User:Joo/Context debate on Catholic sex abuse cases

Context section

Should this be removed? As I'm not convinced that http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/change_in_vatican_culture/ is a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Monica Applewhite is one of the foremost experts on screening, monitoring and policy development for the prevention of sexual abuse and risk management for those with histories of sexual offending. She has spent the past 16 years conducting research and root-cause analysis in the area of sexual abuse in organizations in order to assist organizations in developing best practice standards. Formerly with Praesidium Inc., she helped create an accreditation system for the Conference of Major Superiors of Men to hold them accountable to the highest standards of child protection. She has worked with more than 300 organizations that serve children and youth, including 28 Catholic dioceses, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Jesuit Conference, and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of the Apostolic Life in Rome. Now director of Confianza LLC, a consulting firm specializing in standards of care and the dynamics of abuse in educational and religious environments, she resides in Austin, Texas. joo (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

With this expert opinion, all that hullabaloo made by NYT and gang suddenly looks just like hullabaloo, doesn't it? joo (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What specifically are you objecting to? joo (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm questioning whether the National Catholic Register is a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why so? Please remember that this is the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. Anyway, what Applewhite said about the criminal justice system sending offenders to treatment instead of prisons is corroborated by Chapter 2—An Overview of the Criminal Justice System: "Until the mid-1970s, rehabilitation was the dominant goal of American corrections. Indeterminate sentencing structures, with their emphasis on "corrections" centers and institutions, and reliance on parole boards to determine when an individual was "ready" to be released (that is, cured) were at least partially based on a rehabilitative model of sentencing." Source: National Library of Medicine (government site) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A33880 joo (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is whether the National Catholic Register is likely to be neutral on the matter or whether it is bias towards catholics and whether another, ideally secular, mainstream-media source could be found to backup these claims. Obviously that source doesn't have to be a US source, if it has founding I'm sure there'll be European media coverage saying similar things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively maybe something from a peer-reviewed journal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. If you disqualify Catholic sources, you're effectively trying to remove a major part of the criticisms. Anyway, as mentioned above, please read "Until the mid-1970s, rehabilitation was the dominant goal of American corrections. Indeterminate sentencing structures, with their emphasis on "corrections" centers and institutions, and reliance on parole boards to determine when an individual was "ready" to be released (that is, cured) were at least partially based on a rehabilitative model of sentencing." Source: National Library of Medicine (government site) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=hssamhsatip&part=A33880 joo (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember too that over 50 perecent of the priests accused had only one reported allegation against them AND only one in four allegations was made within 10 years of the incident that gave rise to the allegation. Half of all allegations were made between 10 and 30 years after the incident and the remaining 25% were reported more than 30 years after the incident. Given this situation, it's not surprising that the psychologists, bishops and even criminal justice staff involved actually thought that treatment was an appropriate response. joo (talk)

I don't think you're being reasonable here, the reporting rate for sex crimes is usually pretty low, and I'd expect it to be especially low for cases involving children. Even with grown women only 10-15% of them reported rape to the police according to the British Crime survey (see page 5, figure 6 of rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is: What would the reasonable man do in the situation, especially in the 1950s - 1970s when "rehabilitation was the dominant goal of American corrections"? He won't automatically assume that the person with just one allegation about an incident long past is beyond rehabilitation. It is a reasonable point. joo (talk)

Re the National Catholic Register being a reliable source. I think Eraserhead1 misunderstands the nature of what a "reliable source" is. The most critical component of being a reliable source is that it not be self-published i.e. that the stuff that is published went through some sort of editorial review. This keeps out the truly flaky stuff from self-published websites and blogs. Being published by a reliable source doesn't mean that what was published is true or accurate or NPOV. Far from it. Many reliable sources publish from a particular POV. As Joo points out, the purpose of the "Criticism of media coverage" section is to document a particular POV, not to establish the truth of that ciriticism. If there are opposing, balancing viewpoints that refute the criticism, those should be presented per WP:NPOV. However, we cannot dismiss viewpoints simply because they represent a particular POV. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "No POV", it means providing a Neutral presentation of all significant POVs. --Richard S (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Richardshusr, what about the many references which Dvd-junkie deleted (see the Homosexuality Theory section) based on what he perceives as biasedness? It's a theory section, isn't it? It's also about interpretations and PoVs. Dvd-junkie's coming from a "no anti-gay info allowed" angle and started discounting the researchers as anti-gay and therefore unreliable. joo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop your deletions. Please discuss your reasons.

Haldraper: Please discuss the reasons for your changes. You are removing important and relevant information again.

