Talk:Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keeping things encyclopedic[edit]

I've gone through an removed some of the more egregious violations of our undue weight and biographies of living people policies. There's more clean up to be done. Most of these sections seem to be merely listings of news stories that include some sort of sex abuse claim against a Roman Catholic Priest. This is not the same thing as providing encyclopedic information about Roman catholic sex abuse cases in each country. We should be focusing on what experts say about public and Church opinion, changes in public and Church policy and laws because of these cases. While some of the news coverage reflects this, most of it does not. -- SiobhanHansa 11:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a paragraph, that was removed on the basis of the reference (i.c. a WP dutch article). I changed the reference to an outside source, but the facts mentioned in the paragraph have not changed in the mean time. Stijn Calle 20:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address the issue of WP:WEIGHT. How are these cases noteworthy? What experts on sex abuse or the Church consider them to be illustrative or important? -- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references contain the additional information regarding their validity. Stijn Calle 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which has nothing to do with undue weight. -- SiobhanHansa 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The year is 2012 and the problem still persists. LMB (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no such cases in the philippines proven, no priest found guilty. User:catholicavenger.iloilo — Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pell[edit]

In regard to Student7's comment in the article - it seems likely to me that an Archbishop having to step aside for a while because of accusations is noteworthy and had an impact on the Church there - we should really look for reporting that talks about the impact of him stepping aside and then being cleared to work again. What it did to the Church and to public perception of the Church. I would have thought good local Catholic publications would be good sources of opinion pieces from experts on that. But it should be made clear it was an enquiry, he was not charged, and the findings were that the available evidence could not sustain a criminal prosecution. -- SiobhanHansa 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About to comment again, not remembering that I had done so. It again strikes me as a "police blotter." Guilt by innuendo. Most of the Sidney subsection should be struck. The article is not supposed to be a police blotter. This is for persistent abuse, covered up, I supppose, since that was the criterion before. If all abuse by professionals (teachers, religious of all faiths, doctors, police, etc.) were as lovingly and carefully documented in here as are RC, Wikipedia would be nothing else BUT abuse. There are millions of cases worldwide folks. Millions! 85% in the home. 10% in schools (twice as much as religious). Either get over it or document all of it (which is crazy - it is so pervasive). Student7 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers of Charity, Galway 2007 report[edit]

I've added a press ref on this report, necessarily brief.86.42.198.32 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parity across sex abuse articles on Wikipedia?[edit]

Perhaps there are good/experienced editors who look at this page, who might be interested in taking a look at a (very) different article: Scouting sex abuse cases. There are well-organised vested interests determined to cover-up what goes in the Scouts so some fresh contributions might be useful. Testbed (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney[edit]

An editor wants a lengthy discussion of why Sydney has weasel words in it.

"Pell temporarily "stood" aside from his post during an investigation - why are there quotes around "stood?" What is the point here?

The allegations against Pell could not be proven or disproven - my (rather unpleasant) accusations against the initiators of this aricle can't be proven or disproven either. Can I start a new article with that assertion?

Pell has been accused of covering the tracks of child sexual abusers in the Australian Priesthood. - accused? accused? Where in English jurisprudence (of which Australia is a part), it accusation tantamount to conviction? What is this doing here? wikipedia is not a tabloid or a newspaper.

Pell has publicly stated that he believes, "Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people." - Ah. Now we finally get at the heart of it. The Church may not take any moral stand whatever because it disagrees with the media! What is this sentence doing here other than to attempt to "prove" by innuendo, as usual, that Pell is a hypocrite. Since he isn't guilty of anything, he can't YET be a hypocrite!

James Fletcher - sexually abusive priest sentenced to 7.5 to 10 years jail for sexual penetration of an altar boy, later died in prison - well you've gotten even with him, I guess. This is police blotter stuff. There are 1,000,000 priests. I don't know what the percentage of felonies they commit, but if less than 1% over their lifetimes, that would still be 10,000 people. I didn't think Wikipedia was supposed to be a police blotter. When I tried to document teacher abuse, I was told that anyway. Wikipedia is not a directory.Student7 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

The same editor wants to know why this sentence is WP:POV and WP:WEASEL.

"It is difficult to ascertain the correct statistics for clerical sexual abuse in Italy because the Italian Government has a treaty with the Vatican that guarantees areas of immunity to Vatican officials, including bishops and priests." I mentioned on my edit line that it is difficult to tell what this is in North Korea, Burma, and several other countries as well. Gee, you could start several dozen articles with this type of lead in! No information is bad information. This is media bias as usual. If the tabloids don't like it, we don't like it? The sentence doesn't say anything at all except by innuendo. "There must be a lot of abuse because we aren't hearing anything about it."

