Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases

most recent edits

There was a small edit made recently, which I reverted and suggested we discuss. I was reverted under the claim that it was already discussed. Since that is obviously not true, being that there is no discussion about it here, I'm starting one. so discuss. :) Farsight001 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the edit-war on that subject. In the NYT-article Cupich ist quoted with the following phrase: “There was mounting evidence in the world of psychology that indicated that when medical treatment is given, these people can, in fact, go back to ministry.” and Plante supports this assertion by "In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties." So what's the critique? --Ricerca (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, but I'm sorry if I made a change that was considered a revert, I thought I was making a compromise edit. The problem with the sentence as I see it is two-fold. One, the sources do not say that psychiatrists believed this, only bishops. Ricerca, the quote you give above is from a bishop, not a psychiatrist. He is saying what he imagined psychologists believed, but without a source directly from a psychologist/psychiatrist, we can only say that bishops believed psychology said this. Indeed, the rest of the article seems to be saying that psychologists didn't believe that at the time. And secondly, the grammar is a bit weird and seems to be saying that psychiatrists are defending themselves, which I think, isn't the case. Ashmoo (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You might have actually made a compromise edit. But ideally, we would still discuss it before making said edit. As for your reasoning - first, Plante, one of the authors of the sources, is a psychiatrist, and he clearly says this in the article, so at least one psychiatrist is saying it. It is this source that is provided for the perspective of psychiatrists. The Times article is provided for the perspective of the bishops. As the article says, "...some bishops and psychiatrists..." The Plante article supports this claim for the psychiatrists, and the Times article does the same for the bishops, instead of one source making the claim for the both of them. Also keep in mind that this is the lede of the article. Ideally, it has no sources at all since it is supposed to be a summary of the article, and thus sources are found below.Farsight001 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, in theory, that the lede doesn't necessarily need to include every cite, but in this case, the main article must contain the cite that supports the claim being made. Regarding Plante, I could not find the text that supported the claim in the cited article. Could you identify the part of the text that contains it? Furthermore, begin the lede, I think we need stronger sources than a single author. A 3rd party report, or a statement by a psychological/psychiatrist organisation is much better. In articles as obviously controversial as this one, I think we need to insist on very good sources to avoid problems, as it is easy to find single specialists in any field to support any assertion. Lastly, the other source cited actually says that the general feeling in psychiatry at the time was to not give molesters further access to children, but the text says nothing of this. Ashmoo (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care to respond, before I make the appropriate changes? Ashmoo (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Still no-one wants to show the support for the claim? Ashmoo (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Dutch report

Two quotes from the BBC article

Tens of thousands of children have suffered sexual abuse in Dutch Catholic institutions since 1945, a report says.

Most of the cases involved mild to moderate abuse, such as touching, but the report estimated there were "several thousand" instances of rape.

Here's one of many sources BBC article

EdwardLane (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The 10,000 to 20,000 "cases" of abuse are a statistical estimation. In fact, the commission interviewed 34,000 Dutch people. 0.3 to 0.9 % of them declared to have had unwanted sexual advances before the age of 18 from a perpetrator working in the Roman Catholic Church. Like in several other cases, it seems better quoting the original sources instead of newspaper articles: Report summary in English --Ricerca (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for finding the original source summary in English EdwardLane (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

This seems to be one newspaper article out of hundreds so I have removed it from "Further Reading". Perhaps another editor can include this information in the body of the text, or as a reference. This would seem the better place for a specific article, rather than in a list of books:

• Lobdell, William, "Missionary's Dark Legacy; Two remote Alaska villages are still reeling from a Catholic volunteer's sojourn three decades ago, when he allegedly molested nearly every Eskimo boy in the parishes. The accusers, now men, are scarred emotionally and struggle to cope. They are seeking justice." Los Angeles Times, Nov 19, 2005, p. A.1Cistercian (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)