• Applewhite's comments pertain to context and NOT inaccuracies.
• Jenkins' comment pertain to inaccuracies in the way liberal media used the term "pedophile" extensively and yet most of the Catholic abuse cases do not involve pedophilia but pederasty.

Why are your edits (or most accurately, deletions) confined to only the Criticisms of Media Coverage section? Why do you keep deleting important and relevant criticisms of media coverage? Are you from one of those media or sent by them? joo (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Joo, please calm down. Reviewing Haldraper's deletions and his edit comments for them, I can see that he has a plusible rationale for his deletions based upon an editiorial vision of what the scope of the "Criticism of media coverage" section should be. Now, I have to say that, while I understand his argument, I am not fully convinced and I think this question should be discussed and resolved here instead of via edit-warring. In brief, the problem is whether we should cover all "criticism of media coverage" or just the complaints of a media feeding frenzy based on an urge to kick the Catholic Church because it's fashionable. The problem is that some of the criticism of media coverage is based on actual substantive issues such as the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia or the argument regarding whether homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. Haldraper's point seems to be that these substantive issues don't belong in the section on "Criticism of media coverage" but rather in some other section of the article. I'm not sure that I agree with him but I think it's a valid argument and we should weigh the pros and cons of his argument rather than just assuming that he is deleting stuff without a reasonable rationale. --Richard S (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But the main point is discuss before deleting referenced material. Xandar 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Richardshusr, this is not the first time Haldraper tried to delete relevant information from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. The last time he deleted quotes by Charol Shakeshaft, Wiegel and a host of other people. And he did it repeatedly without discussion, even after a warning from Eraserhead1. Discussion only happened much later. Just search above for Charol Shakeshaft. joo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, Haldraper moved Applewhite's criticism (which is on the context) to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' criticism (which is the indiscriminate way the term "pedophile" was used to describe the Catholic abuse cases). I think that 1) The context section should stay as it is, and 2) As you've put it, "...criticism of media coverage is based on actual substantive issues such as the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia or the argument regarding whether homosexuality is linked to pedophilia." joo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole attempt to add a section 'putting into context' the media's coverage of the Catholic child sex abuse scandal smacks of OR/SYN. Applewhite's comments clearly refer to the issue of non-reporting rather than media coverage and Jenkins' are attempting to make a distinction between paedophiles and priests who abuse teenage boys. Haldraper (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, you have deleted again what we're supposed to be discussing without waiting for us to respond to your comments. I've just reported you here. joo (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Read Applewhite's quote properly. She was criticizing media coverage for omitting (or not considering) important contextual information:

"I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet. It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

"We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison. At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode."

Her statement on the criminal justice system in the 1970s is supported by the "Overview of Criminal Justice System" page on the National Library of Medicine website. (See reference on the article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Applewhite's quote is not about Inaccuracy

I've read the quote again (along with your unnecessary italics and bolding). The only words that can be construed as in any way relating to the media are the first four which are merely by way of introduction: she is clearly defending the Church from the non-reporting charge rather than discussing the alleged overemphasis or inaccuracy in media coverage. Haldraper (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, she isn't discussing overemphasis or inaccuracy. Why did you move her quote to the Inaccuracies section earlier then? She kept talking about the 1960s and 1970s and "the historical context of any given episode". This is certainly about Context. She didn't mention anything about "non-reporting". Where did you get that idea from? joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

So then it probably should be in "Debate over causes" or something, not criticism of media coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One could mention this criticism of media coverage in the Debate Over Causes section. She was talking about media coverage as in "newspapers articles criticizing..." without "consider[ing] the historical context". Why are you so keen to get her quote out of the Criticism of Media Coverage section? joo (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the media who criticize the Church for "not reporting". joo (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet", see the History section of Child Protective Services at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services#History and http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1377/Reporting-Child-Abuse-CHILD-PROTECTIVE-SERVICES.html - "Partly funded by the federal government, child protective services (CPS) agencies were first established in response to the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA; Public Law 93-247), which mandated that all states establish procedures to investigate suspected incidents of child maltreatment." joo (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Have just added more references: "discovered it caused real harm in 1978" (KC Meiselman (1978). Incest. Jossey-Bass Publishers.) and "realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s" (http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm from the Institute for Psychological Therapies). joo (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

More support from the Institute for Psychological Therapies article, Sex Offender Treatment by sex abuse experts Wakefield & Underwager at http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm joo (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Treating people with disordered behavior patterns as morally defective and requiring a change in moral commitments has a long history (Siegler & Osmond, 1974)... Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989) note that for those convicted of sexual crimes, probation with mandated treatment and perhaps some jail time is the most common disposition. Also, a person accused of sexual abuse may be offered a choice of therapy in place of punishment. The offer may be made in criminal court or in juvenile and family court.