"Before 2001, all cases were handled privately within Dioceses. In 2001 then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to all bishops ordering all sex-abuse cases be transferred to the Vatican. He imposed total secrecy on the proceedings, with the penalty of excommunication for any violations." - this is true for most church investigations to avoid polluting the evidence. Same as telling jurors not to discuss the case before its verdict. Only this tells the witnesses not to discuss the case which makes a lot more sense! But here, again, it means that since there is some smoke there must be a lot of fire.

"In May of 2007 the Panorama Documentary Episode Sex Crimes and the Vatican was only allowed to run on the state run television station with equal time for church officials." Imagine - equal time to answer innuendo and smears. The US media would have a heart attack!

There was nothing in this subsection at all that was useful to this article. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

Why is someone inserting information about the "Marthoma Church" in an article about the Roman Catholic Church? Absolutely has no bearing. Start one on Marthoma church sex abuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.188.221 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

Why is the content here of a mission designed to help victims of sex abuse? What does this information have to do with the articles title which is to list, in police-blotter fashion, cases of sexual abuse? Student7 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what point you want to make.--Stijn Calle (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection reads in toto:
"In 1992, the nonprofit organization Broken Rites was formed to help the victims of church-related sexual abuse in Australia. Though Broken Rights is non-denominational, approximately 90% of the victims that have contacted the organization have been from a Catholic Background."
What does this have to do with chronicling sex abuse cases? This is not a sex abuse case. It does not say, for example, that they opened up and processed 1000, or 1 million sex abuse cases. It is irrelevant to the title. It is not a case. It is an organization (Organisation?). Organizations are not cases.
We could just as well say, that "Wikipedia set up an article to handle Australia sex abuse cases." So what? Student7 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reference to an organisation that registers sex abuses cases, 90 % of which are of roman catholic origin. That is a clear link with the purpose of the page. By consulting the organisation, you can get extra information on roman catholic sex abuse cases in Australia. --Stijn Calle (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guilt by innuendo?
Let us say that I establish an organization (you can figure out why) whose sole purpose is to register and treat victims of physical abuse by you, as reported by your neighbors and family. And then (strangely enough) report that, indeed, 90% of the victims/reports, are (guess what!) by you! Golly! QED!
None of this, however, would be proof, by a constitutionally mandated impartial judicial authority that you were indeed guilty of anything except a victim of a blatant smear by me!
The Austalia "organisation" kind of falls into that category. It is not, in itself, scholarly in any way, and doesn't belong here, nor do it's comments.
We won't even get into the Burden of proof (logical fallacy), where, since it is impossible for anyone to prove themselves innocent here (no accusations being levied), they must therefore be guilty of something.
Begging the question fallacy. There are probably several others. Student7 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New entries[edit]

I think for living persons, you need at least a reference. Most of the new entries seem to be missing footnotes. Student7 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Park[edit]

Thank you for your contribution. Several editors do not feel that including an episode of South Park is scholarly, for some reason, though it seems to have the merit of elevating the discussion, somewhat from what we have come to regard as "usual" for this article.

Please do not add this cartoon as a useful reference again. Thank you.Student7 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

I've just removed a lot of entries that had no sourcing. We must have sources for assertions of this nature when the assertion is added to the article. this isn't optional and editors can not rely on others to find the citations at a later date. See WP:BLP for more on this.

The page also seems to be becoming a bit of a police blotter with little encyclopedic context. There are some nice summaries under a few of the diocese where an attempt is made to indicate the wider impact of cases on the Church and communities. But most entries appear to be listings of relatively non-notable cases. Obviously no such case is insignificant to those involved but as an encyclopedia it does not seem appropriate to simply list every case of a priest found guilty of a sex crime that's ever been printed in a newspaper - and that's what a lot of this article feels like. -- SiobhanHansa 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed items are visible in this diff if anyone wishes to find sources. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide sources for each of the cases that have been removed - each of the cases I added was researched. I don't agree with your comment that it's a "police blotter" - from the victim's point of view, no single case is more or less important than any other, and the article should provide a complete list of every case if it's factual - Chris.

