently gathering some references. Xandar 00:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Mainly 3 editors edited lately, I only readded deleted statements, you know your own edits, so it is Richard. Kasaalan (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't deny that some of my edits are unacceptable to Xandar. He takes a more extreme stance on the use of "alleged", "crime", "malfeasance" and "coverup" than I do. Nonetheless, many of his recent edits are changing text that was already in the article before my recent edits. That is why I was "setting the record straight" above. --Richard (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't fully review and examine your edit conflict, so I cannot comment or edit much about the case, yet the issue is obviously between you, I may later be involved, if I can fully review your conflict. Kasaalan (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Trimming the length of this article

There are now two editors (User:Student7 and User:ADM) who have indicated their sense that this article goes into too much detail. While they have not explicitly backed my proposal above for splitting this page, Student7 has pointed out that Wikipedia is not a "police blotter" and ADM has attempted to move the details of settlements and bankruptcies to another article (Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases).

In any event, this article is 86 kilobytes long and so WP:SIZE suggests that it needs to be cut down to a more manageable length. Since the information in the "Catholic sex abuse cases by country" section is generally already repeated in two other places (Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country and the article on Catholic sexual abuse in that country if it exists), this is a logical place to start trimming.

User:Kasaalan has objected to deletion of text without summarization. I will undertake to summarize the text over the next few days.

Once that's done, I will nominate Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases for deletion unless ADM agrees to have it deleted at his own request.

--Richard (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 different things, they created 2 forks, blanked page removed all content there. That is not the way to go. The main article is here, so at least a good summary should be left within the section. Or it would be a blantant POV FORK attempt only. You cannot blank important sections of the article, by just creating a FORK, moving all content there, and expecting readers to click here and there, for every section to read an article. The subpage creation guidelines are clear you shouldn't create a subpage for Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases which is below 10 KB and 20 references, Wikipedia:Content forking, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style are very clear "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects." Without they make effort on summarizing the content, their split is not useful for main article. They should make effort to summarize content, blanking is not a solution. The article should be splitted, yet without leaving a proper summary it will only be POV and leads unbalanced views. Kasaalan (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
For example the least useful section in the article is Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse which is already consumes a huge part of the article, yet they splitted Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases by blanking the section which unbalances the article, and moves more useful info. The section needs summarizing, so I tagged it as it is. No good summary, no split. Kasaalan (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It's good to know that we agree on the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What we disagree on is how to implement the splitting of the article. I am inclined to follow ADM's lead (i.e. removing details about settlements and bankruptices) and also remove details about resignations. However, as you point out, there is a need for some summary of the material that is being spun off. I will work on that as time permits.
As to why I propose to start with the section titled "Catholic sex abuse cases by country", that section is 32kb in size. In contrast, the section titled "Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse" is only 15kb. We will be able to shrink the article more easily if we focus on the former section first and then move on to the latter. I agree that "Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse" is rather long and could perhaps be trimmed. However, I don't think there is much value in having an article titled Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
--Richard (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
He greatly categorised the article, which is helpful and takes effort. Article is useful if we leave a good summary in the main article. If we blank the section, it subtract from the main article greatly that is why it becomes a FORK. And when you blank a section it is harder to find info in edit history and summarize it. It is also not same with the splitted article's content, so it will be even harder if we blank the section. I would use hidden text, yet reference tags not allowing. Maybe nowiki and hiddentext features may be used both for the text. I will try it. Kasaalan (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Also AFD nomination of Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases is a waste of editing efforts. Article is fine and categorised per diocose, which is a nice work and requires effort. I do not object the article, I object blanking section without summary, without a good summary added to the section it leaves the section blank which leads unbalance don't confuse 2 things with each other. Kasaalan (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with some of what you have written above, I disagree regarding the proposed deletion of Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases. If we have that article, then why not also have Resignations and defrockings in Catholic sex abuse cases? IMHO, this is exactly what Wikpedia is WP:NOT. To argue for the existence of such articles is to argue that there are readers who would be interested solely in that topic absent the context of the actual abuse cases. I would prefer to have an article titled Catholic sex abuse cases which provided details of specific allegations, court cases, convictions, prison sentences, out-of-court settlements, resignations, defrockings and bankruptices. Gee, come to think of it, I seem to remember creating just such an article a few days ago.... I wonder what ever became of it.  ;^) --Richard (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
2 main articles will be unnecessary split for same content. By country is wider and on different list based approach. We shouldn't mix cases too much. Main article should contain leading abuser countries yet not all. So some may be subtracted from main article. Kasaalan (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with respect to the relative importance of certain sections. Long lists like "Settlements and bankruptcies" and Abuse by country" are to my mind less important than Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse, which is actually getting beyond lists to reporting the actual issues. Xandar 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is catholic sex abuse cases, so it should contain leading abuse cases, and results, table by richard is a good implementation since, it is easier to read, and I converted it to a sortable table, which makes things easier. Debate over possible causes of sexual abuse, is the actual section that needs to be splitted, yet again with a good and detailed summary. I reviewed, and tried to shape article, and totally over 150 edits I made for the article. I will also try improving subarticles. Kasaalan (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Xandar. What Kasaalan writes about the article containing "leading abuse cases" has some validity. However, Kasaalan's definition of "leading abuse cases" is too broad and thus he insists on too much detail (i.e. too many cases and too much detail about the cases) being kept in the article. --Richard (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, the consensus is running against you. At least two editors (Xandar and I) agree that the section on "Sex abuse cases by country" should go. Admittedly, this is a very thin consensus although edits and comments by ADM and Student7 suggest that their thinking runs along similar lines.

Since there is not a clear consensus here, I plan to issue a RFC to get input from the broader Wikipedia community. In the meantime, I would urge you to edit collaboratively and accept that the current state of the article represents a compromise in which much of what you want in the article is there with the exception of some details of cases which are really out of place in the midst of a table.

I would also urge you to read WP:SUMMARY, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.

--Richard (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes you do not WP:OWN the article, also you tried WP:POV WP:FORK splitting in the first place with no WP:CONSENSUS at all, also removed important details during in-between edits while nooneelse but me would bother to fully track your highly complicated edit style. You even blanked some sections without any WP:SUMMARY in the first place. RFC is way to go. The version I keep, was the version which is approved by its previous state by many other editors. And possibly you are a WP:COI party to the case per your religious beliefs, if I am not mistaken.
Sex abuse cases by country may go. Yet the 2 leading countries Ireland and USA stays one way or another, since these 2 countries are the leading countries on child abuse cases, and uncovered the cases by highly reliable reports. Kasaalan (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases/Archive_6&oldid=1092045136"