Stop further deletions. Please discuss

Haldraper, stop hijacking the article. You're not the only one who edits it. Changes like yours are meant to be discussed here on the talk page. (Huey45 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Look, Haldraper. You put an OR notice in the Context section demanding verification and more references. I added more relevant references such as the following: joo (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"I have seen newspaper articles criticizing officials for not reporting acts of abuse to the civil authorities during years when there were no child protective services and the particular behaviors involved were not criminalized yet . It is fair for criticism of decisions made in the ’60s and ’70s to focus on interpretation of moral behavior, weakness in the resolve of leaders or even the disregard of procedures set out in canon law. By the same token, it is essential to separate this from expectations that are based on the laws and standards of today.

"We began studying sexual abuse in the 1970s, discovered it caused real harm in 1978, and realized perpetrators were difficult to rehabilitate in the 1990s. During the ’70s when we were sending offenders to treatment, the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders — sending them to treatment instead of prison. At the time, it was believed they could be cured with relative ease. This is a very young body of knowledge, and as we sort through both valid and questionable criticisms, we must consider the historical context of any given episode."

The references are from reliable sources (as defined in Wikipedia), such as: (1) Pecora et al. (1992), p. 232; Petr (1998), p. 126. (2) Pecora et al. (1992), pp. 232-3; Petr (1998), pp. 126-7. (3) KC Meiselman (1978). Incest. Jossey-Bass Publishers. (4) http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_1_2.htm (5) more references within the History section of the child protective services article and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act article within Wikipedia.

And now you think further references are unnecessary (writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation") and you have just removed ALL of them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

And again without discussion! Please explain your reasons for going back and forth and for deleting more things AGAIN and AGAIN. joo (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this OR?

The Context section is NOT placed under the United States section. Why did you write: "OR/SYN again: no evidence that Applewhite's comments refer solely to US"? However, do note that (a) Applewhite studied in the US, did her research in the US and lives in the US. (b) Majority of the reported cases are in the US. (c) Child Protective Services (CPS) is the name of a governmental agency in many states of the United States that responds to reports of child abuse or neglect. (d) Since the US is supposed to be a world leader, it's possible that its laws for child protection are ahead of the rest of the world. joo (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for editorial help here joo (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Joo, your comments after "However, do note..." are a classic example of WP:OR/WP:SYN.

Rather than keep running for 'editorial help', I suggest you read - and get a proper grasp of - these policies before you continue editing Wikipedia, although looking at your contribution history this seems to be the only page you have any interest in: perhaps per WP:COI you could clarify what exactly your interest is? Haldraper (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldraper, what we are writing on this page is a discussion and not a highly referenced encyclopedia. Why are you quoting encyclopedia policies on a discussion? What's wrong with explaining my rationale with "However, do note..."? This section which you keep deleting stuff is a "Criticisms of Media Coverage" section. Yet you keep deleting the criticisms. You should clarify your interest here. My interest, I've already stated in our discussion above. And you have not answered any of my questions, e.g Why did you ask for more references (claiming OR) and why do you delete them once they are given? joo (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So in your latest revert, you claimed that you've "RV to non-OR/SYN version"? Then why did you put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why do you still leave the OR-section there? Stop contradicting yourself left, right and centre. Just what are you trying to do? joo (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I've changed many other sections (including the Vatican Responses, Criticism of Secrecy, etc.) In fact, earlier I re-organized more than half the text in the article. Ask Morenooso or take a look at my talk page. You are the one who has been doing nothing on the article except delete stuff from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section. Please explain your interest. joo (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you thought the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases is the only page that I've edited? Look more closely in the earlier contributions. Then again, how do you manage to see my contributions? Why can't I see yours? joo (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop more deletions

Haldraper, you removed Applewhite's quote from Context and put an abbreviated (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section. And you've removed Jenkins' quote again. Explain and discuss your actions. Didn't you say above Applewhite's quote is not about inaccuracy? joo (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins of this page, please take action against Haldraper. Why aren't you doing anything? joo (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now what could have been happening in so-called academic or scientific circles. joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of criticisms in the Criticisms of Media Coverage section

I'm amazed by:
1) The continual deletion of "criticisms of media coverage" in the Criticisms of Media Coverage section.
2) The support given by the odd editor.
3) The indifference shown by most others.