Chris sources takes away the concern about inaccurate accusations which is obviously a big issue we should all be at concerned about - so I appreciate your willingness to include them in the future.
On the issue of whether a list of all cases is right in Wikipedia - I don't think you have made a case that addresses my concerns. Obviously from a victim's point of view cases aren't equal, their own case is far more important than any other - and that's quite appropriate. But we're an encyclopedia. We don't list every other case of sexual abuse that gets a newspaper article or even every murder (a generally more serious crime). I do not see why we would list these particular crimes. An encyclopedic treatment of the subject (Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country) would cover the issues that have affected the communities in general - summarizing the impact beyond individual cases and showing (when this is the case) the issues that make this a subject worthy of separate attention - the things that mean this is more than other examples of sexual abuse that can be found in every community.
My understanding of the tragedy here seems to be that not only have a lot of people suffered abuse (as people do every day at the hands of a huge range of abusers) but that institutions that provided services and were the bedrocks of their communities lost a lot of the trust their supporters and the people they served had previously placed in them - both because of the actions of the individual abusers and the practices and decisions of their seniors. This has led in some cases to whole diocese going bankrupt, to changes in the law in some jurisdictions, to fundraising crises, and to the shutting of institutions. These actions - whose reach is much greater than those of the individual cases of abuse appear to me to be what an encyclopedic article should concentrate on. -- SiobhanHansa 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor proposes to provide sources for Catholic cases only, while 96% of his greatly abused victims aren't anyplace because Wikipedia refuses to document those: Teachers have perpetrated three times the abuse, usually one case a year per county-sized school district in the US. And cases at home are gigantic. Several factors beyond teachers and clergy combined. Where is the hand-wringing there? Student7 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly understand the purpose of this comment so I'll respond as best I can. Sorry if I take this in the wrong direction. First I should be clear I don't think our coverage of an issue of this magnitude should generally include an exhaustive list of all the abusers or victims - Even just from a style view point it's not practical, it doesn't provide an encyclopedic focus to the article, and it takes away from readability.
It's not my intention to be "hand wringing" about any abuse and I'm sorry if you got that impression. And I don't believe hand wringing is an appropriate goal for any editor of an encyclopedia article. We're not a activist platform and it concerns me that sometimes articles on subjects like abuse, that people frequently find outrageous, appear to be written as though their purpose is to name and shame. But still, well documented cases or groups of cases that are worthy of attention because something about them has had a larger impact on the world than a standard incident will often be worthy of encyclopedic treatment. I think the impact of the cases revealed in the Catholic Church have risen to that level - any set of actions that makes a whole diocese bankrupt would seem likely to be worthy of coverage for instance. When the same issues rose to international attention in location after location in a small space of time it became even more worthy of coverage and provided a basis for dealing with it as a single subject rather than as individual incidents.
If the abuse of students by teachers has done something similar to school districts that might well be worthy of coverage too but a greater prevalence of sexual abuse by teachers doesn't mean there is necessarily more we can write about it that is encyclopedic as a stand alone subject - especially since schools as a general social provision are not as cohesive as the Catholic Church. It would be more analogous to an article on sexual abuse cases in religious institutions than sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church. However the relative prevalence of abuse in the home, school, church etc. would probably be a good addition to our sexual abuse article or one of its sub articles. -- SiobhanHansa 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese of Bruges[edit]

A reference is being used for Borremans: [1]. This superficially looked like a scandal site to me. If it is a tabloid-type site, perhaps an editor can replace it with a more reliable one. Probably in Dutch, which can't be helped.Student7 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precision in sentencing[edit]

An editor (maybe more than one) has inserted extremely meticulous descriptions of sentences on people who have articles. Isn't the precise sentence beside the point? I would think "sentenced to jail" should be sufficient for this article, rather than go on into unnecessary detail about how much was served and why when an interested reader can find it in either a footnote or a linked article.Student7 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria[edit]

An editor has inserted: " Coadjutor Bishop John J. Myers of Peoria was among the two-thirds of sitting bishops and acting diocese administrators that the Dallas Morning News found had allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to continue working." This will come as a shock to editors used to accusations being made, tried and executed in the media, but the media is not really in charge of any of this. It is in the lead, because the issue became national headlines as a result of Boston Globe reporting. But other than this one instance, the media has nothing to do with any of this by itself. When it confines itself to reporting what people are legally accused of doing, or (more often) being sued for money for, then using the media (not quoting them by name, necessarily), may be useful.

The media does not really decide anything. Yet. A future Supreme Court may rule otherwise, but so far they seem content to pretend they have jurisdiction.

