Talk:Sexual abuse scandal in the English Benedictine Congregation

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Catholicism Low‑importance

Sexual abuse scandal in the English Benedictine Congregation is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Father Paul Couch[edit]

There is apparent confusion in the reference about dates - did he leave the Abbey in 1992 or 1993? Springnuts (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth Abbey School[edit]

I have removed this heading for two reasons. 1. There is no school called "Worth Abbey School". The school at Worth Abbey is called "Worth School". 2. The heading has no content, and therefore looks a little like a "fishing expedition", a use to which I don't think Wiki should be put. If the originator of the heading has something to say, perhaps s/he could say it? Thanks Lanspergius (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no public allegations against Worth Abbey as regards sexual abuse, although the monastery has been mistakenly listed in a Guardian article among those which have received such. The verbal consensus among the wider Catholic clergy is that this was owing to the monastery having had a much better policy of not allowing casual contact between school and monastery, and of being careful with placing "unsound" monks in the former. However, this cannot be included in the Wikipedia article because nothing has been published. Basilwatkinsosb (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Downside Abbey[edit]

After the recent good cleanup work by several editors, should the Downside Abbey section be reinstated? There is a long section on child abuse in the Downside School article, largely duplicated in Downside Abbey. Wire723 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. The evidence being presented to the national enquiry on child abuse is clearly notable, as was the previous material which should never have been removed. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]