Could anyone enlighten me please? joo (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but I'm a bit more surprised how they get away with it. They do not give proper explanations on this page (at least from my POV) and "all" are more or less fine with it. Well, maybe that's because the article is about the RCC and not Barack Obama. I'm pretty certain that might happen there too, but than people would certainly care more about NPOV than here. What you're putting into the article does not fit into their Weltanschauung and even if you can source it properly there looking for ways to take it out and the most simple one is just delete it. Don't take it personal and keep on editing. Greetings from a non-catholic. --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it has a reasonable amount of content to me. I guess the reason I don't get really deeply involved in everything is that I'm not that interested in the subject. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I haven't deleted anything there. I have doubts about Bill Donohue as a reliable source. [1] He's head of the "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights", which is a lobby of sorts. And the cite to the John Jay paper doesn't seem to support the Wikipedia content. The criticism section is mostly what Jenkins has to say. He's an academic, so we have to treat him as a reliable source. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for reverting the revert by Haldraper. I understand your comment on Jenkins. A little puzzled by your comments about the John Jay paper. Why doesn't the John Jay paper support the Wikipedia content? joo (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Treating Jenkins as a source who says the problem was created or exaggerated by the media seems to misrepresent his position. He's written a book, "Pedophiles and priests: anatomy of a contemporary crisis" [2]. He goes through the history of the crisis, using terms like a "general conspiracy of silence" (quoting Canadian bishops conference, 1992; p. 40 in Jenkins). What really created trouble for the Catholic Church were all the lawsuits, especially the ones that forced covered-up church documents into open court. He does mention a few media-driven events, especially the "Priest of Porn" debacle in New Orleans, where "large numbers of pornographic videos had been found in his rectory", including the priest's self-produced "pornographic videos depicting sexual encounters between himself and several teenage boys ... in the parish rectory". That got extensive coverage, as one would expect, even though the priest involved escaped prosecution and was transferred to City College of New York (!). Jenkins does discuss problems with other Christian denominations in an insurance context, but does not mention any organized cover-ups associated with them. --John Nagle (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Most (if not all) researchers have their positions (or Weltanschauung as Cyrus put it), don't they? If they didn't have one, by the time they have finished some major research studies, they would have one. I still wonder about your comment that the cite to the John Jay paper not supporting the the Wikipedia content. Ah, actually, Margaret Smith was speaking in her own capacity and her comment came from interviews with is not part of the John Jay Report. joo (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

John Nagle, Haldraper has reverted your revert. Can some admin block Haldraper please? joo (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

After 23 edits or so by Joo (talk · contribs) in one day, I have a hard time figuring out what anybody else changed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667 joo (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions despite objections

Haldraper kept deleting relevant materials from the Criticisms of Media Coverage section of the Catholic sex abuse cases article:
a. despite objections from other editors (including yours truly)
b. despite attempts by other editors to discuss reasons
c. later proceeding with deletion again and again after stating reasons in a cryptic manner but without waiting for others to respond.

Here are some of the diffs: joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Removed i) Christian Science Monitor survey results, ii) comment by Newsweek on no significant difference, iii) Shakeshaft's criticism of media over-focus on the Catholic Church and her statistics
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=356979570&oldid=356961967

2. Removed quote by Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children + info on insurance companies premiums not different for all denominations + Shakeshaft's statistics
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357240469&oldid=357237190

3. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics which were reported in Weigel's criticism of media coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357378714&oldid=357369452

4. Removed Shakeshaft's statistics from Weigel's quote again
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=357586234&oldid=357584584

5. Removed Context section (Applewhite's quote). Moved Applewhite's quote to the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote from the Inaccuracies section.
See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360036257&oldid=360018666

6. He placed an OR tag in the Context section which says: "This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references...". After I have spent lots of time searching and adding the relevant references, he has just removed ALL the additional references for the Context section (again without discussion) writing in the Edit Summary: "no need for sources to support a direct quote: the quote is the source itself, adding more is just overcitation". joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360243257&oldid=360171493

7. He reverted (removed all the further references that I added), claiming "RV to non-OR/SYN version". Yet why did he put the OR-section tag there in the first place before the further references were given? And why does he still leave the OR-section there?

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360285649&oldid=360254763

8. John Nagel reverted Haldraper's deletions. Haldraper removed Applewhite's quote and the Context section (again and again) and put it (without the references) in the Inaccuracies section and removed Jenkins' quote again.

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360478889&oldid=360478667

9. Haldraper removed "Context" subheading and the second part of Applewhite's quote where she stressed that "we must consider the historical context of any given episode".

See diff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_sex_abuse_cases&action=historysubmit&diff=360524736&oldid=360515309

Points 1-4 have been resolved through the intervention of several other editors. Points 5-9 remain unresolved.

See discussions at
1. here

2. here
3. here <-- latest joo (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Read what other editors have written about Haldraper's edits so far: Cyrus at here and Huey45 at here and Farsight at here (scroll down). joo (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Context_section