We could, I suppose, split the article in two, leaving one for real felonies actually reported by juries, real successful law suits, and a second one: Media versus the Catholic church or something like that, where we report letters to the editor, editorials, etc. As they say, you can't fight anyone who buys ink by the barrel or video tape by the mile (back when they had videotape. Don't know the metaphor du jour). Student7 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatte heck?![edit]

What weird kind of article is this? How many priests and how many members have the Roman Catholic church? Why don't we have an article about Filippinian sex abusers by telephone number? Of, course, I would also wish the Roman Catholic clergy to marry the opposite sex clergy and start producing children like never before, but what's the meaning of this sneaky article? To blackpaint that church maybe. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions retracted by myself. This too! Sigh! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of document misleading about extent of the problem[edit]

I find the current structure of the document very misleading. It typically starts with "There have been several abuse cases in country X", then proceeds to give ONE example. Most casual readers won't read further than this, and will not get an accurate picture of the extent of the problem. It is only if one takes the trouble to go to the main page (e.g. abuse cases in Europe) that one realizes the true extent of the problem.

Please consider quantifying, e.g. "There have been 17 abuse cases in country X. Here is a list of documented abuse cases."

If quantifying is not practical, consider removing the one example and replacing it with a link to a list of all the documented cases, e.g. "There have been several abuse cases in country X. Here is a list of documented abuse cases."

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.239.118 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about WIkipedia is that everyone, you included, can edit. It's always better to add facts, even poor;y, than to hope that someone else will pick it up and run with it. We do need references when we put facts into an article, but that should be easy enough if the cases are a matter of public record. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa[edit]

Please add. See newspaper article "Bishop: Africa not immune from paedophile priests." http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-08-bishop-africa-not-immune-from-paedophile-priests

Thanks so much for your efforts on this topic. I am glad to see all this information in one place. Regards, Rumjal rumjal 13:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Italy[edit]

Your case count for Italy is incomplete absent information on the scandal in the 17th century. http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1221970,00.html

http://www.karenliebreich.com/AKL/HTML/FO/Reviews.html Regards, Rumjal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom/Great Britain[edit]

I've changed the name of the section 'United Kingdom' to 'Great Britain'. The Catholic Curch in Ireland serves Catholics in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK section, therfore, should only contain cases which have occourred on the mainland (Great Britain). Obscurasky (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiesle[edit]

Regarding recent anonymous edits here:

  • "It should be noted that during this process the priest was already removed from ministry".

Who cares - he did voluntary ministry work and worked with youths again.

  • "dispensation from priesthood for priests younger than 40 was very rarely granted".

Both points somehow contradict the statement of Ratzinger who wrote "Consider the good of the Universal Church. It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time." Why did not he write ok, we will defrock him as soon as he turns 40?

  • "However, as Kiesle had already been removed from ministry and "defrocking" in this case meant releasing him from clerical discipline, i.e., freeing him from obedience to his bishop, etc., this may be based on a misunderstanding over what the dispensation process is about. "

So why exactly did Bishop John Cumming solicitate the Vatican to have him defrocked? Was Bishop Cumming so dumb that he misunderstood what the dispensation process is about? The cathnews source tried to assert that Vatican was not at all responsible for defrocking Kiesle. Why didn't Bishop Cumming do it himself? Why did not Ratzinger write him back this is your affair, go ahead instead of writing what he wrote?

Richiez (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" MUST be removed![edit]

"This page documents notable Alleged Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country." -> the word "alleged" must be removed from this sentence. I do realize that it is perhaps to avoid being sued, but it suggests that we're reporting cases, in which the "alleged" person has not been sentenced yet - and those cases definitely do not belong to Wikipedia. Remember, "innocent until proven guilty". LMB (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harare[edit]

I found a reference to an unproved allegation of abuse in Harare and the alleged abuser is a convicted child sex offender. Priest accused of child abuse 'sent to Australia'. If this case is proved in court it should go into the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What does "cases" in the title mean?[edit]

The term cases in the title seems unclear to me. What "cases" are we talking about, just the regular English sense of the word, as in "there was a case of sexual abuse in Arizona in the 1980s", or are we talking about "case" in the legal sense, where there were criminal or civil charges brought before a court?

Because it isn't clear to me. I had assumed it was just regular usage of "case" at first, but then everything I glanced at seemed to involve judicial proceedings of some sort. What about cases of abuse that never made it to court, for one reason or another (they agreed to drop it, they tried to work with the Church and it is/was still in progress, a settlement was reached, they're being stonewalled, whatever) are they within scope for this article?

I was surprised at the mention in the lead of cases in the U.S. in the 21st century, as if that is when they started. But this was being reported on in the news since the 1980s, but it may be that it never reached the courts in those days. So either the article needs to be expanded to cover those cases, and statements that it started in the 21st century need to be altered, or the title needs to change to reflect the fact that it's only about legal cases. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too much reliance on unreliable sources[edit]

I had to excise many of the stories in this article and related ones. bishop-accountability.org is not a reliable secondary source and the copyright status of the articles they have "borrowed" is dubious. News articles such as those are WP:PRIMARY source but can be usable with caution when cited directly. No URL link is strictly necessary as long as we have bibliographical information to go by. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is really to erase good edits and tell lies about sources.[edit]

It has confirmed that Polish Cardinal Henryk Gulbinowicz was not buried in the Wroclaw Cathedral.https://www.onet.pl/informacje/onetwiadomosci/gulbinowicz-henryk-nie-zyje-kardynal-mial-97-lat/2qb37rw,79cfc278

Get rid of duplication with "Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe" & similar?[edit]

Wikipedia has this article, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country, and also Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (and probably other regions). This seems to be massive duplication; it would make sense to remove all the European cases from here, making sure that all the information is in Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (i.e., merge). In this article there should simply be a Europe section with {{Main|Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe}}. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I object to copyvio allegations/revdel requests[edit]

This edit. I have college degrees, and I do not what paraphrazing means. This was emphatically "NOT" a copyvio, but an adequate summary/paraphrasing of an excellent source. Seeing is believing. Heavily relying on one source does not equal copyvio.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC) sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]

Source:

Several lawyers with access to the 560-page report on the nuns have shared segments with news outlets, including The Daily Beast. The report names various German businessmen and complicit clergy who “rented” the young boys from the nuns who ran a convent in Speyer, Germany between the 1960s and 1970s. Among the worst instances of abuse were gang bangs and orgies the young boys were forced to participate in before being returned to the convent where the nuns would then punish them for wrinkling their clothing or being covered in semen.

Your edit:

Several lawyers with access to the 560-page report on the nuns have now shared parts of it with news outlets, including The Daily Beast. The report names various German businessmen and complicit clergy who “rented” the young boys from the nuns who ran a convent in Speyer, Germany. This happened between the 1960s and 1970s. Particularly grizzly incidents includen abuse via gang bangs and sex orgies in which young boys were forced to participate in before being returned to the convent. There the nuns would then punish them for wrinkling their clothing or being covered in semen.

Overlapping text is highlighted in bold. Clearly copied. DanCherek (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting involved in this case, I'd mention that Earwig's Copyvio Detector is a tool that can be used to check a whole article. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DanCherek: Even this is easily fixable, if you think too few words have been changed. Of course it was copied and then I replaced sentence structure and introduced synonyms. Let's say, if you think it is still excessive, we could replace "several" for "many", "semen" for "sperm", "complicit" (well, not such a frequent term indeed) for "jointly responsible" and change sentence structure further. I do not know tho how could I possibly have avoided terms "gang bang" or "nuns". Why so negativistic? Wouldn't WP:SOFIXIT the first step to take here?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC) sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]
Copying source material and then replacing words with their synonyms does not make it copyright-compliant because you are only superficially modifying material from a copyright source; please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I sometimes find it helpful to read the source material, then try to summarize it without directly referring to it (of course you can look at it afterwards, but this might help avoid the temptation of using the same or substantially similar phrasing). DanCherek (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So here you are: my newest version:
https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Catholic+Church+sexual+abuse+cases+by+country&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Fgerman-nuns-sold-orphaned-children-to-sexual-predators-says-report
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country/Violation Unlikely/39.0% similarity
Perhaps use machines, before crying the wolf?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That percentage is essentially meaningless, and simply reflects the fact that most of the article isn't copied from that source and most of that source isn't in the article. Those detection tools are not remotely a substitute for human judgement. The edits here were clear copyright violations/close paraphrasing and were correctly reverted. Please rewrite the text from scratch in your own words. Hut 8.5 19:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The meager 3 sentences in Daily Beast are simply to small to be "completely rewritten" to match your "human judgement", simply because they ONLY contain the most essential information in the first place. A so small a segment of text rephrased does not qualify as copyvio in any meaningful sense. Are you saying I have to invent "own words" for clergy, businessmen and gang-bang, too? I'll leave it as it is, according to your line of thought, Wikipedia could not have any detailed information extracted from newspaper articles at all, because they fucking are CONCISE in the first place (scholarly articles are another matter, they are long, detailed, and verbose; good mainstream newspaper pieces often aren't).Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC) sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases_by_country&oldid=1206579276"